The most dispiriting intellectual spectacle of the past decade would have to be the so-called “history wars”, where academics, politicians and commentators on the extreme left and right battled for domination in telling the story of modern Australia.

Illustration: John Tiedemann.

The history wars were essentially an exercise both in understatement and overstatement. The right-wingers tried to pretend that Australian history was nothing other than a happy story involving the orderly and humane progression of European civilisation on these shores, where no indigenous children were ever stolen, no families ever broken up, and whatever dislocation or hardship Aborigines experienced was at worst an accident, brought about by the purest of motives.

The left-wingers retaliated by branding the conservatives as liars, and telling a version of Australian history which reads like a long string of human rights abuses, with repeated acts of savagery against a wholly peaceful indigenous populace.

Without wanting to sound like a fence-sitter, and based on what I have learnt and read, the truth of our history lies somewhere between these so-called “white blindfold” and “black armband” versions. And I suspect that most Australians, who happily missed the rancour of the history wars, are capable of feeling deep pride in the overwhelmingly positive history of our nation, while also being prepared to acknowledge bad things which happened in the past.

One of the best stories to make the point is one of the saddest – the 1838 Myall Creek massacre where 28 Aboriginal men, women and children were murdered in a cold-blooded act of genocide. But the seven white men who killed them were arrested and charged with murder, and in accordance with the laws of the day, hanged for their crimes. Justice was done, and it could not have been done without the criminal justice system we were lucky to inherit through British settlement.

The launch of the new national school curriculum by Education Minister Julia Gillard will hopefully draw a line under the recent divisiveness of the history debate by equipping our young people to have an even-handed understanding of our past.

It’s a good thing that all students will be required to study history until the end of year 10. And from what has been reported so far, and judging from the information on the curriculum website, the architects of this new framework have tried hard to be neither the captives of the left nor the right in determining what our young people learn about who we are.

Unless you’re a flint-hearted revisionist it is impossible to tell the story of Aboriginal Australia without looking at the negative impact European arrival had on indigenous people. But the curriculum strives to do that without laying a guilt trip on students – and focuses on important modern landmarks such as the 1967 referendum (which included Aborigines in the census,) the Mabo decision which recognised the existence of native title over land, and the formal apology to the Stolen Generations.

And while it might have been poor marketing to lump Sorry Day alongside Anzac Day in the public explanation of the new curriculum, this oversight does not suggest that there’s been any dilution in the teaching of the importance of Anzac Day (and the decidedly less solemn Australia Day) to primary and high school students.

The one exception to this balanced approach, strangely enough, is to be found in the science curriculum of all places.

The curriculum is still in draft form and it is to be hoped that some hard-headed scientific purists roll up the sleeves of their lab coats and fight for some sense to be injected into this part of the syllabus.

As The Australian reported on Saturday, it’s not until Year 10 that science students will have any exposure to the periodic table of elements – potassium, hydrogen, all that stuff you used to learn rote-form back in the good old days. But there’s some waffly nonsense about non-western views of science, including Chinese medicine, and Aboriginal ideas of farming and land management.

Worst of all is the proposal to teach Aboriginal Dreamtime stories as part of the science stream. With due deference to the Rainbow Serpent, this is spiritualism not science, and every bit as wrong as the calls from Christian hardliners for the utter rubbish that is “creation science” and “intelligent design” to be taught alongside evolution and natural selection.

The greatest test of the curriculum will be the extent to which it can restore some basic old-fashioned principles of literacy, grammar, spelling – all the stuff that went out of fashion in the 1970s when everyone was simply encouraged to set their minds free and use their imagination, even if you could barely understand a word they had written.

The approach being taken with everyone’s favourite dysfunctional state government here in NSW stands as a warning against the mediocrity which has infected teaching in recent times.

While not everyone can, or should, attend university, there’s something desperately unambitious about the NSW Board of Studies decision to modify the second-tier NSW English Studies course to remove Shakespeare, but allow the “study” of rubbish movies such as The Matrix and the irritatingly twee television show Seachange.

If we are going to dumb down what is already a basic English course then maybe we should introduce a new subject called an Introduction to Remedial English – like a Dummy’s Guide to Dummy’s Guides.

At least we are not seeing this approach from Julia Gillard, who will have won plaudits from many parents yesterday – and probably upset the teachers unions – by arguing yesterday that too many Australian kids no longer have a basic grasp of reading and writing.

To judge the draft curriculum for yourself, go to the ACARA website -  www.acara.edu.au –  and follow the links. They’re the same people with responsibility for the Myschool website, so if it keeps crashing on you, be patient.

Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day

Get The Punch on Facebook

153 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Elio says:

      02:04pm | 07/03/10

      From all the comments below it is obvious that HIstory is very subjective and should not be taught. Much more helpful would be elements of critical thinking, psychology, law, medicine and economics.

    • Nick says:

      08:31pm | 10/03/11

      But how would be learn and evolve from the past if no-one knew of it. Treasure troves of information can be found in the theological beliefs of the Greeks, ones which will help us in the future. It is imperative to prevent the mistakes from the past as well. For example, the Arab Israeli conflict in Israel and Palestine. To solve the problem we fully need to grasp the causes and effects of the event. Plus, knowing our history can give us pride and bond us together (hopefully in a non-violent way), which is more than can be said for law, economics and all the rest. Yes, history may be subjective, but that is perhaps also its greatest strength as we are left to ponder what occured and why, allowing us to develop coherent ideas and concepts. I am a year 12 student of Modern History and it is one of my favourite subjects.

    • Andrew says:

      07:29am | 03/03/10

      Why did your second paragraph not include the word “massacres”?

    • Andrew813 says:

      08:37am | 03/03/10

      Forget “massacres”, what about the word “twee”?

    • Gazza says:

      07:27am | 03/03/10

      Reality is in the eye of the viewer…to pervert a phrase. There has been no progress without controversy. No testing without opposing views. Therefore I believe you all have a place in the debate. However, what I am concerned about is that many of you seem to approach this discussion from your own prejudiced perspectives. Worse, many of you use your intelligence as a symbol of your own pride, rather than as a constructive tool. Let’s be a little more grown up, shall we?

    • Ben says:

      06:23am | 03/03/10

      Isn’t it terrific that we are proposing to teach the next generation how bad they should feel about living in one of the most successful nations in the modern world?

      Now, before the masses hit the ‘reply’ button, I acknowledge there are blights on our past with regards to the traditional inhabitants of this nation, however, juxtapose that with the reality of human conquest the world over, the Mongols, Moors, Romans, French, Chinese. All these peoples and more have at one time been a colonizing power.

      As for ‘creation science’, it’s a phallicy and clearly oxymoronic. Throw it in the same basket as anthropogenic global warming in a few years time.

    • stephen says:

      02:46am | 03/03/10

      Children would benefit from being taught to think, not only to learn, and I believe only the best quality teachers can do this.
      Pay good teachers well, and make them responsible.
      Children love to learn : it’s new and exciting for them, and they would enjoy the challenge of thinking well if given good guidance.
      Ms. Gillard should not emphasize the curriculum at the expence of this.

    • persephone says:

      10:15pm | 02/03/10

      So much ignorance here (did any of you READ the curriculum? It’s not that hard), so little time.

      Firstly, things such as the Rainbow Serpent and Chinese medicine are NOT going to be taught as if they are true. They are being used as examples of how other cultures explained the world around them, and how science developed.

      So the Rainbow Serpent is a creation myth, and will be compared to other creation myths, to show how people used to explain the world around them. Students will then study how, as knowledge and understanding grew, these myths were displaced.

      Chinese medicine will be studied in the same sort of context. Our own medicine grew out of similar practices; you gave a patient this potion for this illness and they recovered. Later on, we learnt what the ‘active’ ingredient in the potion was, isolated it and applied it separately in the form of a medicine.

      Studying what people used to believe as the result of their observations and what they believe now - also as a result of observation - is important to understanding how science came to be.

      As for English: in most states, it has been perfectly possible to go through school without studying Shakespeare for many years now. It’s certainly been optional in Victoria for decades, but most schools teach it anyway.

      And that’s the true test of a good text - if it is relevant and has something to say, it will be studied. If it isn’t, it won’t.

      Trust the power of the Bard.

      As for History: as I said earlier, almost every History course I’ve seen looks at Aboriginal history. So does this one. It also looks at everything else that every other history course I’ve ever seen does: Egypt, Sumeria, Greece, Rome, the Crusades, Medieval History, the Revolutions, the discovery, exploration and settlement of Australia, the goldrushes, etc etc.

      Most posters here are building monsters for themselves, either on the basis of inaccurate media reporting or a lack of understanding of what’s being taught in schools now (and for the last thirty years).

      Instead of letting the media scare you into unfounded and unnecessary reactions, do a bit of research - have a look at the site for yourself.

      It’s a draft. If you don’t like something in it, say so (there’s lots of room for comments).

      It’s really just a waste of time venting here, when you could use that energy in a more constructive way.

    • Benjamin Coot says:

      08:53pm | 02/03/10

      The history of the world is full of fighting and power positioning. Whites are not the only ones who did it. Africans did it, so did Chinese, Indians, Arabs, Persians, Vikings and aboriginal Australians. This notion of an unspoilt dreamtime oneness with the land that was spoiled by the nasty white invasion is a myth. It was the meeting of an advanced agrarian society with one that was still in the hunter-gather stage - what do you think was going to happen? The exact same thing that aboriginal tribes did to others that were not as advanced or organised. Before anyone responds with discourses of fairness and the like, please note, I only respond and engage with scientific fact, not dreamtime unproven notions.

    • cybacaT says:

      07:14pm | 02/03/10

      I would expect Evolution theory be given just as much time as Intelligent Design.  Both have equal scientific merit and weighting.  It’s only mindless, unscientific zealots who insist students should be taught only one or the other.

      As for the dreamtime being taught in science, I don’t think it has any scientific merit upon which to base it’s inclusion.

    • Rebecca says:

      11:23pm | 03/03/10

      Say that again?  Evolution and Intelligent Design have equal scientific merit?  Unscientific zealots insist on only one or the other?
      I think you’ll find that only the unscientific religious zealots are the only ones who insist Intelligent design is valid.
      Sorry, but I think some people get confused with the science definition of ‘theory’.  The ‘theory’ of Evolution is based on actual empirical data - whereas the non-science of ‘Intelligent Design’ has none.
      Intelligent design - if EVER taught in school (and it certainly shouldn’t be!) should only be taught in either a social sciences classroom talking about either comparative religion or myth and folklore.

    • Tasha says:

      06:36pm | 02/03/10

      In some schools there is a subject called Aboriginal Studies. Why not have the subject offered in more schools? It’s an elective class and can be a further platform from what they learn in History, so it doesn’t take up so much of the cirriculum. I love to learn about my own culture, really if you let go of judgement regardless of your view you’d be surprised on what you might learn. In fact my type of nursery rhyme my dad told me were old mythical tales that has a lesson to be learned by the end.

      Australian History shouldn’t be a blame game but what you can learn from what happened. I tend to not focus on the negatives. I don’t think anyone should feel guilty about learning about the origins of this land.

    • Bruce says:

      06:09pm | 02/03/10

      Maybe kids should be taught that this world is about the survival of the fitest, dealt out with a little bit of compassion. But, not to much compassion as your enemies will take advantage of you and use it against you.

    • Lillypiddle says:

      04:45pm | 02/03/10

      No Problem here with Aboriginal teachings but I am a bit ify on Chinese medicine. Doesn’t some of their potions contain dead seahorses and tiger penises ect? I don’t know if thats such a good thing to be teaching our children.

    • JM says:

      04:13pm | 02/03/10

      I’m all in favour of the proposed new curriculum.  My kids are going private, but this new curriculum should guarantee them a steady supply of garden hands and domestic assistants for when they grow up.

    • bec says:

      06:54am | 03/03/10

      Half-right, Persephone: in QLD, the 1-10 syllabi and Essential Learnings are only optional for private schools, which provides them scope to write their own work programmes and incorporate other KLAs ignored by the QSA (such as religious education). The senior syllabi are mandatory if students wish to be OP eligible

    • persephone says:

      10:02pm | 02/03/10

      Er…private schools will be teaching this curriculum, too.

      Even at present, they must adhere to the State curriculum to get accreditation.

      Even home schoolers have to demonstrate that they have complied with the curriculum to get funding.

      So going private won’t make any difference to what your children learn.

    • Steve of Cornubia says:

      06:43pm | 02/03/10

      10/10

    • Yobbo says:

      03:55pm | 02/03/10

      “My children will not be taking part in any learning about the dream time or chinese medicine. There are far more important things to learn about then Aboriginal history and alternative medicines. “

      You’re wrong Max. They will, and there’s nothing you can do about it. If you don’t send them to school you could have your children forcibly taken from you.

      Do as you are told. The government is just trying to help, after all!

    • BTS says:

      03:26pm | 02/03/10

      Modern Aboriginal culture is firmly based in Afro-American nuances, carefully gleaned from television and the music industry.  Few Aboriginal youth either know or practice traditional culture, which is a great shame.

    • Jai says:

      02:58pm | 02/03/10

      Do you know how hard it is to learn another language without grammar skills?? I do! Bring back grammar!

    • luke09 says:

      02:48pm | 02/03/10

      Let’s hope Red Julia will be around as deputy to Greg Combet the new opposition leader and Little Kevvy will be on the backbench sulking. Otherwise, future students will be reading about how Kevin from Brisbane destroyed Australia’s economy by throwing billions at all his failed policies to make them work.  cheese

    • Robert Smissen says:

      02:34pm | 02/03/10

      I don’t know why people are getting upset, do any of you really believe that Little Kevvy & Red Julia will be around next year to implement this rubbish? ?

    • BTS says:

      03:03pm | 02/03/10

      Love your optimism Robert.

      Not a Labour voter, but I bet they are here next year and they will romp home.

    • Brett says:

      02:32pm | 02/03/10

      I read about the English thing last night. I hate Wordsworth with a passion, so all for that being gone, but then they decided to replace it with “contemporary” texts such as Catcher in the Rye. Catcher in the Rye? Contemporary? Are you kidding me??? Its not even good and its 50 years old! How about giving kids a good bit of modern literature that they can appreciate as well written and also edgy, with some clout that may make them want to read? Fight Club would be my choice. Or Rant, also by Chuck. J-Pod could be another choice. I would love to say 1984, but its themes are too advanced for a 17 year old with no life experience to comprehend (plus its dated). Please no Dan Brown, the guy can’t write for crap. Nice plot, shame about the dialogue and patterned plot.

    • 6clegs says:

      03:44pm | 02/03/10

      I, for one am extremely glad that you’re not deciding the new English (any!) curriculum, “Bretty”.

      O’l Wordsworth may be too dated and flowery [pun intended] for the 21st century - but the man knew how to write!

      Are you not aware, Brett, that simplicity of text -not using 5 words when there is one (something I wish *I* was blessed with) is just one of the differences between Literature and ‘‘pop iterature”?

      Fight Club?! - ooh lordy… i can see it now: all the 14/15/16yo males learning all the skills they’d need for living, from it. . .
      would you like all the girls to read Bridgit Jones’ Diary - so they can learn that having a partner is all that they’re meant to focus on?

      Your post was just-a-stir, wasn’t it?

    • Wazza says:

      02:24pm | 02/03/10

      What needs to be remembered about the stolen generation, is that most not all but most of the children were taken from extremely disfunctional families and comunities. Most were the children of abused single mothers in many cases children themselves. It must also be remembered that to previous generations following process was not seen to be as important as actually getting children out of potential danger.  We can not judge previous generation by our current political correctness. Our forebares were simply not process driven. The honest truth is that a mojority of the people claiming to be stolen would infact be dead long ago had they not been removed in childhood. If we consider for example that in NSW indigenous children are being removed from their families at a faster rate than at any other time in their history, and the constant flow of cases where DOCS fail to react to community concerns, i wonder how sorry we are going to be for the post stolen generation.

    • Steve of Cornubia says:

      02:43pm | 02/03/10

      Don’t be a spoilsport, Wazza. Without the ‘stolen generations’ and the ‘invasion’, many of the whingers would have no excuse for being losers.

      The entrenched dogma that many loud-mouthed indigenous activists enforce gives many of their own people little room to improve themselves, because forsaking the traditional ways is seen as ‘selling out’ to the white fella. This condemns them to a life spent on the dole, among the dogs and dirt.

    • Willy K says:

      01:54pm | 02/03/10

      You could teach Aboriginal culture in about 30 minutes.  There is virtually no record of it compared to any other culture on the planet.

      The scale, depth, complexity of British and European history means that at least 99% of history time should be spent on this part. 

      Phonic was a total waste of time in the 70’s and will be same now.  Grammar and decent handwriting would be a far far better thing for kids to learn.

    • Tom says:

      11:45am | 03/03/10

      Little harsh Willy.  Could it be because we’ve never really gone out of our way to document it or understand?  The problem with a verbal history is that if you kill enough people the history is lost.  The romans were smart enough to do that to the Gauls: kill the druids and a tribe would lose its history and identity.

      The thing I find interesting, is that if you look at our neighbours, maori culture is something that all new zealanders have an understanding of.  I wonder if the difference is that the maori’s put up more of a fight.  Likewise with native american indians the name you remember tends to be apache when there alot of different native tribes in the US.

    • Rob says:

      02:40pm | 02/03/10

      I’ve employed Aboriginals in the North West and it required at least three years to understand just how their relationships within the extended family group impacts their employment in Western Society.  Thats even before law requirements and the relationship to the land are considered.

      If Willy K can explain it in 30 minutes I, and many of the aborigines living in semi-traditional societies would love to hear it.

      I’ve got a fair grounding in Western History and a well above average understanding of the history of western (and Aboriginal) colonisation in Australia (with a large amount of it read while I was still at school - there have been some great year 11 and 12 courses out there since at least the early 90’s.)

      The complexity of the colonisation vs. invasion arguement tends to be extremely polarizing, however the original documents show the same range in experience and attitude was present throughout Australian history.

      Only by impartial presentation of the early documentary evidence can students today actually come to their own conclusions about what occurred and how our history should be interpreted.

    • Paul says:

      01:31pm | 02/03/10

      @Eric Couldn’t you have been clearer from the start and just said under Eric’s special brand of (Redneck) Political Correctness, Pacifism is incorrect or banned?“If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.” Noam Chomsky 1964

    • Eric says:

      03:58pm | 02/03/10

      Paul, where did I say I didn’t believe in freedom of expression for all?

      Please try to pay attention.

    • 6clegs says:

      01:09pm | 02/03/10

      I wish that I had been taught the value of *Critical Thinking Skills* when i was @ school.

      It was a looong time before I realised that, yes, questioning was allowed.

      I hope that the history of the Forgotten Australians will also be a part of the new curriculum… >off to make sugestion to above website<

    • Elizabeth says:

      01:07pm | 02/03/10

      Oh how I love your very balanced view of the world David Penberthy.  Thanks for injecting a bit of sanity into this shouting.

    • brutus stanwell says:

      01:02pm | 02/03/10

      White Australia will never tell the real stories. Indiginous Aus know the stories and the rest of Aus don`t want to hear it or just don`t believe it.

    • Steve of Cornubia says:

      02:33pm | 02/03/10

      Get over it Brutus. History is full of horror and injustice. Many of my own white ancestors were murdered by French, Germans, Vikings, Romans - you name it - while we Brits in turn murdered plenty of others. That’s what the world was like back then. Aboriginal peoples weren’t averse to a bit of spearing themselves.

      Look at PM Brown’s recent apology in the UK, because thousands of WHITE children were removed and sent all over the world.

      Get over it and move on, because the people who did those things are long gone.

    • omegaman says:

      01:53pm | 02/03/10

      There are some great people of Aboriginal descent out there that don’t need support like yours, Brutus.
      Whatever really happened in history doesn’t help anything constructive happen today, and thankfully most young people do not care.
      However people like you who claim to speak for everyone when you have no such licence to do so ruin it for those that are trying to overcome all the problems everyuone faces in life.
      Why would you embaress my aboriginal mates with language like this?

    • Steve of Cornubia says:

      12:59pm | 02/03/10

      The curriculum is only the tip of the iceberg. The brainwashing of kids by a feminist-freindly, socially-liberal left-leaning education sector includes too much PC nonsense like ‘non competitive sport’ , a ‘just do your best’ attitude to academic achievement, more help for bullies than the bullied, way too much sex education, sloppy discipline, etc, etc.

    • fedup says:

      12:54pm | 02/03/10

      Interesting article. I finished school about 5 years ago and I have to say whilst we were not taught nearly enough Australian history nor in enough depth - what little we were taught was purely “black-armband”. Every child was made to feel hidiously guilty of our nations history. Even to this day I am sick of having my ancestors mistakes jammed down my throat! I know I am not alone in this view. You know what pisses us off? Honestly, it’s that every Aboriginal is taught that the world owes them something. That is NOT reconciliation. A more balanced view in schools would be great.

    • Zeta says:

      12:53pm | 02/03/10

      I could care less about the Rainbow Serpent or Chinese Medicine. I think kids are smart enough to know when they’re being had, and these classes will become a joke, except for a few swots who haven’t got the memo about the HSC being irrelevant once you enter University / the Workforce.

      It’s the changes to English that get to me. And unlike most of the topics I troll on the Punch, it’s something I know a thing or two about, since like former NSW Premier Nathan Rees, I studied for four long, boozey, sexually awakened years to major in English, with the dream of becoming the next Jack Kerouac. Sadly, I turned out to have an intolerence for benzedrine, and also like Nathan Rees, couldn’t drive a car, which meant I had no hope of taking off on drug fueled homoerotic escapades about which to write.

      As I recall, and my memory of those years remains hazy: we had some 1500 first year Arts students taking an English stream course, 300 in second year, whittled down 200 by third year, and only a third of those were majoring in English. In my Honours year, I was the only bloke in a room with 12 women, all of whom were doing some variant feminist critical analysis on their texts. Australian Literature fared better, exclusively amongst old pensioners taking free uni courses to stave off boredom and death; while the bastards over at Anglo-Saxon studies coped all the good funding,  the prestige, the research grants, and inexplicably, all the hot women.

      The study of the means by which we communicate the very contents of our souls couldn’t raise the interest of more than a dozen miscreants at one this country’s most prestigious universities and I blame the twats who write the English curriculum, the same failures who are now shredding it of any relevance. Those same ‘people’, more properly described as bureaucratic drones ensconced in the sheep fueled bee hive of the toxic institution we call ‘school’ also bare the responsibility for the soul stripped world we now live in, where the closest to written art you’re likely to get in this country is in a Piers Akerman column.

      Their biggest failure, the one for which they should be rounded up and shown the buisness end of an Iraqi soccer stadium for, is to the boys and young men of Australia who grow up thinking they’re alone with the mammoth struggles of manhood, even though others have been there before, and written about themselves so that others could learn their lessons, the way men have throughout history.

      English has instead become the domain of learned women and emasculated men, who twist and reinterpret literature into feminist and socialist shapes because it pleases the monolithic academic culture, even though the very works that are the very foundation of the English canon tell the stories of men, their lovers, their passions and their wars.

      English is not the study of reading and writing. The children of Vietnamese refugees can do that with a few hours of tutorial at the age of 5. And they do. It is the study literature, the evolution of oral history into something tangible and transferable. The art of language, and language as an instrument for creating emotion.

      English is the lens through which Western culture sees the world, if we don’t teach it, warts and all, then we’re blinding students. That means the English canon. Even the dodgy parts. Especially the dodgy parts. That means some of Shakespeare’s more unpopular plays. That means struggling through Chaucer. That means the often gorey, sex fueled Gothic drama, and most glossed over, that means the contemporary giants of English literature that students leave school without even knowing the names of.

      In that context, Rainbow Serpents are the least of Australia’s educational worries.

    • Dave says:

      04:44pm | 02/03/10

      Zeta, I can feel the hurt of those tutorials in your writing. You’ve created the emotion for me. Well done.

    • Gregory says:

      12:30pm | 02/03/10

      I think David Penberthy, the author of this article lists the 2 extremes when he points out the 2 groups views of Australian History, the left wingers and right wingers. Both sound as contemptible as each other.

      I cant say I have ever come across a person with a right wing view of Australia’s history. Do people really think the massacres and subjugation of the Aboriginal peoples have never happened? That kinda blows my mind because anyone with common sense would know this happened rather to some degree than “it never happened at all”. Indeed I think both sides to the argument want that balance slightly balanced to their favour. But I hardly doubt the right wingers want to deny the bad things committed against the Aboriginal people.

      I also think there may be some confusion. I had a look at the education website and I dont think they were actually talking about putting the dreamtime lessons into science class. They were however putting it into “science and culture” unit, albeit the “culture” part of that unit, which I have no problem with. I also dont have a problem with things like Chinese medicine being taught. As long as its listed under culture and not science I have no problem with this.

    • Ros says:

      04:49pm | 02/03/10

      I think you are missing the point Gregory, in that this is the science curriculum, not the science and culture curriculum. And if you look you will see that it is not just science and culture, eg contribution of scientists, science as a human endeavour and other sections.

      It would be better if the name was changed to something like Science and Other Truth Systems including Folk Knowledge with particular reference to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Folk Knowledge. Well may this have started out as a science curriculum, it has clearly been captured by the social engineers. It is worth noting that the use of Aboriginal folk knowledge is contentious in that there are those who consider it to be used only with the specific permission of the group that produced/owns it. Can see schools addressing local folk knowledge getting into trouble.

      And how the line is held against creationism when another creation myth is to be taught within “science” remains to be seen.

      Interestingly the original framing document did not include references to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders science/knowledge etc. There was obviously considerable pressure applied, hence the curriculum document which includes a notable component for every year and not just within science and culture.

      “researching historical examples of different cultures’ knowledge about the natural environment and living things (eg Aboriginal peoples’ Dreamtime stories that explain significant characteristics of the Earth’s surface and interactions between living things)”

      There is also a requirement at yr 4 I think
      “examining ways in which other cultures group living things (eg classification according to moieties in many Aboriginal groups) researching how traditional art and artefacts of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples can provide information about changes that have occurred at the Earth’s surface”

      And not just science. Ethnomathematics is included in the mathematics curriculum. One purpose of ethnomathematics is that mathematics be taught in a way that relates to the particular ethnic environment, so as to make it interesting etc. Another purpose is social engineering, with a strong antiwestern flavour. Who could object to the first, who could approve the second. If it was amatter of teaching Aboriginal kids alone it would be a teaching tool. As all kids have to be taught it is a social engineering tool.

      “Intercultural understanding can be enhanced if students are exposed to other cultures’ view of mathematics, for example, through examining Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ perceptions of time and weather patterns, the networks embedded in family relationships and the algebraic concepts inherent in storytelling”

      “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander dimensions are included in the elaborations. It is imperative that all Australian students learn from the wisdom of the first Australians. For example, when considering the idea of seasons in measurement and geometry, the European tradition of four seasons can be compared and contrasted with the different constructs used by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in different parts of the country. The idea of using symbols as a way of generalising relationships can be enhanced by drawing on the perspectives of Indigenous Australians.”

    • John A Neve says:

      01:30pm | 02/03/10

      Gregory,

      Just about, if not all the races represented in this country, have been at one time, the part of “massacres and subjugation”. Do we teach their decendants all about it in our National Curiculum?

    • Zebra says:

      11:59am | 02/03/10

      Well I think it’s all good for kids to know this stuff but I wish there were boundaries as to how these topics were taught. =

      I do not have problems with Chinese medicine being taught in science provided there is scientific basis and logic of it being taught. Science in the form we know it is a logical process. Students need to be taught these basic building blocks to understand more complex scientific ideas that may be needed to be known for specialist science occupations and allied fields. So as far as I care, go for it, but I want REASON and LOGIC behind the Chinese medicine that is taught (preferably proof from scientific papers). Otherwise, you might as well as throw in something like the rebuttable Alchemy in in it as well. However, things like a Periodic Table are a must for any science student to know, you might as well scrap Chemistry all together from school if this is not taught or taught too late.

      The Dreamtime and the Rainbow Serpent is not a scientific concept rather is borders or religion and philosophy. Again, I have no problem with this being taught in schools (with other religious dogmas) but it has to be put in the right subject (Social Studies, Religious Education etc). Likewise, Aboriginal genocide to be taught in History.

      Schools and education’s priority is to teach students how to think. Thinking across fields is very different. The more ways a child/student is taught to think, the more likely they are to be a better rounded individual that can contribute to a society.

    • John A Neve says:

      12:35pm | 02/03/10

      Zebra,

      There has been an increase in both the DreamTime and sightings of the Rainbow Serpent, since the colonization and the introduction of alcohol.

      Does this mean we will provide our children with winegums prior to such lessons?

    • iansand says:

      12:11pm | 02/03/10

      I do not know what kids will be taught about the Rainbow Serpent, but I can see a place for it as being an explanation of creation that cannot be tested, and is thus unscientific.  The same sort of idea applies to Chinese medicine.  A theory of healing susceptible to testing, with some concepts not being provable and others being proved and brought into the scientific mainstream.  As anything else they should be consigned to theology classes.

    • DWest says:

      11:16am | 02/03/10

      @Eric Perhaps you need to see some of the fields upon fields of war cemetries filled with dead soldiers once filled with foolish notions of Kings. And Queens. And ‘valour’. Millions of dead husbands, sons, daughters, lovers sacrificed on the altar of a leaders or patriotic megalomania. I would’ve preferred to spend my school hours learning the history of comedy than the wacky, over-glorified, blood- dripping,Tarantino-like history of psychopathic warfare.

    • Eric says:

      05:57pm | 02/03/10

      DWest, perhaps you need to see what happens to people who can’t or won’t defend themselves against aggression.

    • Eric says:

      11:04am | 02/03/10

      Paul, ‘Too many people are filled with foolish pacifist notions’. The definition of ‘too many’ in this context is any number greater than zero.

      It was pacifism that brought us World War II, and the nightmare of Communism in Vietnam and Cambodia. It is pacifism that has the greatest potential to lead to defeat in the struggle against militant Islam.

      Pacifists have the blood of millions on their hands.

    • Eric says:

      03:54pm | 02/03/10

      I’m not claiming that militarists are innocent, or that pacifism doesn’t have its good points.

      I’m just pointing out that a belief in pure pacifism as a national policy is a very, very bad and counterproductive idea.

    • James1 says:

      11:20am | 02/03/10

      Eric, it was the decidedly non-pacifist attitude of communist Vietnam that ended the madness in Cambodia.

      To say that pacifism led to World War Two is rather simplistic also.  It could well be argued that it would have happened regardless of the war-weariness of Britain.  As to the alternate trajectory posited by some - that had Britain and France gone to war with Germany in 1938, before it was ready, and this would have saved the lives of millions of Russians in particular - we will never know about that, because it didn’t happen.

      Equally, one could posit the First World War as the result of militarism (or the Indo-China wars, which killed at least twice as many as the communist regimes that resulted) - which means that non-pacifism has the blood of millions on its hands.  Nothing is simple in this world, and there is never a clear line between what is good and what is bad.  Both pacifists and non-pacifists have blood on their hands.

      All that said, I am far from a pacifist.  I just recognise that my point of view has no monopoly on what is moral.

    • T says:

      10:56am | 02/03/10

      I think that the notion of teaching the truth of what happened when we, the white settlers came to this country is good; it will help build understanding. The biggest problem will be, will the truth be taught, or will it be the skewed viewpoint and interpretation of the truth from a fresh from uni left wing zealot.

      So many of the teachers that come to the NT and teach in Aboriginal communities are fully fledged memebers of the hairy armpit brigade who seem happy to perpetuate the leftist viewpoint and add fuel to the racism fire.

      Sure we didnt cover ourselves in glory in the early days and many of the deeds that were done for king and country were terrible, but to twist the facts to suit a political viewpoint is just as bad.

    • James says:

      10:43am | 02/03/10

      The difference, Davy, is that no one claims the Rainbow Serpent story to be science - it is considered a myth by everyone.  Christian “science” and intelligent design are usually passed of as being scientific.  One of those “lipstick on a pig” things.  If someone was to start talking about “Rainbow serpent science” I would be very quick to call that utter rubbish as well.

      Thus, I treat Christian myths with due deference, just as I would treat Aboriginal, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Greek, Celtic, and American Indian myths with due deference.  When myth tries to pass itself off as science, it enters the domain of utter rubbish.

    • Seano says:

      03:16pm | 02/03/10

      You’ve confused interpretational bias with belief. Evidence is independent.

      Where mistakes in interpretation occur the scientific method is designed to point them out. This does not a religion make.

    • Davy says:

      02:38pm | 02/03/10

      If science relies only on empirical evidence then there should be no need to discuss it. All would agree.The answers would be obvious. Science actually relies on our interpretation of the evidence. This is very strongly affected by our beliefs in a particular outcome, our funding, our peers, our standing in the scientific community, etc. It seems to find its support in the current thought, and it takes a strong will to push through those ideologies. eg flat earth.

      Interestingly enough, many science professionals, have some form of religious belief (as well as science).

      It intrigues me that many ideas of science that we structure our life on today, will be treated with great disdain in the future.

    • Seano says:

      12:59pm | 02/03/10

      “Science can very easily be viewed as a religion that makes us feel safe and justifys our thoughts and actions.”

      How can something based on empirical evidence be called a religion?

      Reminds me of a joke I read somewhere: “Athethism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby”.

      “To put it on a pedestal is no different to any other religious observance.”
      That’s the beauty of science over religion, nothing stays on the pedestal for long if it cannot be backed up with solid evidence.

    • James says:

      12:11pm | 02/03/10

      Sorry Davy, but I respectfully disagree.  There is a huge difference between the science of geology, and the idea that a giant rainbow coloured serpent made all the hills, valleys and rivers.  There is a massive difference between the idea that species evolved over hundreds of millions of years and the idea that one dude made it all in several days six thousand years ago.  Modern science rests on far more solid foundations than do the myths of various nomadic desert tribes.

    • Davy says:

      11:53am | 02/03/10

      It is interesting to look at science with a somewhat jaundiced eye. Lets look at great science ideas like “Piltdown Man” and the “Luminiferous Aether”. Both fallen somewhat into disfavor in current science.  Science still put on a pedestal as the solver of all mankinds woes.
      Very minor research into Cosmology, String theory, Quantum affects, and Wormholes, will highlight the somewhat religious aspects of science. Compare for example mutually exclusive outcomes for quantum experiments and the ideas behind “The Secret”.

      People believe things because it makes their world make sense. Science can very easily be viewed as a religion that makes us feel safe and justifys our thoughts and actions.

      To put it on a pedestal is no different to any other religious observance.

    • Davy says:

      10:26am | 02/03/10

      “With due deference to the Rainbow Serpent, this is spiritualism not science, and every bit as wrong as the calls from Christian hardliners for the utter rubbish that is “creation science” and “intelligent design” to be taught alongside evolution and natural selection.”

      So David it is interesting that as a “hard hitting journo” you structure your statements in a very interesting way. “Due deference” to the rainbow serpent compared to your “utter rubbish” of creation science.

      You obviously think the rainbow serpent is utter rubbish as well, so have the balls to say so. Or is that too pollitically incorrect and might have a little backlash. You might even get accused of being racist.

    • Max says:

      09:59am | 02/03/10

      I totally agree with removing Shakespeare from high school curriculum.  I don’t see how studying 400 year old texts, written in an almost unrecognisable language, could be any use to students.  I think the shift to linguistic structure, and teaching them proper use of language is far more beneficial.

      English curriculum needs to be about teaching students english, not literature.

    • Markus says:

      09:31am | 03/03/10

      Seano I agree that it cannot be taught in isolation but at the moment there is nothing in the curriculum at all.
      English should be taught at an early age as linguistics, teaching correct forms, structures and use of symbols (like hyphens and semicolons!).
      There are currently a disturbingly high percentage of students entering tertiary education who still cannot structure a sentence let alone an essay.
      The most shameful thing I saw was my (native) Spanish teacher in 2nd year uni having to first teach two thirds of the class what direct and indirect objects were in English in order for them to have any idea how to apply it in Spanish.

    • Seano says:

      12:51pm | 02/03/10

      “English curriculum needs to be about teaching students english, not literature. “

      We teach English through literature. You can’t teach English in isolation, well not if you want the students to actually pay attention or learn how to successfully use the language as a vehicle for communication.

      Much of our current drama, satire etc has roots in Shakespearian literature, therefore Shakespeare can be taught in a relevant way.

    • Zeta says:

      10:07am | 02/03/10

      Shakespeare is still totally relevant.

      If I hadn’t have read Shakespeare in high school, I would have totally over reacted when my girlfriend killed herself.

    • nic says:

      09:57am | 02/03/10

      One of the issues is the lack of balance. Sure discuss Aboriginal issues/history/dreamtime stories but also include the realities of tribal life, including how women were treated/regarded.

    • Paul says:

      09:44am | 02/03/10

      @eric Please provide historical evidence of, ‘Too many people are filled with foolish pacifist notions’. And what number,precisely, is ‘too many’ Eric - 3 million, 200,000,43% of the Aus population? I think you’ve been reading wikieric *too many* times.

    • Amos says:

      09:12am | 02/03/10

      What? I agree with Penbo? this has never happened before. Today must be opposite day.

    • acker says:

      08:57am | 02/03/10

      I had Irish ancestors who arrived in 1851 the mother (my 4xGreat gran) & 7 kids (including my 3xGreat Gramp) in tow. Her husband died during the Irish Potato famine and the whole family emigrated, doesn’t appear to be much of that history in the curriculum draft. Yet a large number of current Australians have Irish ancestory.

    • Cuppa says:

      02:47pm | 02/03/10

      Spot on Acker.But why would you teach about our European ancestors..?(i also have irish ancestory)after all, they only built this country.Personally, i couldnt care less about aboriginal culture.I come from central west NSW were this ‘culture’ is violent, lazy, dishonest & drunk(some of the bleeding hearts should spend a few nights in Bourke to get some perspective) but still blame all their plights on the ‘white’ man.

    • acker says:

      10:43am | 02/03/10

      @James ..I think this draft has plenty of room to accomodate the dream time and just about all immigration and some pre-Australian arrival history, it needs better balancing. The dream time is big, but surely not as big as the draft describes it.

    • James says:

      10:21am | 02/03/10

      acker,

      I teach my own daughter about our Irish roots and our convict ancestors at home, because schools do not.  We had ancestors on the second fleet, as well as some transported for their involvement in the Irish Rebellion of 1798, so I understand how important it must be to you.  Sadly, it often comes down to parents to fill the gaps that schools leave open.

    • acker says:

      09:34am | 02/03/10

      @OhBugga..I’m not saying don’t teach it, but when I read the draft on the ACARA site it seamed the teaching of indigenous culture is getting over done and perhaps even added to the curriculum in a lot of places to acheive a pre-meditated content percentage.

    • OhBugga says:

      09:18am | 02/03/10

      My family came here as convicts, but the reality is, we all came from somewhere else but Aborignals were here before us. And their culture is something we should all have knowledge of. Maybe it will help bridge the gap at the very least it will bring more understanding.

    • formersnag says:

      08:35am | 02/03/10

      http://www.heineraffair.info/

      Try some modern history on me & you will see that the radical, extremist, loony, left, fauxmanistas from the red/green/labour coalition can never be trusted with anything, let alone, re writing history. They will never stop trying to play the black armband card.

      Making all of you feel guilty about everything is rule #1 for them in the “control the revolting proletariat” book. Straight out of the neurotic wife’s book of mind games. Gillard and her sistas in the hood will never, give an inch on the propaganda front. Its total war for them, unrelenting, you will never be forgiven, the megaphone will never be switched off, or even have the volume turned down a little.

    • Michael says:

      02:06pm | 02/03/10

      How mad is formersnag going to be when (1) Labor is elected again this year and (2) the National Curriculum is implemented, socialist warts and all. Haha, that moment will be delicious, like a little mini-meal between lunch and dinner. Quite frankly, it will be a struggle to not grind pepper on your head.

    • Shane says:

      12:45pm | 02/03/10

      Thanks formersnag. Without your rant I would never have pondered whether mental health is covered in the new curriculum.

    • T.Chong says:

      10:58am | 02/03/10

      formersnag : take a deep breath dude, settle. Not agreeing what is taught is one thing, but the rest…? neurotic wife mind games, and some type of sinister sista hood is getting a little carried away.
      Provide an example, than a reasonable discussion is possible.

    • James says:

      10:13am | 02/03/10

      Bad things have happened in our history.  How is teaching our kids the truth about guilt?  It is more about honesty than anything else.  By all means teach your kids whatever lies you want at home, but at school they should be taught what actually happened.  I understand you have received some pretty tough treatment at the hands of government formersnag, but that does not mean we should lie about our past to our children - that would be unforgivable.

    • Evan Findlay says:

      09:36am | 02/03/10

      For christ’s sake formersnag it’s Labor, not Labour. I think that before you write another piece of right wing diatribe maybe you should spend more of your time reading, preferably a dictionary, and less time boring the general population with your conspiracy theories.

    • OldGirl says:

      08:33am | 02/03/10

      I am well past school age and so that matter are my children, my family were transported here and some were Free Settlers. Despite that I feel no loyalty to Briton. I am an Australian. One of my biggest shames is that I know so very little of Aboriginal culture. It just was not taught to us. I envy the kids who will learn and be more knowledgable about Aborignal customs and beliefs that I ever will. People come here from all over the world , we are not all of Britsh descent and knowledge of the traditional owners I can see as only a step forward.

    • Stephen J says:

      06:33pm | 02/03/10

      @Nathan - The term (or the concept)  “Terra Nulias”  was not used or related to Australia until the 1970s. Now that is a history lesson for you!

    • Nathan says:

      11:45am | 02/03/10

      You, like may others are misinformed about Aboriginal Ownership of the land. Also History needs to be taught in context. Aboriginal people did not own the land. Even they state that they were the guardians of the land.

      In regards to context, like i said its all context. back in 1788, Brittan was a powerhoouse, and at that time it was the stongest always won the battle and control of the land. Its not the same in Western 2010, but back in 1788 it was the case. Also back in 1788, there was no formal laws, no formal land ownership and Australia was declared Terra Nulias.

      Sure in todays world, what happened to the Aboriginal people was wrong, and it is sad to hear stories of mass murder and families being split up, but as time moved on so did our expectations. What we thought in the 1800’s as normal practice has now in today’s time been thought of as being wrong.

      Thats history for you though.

    • Paul says:

      08:20am | 02/03/10

      Maybe kids should learn about our dark human propensity for violence and war. And the ease with which our religons and leaders and empires have sacrificed young soldiers or looked the other way at war crimes or genocide. It may help us mad apes evolve and to get over ourselves, sooner rather than next century.

    • Douggie says:

      06:24pm | 03/03/10

      War should definitely be taught in schools- at length and at depth. War is the crucible in which the pivotal moments of history are forged. To empower our children with an understanding of why people go to war, and to question the underlying reasons why their leaders beat the drums of war can only serve to build a more peaceful society. Its like the old saying goes- those who don’t learn from the past are doomed to repeat those same mistakes. I think this is what Eric and BTS are getting at.

    • Eric says:

      06:11am | 03/03/10

      John, once again you are making silly assumptions. Where did I say that I support war? War simply exists - and the best way to prevent it is to prepare for it.

      Swinging back to the topic of the thread - the Aborigines weren’t prepared for war against an invader, and look what happened to them. That’s reality, John, not your fantasy world.

    • John A Neve says:

      08:34pm | 02/03/10

      Eric,
      You and those like you are the problem. There are people in this world who make money out of war and there are the lemmings of this world who fight for them.

      War is not necessary, maybe once upon a time, when we were closer to the beasts in the field, but not now. I know of no one who has been to war, who supports it. You should remember Eric, he who lives by the sword, dies by it.

    • BTS says:

      07:24pm | 02/03/10

      Interesting John A Neve,

      Where did I say that war ‘had’ to be part of society?  I didn’t, I said that war ‘was’ part of society.  My ‘trouble is that I accept things without question’?  What am I accepting without question?  That war is part of our society?  Well doesn’t six US presidents being at war tend to indicate that this is so?  I call that supporting evidence, hardly in the category of accepting without question.  If we bury our heads in the sand and pretend that the last six US Presidents haven’t been at war does that make the wars go away or ‘not be part of our society’???

      If war is eradicated from our society (because it doesn’t have to be part of it) just how do you propose to do this if we don’t talk about it or educate people about it?

    • Eric says:

      05:59pm | 02/03/10

      John—just as your silly claim that Israel doesn’t exist has no bearing on the actual existence of Israel; so your silly claim that war doesn’t have to exist has no bearing on the actual existence of war.

      You may choose to believe in a fantasy world, but I prefer to deal with the real world.

    • John A Neve says:

      04:41pm | 02/03/10

      BTS,

      Rape, murder, incest etc, etc are part of our society as well. But like war they don’t have to be. Your trouble BTS is you accept without question.
      Beat the drum and wave that flag and both you and Eric will go marching on.

    • BTS says:

      03:13pm | 02/03/10

      John A Neve,

      I count the last six US Presidents as being at war during their time in office.  To believe that war is not part of society is naive.

    • John A Neve says:

      10:10am | 02/03/10

      Marvin H,

      “Teaching of Aboriginal culture in a land that belonged to them”. On what basis do ou make that comment Marvin?

      As to culture, how do you define it?

    • John A Neve says:

      09:58am | 02/03/10

      Eric,
      You really are a worry.
      Question: Do you have an interest in arms manufacture?

    • Marvin H says:

      08:46am | 02/03/10

      To right Paul. Man is the biggest preditor on the Planet, if it moves we kill it be it animal vegetable or mineral. We seem to especially like killing each other. If an animal dares to attack us we scream “death” but we spend alot of time killing them and that to us is acceptable. I laugh when people think aliens are visiting us, any alien with enough intelligence to get to Planet Earth would take on look and scream and run away. Teaching of Aboriginal culture in a land that belonged to them does not seem such a radical idea to me. It should have been taught years ago

    • Eric says:

      08:31am | 02/03/10

      It’s a good idea to teach kids about war. Too many people are filled with foolish pacifist notions. We need a population with some idea of geopolitical reality, of which war will always be a part.

    • Max Power says:

      08:17am | 02/03/10

      My children will not be taking part in any learning about the dream time or chinese medicine. There are far more important things to learn about then Aboriginal history and alternative medicines.

    • Sam says:

      02:25pm | 12/10/11

      Wheres the intervention, this person wont put her kid in school, ops that only applies if your Aboriginal. That’s why they suspend the racial discrimination act. Total double standards. How can we trust a total bias nation. I dont trust non Aboriginals based on experience. I can only judge what I see. Its Australian History. If you love english schools so much then move BACK, I will pay if you want

    • chenholio says:

      05:07am | 06/03/10

      OMG Gav, lighten up! As the goddess of the underworld admirably articulates (11:15 p.m. 2/3/10) the role of Chinese medicines and indigenous creation myths appear to be valid (in this DRAFT document) when presented in context - something the media has patently failed to do. 
      Max is right to be alarmed, as the media coverage has been alarmist. This is where the relationship between teacher and parent actively thwarts politician’s unnatural predisposition toward “rule by fear” and the characteristic drive to “divide and conquer”. Parents, like Max, become potent allies when an experienced practitioner engages them in reasonable discussion and elucidates the school’s position.
      These topics are of anthropological significance, in that they once held sway over the collective consciousness, but (of necessity) gave way to more accurate, demonstrable knowledge and understanding. To truly appreciate the value of what we know now we must have a level of understanding of that which was displaced or discarded: nebulous superstition gives way to observable, empirical, testable fact.
      Just quietly, before you tool around like Cartman, admonishing people to respect your “authoraytie”, you may wish to do a bit of self-examination. Your “authorative (sic) tone” would raise the hackles of most people, particularly an authoritative English teacher who would remonstrate with you regarding proper nouns, as in Chinese.
      Check the stats on teacher assaults; a combative approach, coupled with a haughty tone, can lead to a thump in the head - it’s not right, but it happens. Sadly, your badge and your employer afford little, if any, protection. wink

    • Max Power says:

      02:50pm | 03/03/10

      I would provide feedback about the draft but this govt is to arrogant to listen to what the people want. The overwhelming majority of people don’t want the internet censor, but this govt is pushing on anyway. The majority of people don’t want the ETS, yet this govt wants to push it through anyway.

    • Max Power says:

      02:19pm | 03/03/10

      Persephone: By your reasoning, any parent who doesn’t want their child playing violent computer games, looking at porn and doing drugs is a control freak to.

    • Max Power says:

      02:17pm | 03/03/10

      Yes yes Gavin, just keep believing in your “authorative” voice. You are in for a rude shock when you enter the real world and find that your “authorative” voice achieves exactly diddly squat and doesn’t work like they said it would at uni. You could teach a monkey to be a teacher, how hard could it be to read something from a text book which contains all the answers. Then again for teaching students it probably is hard due to the fact they only teach because they don’t have the abiliity or attributes to do anything else.

    • Gavin says:

      09:21am | 03/03/10

      And those who can’t teach try and tell those who can teach how to teach. And they are eventually treated with the contempt they deserve.

    • Max Power says:

      07:28am | 03/03/10

      Gavin: I hope our paths don’t meet either, because you would need to take 2 terms off to recover from the consequences of your “authorative” tone. Mate, you’re just a teacher, those who can’t do, teach!

    • Gavin says:

      09:52pm | 02/03/10

      Then by all means, provide yor children the the benefit of home education and the “Power Wisdom” it would surely promise to bring. Oh wait, hang on, in order to be allowed to educate them at home one would need to subscribe to the curriculum and provide evidence of learning and achievement as prescibed in said curriculum in an approved format. Much the same as us university arrogant souls, most of whom will be paying off a HECS debt for the privilege. We might just be fortunate enough to not cross paths down the track, as I doubt you would appreciate the authorative tone I would use on you, though you might enjoy an ancient chinese herbal tea with healing properties to target your stress and indignity. That could well be the Term 2 unit.

    • Max Power says:

      08:41pm | 02/03/10

      I couldn’t wait to be “told” by a teacher who thinks they know it all because they have been to uni. Teachers are amongst the most arrogant professions there are, not to mention they have little to no personality or humour. As for control freak, no, just someone who knows that learning about a giant frog swallowing all the water is why have droughts, won’t help them in the future.

    • BTS says:

      03:19pm | 02/03/10

      Wow this site has been overtaken by the ‘Grammar Queens’.  Is a typo also not allowed and if it is how do you know it’s a genuine error or a typo?  Why not concentrate on the intended meaning of the blog rather than infatile correction.

    • Gavin says:

      01:58pm | 02/03/10

      I bet Max Power is one of those “know-it-better” parents who tries to tell the teachers (with at least 4 years university education) what they should be doing within their classroom. I finish my teaching degree this year, and personally I cannot wait to be confronted by those parents so I can turn around to them and instruct them to get the hell out of my classroom and come back at 3pm.

    • persephone says:

      01:28pm | 02/03/10

      Kim - so the answer to that is, read the proposals and have your say.

      It gives you more say in your children’s education than you have at present.

    • Kim says:

      11:18am | 02/03/10

      If the draft is approved and this becomes part of the curriculum, then you and your children will not have a choice.

    • bec says:

      09:36am | 02/03/10

      Such as not using “then” when you mean to say “than”. Sorry, I’m a homophone-ophobe.

    • persephone says:

      09:30am | 02/03/10

      Talk about a control freak. Do you presently wander into their classes to ensure that they’re learning what you want them to? (Or even worse, learning something you don’t think is worthy?)

      Next you’ll be complaining that they’ve learnt how to analyse arguments in school and now don’t just do what they’re told because you say so.

      But I repeat: it’s a draft. If you have problems with anything about it, log in to the site and have your say.

      Take the chance to be constructive.

    • DG says:

      08:01am | 02/03/10

      How come the Americans can keep God out of their science classes but we can’t keep the dreamtime, creation science and alternative medicine out of ours? I’m all for reaching the “science” of these things*, but to suggest that they in themselves are scientific is simply untrue. If they want to discuss the rainbow serpent, creationism or “young earth science”, introduce a component on comparative religion so that the two aren’t mixed up at all.

      Secondly, I can understand that children not be required to memorise Mendeleev’s List, after all we have the internet, but to refrain from teaching kids about chemistry at all? However, more important than teaching the specific disciplines of science, so long as they are learning about the scientific method we are going down the right path.

      Personally I would like to see a unit included in logic - teaching students about logical fallacies and the likes. Perhaps if children were taught that ad hominem arguments are not productive and the importance of having justifiable reasons for their beliefs, and their behaviour, we would be on the path to a generation of more responsible young adults.

      As for changes to the English curriculum - three cheers for removing literature from the list. It won’t happen, but a man can dream. I struggle to accept that a reading of poetry should be taught at schools. Like movies, philosophy and various other forms of entertainment - this should be left to the individual to pursue in their leisure time. I chose to read Shakespeare and the likes, but to then be expected to analyse the intentions of the author? It’s a load of rubbish - it’s a story. Nothing more, nothing less. If you read it and it talks to you on another level good for you, but sometimes a story is just a story.

      I’m all for teaching children reading, writing, grammar and comprehension. However, teaching students that they should be extracting some ‘deeper meaning’, and that failing to do so is a sign of inferiority or failure, deprives some students (males in particular) of the joy of reading for pleasure.

      * The science being, despite hours of intensive research, that there is nothing to suggest that the rainbow serpent actually existed, that prayer cures disease, that god created the universe or that “alternative medicine” performs any better than a placebo.

    • Sam says:

      02:14pm | 12/10/11

      Modern science is incomplete, all use theory as truth, 20 years ago Aboriginal Culture was only 10000-20000 years old by your science. 10 years ago Aboriginal culture was only 30000 years old, now its 50000-60000 years old, Going off the EVIDENCE you don’t really have a clue let along a trust worthy science, when someone designs a study it always leans towards a pre decided outcome and instantly becomes useless. alot of things Aboriginals claim have some truth behind it, their dates are fairly close compared to modern science. When Australians decide to conduct scientific study professionally I may give it some credit. but when almost all your scientific study’s have shown how flawed your science is I will struggle to see it as anything else then an opinion. Although thats seems good enough for most in Australia. Fine Art in the modern world is seen as a marker for civilised culture well we have been doing fine art for tens of thousands of years but They are good at making up excuse’s as to why that doesn’t apply to Aboriginals who are the art industry in this country. Go figure

    • DG says:

      03:25pm | 02/03/10

      Bella -

      Your points about the capacity for understanding and communicating ideas would be covered in the logic course I mentioned in my original post.

      Learning how construct an argument or deconstruct an argument that is put to you using the tools of logic and reason would be an invaluable resource. One that, in my opinion, is far more important than looking for hidden meaning in a 400 year old text and deciding whether it is ‘relevant’ today.

      Instead of imposing one’s own meanings on someone else’s work, look at pieces where the intention of the author is clear. Look at the devices they use to sell their idea, the justifications and rationalisations they rely on and any underlying assumptions.

      I would suggest that it is far more important that students learn how to make an argument about Communism and Capitalism based on a variety of sources and supported ideas than students reading a book and trying to build their theory of what the author meant.

      If they want to find what a person meant, why not rely on instances where the author is clear that they are trying to make a point about something. Assessment can be on the basis of understanding the point being made and the reasons for it as well as recognising any logical fallacies and any other flaws in the argument.

      I did not mean to suggest that we stop at the point of basic reading and writing, simply that literature is not the appropriate tool for teaching people how to recognise and respond to ideas. Responding to an idea requires responsibility - it means owning your opinion and being accountable for that idea, rather than passing it of as the opinion of the Author of some other work.

      For example: “I think X. The Book Animal farm gives an example and contributes to my belief of X.” is infinitely preferable to “I think Orwell thinks X.”

    • BTS says:

      03:03pm | 02/03/10

      Bella,

      ‘Brave New World’...love the Iron Maiden reference.

      Kudos!

    • bella starkey says:

      02:52pm | 02/03/10

      DG:
      Your version of education would leave us with a generation of people who think Animal Farm is a slightly more macabre version of Babe or Brave New World is just another Sci-Fi novel.
      Why seek to encourage the lowest common denominator. I found Maths incredibly tedious at school. Should I have been allowed to stop learning it after I mastered basic, practical numeracy? It didn’t interest me and I am never going to use the co-sign symbol on my calculator ever again so what was the point? The point was I learnt skills from that heinous subject, just like you do from history, chemistry, religion, etc.  And yes, also from studying the arts (whether that be music, visual arts or literature).
      The subject isn’t vague in the slightest. Students are assessed on their ability to reason and support arguments, essential stuff for commenting on blog sites. They also learn more than the basic skills of communication, because communicating the general world isn’t just being able to read and write and speak articulately. It is also the ability to interpret what you are being told, synthesise the ideas presented and form your own opinion. Without these skills we would be going around believing what we are told wholeheartedly and never questioning the answers we are given. In fact the assessment criteria in English are no different to that in history. Both assess the skills that have been developed rather than the knowledge that has been amassed. Unless you wish to create a curriculum which is assessed on the basis of true/false, right or wrong answers that have been memorised out of a text book or looked up on an iPhone in an exam, this is how education works
      Don’t you think that this is of particular importance these days when data is endless, information is unreliable and knowledge immeasurable as a result.

    • DG says:

      01:31pm | 02/03/10

      Bella - Studying literature isn’t about getting the meaning the the author intended (for that can never be known unless identified by the author) it is about the reader creating their own meaning, imposing that meaning on someone else’s work and then attempting to justify it.

      As for that meaning being essential to understanding. In what way is it essential? How can giving something a meaning of your own devising increase your appreciation of that thing, or be essential to your understanding of that thing? I would suggest that it doesn’t. The imposed meaning doesn’t change the original object in any way, it is self indulgent imposition of ones own meaning to the meaningless. It is not value-adding nor is it a demonstration of the readers understanding (after all the ‘understanding’ is created by the reader).

      Why is this literature important? I agree that, for some, the study of literature is a worthwhile pursuit. But I do not believe it should be part of the mandatory curriculum. Above all else, it is to subjective to be of any practical value for students, and certainly to vague for the assessment of students.

      I note that you suggest that “appreciating art” is something that should be taught at school. I disagree. If are has no appeal of it’s own to individuals then it has been lost to history and should be relegated to galleries for those who are interested.

      You ask if we should ignore the context of “The Crucible”, yet I suggest that students should be free to ignore “The Crucible” in its entirety. It serves no purpose other than entertainment and perspective for those that enjoy such things. It is not something that students will pursue in later days - as you said “I doubt many people would delve into the world of high literature without a little nudge.” It has no appeal of it’s own and, given that it has no meaning other than that added by the reader, is of little value to the community at large or to the development of students. Thow who choose to pursue their interest in literature should be free to do so, but, as I said before, such a vague and subjective area is not a suitable base for the assessment of students.

      Alan - Fair enough. I was attempting to draw attention to the fact that rote learning the first 20 elements (as we were required to do in year 8) is pointless (hence my reference to a list), more important is understanding the table which can be readily accessed on the internet. I was hoping that my reference to Mendeleev would hint that I was familiar with the table and it’s origin.

    • Alan says:

      12:39pm | 02/03/10

      Just for the record, the periodic table created by Mendeleev is important because it is a table, not a list.  Lithium, Sodium and Potasium have related chemical properties (highly reactive in the pure state, and often appear in salts), and appear in one vertical column.  Similarly Helium, Neon and Argon, in a different column, are all noble gasses which react with virtually nothing.  Yes, other relationships are more complex, but the table helps. The Internet can provide a copy of the table, but schooling provides knowledge of how to use and interpret the table.  How can we join the debate on a carbon tax if we don’t understand that the C in CO2 means carbon?

    • bella starkey says:

      09:42am | 02/03/10

      I went to a catholic school and we were taught logic and philosophy in religion classes in years nine and ten. I agree with you on that point. I found it greatly beneficial then and now.

      However. Literary works should most certainly be taught in school. I doubt many people would delve into the world of high literature without a little nudge. ‘Extracting some deeper meaning’ is essential for appreciating all forms of art, of course we don’t know what an author, poet or artist was thinking but we can hypothesise, analyse and develop our own meaning from a work.

      Is Heart of Darkness a story about a bloke who goes nuts in the jungle? is it a fable on the follies of colonisation? or is it an exploration of the effect power and isolation has on the human condition? Should we ignore the context of The Crucible and just enjoy a cracking good story? Or should we investigate how dramatists use allegory to explore the negative elements of the society we live in?

    • barry says:

      07:55am | 02/03/10

      Isabel, your use of the word ” hopefully” is not grammatically correct. 

      A correct phrase would be ” I am hopeful that…..”

      Are you a teacher by any chance?

    • barry says:

      07:54am | 04/03/10

      John, ” hopefully”  means ” in a hopeful manner”, whether it is used in the first person or otherwise.

    • John in Alice says:

      12:22am | 03/03/10

      While “I am hopeful that” is preferable, there is nothing wrong with Isabel’s statement either.  It implies that perhaps more people than Isobel hope that corrections, blah blah blah. She certainly does not write in 1st person.  In fact an even stronger statement would be, “We might hope” implying there are others share a similar concern. There are varying degrees of grammar with some being preferable to others. 
      I was a teacher accredited to teach English, music (instrumental) and general science. 
      BTW, I introduced the basics of the Periodic Table to children as young as 6th year with reasonable success to pave the way for easier comprehension when students took chemistry in high school.  This was some 20 years ago and I find the dumbing down in schools a pathetic attempt to appease both parents and government. 
      The last school I taught at in America set 70% as the lowest passing grade while schools here are letting kids slip through with as low as 50% achievement.  Would you want a doctor who got by on 50%?

    • Paul says:

      12:01pm | 02/03/10

      Barry is right Tex, it isn’t.

    • Tex Ranger says:

      11:24am | 02/03/10

      It is correct.

    • Liz says:

      07:18am | 02/03/10

      Right on let’s have some balance.

    • Isabel says:

      07:11am | 02/03/10

      Hopefully, in the future, parents will not feel the need (nor do the deed) of correcting the spelling, grammar and punctuation contained within school reports issued by classroom teachers?

    • matt says:

      06:58am | 02/03/10

      Rob, perhaps if you’d learned Latin at school (damn this new national curriculum and its short-sightedness with dead classical languages) you’d know that genocide wasn’t “invented” in 1944.

      It’s a pretty standard Latin form. If anything, it was probably used about 2000 years ago when Caesar did a pretty good job on the French.

      As someone who came to the study of history later in life (studied it at school, dumped it for maths/science and came back to it in my 30s with a Masters), the study of ANY history is a good thing. Teaching kids about Aboriginal history isn’t to give them a certain view of it, just as teaching kids about Thermopylae isn’t to give them the purely Spartan view. (There’s a school of thought that says the Greeks were the terrorists and the Persians mounted a pre-emptive strike to punish them and secure threateed trade routes. Wow. no modern parallels there…)

      The study of history is the study of questions and arguments, not dates on a page. It’s about teaching kids - yes, and mature age students like I was - methods of enquiry and research to facilitate that enquiry.

      It’s not black armband or white blindfold - it’s being equipped with the intellectual tools to question both views and to come up with a new argument.

      Sadly, those who rail against either view are usually those who either haven’t studied history or if they did, failed to equip themselves with those essential intellectual tools. Be interesting to know which one Christopher Pyne is…

    • Castro says:

      08:29am | 02/03/10

      The Oxford English Dictionary dates the first usage of ‘genocide’ to 1944.  You can find this respected resource on line with the click of a button.  The fact that you didn’t do this basic research throws doubt on your claims to be a History Master.

      Indeed, this is the whole problem with the ‘History Wars’.  The reaction against the Black Armband school of thought was mere a reaction against the moving away from empirical evidence being used as the basis for historical work.  Those, like Keith Windschuttle, who tried to use written evidence as a base for factual discourse were unfairly criticised for doing so.

      To be sure, the empirical school of history has its limitations, but all historians must use available facts to base their assumptions on, rather than use their assumptions to construct facts as has happened in this deeply politicised area of history.

      As someone with experience and knowledge history teaching, this should not be taught before yrs 11 or 12 in any detail because of the level of critical evaluation skills needed to draw conclusions in such a controversial area, and because most students find it deathly boring and it will turn them off the study of history completely.

    • Paul says:

      08:19am | 02/03/10

      “Teaching kids about Aboriginal history isn’t to give them a certain view of it”.

      Matt, I think that is entirely dependent on the skill of the educator. A professor teaching you in your Masters degree: Agree. However, where a teacher unskilled or unfamiliar with these concepts of ‘history’ has their own opinions/points of view, these WILL be passed on to the kids.

    • Tim says:

      08:09am | 02/03/10

      Matt,
      do you really think that is how they teach history in school?
      Studying history in university may be the study of questions and arguments but in school it is not so complex.
      All of the history I did in school was, as you put it “dates on a page”. Teachers taught you about events and most of the kids then repeated the taught information for tests and assignments. There was no critical thinking.

    • persephone says:

      06:43am | 02/03/10

      Firstly, it’s a draft - which means, if you object to anything in it, you can say so and should.

      I played with it for a couple of hours yesterday and it didn’t crash once, so don’t worry about that.

      To put some things in perspective: the periodic table has been taught at Year 11 (at least in Victoria) for at least the last forty years, so bringing it down to Year 10 is an innovation.

      I was also pleased to see that evolution - also currently taught in Year 11 Biol, and therefore not compulsory - has been moved down to Year 10, too. It’s important that one of the most important scientific theories is taught to every student.

      I haven’t been able to (maybe I haven’t looked long enough) find a reference to teaching the Dreamtime per se. There’s a bit in the Science curriculum to looking at how societies in the past explained the world around them, so maybe it fits in there.

      As for your lovely idea, David, that the British legal system dealt with flagrant massacres in an appropriate fashion, I suggest you read up on the Coniston massacre in 1927.

      Something between 20 and 70 aborigines killed, on the admission of the Crown (but we’ll never know how many for sure, because they weren’t interested) but noone was ever tried, even though the perpetrators were known and boasted about their deeds.

    • persephone says:

      09:56pm | 02/03/10

      Sorry, Jane, missed the point of your comment before.

      I suggest you have a look at the site, which you obviously haven’t done. There is heaps there on our British heritage, settlement, the gold rushes, the Wars, all the usual subjects studied as history.

      Yes, it includes aboriginal history as well, but then so does every history curriculum I’ve ever read in the last thirty years.

      The National Curriculum simply takes all the strands which have been being studied up till now and melds them together - not really hard, as in most cases the States did tend to study the same periods of history at roughly the same year levels.

      (Anyway, to cover the massacres, you’d have to cover the period between 1790 and 1930 anyway!)

    • persephone says:

      09:51pm | 02/03/10

      Grumbles

      a theory’s importance has nothing to do with whether you personally believe it or not.

      Evolutionary theory underlies many areas of practical science, from agriculture to medicine.

      It is also important for the cultural and social impacts it had (some good, some bad); it changed ways of thinking.

      And, as far as scientific theories go, it is one of the most tested and most substantiated. (But is still called a theory, and rightly so, and students studying science will understand that important distinction too).

      So if we’re talking about the science curriculum - which we are - it’s something which should be compulsory learning.

    • Adrian says:

      09:21pm | 02/03/10

      Hey Grumbles I agree with you. Science is about facts and fantasies like inteligent design should be in the fantasy section

    • Grumbles says:

      02:39pm | 02/03/10

      Why is evolution one of the most important theories? And will they make the distiction of avising the students that macro evolution has never been observed or empiracally tested? Evolution should be given equal time to intelligent design ie. either a little or none at all. We should teach facts. Leave the fiction for English Lit.

    • Jane says:

      12:48pm | 02/03/10

      It is the ground in between the massacres and February 2010 where the curriculum is blank.

      Perhaps 200+ years is a blink in the history of the world but, for the Federated States of Australia, it is the only history we have.

      Why is it not going to be taught?

      Selective history?

    • bec says:

      06:37am | 02/03/10

      The part that scares me isn’t the history: it’s the fact that they are teaching woo like Chinese medicine (I refuse to call it “traditional” given that it’s… well, not traditional). Boot it, for the love of God. I’m sick of having to placate the loony alt-med faction under the misguided notion of “balance”.

    • DG says:

      11:31am | 02/03/10

      Throw in acupuncture, chiropractic (for anything other than physiotherapy), aromatherapy, reflexology and other ‘treatments’ of the same ilk - many of which have been shown to have no better performance than a placebo (many remain untested).

      This is why people need to study logic and the scientific method.

    • bec says:

      10:43am | 02/03/10

      Ha! Homoeopathy is even more illegit than Chinese herbal medicine. At least the herbs can have some sort of pharmacological impact.

    • Shelly says:

      10:23am | 02/03/10

      Totally agree. If they’re uincluding Chinese herb and spice healing why not include homeopathy? Or is that too white?

    • Cuppa says:

      06:24am | 02/03/10

      I dont always agree with you David, but this was a good article.Spot on.

    • acker says:

      06:12am | 02/03/10

      Two main points after reading it (1) Putting some (not all) non science relelant Indigenous cultural topics in the Science section (2) Bringing up some brutal aspects of place name history in Year 2 (Dead Mans Creek) which I think is to young.

    • Dale says:

      02:59am | 06/03/10

      Quite right Jimbo! “Arguing over a bloody word”, what’s the point. Like you I subscribe to the Humpty Dumpty school of communication, whereby “When I use a word…it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.” That’s a “non-core promise” you can take to the bank. Do you take my meaning?

    • Rob says:

      05:45am | 02/03/10

      Genocide? Wow, quite emotive for you to be applying a term that didn’t exist before 1944, and was invented to cover some very specific situations originally, to something that happened over 100 years earlier that most wouldn’t regard as “genocide” at all. Just stick with massacre, it does the job in explaining it already.

    • John T says:

      12:03pm | 03/03/10

      Good comment, Rowdy:  “massacre” is sufficiently forceful to describe what happened at Myall Creek. Using “genocide” to describe one atrocity diminishes the force of one of David’s key points: that the perpetrators brought to justice. How often, if at all, did this happen with, say, the Holocaust?

    • Jimbo says:

      10:03am | 03/03/10

      You people are the problem right there. Arguing over a bloody word. Is it any wonder the wheels of change take so long to turn in this country.

    • Zeta says:

      10:05am | 02/03/10

      Actually bros, the term genocide was coined in 1933. It originally described the deaths of Asyrians and Armenians.

      I know that because I’m a product of the Catholic School system, where the Brothers knew to get information through our sick boy brains they needed to dress it up in terms we understood on a primal level: sex and death.

      Ask the average Catholic school boy the most obscure piece of information about the holocaust and they’ll be able to recite it from memory. Strangely, I can remember the names of every single concentration camp, but I can’t remember the names of all the Popes, except the Borgias (who killed people and had orgies) and Pope Joan (who was the woman who impersonated a Pope and the reason the Church now does a compulsory ball check on incoming pontiffs).

    • Rob says:

      09:56am | 02/03/10

      It’s pretty simple: taking a word, invented in 1944 and used originally to refer to what happened to the Jewish population in Europe and thus containing tons and tons and tons of baggage—and then applying it to small incidents that occurred in Australia in the first half of the 19th century, is totally over-egging the pudding. No, Penbo, there’s no grammatical law against it, but in terms of journalism, it’s over the top. Again, I have no problem with words like “massacre” because these events happened and they were terrible. Without doubt. But “genocide”? Nah. It actually does your piece a disservice.

    • DG says:

      08:24am | 02/03/10

      So if I make up a word to describe a behaviour, It can’t be applied to any demonstration of that behaviour carried out before the creation of the word?

      Let me help. A word is just a sound to which we have given meaning. The meaning is dependent on the context, not just on the act, matter or thing it describes or relates to but the time in which the statement is made.

      Consider, assassination is a word that was supposedly first used by Shakespeare. Does that mean that any “assassination” carried out before that time cannot be considered as such.

      How does the change in language affect the use of a word? If the modern meaning of a word is different to the meaning of a word in the past, can the modern word be used (with the modern meaning)  be used to describe a historical event? 

      I agree that the participants in the genocide didn’t think of it as genocide (being as they didn’t have the word), but that doesn’t preclude their behaviour from being categorised as such.

    • Rowdy says:

      08:18am | 02/03/10

      Defninition of genocide: “the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group”. The abovementioned massacre in itself does not constitute genocide as the author stated, so masacre is the correct word. Of course recently coined words can be applied retrospectively, but let’s apply them correctly…..we wouldn’t want to overstate things now would we??

    • pete says:

      08:00am | 02/03/10

      I would disagree, if myall creek was an isolated incident, yes it would be a massacre, but it wasnt an isolated incident. These events took place all over Australia. Take Tasmania , are you going to call that a massacre or a bit of sport. It was genocide, ethnic cleansing pure and simple. It’s not emotive, it’s tragic.  The term may not have existed before 1944, but the deed certainly did.

    • Pete from Sydney says:

      07:17am | 02/03/10

      Rob, so a term possibly invented it in 1944 can’t be retrospectively applied? Which rule of syntax says that mate?

    • stevie says:

      05:23am | 02/03/10

      Look I’m not just picking but this National Curriculum is a pale shadow to the actual curriculum we currently have in South Australia - our SACSA framework. We teach Indigenous history in depth and with sensitivity to our Primary years students and have done so for the last 25 years. The NSW Eduacation system may be in tatters but why on earth a State system like South Australia would ever want to go backwards and dumb down to this level is just beyond me.

      Have a look yourself - it is comprehensive and challenging:
      http://www.sacsa.sa.edu.au/splash.asp

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

ToryShepherd

Cheeky beers with morning papers in unexpected sunshine http://t.co/MD7VPRne

Anthony Sharwood

http://t.co/Zq0nGxkf nice pic of Thredbo this morning

Paul Colgan

@seamus yeah it's now called Smooth or Soft or Douchey Dad FM or something

Paul Colgan

It's a Sydney thing, but 95.3FM... Why? It used to be all Bohemian Rhapsody and Walk this Way; now it's Father to Son and Country Road. Wah.

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

I’d like to be able to say that sharing the world’s largest radio telescope with South Africa…

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

When North Queensland Liberal MP George Christensen got the idea of launching a new political organisation…

Please enter your password

Please enter your password

Help! I’ve succumbed to a crippling modern illness that can strike at any moment. Symptoms include:…

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