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

Language used by opponents of the current curriculum approach to SOSE included
“indoctrination” (Donnelly, 2005, p. 56) and “...experiment of mushing up history...failing
our children” (Bishop, 2006, p. 4). Offensive to many teachers of SOSE, is the inference that
they are not competent to teach this KLA as they teach from a one-sided view, interpreted
from a flawed, ideologically driven syllabus. Mason asserts that SOSE “substitutes
propaganda and indoctrination for basic knowledge. It teaches our children the wrong lessons
about the past. It teaches our children to be morally blind” (as cited in D. Henderson, 2005, p.
308). At the very least, this statement is offensive as it assumes an homogenous view of the
teaching profession, ignoring the rigorous discussions and debates educators have with each
other about the most appropriate content and pedagogy to adopt in classrooms. It also makes
the assumption that classrooms are sites of negative indoctrination, and all the negative
repercussions this brings, rather than sites of learning through a critical inquiry approach.
A1.10 Curriculum Contexts: Contemporary Debates
The History curriculum is not the only area of schooling that has come under sustained
intense and close scrutiny. There has and continues to be mainstream media focus on the
incorporation of critical literacy in the English syllabuses by attacking its relevance,
complexity and perceived political agenda. Whilst some of the commentators are
intentionally sensationalists (see, for example, Donnelly, 2006f; Editorial: Deconstructing the
loony fringe, 2006a which contained the sensational headline “Deconstructing the loony
fringe”, p. 16), others are respected educators, see, for example, Wiltshire (2006), who
genuinely see pitfalls and deficits for school students in the push to include postmodern
critiques of literature and the incorporation of everyday, common use texts as opposed to an
established canon in the English curriculum. Wiltshire argues that critical literacy on-thewhole
is not appropriate for schooling, for whilst it “...is certainly on strong ground in
arguing for the development of critical thinking skills” (2006, p. 23) other aspects of critical
literacy:
...is at best negative and at worst nihilistic...it would seem to belong at honours level
in university degrees. School is for basics and knowledge, certainly accompanied by
critical thinking, but not in a milieu where all is relative and there are no absolutes
for young people who do not have the intellectual maturity to cope with the
somewhat morbid rigour of constant criticism and questioning of motives. (2006, p.
23)
500