Understanding Curriculum An Australian Context

In this chapter we continue the conversation begun in Chapter 6, on critical diversity in education, curriculum and equity, along with a broader discussion of social justice and the curriculum. Within the sociology of education there is a long history of interest in questions about whose knowledge is valued in the curriculum, and whose is excluded. These kinds of questions have been asked in relation to social divisions of class, race and gender.

To some extent, education policy makers and politicians are aware of the issue of social equity in relation to curriculum. A cursory read through the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians, or the new Australian Curriculum, reveals the importance of the use of social categories for the discussion and delivery of curriculum. The Australian Curriculum identifies students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, students from non-English speaking backgrounds and students with physical and intellectual disabilities as key equity groups that need to be targetted and better catered for in education in Australia.

It is interesting to note, however, that recent Australian policy documents do not appear to be concerned with the issue of gender, the categories of girl/boy, in relation to curriculum and social disadvantage. This is despite a rich history of research spanning the past 30 years or so into gender and curriculum. This chapter explores why gender has come off the list of curriculum concerns, what this tells us about how gender is understood in relation to curriculum and the possible implications of this. Education has long been involved in the continuing construction of a binary framework in which there are two genders, ‘male’ and ‘female’, understood as complementary opposites. In this chapter we would like to acknowledge the harm involved in the construction of gender according to this binary framework.