The scene is a Thursday evening in a suburban Australian home in 2018. Dad is on the biodegradable couch watching some vintage Mad Men, remastered in interactive 3D, on a fifth-generation iPad. His 10-year-old daughter throws a digital notebook in his lap. “Daddy, can you help?” she says. “I’ve done the statistical tables but I’m not sure how to justify the relationship between the variables.”

The science content for kindergarten students

Forget emperor Nasi Goreng building the Great Wall to keep the rabbits out. The draft national curriculum released yesterday will test future parents almost as much as it does kids. Much of its maths and science content is currently the preserve of think-tanks and universities, stuff wholly alien to modern parents and even recent graduates of Australian schools.

For all the arguing about how the curriculum handles history this is primarily a document about the future. Is about building new skills Australia will need in its workforce over coming generations.

It will have a significant impact on how, down the track, Australia presents to companies trying to find the skills they want in an increasingly competitive global labour market.

The Rudd Government has been taking a thumping for not delivering on its education reform among other things but this is an ambitious and comprehensive initiative that aims to transform the country’s schooling system and build a platform for the nation’s future prosperity.

As a case in point this week’s edition of The Economist carries a special feature on what it calls the “data deluge”. It looks at the proliferation of all types of data and notes “mankind created 150 exabytes (billion gigabytes) of data in 2005. This year, it will create 1200 exabytes”.

How much is 1200 exabytes? Most would describe it as “an absolute shitload”. Few of us can get our heads around these kinds of numbers because we’ve never been taught to understand them.

The national curriculum recognises this need for not just basic arithmetic skills but numeracy – understanding numbers rather than just adding and subtracting them – is becoming increasingly critical skill in a world where there are more and more columns of numbers to analyse.

It was by total accident that I took a full year of statistics at university. Every Thursday was stats day and because it was part of the Psychology course, more than 600 people were enrolled in the class. By the end of the year only about 50 people were attending each week.

I never really enjoyed it but here’s the thing: statistics was probably the most useful thing I studied at uni. It’s mainly about looking at a bunch of numbers and trying to figure out why some are important and some aren’t, so it comes in handy in all sorts of ways: looking at auction results, comparing flight prices, or looking at any chart or graph.

Which is where the daughter’s question comes in. OK, she won’t be asking about “justifying the variables” - that’s the learning goal - but she will be asking how she should explain varying and complex types of charts. Kids will be learning this bit in Year 5. But the curriculum includes includes statistics and probability as part of the maths learning from kindergarten up.

As you can probably tell I think this is a good thing. Standard arithmetic is a vital basic life skill, but these days if you’re going into a career that involves crunching numbers - even retail - a calculator or a spreadsheet does the work for you. It’s not arithmetic you need. It’s numeracy.

The plans for the science taught in schools, too, are about equipping people for the future. There are three strands. There’s the familiar stuff of understanding science and learning how to do it. The third is the loftily-titled “Science as human endeavour”, which is really about explaining how it affects daily life.

Part of this is about scientists fighting the perception that they live locked in laboratory-equipped ivory towers. But unless you’re a creationist and believe at some point humans weren’t apes, a curriculum that proselytises basic scientific knowledge is surely a useful one.

In Year 8, for example, it covers how awareness of science can help people “make choices about issues in life and evaluate claims made in a range of media and advertising”. By Year 10, while students are learning about the big bang theory and the dynamic interactions between matter and energy – Einstein, basically – they will also be covering how science “provides reliable knowledge and enables valid predictions and conclusions to inform choices”.

There has been some criticism of aspects of the science content - including that it teaches students about Aboriginal insights into health and the environment. These are details are up for discussion and much of the criticism will be warranted and necessary.

But it is self-evident that a broad understanding of science would be useful in the current debate about climate change. Ditto for stem cell research.

If you have kids or are thinking of having them at any point in the future the curriculum is worth a look. The website is also astonishingly detailed – you can rate an leave feedback on every single point in the plan.

And while you might get a little bit spooked at the stuff your kids will be learning at school which you know nothing about, it’s a great thought-starter.

Because this is a giant blueprint for the future of what kinds of skills and knowledge will be available in the country a generation from now. I reckon it’s the right start.

22 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • matt says:

      07:00am | 02/03/10

      Statistics is one of the most important things you’ll ever study.

      Especially if you like going to the TAB on a Saturday.

      Nothing like understanding probability - then ignoring it for a roughie…

    • Tim says:

      08:31am | 02/03/10

      If statistically the roughie is over the odds, it can be considered value and a good bet.
      Although the TAB takes 15% of the win pool so it would have to be at pretty inflated odds.
      And if you understood probability you probably wouldn’t be at the TAB, you’d be betting on the internet.

    • Tom says:

      11:16am | 02/03/10

      Try turning up to a job interview in USA and telling the committee “Of course I am educated, I know all about the Rainbow Serpent”.

    • Leo says:

      04:16pm | 02/03/10

      Good point Tom, Australia should be considering how the Government can spend money on training people for employment in the USA.

    • John A Neve says:

      07:12am | 02/03/10

      While there will be dabate on the content and some teachers will have their noses put out of joint. No one can deny this country needs a national curriculum.

      The format and content will change over time, but we must have a uniform standard.

    • Caryn B-B says:

      09:03am | 20/07/10

      I think that it is important for kids to be up to date with the ever changing world, whether it be in regards to science or numeracy. I think it is up to the teachers to teach the kids what they need to know to be successful when they are grown up and working.

    • Isabel says:

      07:20am | 02/03/10

      Also a Psych student exposed to Statistics. Having left school at age 14, my approach was to follow the formula as a recipe without understanding. The sheer joy when the penny dropped to create a mind blowing revelation. Had I known then that which I now know my career choice would have been that of an actuary.
      Also hope that children will be exposed to Logic long before they leave school.

    • Albie says:

      08:47am | 02/03/10

      What kind of dodgy school did you go to Colgo? I’ve looked at the curriculum and I’m pretty sure that my schooling covered all those science topics at the year indicated, if not before (no periodic table until year 10?!)

      Granted, I was a student who enjoyed science, and I graduated only 10 years ago so probably was enjoying a more modern curriculum anyway, but scaremongering about the level of information children should learn is a cheap shot and I expect better from The Punch!

    • maybe says:

      10:54am | 02/03/10

      The periodic table thing has got to be rubbish.  I graduated year 12 in 2003, and I remember learning about elements in primary school.  Year 10 chemistry was more like fundamental quantum mechanics.

    • Sarah says:

      08:29am | 04/03/10

      I’m with Coglo on this one.  I went through a state high school in Victoria the 80s - good old Cain/Kirner experimental years.  In Year 12, my chemistry teacher wasn’t even in the room for about half the classes.

      Meanwhile, my mum works in a childcare centre.  She gets the 3 year olds to help her operate the computer. Not to educate them, but because they know what they are doing (sorry Mum). I have seen the future, and it’s like Lord of the Flies except the adults are lorded-over by anklebiters.

    • formersnag says:

      09:13am | 02/03/10

      Correct John A Neve, but it should be a minimum standard, like the basic wage with any school allowed to go beyond it. Would also be nice if the anti male biases that have been introduced over the last 30 or 40 years were taken out. Like the exam papers done on an essay basis rather than multiple choice. And as Isobel mentioned the removal of instruction in good old fashioned “linear logical thought processes” could be reversed. Its what gave us Einstein’s theory of relativity after all.

      http://www.heineraffair.info/

      Mean time try this for some light reading

    • Zeta says:

      09:57am | 02/03/10

      How are essay’s an anti-male bias? I’m so manly I bleed dicks and I can write you a killer essay right here, right now, on the subject of your choice, and it will make your nose bleed. Dicks.

      The greatest essayists and writers in general are all dudes. Maybe guys who can’t write essays are just stupid.

      And linear logical thought processes breed conformity. We should be teaching our children the junk yard dog style cut up routines of Brion Gysin and make their brains melt into new and interesting shapes.

    • bella starkey says:

      10:20am | 02/03/10

      @ Formersnag:

      Are you trying to say that men are too stupid to perform a task more complex than colouring in a small circle with an HB pencil?

      fkn misandry, that’s what that is

    • Tim says:

      10:20am | 02/03/10

      Zeta,
      your first essay subject:
      “The relative worth of bleeding dicks and the possible uses for said bled dicks.”
      I’d like to help you out but i’m too busy doing real manly things like multiple choice questions in the Women’s Weekly quiz.

    • Markus says:

      10:37am | 02/03/10

      Calling essays an ‘anti male bias’ is a load of crap.
      I spent my uni days outscoring the majority in essay based exams, male and female, in a format I was typically weak at throughout school (turns out it was due to lack of interest in subject matter more than ability to write and structure).

      Thanks Zeta, “I’m so manly I bleed dicks” has made my morning

    • James says:

      12:30pm | 02/03/10

      We get it formersnag, a while ago the QLD government did some bad stuff.  Well, a lot of bad stuff if you include the Bjekle-Petersen years.  What relevance that holds to this topic is beyond me.

      Using essays only discriminates against the stupid, as they can not use blind luck to pass assessment items, and must instead rely on skill and intelligence.  And no one will apologise for that, nor should they.

    • Shane says:

      01:02pm | 02/03/10

      Yawn. Formersnag, I just your tediously similar “women hate men” rant on David P’s blackarm band piece.
      Just wondering if you’ve ever stopped and wondered that women don’t hate all men - they just hate you?

    • Arios says:

      10:46am | 02/03/10

      The National curriculum is a great move and strongly needed.

      Good step in the right direction here for sure.

    • Kim says:

      12:32pm | 02/03/10

      Did anyone read the “Introduction to the Australian Curriculum”?  Lesley Englert (one of the ACARA board members and also principal of Upper Coomera State College) talking about Science, says: 

      “For the last probably decade and a half, there have been four strands that have been common within Australia: science for living, earth and beyond, and so forth. You will not see those strands in this new curriculum. What you will see will be a return to the more traditional physical sciences — biological sciences, earth and space sciences — and this in itself, I think, will be much more helpful. “

      My question is:  What’s the difference between “earth and beyond” and “earth and space” sciences?  Ke?

    • Zeta says:

      12:56pm | 02/03/10

      ‘Earth and Beyond’ is the study of terrestrial science, and the science of psychedelic head trips, where the mind if projected beyond the mortal coil into the spiritual space between thoughts where matter vibrates down to a slow, conceptual hum.

      ‘Earth and Space’ is the study of that stuff beyond the atmosphere. Like stars and shit.

    • Kim says:

      01:43pm | 02/03/10

      Ha ha - thanks for that Zeta, now everything is crystal clear - now where did I put my crystal meth?

    • julia says:

      02:40pm | 02/03/10

      I watch the Biggest Loser and am sometimes a bit sad at how badly these people subtract. If you weighed 110kg last week, and this week you weigh 97.2, how much have you lost? You can forget about them working out a rough percentage.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @danielstone: Techno-gypsy is my favourite genre #sbseurovision

Daniel Piotrowski

Lord, Moldova... #sbseurovision

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @bencubby: This Estonian chap is a bit of a superstar (has anyone ever said that before?) #SBSeurovision

Daniel Piotrowski

@MelanieTait I was thinking the same thing!

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter