C0924
Klaim
“Menulis ulang kurikulum sekolah untuk membuatnya lebih sayap kanan. Kurikulum sebelumnya dikembangkan selama bertahun-tahun dengan konsultasi yang ekstensif. Kurikulum baru ditulis oleh dua orang. Satu orang berpikir 'abos' adalah 'tempat sampah manusia', menyebut korban serangan seksual sebagai 'pelacur tak berharga', dan mengeluh bahwa Australia memiliki terlalu banyak 'mussies' dan 'chinky-poos'. Orang lain mempertanyakan apakah migran dan wanita dirugikan, dan menyarankan bahwa homoseksualitas adalah 'tidak alami'.”
Sumber Asli: Matthew Davis
Dianalisis: 3 Feb 2026
Sumber Asli
✅ VERIFIKASI FAKTA
**Klaim Inti: Koalisi "menulis ulang kurikulum sekolah untuk membuatnya lebih sayap kanan"** Klaim ini mengandung kesalahan faktual yang signifikan dan penggabungan mengenai Review Kurikulum Australia 2014. **Struktur review BUKAN "dua orang" yang menulis kurikulum:** Review kurikulum yang diumumkan oleh Menteri Pendidikan Christopher Pyne pada Januari 2014 dipimpin oleh dua reviewer utama - Professor Ken Wiltshire AO dan Dr Kevin Donnelly - yang mengawasi proses tersebut [1].
**Core Claim: The Coalition "rewrote the school curriculum to make it more right wing"**
The claim contains significant factual errors and conflations regarding the 2014 Australian Curriculum Review.
**The review structure was NOT "two people" writing the curriculum:**
The curriculum review announced by Education Minister Christopher Pyne in January 2014 was led by two principal reviewers - Professor Ken Wiltshire AO and Dr Kevin Donnelly - who oversaw the process [1].
Namun, mereka didukung oleh **15 ahli spesialis bidang** (bukan "dua orang") yang memberikan masukan detail pada area kurikulum tertentu [2]. However, they were supported by **15 subject specialist experts** (not "two people") who provided detailed input on specific curriculum areas [2].
Para ahli bidang ini termasuk akademisi dari berbagai universitas yang meninjau disiplin ilmu tertentu seperti Bahasa Inggris, matematika, sains, dan sejarah. **Komentar rasis BUKAN dibuat oleh salah satu dari dua reviewer utama:** Komentar inflamasi yang dirujuk dalam klaim - termasuk "abos," "tempat sampah manusia," "mussies," "chinky-poos," dan menyebut korban serangan seksual sebagai "pelacur tak berharga" - dibuat oleh **Professor Barry Spurr**, seorang profesor puisi di University of Sydney yang menjadi salah satu dari 15 konsultan spesialis bidang (secara spesifik meninjau kurikulum Bahasa Inggris), BUKAN oleh salah satu dari dua reviewer utama (Donnelly atau Wiltshire) [3][4]. These subject experts included academics from various universities reviewing specific disciplines like English, mathematics, science, and history.
**The racist comments were NOT made by either of the two principal reviewers:**
The inflammatory comments referenced in the claim - including "abos," "human rubbish tips," "mussies," "chinky-poos," and calling a sexual assault victim a "worthless slut" - were made by **Professor Barry Spurr**, a University of Sydney poetry professor who was one of the 15 subject specialist consultants (specifically reviewing English curriculum), NOT by either of the two principal reviewers (Donnelly or Wiltshire) [3][4].
Spurr ditangguhkan dari tugas akademis setelah email yang berisi pernyataan-pernyataan ini bocor oleh New Matilda pada Oktober 2014 [3]. Spurr was suspended from academic duties after emails containing these remarks were leaked by New Matilda in October 2014 [3].
Spurr mengklaim email-email tersebut adalah bagian dari "permainan linguistik iseng" dan "percakapan yang dibuat-buat untuk mengejutkan" yang tidak mencerminkan pandangan sebenarnya [4]. **Komentar homoseksualitas "tidak alami" dibuat oleh Donnelly, tetapi klaim mengatribusikan komentar lain dengan keliru:** Kevin Donnelly memang menulis dalam bukunya tahun 2004 "Why Our Schools Are Failing" bahwa "banyak orang tua akan menganggap praktik seksual gay, lesbian, dan individu transgender decidedly unnatural" [5]. Spurr claimed the emails were part of a "whimsical linguistic game" and "mock-shocking repartee" not reflective of his actual views [4].
**The "unnatural" homosexuality comment was made by Donnelly, but the claim misattributes other comments:**
Kevin Donnelly did write in his 2004 book "Why Our Schools Are Failing" that "many parents would consider the sexual practices of gays, lesbians and transgender individuals decidedly unnatural" [5].
Namun, Donnelly TIDAK membuat komentar rasis yang diatribusikan kepada "satu" dari dua orang dalam klaim tersebut - itu adalah komentar Spurr. **Tidak ada bukti ditemukan untuk komentar Wiltshire:** Penelitian tidak membuktikan klaim bahwa Ken Wiltshire "mempertanyakan apakah migran dan wanita dirugikan." Tidak ditemukan sumber kredibel yang mengatribusikan pandangan spesifik ini kepada Wiltshire. However, Donnelly did NOT make the racist comments attributed to "one" of the two people in the claim - those were Spurr's.
**No evidence found for Wiltshire comments:**
Research did not substantiate the claim that Ken Wiltshire "questioned whether migrants and women are disadvantaged." No credible sources were found attributing these specific views to Wiltshire.
Konteks yang Hilang
**Review adalah review, bukan penulisan ulang sepihak:** Review Kurikulum Australia 2014 ditugaskan untuk mengevaluasi kurikulum yang ada, bukan untuk menulis ulang secara sepihak [6].
**The review was a review, not a unilateral rewrite:**
The 2014 Review of the Australian Curriculum was commissioned to evaluate the existing curriculum, not to unilaterally rewrite it [6].
Laporan akhir memberikan rekomendasi kepada Menteri Pendidikan Pyne, yang kemudian perlu bernegosiasi dengan pemerintah negara bagian dan teritori untuk implementasi. The final report made recommendations to Education Minister Pyne, who then needed to negotiate with state and territory governments for implementation.
Pendidikan di Australia adalah tanggung jawab negara bagian/teritori berdasarkan Konstitusi - pemerintah federal tidak dapat memaksakan perubahan kurikulum secara sepihak. **Klaim konsultasi berlaku dua arah:** Klaim menyatakan "kurikulum sebelumnya dikembangkan selama bertahun-tahun dengan konsultasi yang ekstensif." Ini akurat - ACARA mencatat kurikulum tersebut "mempertimbangkan ribuan opini - dari guru, akademisi, dan orang tua hingga kelompok bisnis, industri, dan masyarakat" selama pengembangannya dari 2008-2013 di bawah Labor [7]. Education in Australia is a state/territory responsibility under the Constitution - the federal government cannot unilaterally impose curriculum changes.
**The consultation claim cuts both ways:**
The claim states the "previous curriculum was developed over many years with extensive consultation." This is accurate - ACARA notes the curriculum "considered thousands of opinions - from teachers, academics and parents to business, industry and community groups" during its development from 2008-2013 under Labor [7].
Namun, review Koalisi 2014 juga melakukan konsultasi, termasuk menerima masukan publik dan berkonsultasi dengan pemerintah negara bagian dan teritori [8]. However, the 2014 Coalition review also conducted consultation, including accepting public submissions and consulting with state and territory governments [8].
Klaim mengabaikan bahwa kedua proses melibatkan konsultasi. **Review dirilis sebelum implementasi penuh:** Klaim menyiratkan kurikulum sedang "ditulis ulang" setelah selesai. The claim omits that both processes involved consultation.
**The review was released before full implementation:**
The claim implies the curriculum was being "rewritten" after completion.
Namun, review dilakukan pada 2014 sebelum kurikulum nasional sepenuhnya diimplementasikan di semua negara bagian dan teritori [1]. However, the review was conducted in 2014 before the national curriculum had been fully implemented in all states and territories [1].
Kurikulum masih dalam tahap peluncuran, membuat waktu review dinilai prematur oleh kelompok guru dan orang tua, bukan bukti penghancuran produk yang sudah selesai. **Rationale Pyne untuk review:** Menteri Pyne berargumen review diperlukan karena performa siswa dalam literasi, numerasi, matematika, dan sains telah "menurun atau stagnan" dan kurikulum terlalu preskriptif - digambarkan sebagai "buku telepon" dibandingkan kurikulum 15-20 halaman di negara-negara berperforma tinggi seperti Singapura atau Finlandia [8]. The curriculum was still in the rollout phase, making the timing of the review premature according to teacher and parent groups, rather than evidence of destroying a completed product.
**Pyne's stated rationale for the review:**
Minister Pyne argued the review was necessary because student performance in literacy, numeracy, mathematics and science had been "declining or flatlining" and the curriculum was overly prescriptive - described as a "telephone book" compared to 15-20 page curricula in higher-performing countries like Singapore or Finland [8].
Penilaian Kredibilitas Sumber
**Sumber asli yang disediakan:** 1. **Star Observer** - Surat kabar komunitas LGBTQ+.
**The original sources provided:**
1. **Star Observer** - An LGBTQ+ community newspaper.
Artikel tersebut mengangkat kekhawatiran yang sah dari kelompok LGBTQ+ tentang review kurikulum, tetapi mewakili perspektif advokasi komunitas daripada pelaporan netral. 2. **The Guardian Australia** - Outlet berita arus utama dengan editorial stance center-left. The article raises legitimate concerns from LGBTQ+ groups about the curriculum review, but represents community advocacy perspectives rather than neutral reporting.
2. **The Guardian Australia** - A mainstream news outlet with center-left editorial stance.
Secara umum kredibel untuk pelaporan faktual, meskipun liputan isu ini kritis terhadap pemerintahan Koalisi. 3. **The AIMN (Australian Independent Media Network)** - Situs media progresif/alternatif. Generally credible for factual reporting, though coverage of this issue was critical of the Coalition government.
3. **The AIMN (Australian Independent Media Network)** - A progressive/alternative media site.
Artikel tampak partisan, membingkai review sebagai "menulis ulang sejarah" dan menggunakan istilah yang bermuatan "propaganda." **Peran New Matilda:** Sumber yang menerbitkan email Spurr (New Matilda) adalah outlet progresif independen. The article appears partisan, framing the review as "rewriting history" and using the loaded term "propaganda."
**New Matilda's role:**
The source that published the Spurr emails (New Matilda) is an independent progressive outlet.
Meskipun email tersebut diautentikasi oleh sumber University of Sydney, publikasi berasal dari sumber yang jelas partisan [4]. While the emails were authenticated by University of Sydney sources, the publication came from a clearly partisan source [4].
⚖️
Perbandingan Labor
**Apakah Labor mengembangkan kurikulum secara berbeda?** Kurikulum Australia diinisiasi di bawah pemerintahan Labor Rudd-Gillard (2008-2013) setelah pemilihan 2007 [7].
**Did Labor develop curriculum differently?**
The Australian Curriculum was initiated under the Rudd-Gillard Labor government (2008-2013) following the 2007 election [7].
Proses pengembangannya: - Dipimpin oleh ACARA, sebuah otoritas statutory yang dibuat oleh Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority Act 2008 [9] - Melibatkan konsultasi ekstensif dengan ribuh stakeholder [7] - Memerlukan persetujuan negara bagian dan teritori (karena pendidikan secara konstitusional adalah tanggung jawab negara bagian) - Tidak bebas dari kontroversi - Australian Education Union dan beberapa kelompok orang tua telah mengangkat kekhawatiran tentang jadwal implementasi dan pendanaan **Review Koalisi adalah respons politis, bukan unik:** Review kurikulum adalah bagian normal dari tata kelola pendidikan. The development process:
- Was led by ACARA, a statutory authority created by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority Act 2008 [9]
- Involved extensive consultation with thousands of stakeholders [7]
- Required state and territory agreement (as education is constitutionally a state responsibility)
- Was not without controversy - the Australian Education Union and some parent groups had raised concerns about implementation timelines and resourcing
**The Coalition review was a political response, not unique:**
Curriculum reviews are a normal part of education governance.
Review Koalisi 2014 dimotivasi secara politik - Pyne secara eksplisit ingin meneliti apakah kurikulum memiliki "bias sayap kiri" dan fokus yang tidak cukup pada peradaban Barat [1]. The Coalition's 2014 review was politically motivated - Pyne explicitly wanted to examine whether the curriculum had "left-wing bias" and insufficient focus on Western civilization [1].
Namun, pemerintah yang baru menjabat yang meninjau atau memodifikasi kebijakan yang dikembangkan oleh pendahulunya adalah praktik standar di seluruh spektrum politik. However, incoming governments reviewing or modifying policies developed by predecessors is standard practice across the political spectrum.
Pemerintahan Labor secara serupa telah menugaskan review berbagai inisiatif pendidikan pemerintahan Koalisi. Labor governments have similarly commissioned reviews of education policies established by Coalition governments.
Misalnya, Labor menugaskan review berbagai inisiatif pendidikan pemerintahan Howard ketika berkuasa pada 2007. **Konteks komparatif:** Klaim membingkai review sebagai unik bermasalah karena individu yang terlibat. For example, Labor commissioned reviews of various Howard government education initiatives when it came to power in 2007.
**Comparative context:**
The claim frames the review as uniquely problematic because of the individuals involved.
Namun, kontroversi sebenarnya adalah: 1. **Waktu** - Review dimulai sebelum implementasi kurikulum penuh (dikritik oleh pendidik sebagai mengganggu) 2. **Bias ideologis yang dirasakan** - Reviewer (Donnelly dan Wiltshire) adalah kritikus konservatif yang dikenal dari kurikulum yang ada 3. **Revelasi Spurr berikutnya** - Email rasis muncul berbulan-bulan setelah review diumumkan, menimbulkan pertanyaan tentang pemeriksaan latar belakang ahli bidang However, the actual controversy was:
1. **Timing** - The review began before full curriculum implementation (criticized by educators as disruptive)
2. **Perceived ideological bias** - The reviewers (Donnelly and Wiltshire) were known conservative critics of the existing curriculum
3. **Subsequent Spurr revelations** - The racist emails emerged months after the review was announced, raising questions about vetting of subject experts
🌐
Perspektif Seimbang
**Kritik yang sah atas proses review:** - Penunjukan Donnelly dan Wiltshire memiliki muatan politik, mengingat keduanya telah secara publik mengkritik kurikulum nasional dan terkait dengan pandangan pendidikan konservatif [10][11] - Ahli bidang yang dipilih oleh Donnelly dan Wiltshire mencakup beberapa tokoh dengan hubungan partai Koalisi dan koneksi ke think tank sayap kanan (IPA, CIS, Menzies Research Centre) [2] - Hanya satu dari 15 ahli bidang yang berasal dari sektor sekolah publik (satu berasal dari pemilihan Pyne sendiri), sementara empat dari sekolah swasta dan tiga dari pendidikan Katolik [2] - Skandal email Barry Spurr mengungkapkan kekurangan serius dalam proses pemeriksaan latar belakang ahli bidang **Pembelaan yang sah atas review:** - Review adalah proses pemerintahan standar - pemerintah baru secara rutin meninjau kebijakan pendahulu - Reviewer utama (Donnelly dan Wiltshire) memiliki kredensial akademis yang relevan - Donnelly memiliki PhD dalam studi kurikulum dan 18 tahun pengalaman mengajar; Wiltshire adalah profesor di University of Queensland yang sebelumnya telah meninjau kurikulum Queensland di bawah pemerintahan Labor [10][11] - Review tidak "menulis ulang" kurikulum secara sepihak - memberikan rekomendasi yang memerlukan persetujuan negara bagian/teritori - Komentar rasis yang menjadi pusat klaim dibuat oleh konsultan ahli bidang (Spurr), bukan reviewer utama, dan baru muncul ke permukaan berbulan-bulan setelah review ditugaskan **Perbedaan kunci:** Klaim menggabungkan: 1.
**Legitimate criticisms of the review process:**
- The appointment of Donnelly and Wiltshire was politically charged, given both had publicly criticized the national curriculum and were associated with conservative education viewpoints [10][11]
- The subject experts selected by Donnelly and Wiltshire included several with Coalition party links and connections to right-wing think tanks (IPA, CIS, Menzies Research Centre) [2]
- Only one of the 15 subject experts was from the public school sector (one was from Pyne's own electorate), while four were from private schools and three from Catholic education [2]
- The Barry Spurr email scandal revealed serious flaws in the vetting process for subject experts
**Legitimate defense of the review:**
- The review was a standard government process - new governments routinely review predecessor policies
- The principal reviewers (Donnelly and Wiltshire) had relevant academic credentials - Donnelly had a PhD in curriculum studies and 18 years teaching experience; Wiltshire was a professor at University of Queensland who had previously reviewed Queensland's curriculum under a Labor government [10][11]
- The review did not unilaterally "rewrite" curriculum - it made recommendations that required state/territory agreement
- The racist comments at the center of the claim were made by a subject expert consultant (Spurr), not the principal reviewers, and only came to light months after the review was commissioned
**Key distinction:**
The claim conflates:
1.
Barry Spurr (konsultan ahli bidang yang membuat komentar rasis) 2. Barry Spurr (subject expert consultant who made racist comments)
2.
Kevin Donnelly (reviewer utama yang membuat komentar kontroversial tentang homoseksualitas dalam buku 2004) 3. Kevin Donnelly (principal reviewer who made controversial comments about homosexuality in a 2004 book)
3.
Ken Wiltshire (reviewer utama dengan pandangan konservatif tetapi tidak ada bukti dokumentasi komentar spesifik yang diatribusikan kepadanya) Ini menciptakan kesan yang menyesatkan bahwa dua orang sedang "menulis kurikulum" dan keduanya memegang pandangan ekstrem ini, ketika kenyataannya lebih kompleks. Ken Wiltshire (principal reviewer with conservative views but no documented evidence of the specific comments attributed to him)
This creates a misleading impression that two people were "writing the curriculum" and both held these extreme views, when the reality was more complex.
MENYESATKAN
4.0
/ 10
Klaim salah menggambarkan sifat, ruang lingkup, dan personel review kurikulum 2014 dalam beberapa cara signifikan: 1. **Penggabungan personel**: Komentar rasis inflamasi dibuat oleh Professor Barry Spurr (salah satu dari 15 konsultan ahli bidang), BUKAN oleh salah satu dari dua reviewer utama (Donnelly dan Wiltshire).
The claim misrepresents the nature, scope, and personnel of the 2014 curriculum review in several significant ways:
1. **Personnel conflation**: The inflammatory racist comments were made by Professor Barry Spurr (one of 15 subject expert consultants), NOT by either of the two principal reviewers (Donnelly and Wiltshire).
Klaim menggabungkan mereka menjadi "satu" dari "dua orang" yang menulis kurikulum. 2. **Kesalahan faktual pada struktur review**: Review melibatkan dua reviewer utama yang mengawasi 15 ahli bidang - bukan "dua orang" yang menulis kurikulum sendirian. 3. **Atribusi tidak terverifikasi**: Tidak ditemukan bukti bahwa Ken Wiltshire mempertanyakan apakah migran dan wanita dirugikan. 4. **Oversimplifikasi proses**: Review adalah proses pembuatan rekomendasi, bukan "penulisan ulang" sepihak. The claim conflates them into "one" of "two people" writing the curriculum.
2. **Factual error on review structure**: The review involved two principal reviewers overseeing 15 subject experts - not "two people" writing the curriculum alone.
3. **Unverified attribution**: No evidence was found that Ken Wiltshire questioned whether migrants and women are disadvantaged.
4. **Oversimplified process**: The review was a recommendation-making process, not a unilateral "rewrite." The federal government cannot unilaterally impose curriculum changes - implementation requires state/territory agreement.
5. **Missing context**: The claim omits that the review was conducted before full curriculum implementation, that both curriculum development and the review involved consultation, and that governments routinely review predecessor policies.
Pemerintah federal tidak dapat memaksakan perubahan kurikulum secara sepihak - implementasi memerlukan persetujuan negara bagian/teritori. 5. **Konteks yang hilang**: Klaim mengabaikan bahwa review dilakukan sebelum implementasi kurikulum penuh, bahwa pengembangan kurikulum dan review keduanya melibatkan konsultasi, dan bahwa pemerintah secara rutin meninjau kebijakan pendahulu. While there were legitimate concerns about the partisan nature of the review appointments and the subsequent Spurr email scandal, the claim's factual errors and conflations present a misleading picture of what occurred.
Meskipun ada kekhawatiran yang sah mengenai sifat partisan dari penunjukan review dan skandal email Spurr yang terjadi kemudian, kesalahan faktual dan penggabungan dalam klaim memberikan gambaran yang menyesatkan tentang apa yang terjadi. Skor Akhir
4.0
/ 10
MENYESATKAN
Klaim salah menggambarkan sifat, ruang lingkup, dan personel review kurikulum 2014 dalam beberapa cara signifikan: 1. **Penggabungan personel**: Komentar rasis inflamasi dibuat oleh Professor Barry Spurr (salah satu dari 15 konsultan ahli bidang), BUKAN oleh salah satu dari dua reviewer utama (Donnelly dan Wiltshire).
The claim misrepresents the nature, scope, and personnel of the 2014 curriculum review in several significant ways:
1. **Personnel conflation**: The inflammatory racist comments were made by Professor Barry Spurr (one of 15 subject expert consultants), NOT by either of the two principal reviewers (Donnelly and Wiltshire).
Klaim menggabungkan mereka menjadi "satu" dari "dua orang" yang menulis kurikulum. 2. **Kesalahan faktual pada struktur review**: Review melibatkan dua reviewer utama yang mengawasi 15 ahli bidang - bukan "dua orang" yang menulis kurikulum sendirian. 3. **Atribusi tidak terverifikasi**: Tidak ditemukan bukti bahwa Ken Wiltshire mempertanyakan apakah migran dan wanita dirugikan. 4. **Oversimplifikasi proses**: Review adalah proses pembuatan rekomendasi, bukan "penulisan ulang" sepihak. The claim conflates them into "one" of "two people" writing the curriculum.
2. **Factual error on review structure**: The review involved two principal reviewers overseeing 15 subject experts - not "two people" writing the curriculum alone.
3. **Unverified attribution**: No evidence was found that Ken Wiltshire questioned whether migrants and women are disadvantaged.
4. **Oversimplified process**: The review was a recommendation-making process, not a unilateral "rewrite." The federal government cannot unilaterally impose curriculum changes - implementation requires state/territory agreement.
5. **Missing context**: The claim omits that the review was conducted before full curriculum implementation, that both curriculum development and the review involved consultation, and that governments routinely review predecessor policies.
Pemerintah federal tidak dapat memaksakan perubahan kurikulum secara sepihak - implementasi memerlukan persetujuan negara bagian/teritori. 5. **Konteks yang hilang**: Klaim mengabaikan bahwa review dilakukan sebelum implementasi kurikulum penuh, bahwa pengembangan kurikulum dan review keduanya melibatkan konsultasi, dan bahwa pemerintah secara rutin meninjau kebijakan pendahulu. While there were legitimate concerns about the partisan nature of the review appointments and the subsequent Spurr email scandal, the claim's factual errors and conflations present a misleading picture of what occurred.
Meskipun ada kekhawatiran yang sah mengenai sifat partisan dari penunjukan review dan skandal email Spurr yang terjadi kemudian, kesalahan faktual dan penggabungan dalam klaim memberikan gambaran yang menyesatkan tentang apa yang terjadi. 📚 SUMBER DAN KUTIPAN (11)
-
1
School curriculum review panellist Kevin Donnelly hits back at critics
Conservative education commentator Kevin Donnelly claims he is one of the best people for the job after 'vitriolic attack' on his credentials
the Guardian -
2
Questions over curriculum experts' links to Coalition
The subject experts appointed to the Abbott government's national curriculum review included several figures with close Coalition links who were chosen without any scrutiny from education officials.
The Sydney Morning Herald -
3
Professor Barry Spurr suspended by University of Sydney after racist emails
Professor Barry Spurr is under pressure to resign from his position at the University of Sydney, after referring to people as "Abos",  "bogans", "fatsoes", "Mussies" and "Chinky-Poos" in a series of leaked emails.
The Sydney Morning Herald -
4
Curriculum Reviewer Barry Spurr Mocks 'Abos, Mussies, Women, Chinky-Poos'
A University of Sydney Professor – employed by the federal government as a specialist consultant to review the national English curriculum – has described the Prime Minister as an “Abo lover” while at the same time advising the government to focus less on teaching Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander literature in our nation’s schools, andMore
New Matilda -
5
Leave sex lessons to straight teachers, writes Pyne's reviewer
Kevin Donnelly, chosen to review the national school curriculum, says many parents believe the sexual practices of gays, lesbians and transgender individuals are ''decidedly unnatural'' and has questioned whether students ought to learn about such relationships at school.
The Sydney Morning Herald -
6PDF
Review of the Australian Curriculum - Final Report
F000 Backblazeb2 • PDF DocumentOriginal link no longer available -
7
Development of the Australian Curriculum
Development of the Australian Curriculum -
8
National curriculum review premature, say parents and teachers
Lead writer of the history curriculum rejects claims of leftwing bias, saying it was refined through an 'exhaustingly consultative' process
the Guardian -
9
National Curriculum and Federalism: The Australian Experience
Whilst the past 35 years have seen numerous attempts at national curriculum collaboration in Australia, these have invariably failed largely due to the constitutional reality that the States have responsibility for curriculum. Federal government involvement in curriculum can only be achieved, therefore, with the consent of the States. To achieve this, in 2008 the Rudd Federal government passed the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) Act (2008) which legislated the establishment of ACARA, a national education authority which brought together, for the first time "the functions of curriculum, assessment and reporting at the national level" (Julia Gillard, media release, 2008). Among its mandates, ACARA is responsible for the development of national curriculum, one of the key election platforms on which the current Rudd Federal Labor government was elected in November 2007. Whilst the ACARA Act appears on the surface to represent unprecedented
EJ894320 -
10
History wars: the men behind the national school curriculum review
Christopher Pyne has announced a review of the school curriculum; but what do we know about Kevin Donnelly and Ken Wiltshire, the two men he has appointed to run the process?
the Guardian -
11
Education review: overhaul of 'bloated' national curriculum widely supported
The Abbott government's controversial review of the national curriculum has failed to reignite the culture wars as expected with its recommendations receiving widespread support across the country.
The Sydney Morning Herald
Metodologi Skala Penilaian
1-3: SALAH
Secara faktual salah atau fabrikasi jahat.
4-6: SEBAGIAN
Ada kebenaran tetapi konteks hilang atau menyimpang.
7-9: SEBAGIAN BESAR BENAR
Masalah teknis kecil atau masalah redaksi.
10: AKURAT
Terverifikasi sempurna dan adil secara kontekstual.
Metodologi: Penilaian ditentukan melalui referensi silang catatan pemerintah resmi, organisasi pemeriksa fakta independen, dan dokumen sumber primer.