Analysis of Melbourne Declaration: Education's Three Purposes - Qualification, Socialisati, Study notes of Philosophy

Download Analysis of Melbourne Declaration: Education's Three Purposes - Qualification, Socialisati and more Study notes Philosophy in PDF only on Docsity! 1 Restoring Purpose: applying Biesta’s three functions to the Melbourne Declaration Key words: curriculum, identity, qualification, socialisation, subjectification, subjectivities. Introduction The current era is one of seemingly unending contestations and controversies in education focusing on student performance in standardised tests; funding; teacher quality; and the quality of pre-service teacher education. As a result, questions about the purposes and functions of education appear to be ignored (Biesta, 2017, 2013a, 2010, 2009; Ozoliņš, 2017; Webster, 2017; Schofield, 1999; Winch, 1996; Young, 2013). These controversies divert attention from the key question: what are the functions of education? Identifying the functions of education is an important issue (Biesta, 2013a, 2010, 2009; Cranston et al. 2010; Reid, et al. 2010; Seddon, 2015; Winch, 1996), constituting an ancient tradition dating back to Confucius, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle (Schofield, 1999). In fact, Winch (1996) contends that “setting out, clearly articulating or changing the aims of education are three of the most fundamental changes” (p. 34) that a society faces. Accordingly, the clear articulation of the purposes of education underscores its importance because “how people learn has effects on the terms and conditions for life and the ways of being human that realise life.” (Seddon, 2015, p. 1) Thus, this paper is an attempt to re-orientate attention to the purposes of education through an examination of the underlying purposes of education embedded in a key Australian school-based education document: the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australia (Declaration) (MCYEETA, 2008). This analysis is particularly timely, given that in December 2018, the Australian Federal Minister for Education, Dan Tehan, announced that the Declaration will be revised in the near future. Then, on 22 February 2019 at the Education Council meeting held in Melbourne, a ‘special forum’ of state and territory ministers and stakeholders for education, the Minister announced a review of the Declaration, which will “consider life-long education for all Australians” (2019, p. 2). Targeting “early childhood, primary and secondary schools, through to higher education, vocational training and beyond” (p. 2), the Minister committed to consultation with key stakeholder groups, declaring that “(o)ur children deserve a world-leading education that is tailored to their individual learning needs, and sets them up to succeed in the modern world.” (p. 2) To undertake this analysis of the Declaration, I use Biesta’s (2009) three purposes of education – ‘qualification’, ‘socialisation’ and ‘subjectification’ (p. 33) - as an interpretive framework. The application of these purposes provides insight into the “multidimensionality of educational purpose” (Biesta, 2013a, p. 128), allowing the multiple purposes of education as embedded in the Declaration. And by doing so, this analysis represents the extension of Biesta’s work into an Australian context; and through using the purposes as an interpretive framework, provides new knowledge by illuminating the educational purposes inherent in the document. And while Labaree (1997) conceptualised three purposes of schooling over twenty years ago (democratic equality, social efficiency and social mobility), these purposes constitute the manifestation of “ambivalent goals” and “contradictory purposes” (p. 41), the result of government policies, rather than as the application of the purposes as an interpretive framework. Sandahl (2015) also applies Biesta’s three purposes as an interpretive lens, but this 2 is done in relation to “social studies teaching and what challenges this poses for social studies teachers.” (p. 1) Thus, this paper constitutes the first time Biesta’s purposes have been applied to Australian education policy. While I expand on these three purposes later, qualification requires the individual to ‘do things’, develop skills, knowledge and dispositions, usually for the workplace; socialisation allows the individual entry into existing social orders; while subjectification involves the individual developing a sense of self-identity, allowing her to ‘come into presence’. And while the Declaration makes unambiguous statements about the importance and role of education, I am interested in uncovering underlying and not immediately apparent discourses embedded in the document. In addition, this paper signals the usefulness of Biesta’s functions as an interpretive lens for the analysis of extant educational policy documents and as a tool for curriculum planning. This paper delineates between the terms ‘purposes’, ‘goals’ and ‘functions’ of education and in doing so, distinguishes itself from some other investigations into educational approaches. For example, in his exploration of American education, Labaree (1997) uses the following terms interchangeably: “goals” (p. 40), “approaches” (p. 42) and “purposes” (p. 41). In his application of ‘goals’, he asserts that goal-setting in education is not undertaken through “a process of scientific investigation” (p. 40) but instead, focuses on the kind of schools desired; and identifies “who supports which educational values” (p. 40) forged by public debate. Winch (1996) uses the terms “purposes” as a means by which judgements can be made about the accountability of an organisation (p. 3) which become the basis of agreed to ‘aims’ by participants. While Kelly (2009), contends that ‘aims’ are usually considered as very broad statements of goals and purposes (p. 74), often considered as “too general and lacking in specificity” (p. 75). In the Melbourne Declaration, the term ‘goals’ is used to identify a series of desired outcomes related to the nature of Australian schooling and the individual capacities of Australian school-aged young people but provides little detail or rationale for why the educational outcomes and capacities are important. In this paper, however, the term ‘purpose’ is used as deriving from design or intention; that is, statements of broad, desired outcomes of education, embedding a rationale for why the desired outcomes are important (Elliot & Thrasher, 2001). Thus, the purpose of this paper is to reveal the extent to which Biesta’s three purposes of education, qualification, socialisation and subjectification are present in the Melbourne Declaration. In doing so, I demonstrate that there is the detectable presence of socialisation and subjectification in the Declaration. Further, I argue that subjectification, in its focus on ‘coming into presence’, strengthens the individual’s capacity for empathy, the development of thoughtful capacities, perseverance and open-mindedness. The mindful interaction that subjectification encourages, in addition to the ability to act with dignity - a type of ‘cultivation of the self’ not dissimilar to the German education tradition of Bildung, are the qualities that allow us to live as civil and responsible human beings. In addition, this research, through its application of Biesta’s three purposes of education, provides an interpretive lens for future iterations of the Declaration to monitor the location and distribution of the purposes in this educational document. This application of this lens also provides the future possibility of curriculum designers utilising the three functions in the development of school-based curriculum. Overview: the Melbourne Declaration The Declaration, issued by the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) in 2008, provides the philosophical basis for curriculum development in each Australian State and 5 This analysis is essentially a qualitative study, drawing on aspects of document theory, the central concern of which is “what documents do, or, more properly, what is done with documents.” (Buckland, 2015, p. 6) Given that documents “are used to shape our culture” (p. 7) and involve human interaction with a document as a “complex series of transactions” (Gorichanaz & Latham, 2016, p. 1122), we can conclude that “documents have increasingly become the means for monitoring, influencing, and negotiating relationships with others. We live in a document society.” (Buckland, 2015, p. 9) More specifically, this analysis draws on the methods of content analysis which is “concerned with meanings, intentions, consequences, and context” (Downe-Wambolt, 2009, p. 314). In this approach, data are collected and with the researcher making inferences about the content in relation to a specific context (Morris & Burgess, 2018, p. 109) with the approach concerning itself with the “decontextualisation, recontextualisation, categorisation and compilation of content” (p. 109). This approach centres on “meanings, intentions, consequences, and context” (Downe-Wamboldt, 2009, p. 313) to ultimately reveal the focus of the “individual, group, institutional, or societal attention” (p. 313) which reflects “cultural patterns and beliefs” (p. 313). Thus, this analysis seeks to identify the underlying emphases by using Biesta’s purposes of education and utilises coding through the identification and application of key words and ideas, as indicated below: • the application of knowledge, skills, dispositions to an activity, proficiency, procedure, geared towards a specified outcome such as acquiring a job or a specific job skill (Qualification). Key words and ideas which identify this purpose include workplace/employment, further study, economic goals, skills, knowledge, talents and training; • the ways we become part of existing orders, traditions and their reproduction, relating to ways of thinking and behaving in a range of contexts (Socialisation). This purpose attends to “passing on social, political and cultural values” (Sandhal, 2015, p. 4). Key words and ideas which identify this purpose include culture, the transmission of traditions, values and specific behaviours including collaboration; • the individual as being unique, exercising judgement, independence, existing with others, allowing for the opportunity to develop a ‘sense of self’ largely through interaction with others (Subjectification). Key words and ideas which identify this purpose relate to students being “able to shape their lives purposefully” (Misson, 2013, p. 352) through the activation of personal agency, self-identity and self- awareness. While this interpretive framework provides an overview of the presence of each function in the Melbourne Declaration, it can be argued that a number of the statements in the Declaration are not easily categorised and may straddle two or more functions. These statements will be identified later in this paper. A brief overview of Biesta’s work regarding education In utilising Biesta’s three purposes of education, it is worthwhile to provide a brief over view of his work in education. Biesta’s work has largely centred on the “relationship between education, democracy and citizenship” (Biesta, n.d) as well as: the theory and philosophy of education; vocational education; adult education and lifelong learning; teachers and teaching; policy analysis; and the theory and philosophy of educational and social 6 research. A key text, The Beautiful Risk of Education (2013a) is an exploration of seven educational concepts – creativity, communication, teaching, learning, emancipation, democracy, and virtuosity while Good Education in the Age of Measurement (2010) investigates the use of the measurement of educational outcomes designed to compare the performance of education within and across countries. Here, Biesta explores why the question of what constitutes ‘good education’ has become difficult to question to answer and shows why this has been harmful for the quality of education and for the level of democratic control over education. In ‘Receiving the Gift of Teaching: From ‘Learning From’ to Being Taught By’ (2013b), Biesta distinguishes between ‘learning from’ and ‘taught by’, arguing that the role of the teacher has been diminished to a “disposable and dispensable ‘resource’” (p. 249) and maintaining that for an “understanding of teaching in terms of transcendence, where teaching brings something radically new to the student” (p. 249), the main role is to teach students actively, rather than merely facilitate student learning. Biesta is interested in resetting educational discourses by disrupting norms and practices via a “pedagogy of interruption” (Biesta, 2006, p. 11), seeking to reorientate attention from the acquisition of knowledge, skills and values to a consideration of how educators can create opportunities for students to “come(ing) into the world as singular beings” (p. 27). Central is his proposal that qualification, socialisation and subjectification, constitute three functions of education, each representing “overlapping, intertwined and to a certain extent, even conflicting dimensions of what education is and can be about” (Biesta, 2010, p. 26). While one function should not override the others, “the question of good education is a composite question.” (Biesta, 2009, p. 44). Arguing that educators need to attend to the complexities of each function and attempt to identify the “interactions between what happens in these three areas” (Biesta, 2010, p. 27), he cautions that failure to engage thoughtfully with the functions, exposes education to the “real risk that data, statistics and league tables” (p. 27) will direct decision-making in education. Biesta’s work, however, is not without its critics. In a review of Good Education in an Age of Measurement: Ethics, Politics, Democracy, Jörg (2011) asserts that Biesta adopts a simplistic approach by not regarding education as a “scientific problem” (p. 111) to be “treated as such, based on ever-evolving assumptions and intentions of those organizing education in practice” (p. 111). In doing so, Jörg alleges that Biesta demonstrates “ignorance on the topic of education” (p. 111, original italics) and fails to take into account the “common prejudices, the myopia, the learner incapacities of those involved in the field and the role of outdated and blinding paradigms” (p. 111). In addition, Jörg alleges that Biesta reveals a narrow view on education by taking the “reality of education too much for granted” (p. 113) by assuming an “ends-oriented approach instead of a possibility-oriented approach” (p. 113, original italics). This limited approach, in Jörg’s eyes, disallows an “enlargement of the possible around what it means to educate and be educated” (p. 112, original italics). It is also possible to critique Biesta’s three functions of education as promoting an individualistic approach; that is, promoting the individual’s uniqueness, sense of self and the right to express herself at the expense of a wider sense of ‘common good’, the idea that the community in general provides to individual members “facilities— whether material, cultural or institutional ... in order to fulfill a relational obligation they all have to care for certain interests that they have in common” (Hussain, 2018, p. 1). In fact, MacAllister (2016) argues that Biesta’s “concept of subjectification presented by Biesta is elusive” (p. 375) and McIntyre (1998) argues that 7 students should learn to think for themselves and develop a stronger sense of the ‘common good’. While I consider these critiques worthy of further consideration, the focus of this paper is the inaugural application of Biesta’s three purposes of education as an interpretive framework to the Melbourne Declaration and as such, stands to offer unique insights regarding the Declaration not hitherto available through other analyses. The qualification purpose A key purpose of education is qualification which is largely concerned with how education “qualifies people for doing things” (Biesta, 2013a, p. 128). This purpose provides the “knowledge, skills, and dispositions” (p. 147) that allows student to engage in a particular activity, proficiency or procedure, such as training for a specific job. Biesta identifies this as “one of the major functions of organised education”, acting as “an important rationale for having state-funded education” and closely connected to “economic arguments” like the “preparation of the workforce”, highlighting the “contribution education makes to economic development and growth.” (Biesta, 2009, p. 40) The significance of this purpose is apparent through ongoing dialogue between governments and employers “about the apparent failure of education to provide adequate preparation for work” (p. 40) and the “contribution education makes to economic development and growth” (p. 40). The socialisation purpose This purpose centres on the social aspect of a student’s life highlighting the “‘insertion’ of newcomers into existing orders” (Biesta, 2013a, p. 128). More specifically, it refers to “the ways in which … we become part of existing traditions” (p. 4) and “members of and part of particular social, cultural and political ‘orders’”. (Biesta, 2009, p. 40) Centring on the “reproduction of the established socio-political, economic, and cultural orders in the name of social cohesion, stability, and continuity” (Benhur Oral, 2015, p. 212), socialisation can constitute deliberate, programmed school policies and procedures to ensure the continuation and transmission of specific values and norms, as evident in faith-based educational institutions. This encompasses the structures and processes operating in schools to “insert(ing) individuals into existing ways of doing and being” (Biesta, 2009, p. 40) and even if no specific programs promoting socialisation are developed and implemented in schools, where the “overt and intricate nexus between the hidden curriculum and the knowledge relayed via school dynamics” (Paraskeva, 2011, p. 4) are immediately apparent, strong aspects of socialisation may still exist. The subjectification purpose Subjectification centres on the “idea of uniqueness” (p. 81). Based on the question “who are we?” (Ball & Olmedo, 2012, p. 92), subjectification facilitates “the right to define ourselves according to our own judgments ... according to our own principles, an aesthetic of the self” (p. 92). Subjectification helps to articulate how we are different from social “orders” (Biesta, 2010, p. 81), allowing us to establish “independence from such orders” (Biesta, 2009, p. 40). Subjectification stresses the importance of interaction with others through which our “distinct uniqueness” (Biesta, 2010, p. 85) is developed and displayed; it draws attention to the “particular ways in which we exist with others.” (p. 85, original italics) Biesta asserts that through action, the individual is able to “disclose” (p. 85) her uniqueness by demonstrating a willingness to “run the risk that our beginnings are taken up in ways that are different from what we intended.” (p. 85) Subjectification allows for the development 10 and individual strategic thinking, where resourcefulness can be seen as the “re-creation of the ‘old’” (Pope, 2005, p. 57) and not merely the “generation of ‘the novel’” (p. 57). The statement “make sense of their world” (MCEETYA, 2008, p. 8) constitutes subjectification by requiring the critique of contextual phenomena and the adoption of “ways of being that hint at independence” (Biesta, 2009, p. 40). Closely related to this is “(students) think about how things have become the way they are” (MCEETYA, 2008, p. 8) where developing the capacity for deep and sustained thought and evaluation, enables the student to establish a sense of how “overarching orders” (Biesta, 2010, p. 81) – social, historical, cultural and personal – have eventuated and how the individual is shaped and compelled (or otherwise) by these orders. The aim to develop “confident and creative individuals” (MCEETYA, 2008, p. 8) also integrates subjectification. Here, a distinctly Aristotelian resonance is discernible where students “(have) a sense of self- worth, self-awareness and personal identity that enables them to manage their emotional, mental, spiritual and physical wellbeing” (p. 9). Flagging the capacity for contemplation - according to Aristotle, the “highest form of activity” (Thomson & Tredennick, 1976, 1177a5-25, p. 328) - the individual attends to aspects of the self to both acknowledge and manage the contours of the inner landscape in pursuit of a contemplative “self-sufficiency” (1177a25-b13, p. 329). In addition, students are to be sufficiently self-aware in order to “use their creative abilities” (MCEETYA, 2008, p. 9) as well as “(have) a sense of optimism about their lives and the future” (p. 9). Both aims require a self-awareness, reminiscent of a conception of creativity developed in the 1950s in the United States where “humanist psychologists” (Sawyer, 2012, p. 26) promoted creativity as a “form of self- discovery, therapy, and self-knowledge” (p. 26). The final aim relating to subjectification is that students need to “make rational and informed decisions about their own lives and accept responsibility for their own actions” (MCEETYA, 2008, p. 9). This aim signals a Kantian emphasis on “rational autonomy” (Biesta, 2002, p. 345) where students can think independently and are capable of making their own judgments (p. 345). Overlapping/hybrid purposes in Goal 2 The Declaration’s next aim is that students develop into “active and informed citizens” and involves seven dot points related to attitudes and behaviours, including respect for others, democracy and responsibilities at the local and global level with regard to sustainability for the natural and social environments. In this aim, the overlapping qualities of the three purposes are apparent, particularly with regard to qualification and subjectification. For example, the statement that students develop an “understanding of Australia’s system of government, history and culture” (p. 9) could be argued to relate to each of the three purposes in different ways. Here, qualification is evident in that individual knowledge and understanding of these areas can be advantageous in the workplace, while understanding of these areas can be argued to provide ‘easy access’ into “existing ways of doing and being” (Biesta, 2009, p. 40). Also overlapping are the following statements: “understand and acknowledge the value of Indigenous cultures” (MCEETYA, 2008, p. 9); “possess the knowledge, skills and understanding to contribute to, and benefit from, reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians” (p. 9); “participate in Australia’s civic life” (p. 9); and “are able to communicate across cultures” (p. 9); “act with moral and ethical integrity” (p. 9); “appreciate Australia’s social, cultural, linguistic and religious diversity” (p. 9); “work for the common good, in particular sustaining and improving natural and social environments” (p. 9); “(are) responsible global and local citizens” (p. 9); “are committed to national values of democracy, equity and justice” (p. 9). 11 These statements indicate two ‘types’ of literacies: “political literacy” - required for citizenship; and “cultural literacy” (Biesta, 2009, p. 40) where students acquire the “knowledge and skills considered necessary to for functioning in society more generally” (p. 40) involving being able to recognise, acknowledge past and existing “social, cultural and political ‘orders’”. (p. 40) Further, the statements bring to mind Arendt’s notion of impartiality where “’taking the viewpoints of others into account’ is its defining characteristic” (Arendt, 1982, cited in Taylor, 2002, p. 161). This involves Arendt’s notion of “enlarged thinking (p. 162) where the individual is able to “look upon, to watch, to form judgments or … to reflect upon human affairs” (p. 162) transforming into a “world citizen” (p. 162). Discussion of the three purposes in relation to Goal 2 This analysis seeks to illuminate the underlying educational purposes of Goal 2 of the Declaration by identifying the presence of Biesta’s three purposes of education. The Declaration’s two broad goals serve to frame students broadly as learners, individuals and future citizens, acknowledging the intricacies of their lives within and beyond school and in the future workplace. It promotes a “holistic view of education” (Buchanan & Chapman, 2011, p. 11) where the “intellectual, physical, moral spiritual and aesthetic development” (p. 11) of the students is paramount while recognising that each individual is a multidimensional and complex social being living and interacting with a range of other individuals and groups. While analyses of the Declaration have identified neoliberal discourses as specified above, an examination of the Declaration’s relationship to and reflection of the three purposes shows coverage of each, particularly the qualification and subjectification purposes. Based on this analysis, it is possible to conclude that the Declaration assigns value to each of these purposes, recognising that each has a significant role in education and in the development of individual dispositions of the student. This is, however, not to say that there are no possible improvements to be made to the Declaration. And in addition, we need to be careful that the application of the three purposes does not diminish its use to that of a checklist: one that merely identifies the inclusion of educational purpose, idea or concept without offering the opportunity to delve deeply into the essence of those embedded ideas. Thus, if we use the three purposes as an interpretive tool, we are able to interrogate the Declaration to not only detect the presence or otherwise of an idea or concept but to also investigate the depth of those ideas or concepts. And by means of illustration, the Declaration’s series of well-meaning statements on educational outcomes, such as “(students) participate in Australia’s civic life” (MCEETYA, 2008, p. 9), provides a sense of what is considered as highly desirable. However, the Declaration is silent about why these are worthy ideals and what they mean. Here, a revision of the document could more strongly acknowledge that schools are part of a wider community and that students, as individuals or in groups, are able to enact different forms of ‘civic duty’, whether this be through working with groups and individual members of the community, such as a school musical band visiting the local retirement village or a school opening its doors for a ‘Grandparents’ Day’. Here, I am not advocating for the inclusion of a list of activities, but rather, the recalibration of the purposes of schooling that could capture a stronger sense of why the purpose is important and how a purpose might be realised. And in doing so, the strengthening of the idea of the ‘common good’- for all Australians - as well as a detailing of the development of individual student qualities and dispositions could well be realised. Thus, a revision of the 12 structure and nomenclature of the document is also required including the relocation of the importance of community partnerships to a more prominent part of the document and the retitling of ‘goals’ as ‘purposes’ to provide not only the sense of direction but also of the rationale underpinning the purpose. As discussed above, the Declaration embeds the three purposes throughout Goal 2. What is important to remember here is that, and as indicated above, the Melbourne Declaration “provides the policy framework for the Australian Curriculum” (ACARA, n.d.), the national, authorised school-based curriculum of Australia. This means the scope, depth and nature of the purposes of education, as specified in the Declaration, dictate the national curriculum in its breadth, depth, aims and content. And while it is beyond the scope of this paper to engage with the wide range of critiques of the Australian curriculum (e.g. Batiste, Walker & Smeed, 2015; Briant & Doherty, 2012; Ditchburn, 2012; Yates, Collins & O’Connor, 2011), Scarino (2019) comments that this curriculum is “no more than a three-dimensional structure or an architectural design, with no indication given as to why the shape is as it is and how exactly the elements might be fleshed out in conceptually rich ways.” (pp. 62-63) This observation identifies a significant structural challenge for teachers implementing the national curriculum. And when we consider the different levels of curriculum interpretation – at the school systems, whole school and individual teacher levels - we must attend to the likelihood that a myriad of possible complications extant in a practitioner’s classroom may thwart, retard or reshape the interpretation and articulation of the intentions and sentiments of the Declaration because classroom teachers act as “avid curriculum mediators” (Briant & Doherty, 2012, p. 1) in the transformation of the pre-active into the “enacted curriculum” (Porter, 2001, p. 2), working within a multitude of competing priorities at the school level including school-based and external assessment regimes; co-curricular responsibilities; as well as administrative and accountability responsibilities. Conclusion This paper highlights the underlying purposes of education in the Declaration by using Biesta’s three purposes as an interpretive lens. Some degree of comfort might well be gleaned from the results of this analysis in that there is the discernible presence of socialisation and subjectification in the Declaration which (to a degree) mitigate against the presence of neoliberal discourses identified above. Goodson and Gill (2014) argue that when learning is reduced to the acquisition of employability skills – as captured in the qualification purpose - “people are treated as economic objects” (p. 42), reducing their capacity for positive social interaction and fulfilling relationships. Further, it can be argued that subjectification in particular, in its focus on ‘coming into presence’, strengthens the individual’s tendency towards compassion, the development of contemplative capacities, perseverance and open-mindedness. The mindful interaction that subjectification encourages, in addition to the ability to act with dignity - a type of ‘cultivation of the self’ akin to Bildung, where reasoned, thoughtful actions form the basis of interactions with others – are the qualities which make us human and allow us to live harmoniously amongst each other. Therefore, this paper advocates using Biesta’s three functions as an interpretive lens for the next iteration of Australia’s national goals for schooling. By using this lens, attention is afforded to the distinct emphases of each purpose, thus identifying the degree to which purpose is to be accentuated in the revised document and potentially avoiding an imbalance and overstatement of one or more of the purposes and potentially skewing the focus of Australia’s aims and goals of education. And at the local level, the utilisation of the three purposes also provides an interpretive lens for the design of 15 Labaree, D.F. (1997). Public Goods, Private Goods: The American Struggle Over Educational Goals. American Educational Research Journal, 34:1, 39-81. Løvlie, L. & Standish, P. (2002). Bildung and the idea of a liberal education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 36(3), 317-340. MacAllister. J. (2016). What should Educational Institutions be for?. British Journal of Educational Studies, 64:3, 375-391, DOI: 10.1080/00071005.2015.1131811 MacIntyre, A. (1998). Politics, philosophy and the common good. In K. Knight (Ed.) The MacIntyre Reader, Cambridge: Polity Press. Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. (2008). Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young. [online] Melbourne: Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. Retrieved from http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/national_declaration_on_the_educational_goals_for_yo ung_australians.pdf Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. (1999). Adelaide Declaration on Educational Goals for Young. [online] Melbourne: Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/125176/Downloads/http___www.aphref.aph.gov.au_house_committee_edt_eofb_report _appendf.pdf Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. (1989). Hobart Declaration on Educational Goals for Young. [online] Melbourne: Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. Retrieved from http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/natgoals_file.pdf Ministers for the Department of Education and Training Media Centre. (2019). Retrieved from: https://ministers.education.gov.au/tehan/updating-australias-education-agenda Misson, R. (2013). The Problem of Agency: Posthumanist Theory and English Teaching. Changing English: Studies in Culture and Education, 20(4), 351-363. Morris, A. & Burgess, C. (2018). The intellectual quality and inclusivity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander content in the NSW Stage 5 History syllabus. Curriculum Perspectives, 38: 107-116. Moyle, K. (2014). Technologies, Democracy and Digital Citizenship: Examining Australian Policy Intersections and the Implications for School Leadership. Education Sciences, 4, 36-51. Nichols, S.L. & Berliner, D.C. (2007). Collateral Damage: how high-stakes testing corrupts America’s schools, Harvard: Harvard University Press. Ozoliņš, J. T. (2017). Creating a Civil Society East and West: Relationality, responsibility and the education of the humane person. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49(4), 362-378. Paraskeva, J. M. (2011). Conflicts in Curriculum Theory: Challenging Hegemonic Epistemologies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Pope, R. (2005). Creativity, Theory, History, Practice. New York: Routledge. Porter, A. (2001). Defining, Developing, and Using Curriculum Indicators. CPRE Research Reports. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_researchreports/69 16 Reid, A., Cranston, N., Keating, J., & Mulford, B. (2010). Exploring the Public Purposes of Education in Australian Primary Schools. Report of an ARC Linkage Project. Australian Government Primary Principals Association. Retrieved from https://www.aare.edu.au/data/publications/2009/cra09995.pdf Rose, J.R. (2015). The Australian Curriculum: Perspectives of Teachers and School Administrators on Issues and Concerns Surrounding Implementation. Thesis submitted November, 2015 to the Faculty of Arts, University of Adelaide. Rubin, D.I. (2011). The Disheartened Teacher: Living in the Age of Standardisation, High-stakes Assessments, and No Child left Behind (NCLB). Changing English, 18(4), 407-416, DOI: 10.1080/1358684X.2011.630197. Sandahl, J. (2015, August). Social studies as socialisation, qualification and subjectification. Paper presented at the Panel “Citizens still in School: Motivations for Political Participation ECPR General Conference, Montreal, Canada. Retrieved from https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/4ec2404c-b72f-410b-b1bd- e4f96eb34205.pdf Sawyer, R. K. (2012). The Science of Human Innovation. Explaining Creativity. New York: Oxford University Press. Scarino, A. (2019). The Australian Curriculum and its conceptual bases: a critical analysis. Curriculum Perspectives, 39, 59-65. Schofield, K. (1999). The Purposes of Education 3. Consultation Paper. Brisbane: Queensland Department of Education. Seddon, T. (2015). Das Argument: Zeitschrift fuer Philosophie und Sozialwissenschaften. 314:57, 565-575. Taylor, D. (2002). Hannah Arendt on judgment: Thinking for Politics. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 10:2, 151-169, DOI:10.1080/0967255021021531. Webster, R.S. (2017). Valuing and Desiring Purposes of Education to Transcend Miseducative Measurement Practices. Educational Philosophy and Theory 49(4), 331-346. Winch, C. (1996). The Aims of Education Revisited. The Journal of the Philosophy of Education, 30(1), 33-44. Young, M. (2013). Overcoming the crisis in curriculum theory: a knowledge-based approach. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45:2, 101-118, DOI: 10.1080/00220272.2013.764505.