Coalition Government Wants 'Open Heart Surgery' on the Australian Curriculum V9! (Not Just Maths)
The Coalition Government says fixing maths alone isn't enough — it wants a full rewrite of the Australian Curriculum. Here's the thinking behind the plan, and why some teachers aren't convinced.
The Coalition Government says fixing maths alone won’t fix Australia’s schools — it wants a full rewrite of the Australian Curriculum V9, not just the early years of maths the government is already reviewing.
Shadow Education Minister Julian Leeser laid out the reasoning at a conference over the weekend, arguing the current curriculum is too vague, too long, and too hard for teachers to actually use . The plan builds on the announcement we covered earlier — this piece looks at the reasoning behind it, and the pushback it’s already getting from teachers.
Why Does Leeser Say the Whole Curriculum Needs Rewriting?
His central complaint is that the curriculum is too big and too loosely organised to actually teach from.
- He called it “vague and overcrowded,” with content that isn’t clearly sequenced
- Printed out, the document runs to roughly 3,000 pages and isn’t available as a single downloadable file
- His conclusion: “what you won’t get is a teaching plan”
- He argues the government’s K-6 maths review is “keyhole surgery,” when the whole curriculum needs “open heart surgery”
(Source)
What Would the Coalition Actually Add to the Curriculum?
Beyond cutting content, Leeser wants specific things taught explicitly (source).
- Democracy, the rule of law, and Australia’s system of government
- What he calls the country’s “Judeo-Christian inheritance”
- Classical Western literature, art, music and philosophy
- A flag in every school, and lessons on the history behind it
He credits Professor Simon Haines, former head of the Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation, and education commentator Dr Kevin Donnelly as influences on this thinking (source).
How Are Teachers Reacting?
The response from teachers has been largely critical, based on reactions to the plan on Reddit collected by EducationHQ — these are teacher comments as quoted in that report (source).
- Several pointed out that the current curriculum (versions 8 and 9) was itself written under previous Coalition governments
- One teacher said removing the cross-curricular priorities “changes nothing for a classroom teacher”
- Another said constant curriculum change is the real problem: “no more curriculum overhauls … I can’t take it”
- Others were sceptical the plan would lead to real change once the details are worked out
One part of the plan has separate, independently verified evidence behind it: Leeser cited NSW Productivity Commission data showing the shift to longer teacher-training courses meant roughly 9,000 people did not enter the teaching profession between 2015 and 2022 — the reasoning behind his push to bring back one-year accreditation (source).
What This Means for Maths Specifically?
Leeser’s own contrast — “keyhole surgery” versus “open heart surgery” — is a useful way to see where maths fits into this bigger plan.
The government’s Foundation–Year 2 maths review stays narrow and specific by design. The Coalition wants maths reform folded into something much larger. Either way, a child’s day-to-day maths learning doesn’t have to wait on either plan. Programs like Cuemath’s 1-on-1 online maths tutoring, aligned to the Australian Curriculum, adjust as the curriculum itself changes — so families aren’t stuck waiting to see which version wins out.
Looking Ahead
Nothing here is settled policy yet.
- The Coalition’s plan is a platform for the next federal election, not a current change
- The government’s own Foundation–Year 2 maths advice is still expected within weeks
- Any full curriculum rewrite would need the Coalition to win government first
Sources:
‘Let every school have a flag’: Coalition’s plan for curriculum overhaul, Western culture focus, EducationHQ (21 September 2026)
‘Western values’ and ‘national pride’ underpin Coalition’s education reform plans, ABC News (20 September 2026)
I write because I like understanding things properly, and I've never been able to do that quietly.
Six years in, what still interests me most isn't the writing itself. It's the person on the other side. Who are they, what were they actually worried about when they opened this page, and did they leave with what they came for? Most content fails that last test. It answers the easy question instead of the one that was asked.
At Cuemath, I write for parents and students in India and around the world. That range is the part I enjoy. A parent in Bangalore and a parent in Canada are asking about the same child, but not always in the same words, and that difference matters.
So I research before I write. Not just search results. Forums, reviews, the long comment threads where somebody finally admits what they're really confused about. That's usually where the useful thing is hiding.
I also spend time on how people find this writing at all, since a growing number of them now ask an AI instead of typing into Google. But that only works if the writing is clear to begin with. There's no shortcut around that part.
