NSW witnessed more protest against transportation than VDL and Swan Districts. In VDL convicts continued after 1849 to be snapped up as labour as soon as the boats arrived. Before 1850, there was virtually no protest against transportation in VDL.

Paradoxically, perhaps, it seems that the emancipist section of NSW society were less inclined to protest against transportation than the middling sort of free immigrant. NSW Squatters, though not all of them, were generally in favour of continuing a ready supply of cheap labour.

So the situation in the Australian colonies in regard to transportation was very complex. As GB states above, transportation continued in VDL/Tas and Swan Districts/WA for some time after its abolition to NSW.

It is therefore fair to conclude that the British government at the end of the 1840s remained keen to transport British felons. However, the British government grew wary of antagonising a growing section of NSW society that thought transportation to be objectionable. This British official concern for colonial opinion appears to be a long-lasting legacy of the American Revolution, when the British government took very little notice of colonial opinion.

I went to one primary school and one high school (1986 – 1998), during the time it was fashionable to lump history under the umbrella “studies of society and the environment”. Here is the total extent of my history education:

Grade 4: Australian Aborigines before white settlement
Grade 5: First Fleet
Year 7: Prehistory and ancient civilizations
Year 8: Medieval and Renaissance Europe
Year 9: World War 1, Depression, World War 2
Year 10(as an elective): Renaissance Italy, Communist Revolution in China

So no industrial revolution, no study of colonial expansion across the world, and no 19th century Australian history. Whilst I have enjoyed filling in these gaps as an adult, I think they are inexcusable. A national curriculum would avert this by ensuring all periods of history are covered to some extent. A national curriculum also ensures that content is not unecessarily repeated (boredom) or missed (ignorance) when students transition from primary to high school, or move interstate.

Everyone keeps repeating this mantra, but despite my repeated requests, I’m yet to see the reasoning why it IS guaranteed.

I’m kind of boggled that you need that, honestly. Even in a decentralised system like the one you’ve finally outlined below (still don’t like it much, but it sounds better than your earlier comments here), there’s got to be minimum requirements. I don’t think a state or federal curriculum realistically stands any chance of placing standards stupidly low.
I also don’t have faith that the educational equivalent of the invisible hand of the free market would cause schools to adapt to what industry and higher-ed institutions demand of their attendees and then raise quality. I worry that in a decentralised system concepts like creating good citizens first and good workers second would fall further by the wayside in many places, and I don’t think that other schools would be driven to follow schools that do. Its a case of competing values with no clear winner.
Maybe its just wishful thinking – especially given the history of modern education, and it seems like no-one is interested in creating good citizens or independant thinkers anymore – but I’d like to think that the state having a hand-in would prevent an over-focus on simple worker production.

I can’t tell if you’re saying teachers aren’t qualified to teach

No-one’s said that! Like you say, curricula setting isn’t teaching.

, or current teacher training is inadequate,

Well, it is IMO (specially compared to Finland!), but that’s kind of a separate issue

or you’re somehow the Ubermeister.

That’s a bit nasty… you’re conveniently forgetting the time-and-resources problem a lot in this thread.

What I continue to find perplexing is the strawman (that you and others keep erecting) that teachers will be forced to do more than they are able to do (or capable of doing) under my decentralised model. I’ve already pointed out that no-one needs to start with a blank slate.

I think its a realistic projection, not a strawman, even without the blank-slate issue arising.

I’ve pointed out that curricula could be bought ‘off the shelf’ – it’s not like it’s an unexplored area!

Why is it inevitably better to buy education direct from the private sector? Also, I should point out that state departments do evaluate private-sector-created curricula and sometimes use them too, far as I am aware. I’m rather happier for a big department to do that than a small group of teachers, for the reasons of efficiency and bargaining power.

Schools could devote more resources to designing their own if they thought it would get better results, just as they might choose to devote more resources to any other aspect of schooling – what’s the difference? And decentralisation doesn’t mean atomisation – schools can pool their resources if needed.

Maybe. I still think that could easily occur within federal or state guidelines, though, and not to harp, but your Finland example seems to bear that out.

My main point remains unrefuted – a national curriculum has both the potential to be great, and the risk of not being great. It imposes uniform benefits if the former, universal detriment if the latter.

Leaving aside my disagreement with the assumptions behind the above, I don’t see how either mode argued in here differs in risk when you phrase it like that, except in terms of scale. I think the risk of universal detriment within a smaller geographical area is higher, though, to the point where I’m more worried about kids from particular areas being markedly disadvantaged than everyone getting hit with that stick.

I get that you’re sure that schools/districts will adapt to being regarded as crappy and lift their game, but I don’t think that can possibly happen fast enough to avoid screwing a particular cohort of kids over, or indeed that it will neccessarily happen at all. Its just not a suggestion that fills me with confidence.

Grumphy, my response to Glen incorporates a lot of what I would say to you, so read that first.

‘K. Starting here, working backwards to t’other post.

I’m socially and economically liberal. Hence my preference for freedom and choice.

Then I apologise unreservedly, both to you and those offended by my assumption. I spend a lot of time arguing with american types elsewhere, and the desire for educational decentralisation is very strong among the conservative crowds there. Seems that doesn’t generalise too well!

Actually, it is, and schools would have access to the more traditional kind too.

I have to continue disagreeing here. Its somewhat semantical, but still: getting parts of government to help each other out is very different from hiring external private-sector consultants. My experience is largely confined to the sciences, but our in-house guys and gals have tremendous expertise to offer at a far cheaper price than anyone else. Its efficient to have them on hand, cheaper for the taxpayer, and good for education. We’re both arguing for freedom and choice, but I happen to believe that those qualities can best be provided in education within a framework that guides teachers.

Again with the blank slate argument. You deny this is what you are saying, but then you keep on saying it!

Well, no. Look, you started out with a couple of short posts that were hard to interpret as anything else than calling for complete local control, and subsequently seemed to backtrack only when called on it. You’re still, far as I can tell, arguing for that. I don’t think anyone here seriously believes that a blank slate situaton will occur, just that the degree of independance that would be afforded doesn’t track with the ability to take advantage of that independance – and indeed would cause more problems than it solves in many areas, especially regional ones.

And I disagree that regional differences are immaterial, or should only be considered as an afterthought. Living Black last night had an interesting story on the Kaurna Plains Aboriginal School that you should look up. The transcript will be up later today.

There’s no reasons that a federally-set curriculum, or a state-set one, can’t be flexible enough to accommodate these needs.

Yet these are the very people you express fear of a couple of sentences down – teachers and parents and citizenry who disagree with you on what should be taught to their kids. It’s hypocritical majoritarianism.

I’m sorry, “fear of”? Certainly not. Fear for kids whose educational options will absolutely be narrowed if their locally-set curricula fail to meet the standards required for further training elsewhere, whether in vocational or uni contexts, or fail to equip them well for life if they don’t pursue either option. An example: there’s a lot of women starting small businesses these days. Heaps and heaps, and its good for the economy and good for families. But if you come from somewhere where the locals are a tad backwards and their locally-set curriculum allows them to push girls away from math and business studies, the odds of you getting the freedom and choice to try something like that are pretty slim. I get that a lot of people might like to think that wouldn’t happen here, but I’m not nearly so confident as they. And its just as likely to happen to boys, being pushed away from ’softer’ studies, and the aboriginal kids you’ve mentioned being pushed away from…well, lots of things :/. Hell, probably more likely, sadly. So maybe I sound like a snob, but if promoting equality of opportunity in areas that don’t appreciate it makes me a snob, I guess I’ll have to deal with it.

By the way, I’ve got a real problem with the way a couple of people here appear to have lent false equivalency to creationism vs science. That’s not cool D: Tell me I’m misreading!

I see your US, and raise you a Finland.

90 seconds on wikipedia shows that the curriculums in Finland are flexible, but federally set – by the Ministry of Education and the Education Board. I don’t think your example shows what you want it to show.

You are mistaking my distrust of one-size-fits-all schemes for some sort of personal animosity. I think that says more about your own mindset than mine.

Given the degree of condescension and quote-picking I’m getting from you, I think you’ll have to forgive a couple of assumptions about your state of mind. And for what seems like the millionth time, I have to advance the argument that a curriculum set at a high level absolutely doesn’t have to be ‘one size fits all’. Its a terribly simplistic assumption.

Not only have you failed to describe a plausible mechanism for this phenomena,

Lies! Time, expertise, resources. Especially in the comparatively disadavantaged areas I’ve mentioned. Teachers do a great job adapting set curricula, as your Finland example shows, but they shouldn’t be expected to have to do more than that. In terms of efficiency its roughly on par to expecting us all to grow 100% of our own food no matter where we live. Its a rad idea to have a veggie patch or some herbs on the windowsill, but beyond that things just get silly, logistically.

the evidence (in the form of studies on the subject) is against you.

No who’s not providing any evidence? Citation needed.

That you are so emotionally invested in the subject to the point of semi-hysteria is, as you say, just plain weird.

Ah, can’t possibly get involved in a debate out of interest! Its just not cool to care. Except for you, you get a free pass to be super-involved while labelling those who disagree with you emotionally unstable. What’s next, are you going to call me shrill?

Thanks. Didn’t know such a film existed.

So there’s hope for the world – and History – yet.

Katz [95]”

Errrr …. didn’t Transportation to Western Australia carry on for quite a while after that?

An informal type of Transportation did continue, after a fashion, with the stongly “encouraged” migration of “undesirables” ….

Everyone:

Talk of any pure or even majority “British” origins of Australians reminded me of the pure “German” origins of the Prussians …. and not a mention of French Hugenot refugees, Flemings, Venetians and other Italians, Dutch – lots of Dutch, French migrants, Poles, Bohemians, Cassubians, Wends, a few stray Scots, Swedes [by choice and otherwise], the odd Lett or two, etc., etc.

And/or they didn’t need it anymore. The Industrial Revolution had sucked up the Surplus Plebs?

This argument cannot be sustained Adrien. the heart of the issue is whether the Home Office continued to wish to transport convicts to NSW after the rise of significant opposition to transportation in NSW itself.

The Whigs had abandoned transportation in 1840. But the Tories reintroduced it in 1846. The arrival of the transportation ship Hashemy in 1849 caused a furore in Sydney. The politics surrounding this event were murky, but suffice it to say that the British government thought better of it and decided to abolish transportation to NSW for good.

And don’t forget that the late 1840s were a time of crisis and starvation in Britain. There was plenty of surplus labour rampaging through the streets or starving in ditches that had very little prospect at the time of being turned into “proles”.

History is exciting and inspiring – and sometimes, if you are caught up in historic events yourself, too exciting. However, if History is seen as “bland and uninspiring” [as Anna Clark reported] I suggest we turn this attitude around by having ….

[1] Timelines – not lists of kings or prime ministers or battles but an ordering of important events and changes …. at local, national and global levels. What happened when and where and to whom and what were the results? Keep it simple but comprehensive …. and no more than two or three lines [not pages!] on each. …. just enough to give basic information and, perhaps, stimulate curiosity and further interest.

[2] Emulation stories – of heroes and pioneers and role-models. Rollicking good yarns about wonderfully interesting people and what they did. Grace Darling rowing the open boat through the storm to save shipwrecked sailors [courage]; Che Sheng studying by the light of fireflies [tenacity]; Saint Vincent de Paul taking the place of a sick slave on the king’s galley [compassion]; Tenzing Norkay and Edmund Hilary climbing Mt Everest [teamwork]; the travels of Marco Polo and of ibn-Battuta [endurance and adventure], etc.

[3] “Self-defence training” in History. Teach the students how to protect themselves against manipulation, exploitation and imposed ignorance. Show them all the dirty tricks in the misuse of History by dictators, religious fanatics, dishonest businessmen, dishonourable academics, lying celebrities, ruthless activists and all sorts of other evil-doers. There is no shortage of examples.
What harm can possibly come from having a rising generation that does not believe without question every bit of lying propaganda or self-promotion pretending to be history?

That it didn’t work any more.
.
And/or they didn’t need it anymore. The Industrial Revolution had sucked up the Surplus Plebs?
.
‘Straya, ‘Straya, ‘Straya we love youse. And we love Great Britain. We’re British and it’s ow-ah heritage? It’s who we were.
.
Oi’m so proud!

Adrien, Katz and I have had a very civil discourse on an aspect of Australian and British history, involving issues of social and economic concern and policy of the time, hoping to address contemporary issues raised by LE, but doing so in a friendly and lighthearted way which is hopefully amusing to our readers.

We could have had much the same discourse on many other topics, which have nothing to do with Britain and Australia, as we have many times before, which you will find if you review the LP archives. History and economics, and their relationship, are our passions.

And that is your response?

Perhaps you should reflect on your comment:

It really burns me when I try to have an intelligent conversation and someone keeps assuming that I’m something I’m not.

and ask yourself where there was anything in your response to Katz’s and my conversation which was in any way intelligent.

BBB

Transportation had to end, not for reasons of English sentimentality, but for reasons of Australian dignity.

There has been another reason given for the end of transportation, Katz.

That it didn’t work any more.

By the 1830s New South Wales had become a pretty prosperous place and, with the “ticket of leave” system, for a lot of England’s impoverished underclass living there was a lot more inviting prospect than living in the miserable conditions they had to endure in the Old Dart. So transportation began to lose its deterrent effect.

There’s no point trying to threaten someone with being shipped off to an environment where they will eat better and more abundantly, will enjoy a more agreeable climate, will probably have more personal freedom and will have have considerably more opportunities for advancement.