PDF (Whole Thesis) - USQ ePrints - University of Southern ...
PDF (Whole Thesis) - USQ ePrints - University of Southern ... PDF (Whole Thesis) - USQ ePrints - University of Southern ...
Instead, from the nation's Parliament, there has been a stony and stubborn and deafening silence for more than a decade. ... A view that instead we should look for any pretext to push this great wrong to one side, to leave it languishing with the historians, the academics and the cultural warriors as if the Stolen Generations is a little more that an interesting sociological phenomenon. (as cited in T. Jones, 2008, para. 3, 4, 6, emphasis added) Although this and other events were reported as a continuation of the history/culture wars (T. Jones, 2008; and Ferrari’s, 2008 link to the national curriculum); given the paucity of coverage on these debates since that time, a case can be mounted that asserts the end of the history/culture wars had arrived. An exception to this is the August 29-30 editorial in The Weekend Australian where Rudd is criticised for comments made during a speech to launch Thomas Kenneally’s book Australians: Origins to Eureka that were “...so innocuous as to be useless in a serious debate about our past” (Editorial, 2009, p. 16). However, as this Editorial did not gain any momentum, it cannot be considered as a serious resurgence of the debates. Amongst other accusations, the newspaper claimed that Rudd was avoiding any robust debate about the nation’s past, and brought up the national curriculum as a reference point for the importance of public debate. Although the newspaper could be accused of being less than objective in their reporting of the history/culture wars, the column finished with a terse: Mr Rudd is wrong when he talks of ‘arid intellectual debates’ of the past and counsels us to agree to disagree about our history. Calling for a truce in the history wars ignores the fact our knowledge about the past is constantly evolving. The historical record is based on facts but it is not fixed in stone. (Editorial, 2009, p. 16) A number of questions can be seen as remaining. Was there a winner of the history/culture wars? If there was, who was it? Does the election of a Labor government mean in and of itself that the conservative side has lost? Given the conservatism of the Australian Labor Party and the at times bipartisan support of these ideologically-driven debates, this may not be the most significant indicator of success and failure. G. Henderson called the loss by the conservatives of the history/culture wars as far back as 2006, writing “...there is only one area where the Coalition has failed to have a significant impact – namely, in what some have termed the ‘culture wars’” (2006b, p. 12). G. Henderson still maintained his praise of 480
Howard’s intentions, adding, “Mr Howard has attempted to present a more positive interpretation of the Australian achievement” (G. Henderson, 2006b, p. 12). Reinforcing the view that Howard (and therefore some might argue, the conservative right) lost the history/culture wars, G. Henderson repeated his view two years later, writing “Agree or disagree with the Howard Government, it made some tough decisions on economic, foreign and social policy. However, its impact on the so-called culture wars has been grossly exaggerated” (2008b, para. 2). A1.7 Education Contexts: History/Culture Wars and School Curriculum Since the initial SOSE syllabus implementation in Queensland schools in 2000, there have been a number of sustained campaigns critical of the new curriculum. An indication of the impact the history/culture wars has had on schooling can be seen in the print space devoted to the topic in major newspapers. Queensland-based The Courier Mail’s reprinting of the entire SOSE Syllabus is one example of this. The Weekend Australian’s decision to include five articles plus an editorial in the September 23-24, 2006 edition, on the asserted failings of curriculum is also an indication of the perceived importance and generated public interest of this topic on a nation-wide scale. The syllabuses derived from the SOSE Key Learning Area (KLA) of all states have been at the centre of much public commentary, such that it becomes apparent that it is the area of social learning broadly that attracts attention, and not narrowly state-specific characteristics of specific syllabuses. SOSE syllabuses have many commonalities across the various Australian states, and thus a national focus on this issue has been convenient and relatively easy to generate, as broad generalisations can be made based on curricula that have similar theoretical groundings. Representations of SOSE through public discourses have been varied; at times on the attack, sometimes supportive, usually surrounded by controversy and seemingly always topical. This section maps the debates at sections where the history/culture wars connect with education by highlighting key personalities who have consistently maintained an interest through public commentaries on the SOSE curriculum and present counter arguments presented by educators to dominant criticisms since 2000. A1.7.1 Public contexts: Commentaries and responses. Prominent criticisms of the SOSE curriculum fall into two clear categories. First, the nature of the curriculum in terms of its underpinning values and specific content often forms the 481
- Page 444 and 445: Henderson, G. (2008b, August 12). N
- Page 446 and 447: Kitson, J. (Interviewer), & Malouf,
- Page 448 and 449: Melleuish, G. (1998). The packaging
- Page 450 and 451: Roberts, M. (2004). Postmodernism a
- Page 452 and 453: van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Semiotics a
- Page 454 and 455: 440
- Page 456 and 457: 442
- Page 458 and 459: particular, this includes taking on
- Page 460 and 461: The mapping of these debates conclu
- Page 462 and 463: A1.1.4 Terminology. The term histor
- Page 464 and 465: The similarities of the debates acr
- Page 466 and 467: over...an overrun of divisive multi
- Page 468 and 469: political cartoon satirist, Peter N
- Page 470 and 471: A1.5.1 April 23, 1993: Geoffrey Bla
- Page 472 and 473: After an initial furor, this curric
- Page 474 and 475: A1.5.4 October and November 1996: J
- Page 476 and 477: I take a very different view. I bel
- Page 478 and 479: history/culture wars in the public
- Page 480 and 481: parallels between ideologies presen
- Page 482 and 483: into “politically correct new age
- Page 484 and 485: Root and branch renewal of history
- Page 486 and 487: Further in his lecture, Manne then
- Page 488 and 489: Throughout the years that the histo
- Page 490 and 491: A people with a sense of a fair go
- Page 492 and 493: "There's real anger about that," ag
- Page 496 and 497: asis for critical (and often deriso
- Page 498 and 499: valid reasons for living and hoping
- Page 500 and 501: “centrally prescribed curriculum
- Page 502 and 503: elativism in school curriculum, spe
- Page 504 and 505: supporting PM Howard’s call for a
- Page 506 and 507: The politicisation of the curriculu
- Page 508 and 509: Government in the rundown to the en
- Page 510 and 511: oversimplified and shallow analysis
- Page 512 and 513: than the combination of history, ge
- Page 514 and 515: Language used by opponents of the c
- Page 516 and 517: invades school curriculum” (Lane,
- Page 518 and 519: 504
- Page 520 and 521: 506
- Page 522 and 523: Appendix D: Sample Data Analyses Ti
- Page 524 and 525: (p. 110) Passage 6: (pp. 110-111) P
- Page 526 and 527: probably good that this was not cas
- Page 528: Overall, a very unemotional account
Howard’s intentions, adding, “Mr Howard has attempted to present a more positive<br />
interpretation <strong>of</strong> the Australian achievement” (G. Henderson, 2006b, p. 12). Reinforcing the<br />
view that Howard (and therefore some might argue, the conservative right) lost the<br />
history/culture wars, G. Henderson repeated his view two years later, writing “Agree or<br />
disagree with the Howard Government, it made some tough decisions on economic, foreign<br />
and social policy. However, its impact on the so-called culture wars has been grossly<br />
exaggerated” (2008b, para. 2).<br />
A1.7 Education Contexts: History/Culture Wars and School Curriculum<br />
Since the initial SOSE syllabus implementation in Queensland schools in 2000, there have<br />
been a number <strong>of</strong> sustained campaigns critical <strong>of</strong> the new curriculum. An indication <strong>of</strong> the<br />
impact the history/culture wars has had on schooling can be seen in the print space devoted to<br />
the topic in major newspapers. Queensland-based The Courier Mail’s reprinting <strong>of</strong> the entire<br />
SOSE Syllabus is one example <strong>of</strong> this. The Weekend Australian’s decision to include five<br />
articles plus an editorial in the September 23-24, 2006 edition, on the asserted failings <strong>of</strong><br />
curriculum is also an indication <strong>of</strong> the perceived importance and generated public interest <strong>of</strong><br />
this topic on a nation-wide scale. The syllabuses derived from the SOSE Key Learning Area<br />
(KLA) <strong>of</strong> all states have been at the centre <strong>of</strong> much public commentary, such that it becomes<br />
apparent that it is the area <strong>of</strong> social learning broadly that attracts attention, and not narrowly<br />
state-specific characteristics <strong>of</strong> specific syllabuses.<br />
SOSE syllabuses have many commonalities across the various Australian states, and thus a<br />
national focus on this issue has been convenient and relatively easy to generate, as broad<br />
generalisations can be made based on curricula that have similar theoretical groundings.<br />
Representations <strong>of</strong> SOSE through public discourses have been varied; at times on the attack,<br />
sometimes supportive, usually surrounded by controversy and seemingly always topical. This<br />
section maps the debates at sections where the history/culture wars connect with education by<br />
highlighting key personalities who have consistently maintained an interest through public<br />
commentaries on the SOSE curriculum and present counter arguments presented by educators<br />
to dominant criticisms since 2000.<br />
A1.7.1 Public contexts: Commentaries and responses.<br />
Prominent criticisms <strong>of</strong> the SOSE curriculum fall into two clear categories. First, the nature<br />
<strong>of</strong> the curriculum in terms <strong>of</strong> its underpinning values and specific content <strong>of</strong>ten forms the<br />
481