PDF (Whole Thesis) - USQ ePrints - University of Southern ...

The politicisation of the curriculum, a topic raised by John Hill (2006, p. 16) in his letter to
the editor, was also broached in articles of the same edition of the newspaper written by
Kevin Donnelly titled No place for politics in national narrative (2006c, p. 24) and Judith
Wheeldon in an article titled Learning to lose our diversity (2006, p. 24). Donnelly not only
persists in declaring that education can be politically neutral, citing the United States as his
example, “...the US approach to curriculum is firmly based on the academic disciplines,
politically impartial, succinct and teacher friendly...” (2006c, p. 24); he also admonishes what
he calls a “left-leaning...politically correct” (2006c, p. 24) approach, adhering to the idea that
curriculum can be politically neutral all the while ignoring the irony that Donnelly is himself
imposing his politically constructed ideas of how schooling should be enacted in Australia.
As an aside, Gee refers to the existence of ideology as “to many people, ideology is what
other people have when they perversely insist on taking the ‘wrong’ viewpoint on an issue.
Our own viewpoint, on the other hand, always seems to us simply to be ‘right’” (1996, p. 1).
Interestingly, Gramsci (whose work is used in the theoretical underpinnings of the
methodological approach selected for this project as detailed in Chapter 3: Methodology,
Research Design and Conduct) wrote of the perception of the term ideology, “the bad sense
of the word has become widespread, with the effect that the theoretical analysis of the
concept of ideology has been modified and denatured” (SPN, 376-7 (Q7 §19); Forgacs, 1988,
p. 199). Wheeldon in advocating against a national curriculum on curriculum grounds and
attempting to dispel the myth that curriculum can be politically neutral (without explicitly
expressing this term), writes “defining what will be taught in schools unavoidably
communicates the social values of our communities. Values are therefore an unavoidable part
of the curriculum, whether clearly spelled out or implied” (2006, p. 24).
Donnelly does identify the pitfalls in a national curriculum, if it follows the current civics and
citizenship/social studies route favoured by the current SOSE KLA, identifying that without
clear direction for teachers to follow regarding specific people, events and issues to cover, it
will be too easy for teachers not educated in history to “...ask students in history and social
studies classes to do projects on Peter Brock or Steve Irwin on the assumption that learning
should be immediately relevant and contemporary” (Donnelly, 2006c, p. 24). However, the
constructive points he makes are generally lost in the sensationalist claims he makes of the
so-called politically correct educators.
492