Curriculum Perspectives

, Volume 38, Issue 1, pp 69–72 | Cite as

Conditions for broad-based curriculum scholarship: reflections on Victorian infrastructure for supporting curriculum workers in the 1970s and 1980s

  • Marie Brennan
Point and counterpoint

Teachers as curriculum inquirers

As the core practitioners of curriculum, teachers’ scholarship must be a central concern for any effort to regenerate curriculum inquiry. Yet the current state of curriculum in Australia tends to position teachers as mere implementers of curriculum decided elsewhere, and as needing to comply with already determined ‘standards’, responsible for student outcomes against accountability frameworks. There is little official space for most teachers to innovate, or even for whole-school innovation in curriculum, given performance-management criteria and the focus on requirements for improvement on NAPLAN scores, especially in lower-achieving schools. This does not mean that individual teachers haven’t stopped analysing their work and that of their students, nor that some schools have built significant professional learning communities to shape curriculum, including assessment and pedagogy. It does mean, however, that these tend now to be exceptions rather than...


  1. Boomer, G. (1982). Negotiating the curriculum. Sydney: Ashton Scholastic.Google Scholar
  2. Boomer, G. (1999). Curriculum and teaching in Australian schools 1960–1990: a tale of two epistemologies. In B. Green (Ed.), Designs on learning: essays on curriculum and teaching by Garth Boomer (pp. 127–146). Canberra: Australian Curriculum Studies Association.Google Scholar
  3. Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge: Belkapp Press.Google Scholar
  4. Ford Teaching Project. (1974). Implementing the principles of inquiry/discovery teaching. Norwich: Ford Teaching Project Publications, University of East Anglia.Google Scholar
  5. Fordham, R. (1984). Ministerial Paper 6: curriculum development and planning in Victoria. Melbourne: Victorian Government Printing Service.Google Scholar
  6. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: selected interviews and other writings by Michel Foucault, 1972–1975 (pp. 109–133). (Ed. & Trans. by Colin Gordon). New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  7. Green, B. (2003). Curriculum inquiry in Australia: towards a local genealogy of the curriculum field. In W. Pinar (Ed.), Handbook of international curriculum research (pp. 123–141). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Grundy, S. (1987). Curriculum: product or praxis? London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  9. Kemmis & McTaggart. (1988). The action research planner (3rd ed.). Waurn Ponds: Deakin University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Seddon, T. (2001). National Curriculum in Australia? A matter of politics, powerful knowledge and the regulation of learning. Pedagogy Culture and Society, 9(3), 307–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum development and research. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  12. Yates, L., Collins, C., & O’Connor, K. (Eds.). (2011). Australia’s curriculum dilemmas: state cultures and the big issues. Carlton, Vic: Melbourne University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Australian Curriculum Studies Association 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Stellenbosch UniversityStellenboschSouth Africa
  2. 2.University of South AustraliaAdelaideSouth Australia

Personalised recommendations