Hi.I've more supporting documents such as additional readings (articles), marking rubric and a sample of complete assessment. Referencing style is APA 6th and have provided text books to quote from.
thank you
someTitle WHAT IS CURRICULUM? Brad Gobby Introduction Often it’s the seemingly simplest of words that turn out to be the most complex. ‘Curriculum’ is a case in point. This chapter challenges commonsense understandings of curriculum as a plan of content to be taught to learners. It outlines six different uses of the term in the � eld of education, although the six described do not make up a comprehensive list of its meanings and uses. The chapter encourages you to think of curriculum as the lived experience of learners in an educational setting, and to recognise that social, cultural and political forces in� uence the curriculum experiences of learners. KEY TERMS curriculum experiences culture economic inequality enacted curriculum emergent curriculum funds of knowledge hidden curriculum intended curriculum lived curriculum null curriculum pedagogy politics society 1 5 01_GOB_POC_03709_TXT_SI.indd 5 26/06/2017 4:51 PM Gobby, Brad, and Rebecca Walker. Powers of Curriculum ebook : Sociological Perspectives on Education, OUPANZ, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/curtin/detail.action?docID=5199526. Created from curtin on 2018-06-20 21:35:21. C op yr ig ht © 2 01 7. O U P A N Z . A ll rig ht s re se rv ed . CONTESTING CURRICULUM In February 2016, an Australian Federal Government- funded toolkit of learning resources produced by the Safe Schools Coalition became the object of a political furore. The premise for creating the resources was that many students in schools are same- sex attracted, transgender, gender diverse, or born with characteristics that do not �t with the medical norms of male or female bodies (intersex), and these students experience hardship in school (the respectful acronym used to refer to this group is LGBTIQ— lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer). The Safe Schools learning resources were designed for primary and secondary school students by the Safe Schools Coalition, a group of organisations and schools working toward promoting safe and inclusive school environments for LGBTIQ students, staff and families. The program, which schools voluntarily opted into, was developed in consultation with schools and students. It consisted of lesson plans and curriculum resources created by the Coalition; however, it emphasised that principals and teachers must make their own professional judgments about how to use the resources in their school settings. To many, this program was a long time coming. Statistics show that most LGBTIQ students feel unsafe and vulnerable at school. A report for the Western Australian Equal Opportunity Commissioner (Jones, 2012) noted that 80 per cent of LGBTIQ students experienced abuse at school. It also reported that because of prejudice, 61 per cent of LGBTIQ students experienced verbal abuse, 18 per cent reported physical abuse, and 69 per cent reported other forms of bullying. In Western Australia, despite 94 per cent of students reporting they had some form of sexuality education (e.g. with a focus on puberty and procreation), only 12 per cent reported they were taught that homophobia is wrong. Further, 82 per cent of LGBTIQ students did not classify their schools as supportive, and 44 per cent considered their schools to be actively homophobic. Jones and Hillier (2012) observe that narrow understandings of gender and sexuality pervade schools, such that: ‘For some, the message that their sexual or gender identity is something to be ashamed of, and even physically beaten out of them, is a poignant form of school sexuality education beyond “of�cial” lessons’ (p. 439). These experiences, where ‘being normal is the only way to be’, are con�rmed elsewhere (see e.g. Martino & Pallotta- Chiarolli, 2005; Robinson, Bansel, Denson, Ovenden & Davies, 2014). Although these statistics are a cause for concern, a promising �nding of the research is that schools that had explicit anti- homophobia policies to protect LGBTIQ students had a higher number of LGBTIQ students report that their schools offered a supportive school environment (Jones, 2012; Jones & Hillier, 2012). In other words, actively naming and addressing sexuality- based discrimination makes a positive difference to the experiences of these children and young people, like naming and addressing racial, cultural and religious prejudice. Given these facts, the Safe Schools program sought to address the bullying and discrimination experienced in schools by LGBTIQ students. In fact, it was considered so worthwhile by educators working in schools that 526 schools voluntarily signed up to participate in the program. What appeared to be worthwhile and important resources for many working in schools raised the hackles of some conservative government politicians in Canberra. Reminiscent 6 PART 1: UNDERSTANDING CURRICULUM 01_GOB_POC_03709_TXT_SI.indd 6 26/06/2017 4:51 PM Gobby, Brad, and Rebecca Walker. Powers of Curriculum ebook : Sociological Perspectives on Education, OUPANZ, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/curtin/detail.action?docID=5199526. Created from curtin on 2018-06-20 21:35:21. C op yr ig ht © 2 01 7. O U P A N Z . A ll rig ht s re se rv ed . Brad Gobby of the moral panic that followed the harmless depiction of a same- sex couple with children as an ordinary family on the ABC’s children’s television program Play School in 2004 (Taylor, 2007), many conservative politicians and media commentators reacted angrily to the Safe Schools resources. They demanded the Safe Schools Coalition be de- funded. One conservative politician said: ‘Our schools should be places of learning, not indoctrination’ (Anderson, 2016). The program’s opponents, most of whom have had no direct experience of schooling other than being a student many decades ago, claimed the curriculum material was age- inappropriate. That is to say, they considered that by talking about gender and sexuality, innocent children were being sexualised and brainwashed into socially inappropriate ways of thinking (i.e. that gender and sexuality is complex). (See Gay Alcorn’s ‘The reality of Safe Schools’ (2016) for more information about the program and reactions to it.) In response to the upheaval by his backbench, on 26 February 2016 the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, ordered an independent review into the program. The Review of appropriateness and ef�cacy of the Safe Schools Coalition Australia program resources (Louden, 2016) was conducted by respected Professor Bill Louden. Completed on 11 March 2016, the review found that, while a few resources were not entirely appropriate for some students, the program itself was appropriate. It also found that the resources aligned with the program’s objectives and would increase support for and reduce prejudice against LGBTIQ students. Despite this, the enraged backbenchers who instigated the Prime Minister’s review would not let go of the issue. They rejected the review’s conclusions and challenged the Prime Minister to do more. On 18 March 2016, ironically the sixth Annual National Day of Action Against Bullying and Violence, the Prime Minister intervened again by announcing the program would be dramatically changed beyond the recommendations of Louden’s review. Fronting the media, the Federal Education Minister, Simon Birmingham, announced changes to the program that included restricting involvement to secondary schools, restricting some resources to counselling sessions, editing the lesson plans and requiring parents’ consent for their children to participate. Birmingham said that ‘parents should have con�dence in what is taught … especially about potentially contentious issues … “Parents should have a right to withdraw their child from classes dealing with such matters”’ (‘Government reveals changes to controversial Safe Schools program’, 2016). But who decides what a ‘contentious issue’ is? Given the response of others to the Safe Schools program, it is clear that what is controversial and contentious to some is common sense to others. Stephen Dawson, the Federal Labor Party’s spokesperson for mental health, reacted to the changes with: ‘What people seem to forget is that this program is there because it is needed. The reality is that many young people are still bullied because of their sexuality or their gender at school’ (Hill, 2016). Greens Senator Robert Simms addressed the fears of the program’s critics: ‘Opposition to the Safe Schools Coalition seems to be based on the absurd idea that simply by talking about differences in sexuality or gender identity you’re going to recruit people. Anyone with the most basic understanding of human sexuality knows how ridiculous that is’ (Medhora, 2016). The Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews, whose state �rst developed the program in 2010, posted this comment to 7 CHAPTER 1: WHAT IS CURRICULUM? 01_GOB_POC_03709_TXT_SI.indd 7 26/06/2017 4:51 PM Gobby, Brad, and Rebecca Walker. Powers of Curriculum ebook : Sociological Perspectives on Education, OUPANZ, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/curtin/detail.action?docID=5199526. Created from curtin on 2018-06-20 21:35:21. C op yr ig ht © 2 01 7. O U P A N Z . A ll rig ht s re se rv ed . social media: ‘Let’s be honest here: I don’t think these extreme Liberals are actually offended by the structure of the program, or the teachers who lead it. I just think they’re offended by the kids who need it’ (Anderson, 2016). Academic Victoria Rawlings criticised the moral panic surrounding the resources. She observed that ‘young people are exposed to a vast amount of content and navigate this in various ways in their day- to- day lives’ and that the political reactions to the program suggest ‘there is something particularly deviant or worrying about diverse sexual identities or gender identities’ (Rawlings, 2016). So, where some people perceived the program as a threat, others saw a program geared towards inclusivity. The extraordinary response to the Safe Schools resources re�ects the ongoing struggle for power over curriculum. Such incidences are not isolated. Another stark example of this struggle is the recent review of the Australian Curriculum. After years of consultation, with its implementation only just commencing, the Australian Curriculum was subject to an independent review following the Liberal– National Party Coalition victory at the 2014 federal election. The new Federal Education Minister,