Delay of National Curriculum

Mr PYNE (Sturt) (12.09 pm) - This motion on delaying the national curriculum until January 2012 is an attempt by the opposition to help the new minister for schools.

We know that the minister for schools feels cornered by the promise that the government made to implement the national curriculum in January 2011. We know that the minister for schools feels particularly cornered because the current Prime Minister was the person who began the process for the implementation of the national curriculum in a serious way over the last three years. We know that with the record for failure of the minister for schools in respect of solar panels, the Green Loans scheme and, of course, the diabolical Home Installation Program that he does not want to fumble the ball yet again on a government program like the national curriculum.

We know that all these thoughts are coursing through the mind of the minister for schools. So the opposition has decided to reach out and provide the minister for schools with a life rope.

Mr Melham interjecting -

Mr PYNE - I am trying to help, as the member for Banks points out. It seems counterintuitive to some people that the opposition-particularly me, some people would be unkind enough to say-would try to help the minister. In the opposition, we believe that it is better for the curriculum to be right than for it to be forced into schools unready. We believe that it is better to get the national curriculum right than to get it in, and we would rather give the government an opportunity to get off this hook and delay the national curriculum until January 2012. That extra year will prove crucial in ensuring stakeholder support for the national curriculum, state government support for the national curriculum and a much better outcome for the students from reception to year 12 through the introduction of our national curriculum, which the opposition supports in principle and, of course, which we initiated when in government. The current minister for schools has picked up where the previous minister left off, but unfortunately she left him with a bugger's muddle when it comes to the national curriculum. This is an opportunity to get him out of that muddle.

You do not have to take my word for it. There are many stakeholders expressing very genuine concern about the implementation of the national curriculum. A letter to the minister in New South Wales on 22 October 2010, signed by groups such as the Australian Association for Research in Education, the Australian College of Educators, the Australian Council for Educational Leaders, the Australian Curriculum Studies Association, the Australian Education Union, the Association of Heads of Independent Schools of Australia, the Australian Primary Principals Association, the Australian Professional Teachers Association, the Australian Secondary Principals Association, the Independent Education Union of Australia, the National Education Forum, the Catholic Secondary Principals Australia and the Principals Australia Association-13 of them-said:

We believe that the timeline for the project must be extended to ensure that the Australian curriculum is as good as it can be. The timelines for all stages of the project at present are unreasonably short, and in the end this will be self-defeating. The consultation timelines do not allow enough time to provide considered, detailed feedback, and do not allow the voices of teachers and other stakeholders to be heard. The speed of the development process is contrary to what is known about the conditions for effective professional development practices and educational change. It was noted that schools require time for both evaluation of the curriculum documents after they are provided and planning for their effective implementation. This will also require an extension of the timeline.

That is point 2 of the document provided to the minister by 13 peak education organisations in October, all of them calling for the time line to be extended. This is not a group of people who you would normally find in the same room agreeing on educational policy. You would not normally get the Association of Heads of Independent Schools of Australia and Catholic Secondary Principals Australia as well as the Australian Education Union and the Independent Education Union of Australia getting together in the same room and signing up to exactly the same document without any qualification.

Nobody came out after this letter was published-not Angelo Gavrielatos, Leonie Trimper or anyone else-and said, 'We'd like to qualify our signature on that letter.' They signed that letter because they were genuinely concerned. We have comment from the president of the Mathematical Association of New South Wales, Mary Coupland, who said:

A lot of work needs to be done to make it anywhere near as good as what we have in NSW. I get a sense it is all being rushed.

Mark Howie, the president of the English Teachers Association of New South Wales, said:

A number of things create the sense that it is a backward step. It has an incoherent sense of learning.

Margaret Watts, the president of the Science Teachers Association of New South Wales, said:

We are very concerned and it may well be a step backwards.

So we have maths teachers, English teachers, science teachers and all of the peak education associations and unions in Australia begging the government to extend the timeline for the implementation of a national curriculum.

All of this has been admitted by ACARA, the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. They have accepted that there is consistent feedback highlighting overcrowding and that the draft curriculum was also found to be too difficult, inflexible and inadequate. The authority conceded that the suggested method of teaching grammar, vocabulary and spelling is out of sequence and needs revision to provide clearer and logical progression. They are still arguing over whether calculators should be used in grade 3 or in kindergarten. They are still arguing about the possibility of introducing consistent handwriting across Australia. They have identified a lack of continuity between the primary and secondary years, and language and terminology were found to be inconsistent. This is all in 26,000 submissions to the ACARA draft curriculum process, and ACARA have admitted that all of these issues need to be addressed in a very short time frame.

We know that the state governments are falling off the national curriculum faster than dags off a sheep, if I can put it that way. There is only one state-South Australia-that is in support of the introduction of a national curriculum in January 2011.

Mr Melham - Your home state.

Mr PYNE - My home state, led by probably the most hopeless Labor government in Australia-and that is saying something, because the member for Banks is from New South Wales. Even he must admit that the New South Wales Labor government is close to being the worst government in Australia, but the South Australian government is giving it a good run for its money. But I do not wish to be distracted.

Only one state has signed on to the national curriculum in January 2011. New South Wales has indicated, in September, that there will be no expectation of any classroom implementation for 2011. The Northern Territory has said that 2011 will be identified as a pilot phase, and senior secondary courses will not be implemented in the Northern Territory before 2014. Queensland has said that schools will implement the Australian curriculum in English, mathematics and science in 2012 and in history in 2013. Tasmania has given no indication of a time to start the national curriculum. Victoria has indicated that it is expected that the new Australian curriculum for English, mathematics, science and history will be introduced in all Victorian schools in 2012 and, in years 11 and 12, in 2013 and 2014. In Western Australia they have recently announced that 2011 will be regarded as a time to familiarise themselves, but substantial implementation will not occur until 2013.

So the stakeholders are against it. The state governments are not supporting it. There is no money set aside by this government for implementation of the national curriculum in terms of teacher training or teacher support. At least the coalition, recognising the failure of the government, announced that if we won the election we would put $20 million into the implementation of the national curriculum to train teachers. Of course, we won the election but lost the negotiation. As a consequence, that $20 million will not be provided. I could talk at great length about the coalition's concerns about things like the cross-curriculum perspectives, but suffice to say we are reaching out to the government to give them an opportunity to get themselves off the hook, and I hope they will grasp it.