**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].
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 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].
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.
**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].
The final report made recommendations to Education Minister Pyne, who then needed to negotiate with state and territory governments for implementation.
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].
However, the 2014 Coalition review also conducted consultation, including accepting public submissions and consulting with state and territory governments [8].
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.
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].
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.
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.
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.
**Did Labor develop curriculum differently?**
The Australian Curriculum was initiated under the Rudd-Gillard Labor government (2008-2013) following the 2007 election [7].
* * * *
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.
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].
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.
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
**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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.