Wednesday, October 11, 2006
The cultural cringe in education
The following articles outline the deleterious consequences in the UK and US of governments centralising school curriculum initiatives and mandating a narrow range of teaching strategies. Both are timely given the debate surrounding a national curriculum and school effectiveness in Australia. This sort of international contextualisation of the debate has not taken place in Australia to date.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/09/29/AR2006092901333.html (use Billions for an Inside Game on Reading & Michael Grunwald in The Washington Post's Search engine)
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20557863-13881,00.html
The first article from the US concerns the teaching of reading, and the possible corruption and mismanagement which has stemmed from the introduction of a program called ‘Reading First’, introduced as a result of the federal government’s No Child Left Behind legislation. A narrow phonics based approach has been mandated by law. This program has in effect centralised control of how reading is taught in US schools, and indeed how reading itself is defined. Teacher professional learning in the area of reading must now conform to the dictates of the federal government. In short, the professionalism of teachers, that is to say the ability of teachers in different school contexts to devise learning programs with the needs and interests of their students in mind, has been severely restricted.
The report highlights how the supposedly ‘scientifically based reading research’ has been hijacked by commercial publishers, with instances of the approval and funding of state reading programs having been contingent upon the use of a particular commercial product in schools.
Many elements of this program, and the supposed science upon which it is based, were endorsed as world’s best practice in ‘Teaching Reading’, the 2005 report of the inquiry into the teaching of literacy conducted on behalf of the Australian federal government.
In relation to the UK, a number of David Starkey’s comments were very telling and in effect amount to an endorsement of arguments recently put forward in this country by the likes of ex-principal Judith Wheeldon http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20537069-13881,00.htmland Jeff Kennett http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20548169-13881,00.html in support of curriculum diversity in Australia. These prominent citizens are hardly the radical Maoists federal education Minister Julie Bishop claims seek to propagate their left-wing thinking through state curriculums. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20533224-13881,00.html
Starkey’s claim that highly prescriptive curriculums, combined with a fear in schools of failing in league tables, have produced "nothing but elaborately polished mediocrity" among students, who are coached to pass exams but not to understand their subjects, sounds a clear warning against simplistic claims that a national curriculum and ranking schools against each other will ensure better learning.
A national curriculum and renewed focus on the basics seem to make a good deal of sense. We all want the best for our children. However, when the facts of student performance in this country and international trends in education are considered, Julie Bishop’s grab for control is not as ‘sensible’ as she claims it to be.
The federal government’s recent inquiry into the teaching of literacy concluded that Australian students “compare well” with students in other OECD countries, with only a “minority” not acquiring acceptable levels of literacy. In the areas of literacy and critical thinking, Australian students outperform students from England and the US, two countries that have centralised the curriculum and legislated drilling in the basic skills. Things are now so parlous in the US, with students not being taught to read for meaning and learning, that a Carnegie Foundation report has concluded “when it comes to student literacy, [the US] is clearly on the wrong track.”
That the federal minister wants to take this nation down the same path is a manifestation of the cultural cringe. It reflects the fraught state of federal and state relations and is not good educational policy.
Julie Bishop has made a vitriolic attack on Australian teachers in her criticisms of their work on state curriculums, as well as her condemnation of their professional associations and trade unions. I can only conclude that she wants to engender amongst teachers the "cynicism" and loss of autonomy, self-confidence and sense of risk that David Starkey bemoans.
In the face of more reasonable and moderate arguments put forward in support of a national curriculum, such as those put forward by Professor Alan Reid (UniSA) and Karren Philp (president of the Australian Association for the Teaching of English), the minister sounds shrill, evasive and vacuous.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lifematters/stories/2006/1757525.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/hack/podcast/friday.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/09/29/AR2006092901333.html (use Billions for an Inside Game on Reading & Michael Grunwald in The Washington Post's Search engine)
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20557863-13881,00.html
The first article from the US concerns the teaching of reading, and the possible corruption and mismanagement which has stemmed from the introduction of a program called ‘Reading First’, introduced as a result of the federal government’s No Child Left Behind legislation. A narrow phonics based approach has been mandated by law. This program has in effect centralised control of how reading is taught in US schools, and indeed how reading itself is defined. Teacher professional learning in the area of reading must now conform to the dictates of the federal government. In short, the professionalism of teachers, that is to say the ability of teachers in different school contexts to devise learning programs with the needs and interests of their students in mind, has been severely restricted.
The report highlights how the supposedly ‘scientifically based reading research’ has been hijacked by commercial publishers, with instances of the approval and funding of state reading programs having been contingent upon the use of a particular commercial product in schools.
Many elements of this program, and the supposed science upon which it is based, were endorsed as world’s best practice in ‘Teaching Reading’, the 2005 report of the inquiry into the teaching of literacy conducted on behalf of the Australian federal government.
In relation to the UK, a number of David Starkey’s comments were very telling and in effect amount to an endorsement of arguments recently put forward in this country by the likes of ex-principal Judith Wheeldon http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20537069-13881,00.htmland Jeff Kennett http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20548169-13881,00.html in support of curriculum diversity in Australia. These prominent citizens are hardly the radical Maoists federal education Minister Julie Bishop claims seek to propagate their left-wing thinking through state curriculums. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20533224-13881,00.html
Starkey’s claim that highly prescriptive curriculums, combined with a fear in schools of failing in league tables, have produced "nothing but elaborately polished mediocrity" among students, who are coached to pass exams but not to understand their subjects, sounds a clear warning against simplistic claims that a national curriculum and ranking schools against each other will ensure better learning.
A national curriculum and renewed focus on the basics seem to make a good deal of sense. We all want the best for our children. However, when the facts of student performance in this country and international trends in education are considered, Julie Bishop’s grab for control is not as ‘sensible’ as she claims it to be.
The federal government’s recent inquiry into the teaching of literacy concluded that Australian students “compare well” with students in other OECD countries, with only a “minority” not acquiring acceptable levels of literacy. In the areas of literacy and critical thinking, Australian students outperform students from England and the US, two countries that have centralised the curriculum and legislated drilling in the basic skills. Things are now so parlous in the US, with students not being taught to read for meaning and learning, that a Carnegie Foundation report has concluded “when it comes to student literacy, [the US] is clearly on the wrong track.”
That the federal minister wants to take this nation down the same path is a manifestation of the cultural cringe. It reflects the fraught state of federal and state relations and is not good educational policy.
Julie Bishop has made a vitriolic attack on Australian teachers in her criticisms of their work on state curriculums, as well as her condemnation of their professional associations and trade unions. I can only conclude that she wants to engender amongst teachers the "cynicism" and loss of autonomy, self-confidence and sense of risk that David Starkey bemoans.
In the face of more reasonable and moderate arguments put forward in support of a national curriculum, such as those put forward by Professor Alan Reid (UniSA) and Karren Philp (president of the Australian Association for the Teaching of English), the minister sounds shrill, evasive and vacuous.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lifematters/stories/2006/1757525.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/hack/podcast/friday.htm
# posted by Mark H @ 7:01 am 
