PDF (Whole Thesis) - USQ ePrints - University of Southern ...
PDF (Whole Thesis) - USQ ePrints - University of Southern ... 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
Criticising the proposed management of the national curriculum, Judith Wheeldon herself an experienced school educator, contemplates: Schools...are a state or territory responsibility, as federal Education Minister Julie Bishop constantly reminds us. That she is not actually responsible for any schools is apparent from some of the arguments she uses. How is it that a national curriculum would be more open to scrutiny than eight different curriculums with closer local audiences who have easy access to their state or territory minister? I don’t get it. (2006, p. 24, emphasis added) Another advocate against the national curriculum reported in the same October 7-8, 2006 edition of The Weekend Australian is education journalist Justine Ferrari reporting that the proposed national curriculum “...to develop a uniform school curriculum was insulting and an arrogant grab for power by the Howard Government that would lower standards” (2006b, p. 4). In echoing Wheeldon’s assertion that “...the growing knowledge of contemporary teachers who study their subjects and pedagogy seriously and have much to contribute to developing curriculum and keeping it updated” (2006, p. 24); Ferrari quotes Mary Bluett from the Australian Education Union writing, “Teachers are not ideologues or fad followers; they are educated, committed and caring professionals” (2006b, p. 4). So politically significant is the proposed implementation of the national curriculum, that Kevin Rudd used it as an (as yet unrealised) election promise; committing eight months prior to the election being held to “...introduce a back-to-basics national curriculum in maths, science, English and history within three years of winning office” (Maiden & Ferrari, 2007, p.1). This appears to be part of a sustained campaign by then-Opposition Leader Rudd to prominently assert himself within the ongoing school debates. Other points of entry into this debate, along similar topic lines, included “...calling for sharp improvements in school performance” (Milne & Passmore, 2007, p. 20), although careful not to put teachers off-side by including the statement, “...teachers were “dedicated professionals [who] deserve our support—not our condemnation” (Milne & Passmore, 2007, p. 20). This statement is clearly an attempt to separate himself from commentators such as Bolt and Donnelly who routinely criticise the standards and actions of teachers, but on the other hand as Milne and Passmore point out this was “...a clear attempt to demonstrate his conservative credentials on school standards—an issue Prime Minister John Howard has nominated as a priority for his 493
- 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 494 and 495: Instead, from the nation's Parliame
- 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 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
Criticising the proposed management <strong>of</strong> the national curriculum, Judith Wheeldon herself an<br />
experienced school educator, contemplates:<br />
Schools...are a state or territory responsibility, as federal Education Minister Julie<br />
Bishop constantly reminds us. That she is not actually responsible for any schools is<br />
apparent from some <strong>of</strong> the arguments she uses. How is it that a national curriculum<br />
would be more open to scrutiny than eight different curriculums with closer local<br />
audiences who have easy access to their state or territory minister? I don’t get it.<br />
(2006, p. 24, emphasis added)<br />
Another advocate against the national curriculum reported in the same October 7-8, 2006<br />
edition <strong>of</strong> The Weekend Australian is education journalist Justine Ferrari reporting that the<br />
proposed national curriculum “...to develop a uniform school curriculum was insulting and an<br />
arrogant grab for power by the Howard Government that would lower standards” (2006b, p.<br />
4). In echoing Wheeldon’s assertion that “...the growing knowledge <strong>of</strong> contemporary teachers<br />
who study their subjects and pedagogy seriously and have much to contribute to developing<br />
curriculum and keeping it updated” (2006, p. 24); Ferrari quotes Mary Bluett from the<br />
Australian Education Union writing, “Teachers are not ideologues or fad followers; they are<br />
educated, committed and caring pr<strong>of</strong>essionals” (2006b, p. 4).<br />
So politically significant is the proposed implementation <strong>of</strong> the national curriculum, that<br />
Kevin Rudd used it as an (as yet unrealised) election promise; committing eight months prior<br />
to the election being held to “...introduce a back-to-basics national curriculum in maths,<br />
science, English and history within three years <strong>of</strong> winning <strong>of</strong>fice” (Maiden & Ferrari, 2007,<br />
p.1). This appears to be part <strong>of</strong> a sustained campaign by then-Opposition Leader Rudd to<br />
prominently assert himself within the ongoing school debates. Other points <strong>of</strong> entry into this<br />
debate, along similar topic lines, included “...calling for sharp improvements in school<br />
performance” (Milne & Passmore, 2007, p. 20), although careful not to put teachers <strong>of</strong>f-side<br />
by including the statement, “...teachers were “dedicated pr<strong>of</strong>essionals [who] deserve our<br />
support—not our condemnation” (Milne & Passmore, 2007, p. 20). This statement is clearly<br />
an attempt to separate himself from commentators such as Bolt and Donnelly who routinely<br />
criticise the standards and actions <strong>of</strong> teachers, but on the other hand as Milne and Passmore<br />
point out this was “...a clear attempt to demonstrate his conservative credentials on school<br />
standards—an issue Prime Minister John Howard has nominated as a priority for his<br />
493