Sunday, October 08, 2006
Minister Bishop versus the Maoists
In a week in which Prime Minister Howard congratulated the celebrating staff and supporters of Quadrant for their 50 year ‘culture war’ against the ‘left’ in Australian public and intellectual life, federal education minister Julie Bishop made a surprisingly hairy-chested public grab for control of school curricula. Existing state based syllabuses could have been written by Chairman Mao she argued, without providing any support for her claims of left-wing bias other than the unsubstantiated and half-baked anecdotes routinely trotted out in the News Ltd press.
The sadly laughable irony of a minister in the Liberal government making such an offensive comparison at a conference of high school History teachers will not be lost on many. The Prime Minister has consistently condemned the so-called ‘black arm band’ view of History, reserving particular criticism for historians who use the word genocide in relation to white treatment of Aborigines in Australia’s past. (This is despite the fact that such an eminent thinker as Australian philosopher Raimond Gaita, who is hardly a Maoist, has argued that a ‘conception of genocide’ can be applied to ‘what sometimes happened to the stolen children and their parents.’ http://home.vicnet.net.au/~abr/Oct00/essay.html)
Bishop’s unfortunate comparison trivialises the fate of the victims of Mao’s brutal regime in China. It is a surprisingly reckless piece of historical thinking for an education minister who has been championing a more rigorous approach to the teaching of History in schools- a case of do what I say not what I do? Moreover, it is a gross insult to the hard working, dedicated teachers who are responsible for writing syllabus documents. Minister Bishop’s reassurances that she is not targeting teachers in her criticisms simply do not wash. In attempting to create a ‘bogeyman’ in shadowy and overtly ideological educational bureaucrats who are responsible for the writing of syllabus documents, the minister fails – wilfully or otherwise – to acknowledge the significant role played in the writing of syllabuses by seconded teachers and teachers voluntarily working out of school hours. These teachers have dedicated themselves to the values of our liberal democracy by working (beyond the requirements of their paid employment) to ensure that all of our young people have access to a curriculum that is relevant, challenging and equips them for life in the twenty first century.
Which brings me to my next point. The minister’s grab for power was endorsed by the Prime Minister on the basis of a ‘crisis’ in literacy and numeracy in this country. If the states are not getting it right, he argued, then the federal government needs to assume control, dictating what is taught and how it is taught, as this is in the best interests of Australian parents and children. Interesting, then, that a freedom of information request by the Sydney Morning Herald for the national data that would support the claim that there is an educational ‘crisis’ in this country was denied on the grounds that no current data is available. However, as the host of educationalists quoted by the SMH did point out, Australian and international data that is available in the public domain simply does not support the Prime Minister’s claims. An ABC Lateline report on the Quadrant birthday celebration and the Prime Minister’s speech can be found at: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1754941.htm
The SMH report on Minister Bishop’s grab for power is here: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/educator-denies-standards-are-sliding/2006/10/06/1159641533678.html
A typically self-congratulatory editorial in The Australian, which takes the credit for drawing public and government attention to ‘politically correct’ school curricula, can be found at: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20537378-7583,00.html
What follows are my thoughts on Minister Bishop’s speech, which can be found at: http://www.dest.gov.au/Ministers/Media/Bishop/2006/10/B001061006
Julie Bishop’s inflammatory rhetoric about taking ‘control’ of the curriculum, with its abhorrent reference to ‘Chairman Mao type ideologies’, might play well to the leadership and backbench of a government bent on pushing a federalist agenda on many policy fronts. However, it is not in the national interest. It does a great disservice to students and parents, and is insulting to teachers.
Criticisms by the Minister and the Prime Minister of English teaching appear to rest on two unsupported claims. Firstly, that there is a literacy ‘crisis’ in this country that demands the centralisation of the curriculum and tighter controls on how it is taught. Secondly, that the English curriculum has been hijacked by left wing ideologues, who have been promoting ‘radical’ ideas such as Marxism and Feminism.
The first claim simply ignores the inconvenient fact that the literacy achievements of Australian students are second only to those from Finland. The federal government’s own 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 sad manifestation of the cultural cringe. It reflects the fraught state of federal and state relations and is not good educational policy.
The second claim appears to stem from reporting in a News Ltd publication relating to a task completed by a particular Yr 12 class of students studying one component of a particular course in a single state. (Certainly, the publication concerned has applauded itself for bringing this to public attention.) The full scope and intent of this task was not dealt with in the original report, which overlooked the emphasis that the task put on students having a personal response to the play being studied – an aspect of English that the Minister herself has endorsed today as being at the heart of English. It is irresponsible for a federal Minister to use such a limited evidence source in order to make derisory comments about the current ‘state of play’ of English teaching in Australia. In fact, the Minister is inexplicably ignoring a much richer and more rigorous source of information about what is happening in English classrooms across the nation: a curriculum ‘snapshot’ collated in recent weeks by the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER). ACER has examined the contents of the various state English syllabuses as part of research commissioned –ironically enough- by the Minister to further discussion around a national curriculum. Tellingly, the ACER research found no requirement for Australian students to study left wing ideology in English. What is common across Australia, however, is an emphasis on literature (both contemporary and from the past), reading for meaning, appreciating the power of language, and critical thinking. It will not escape notice that the skills listed here are also those for which OECD testing shows Australian students are exhibiting higher levels of achievement than their peers in the UK and the US. Clearly, on objective and measurable terms, the different English curricula in Australia are exemplary by any international comparison.
That having been said, English teachers are aware that there exist great commonalities in what we teach and how we teach it. English teachers are not opposed to the idea of curriculum consistency per se. However, with state ministers having already signed up to different initiatives in this area, and with work being done by ACER in conjunction with the teaching profession to identify what should be the ‘core’ of a subject such as English, teachers are left wondering why the Minister should feel the need to undermine in such a heavy handed manner the consensus building which has been taking place. Certainly, the idea of placing curriculum development in Australia the hands of an ‘inner circle’ of federal public servants is a worrying proposal. It is a much less representative and democratic process than that which exists at the moment at a state level.
Indeed, the Minister does not seem to understand the curriculum development process as it takes place at a state level. Teachers are widely consulted about curriculum changes, with consultation reports being made publicly available. New syllabuses are typically written by teachers seconded from schools by government authorities, meaning that a ‘real world’ professional understanding of the needs and interests of students in diverse school locations is brought to the curriculum writing process. To align these dedicated and expert professionals with the mass murderers of Mao’s regime in China is offensive in the extreme.
The sadly laughable irony of a minister in the Liberal government making such an offensive comparison at a conference of high school History teachers will not be lost on many. The Prime Minister has consistently condemned the so-called ‘black arm band’ view of History, reserving particular criticism for historians who use the word genocide in relation to white treatment of Aborigines in Australia’s past. (This is despite the fact that such an eminent thinker as Australian philosopher Raimond Gaita, who is hardly a Maoist, has argued that a ‘conception of genocide’ can be applied to ‘what sometimes happened to the stolen children and their parents.’ http://home.vicnet.net.au/~abr/Oct00/essay.html)
Bishop’s unfortunate comparison trivialises the fate of the victims of Mao’s brutal regime in China. It is a surprisingly reckless piece of historical thinking for an education minister who has been championing a more rigorous approach to the teaching of History in schools- a case of do what I say not what I do? Moreover, it is a gross insult to the hard working, dedicated teachers who are responsible for writing syllabus documents. Minister Bishop’s reassurances that she is not targeting teachers in her criticisms simply do not wash. In attempting to create a ‘bogeyman’ in shadowy and overtly ideological educational bureaucrats who are responsible for the writing of syllabus documents, the minister fails – wilfully or otherwise – to acknowledge the significant role played in the writing of syllabuses by seconded teachers and teachers voluntarily working out of school hours. These teachers have dedicated themselves to the values of our liberal democracy by working (beyond the requirements of their paid employment) to ensure that all of our young people have access to a curriculum that is relevant, challenging and equips them for life in the twenty first century.
Which brings me to my next point. The minister’s grab for power was endorsed by the Prime Minister on the basis of a ‘crisis’ in literacy and numeracy in this country. If the states are not getting it right, he argued, then the federal government needs to assume control, dictating what is taught and how it is taught, as this is in the best interests of Australian parents and children. Interesting, then, that a freedom of information request by the Sydney Morning Herald for the national data that would support the claim that there is an educational ‘crisis’ in this country was denied on the grounds that no current data is available. However, as the host of educationalists quoted by the SMH did point out, Australian and international data that is available in the public domain simply does not support the Prime Minister’s claims. An ABC Lateline report on the Quadrant birthday celebration and the Prime Minister’s speech can be found at: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1754941.htm
The SMH report on Minister Bishop’s grab for power is here: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/educator-denies-standards-are-sliding/2006/10/06/1159641533678.html
A typically self-congratulatory editorial in The Australian, which takes the credit for drawing public and government attention to ‘politically correct’ school curricula, can be found at: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20537378-7583,00.html
What follows are my thoughts on Minister Bishop’s speech, which can be found at: http://www.dest.gov.au/Ministers/Media/Bishop/2006/10/B001061006
Julie Bishop’s inflammatory rhetoric about taking ‘control’ of the curriculum, with its abhorrent reference to ‘Chairman Mao type ideologies’, might play well to the leadership and backbench of a government bent on pushing a federalist agenda on many policy fronts. However, it is not in the national interest. It does a great disservice to students and parents, and is insulting to teachers.
Criticisms by the Minister and the Prime Minister of English teaching appear to rest on two unsupported claims. Firstly, that there is a literacy ‘crisis’ in this country that demands the centralisation of the curriculum and tighter controls on how it is taught. Secondly, that the English curriculum has been hijacked by left wing ideologues, who have been promoting ‘radical’ ideas such as Marxism and Feminism.
The first claim simply ignores the inconvenient fact that the literacy achievements of Australian students are second only to those from Finland. The federal government’s own 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 sad manifestation of the cultural cringe. It reflects the fraught state of federal and state relations and is not good educational policy.
The second claim appears to stem from reporting in a News Ltd publication relating to a task completed by a particular Yr 12 class of students studying one component of a particular course in a single state. (Certainly, the publication concerned has applauded itself for bringing this to public attention.) The full scope and intent of this task was not dealt with in the original report, which overlooked the emphasis that the task put on students having a personal response to the play being studied – an aspect of English that the Minister herself has endorsed today as being at the heart of English. It is irresponsible for a federal Minister to use such a limited evidence source in order to make derisory comments about the current ‘state of play’ of English teaching in Australia. In fact, the Minister is inexplicably ignoring a much richer and more rigorous source of information about what is happening in English classrooms across the nation: a curriculum ‘snapshot’ collated in recent weeks by the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER). ACER has examined the contents of the various state English syllabuses as part of research commissioned –ironically enough- by the Minister to further discussion around a national curriculum. Tellingly, the ACER research found no requirement for Australian students to study left wing ideology in English. What is common across Australia, however, is an emphasis on literature (both contemporary and from the past), reading for meaning, appreciating the power of language, and critical thinking. It will not escape notice that the skills listed here are also those for which OECD testing shows Australian students are exhibiting higher levels of achievement than their peers in the UK and the US. Clearly, on objective and measurable terms, the different English curricula in Australia are exemplary by any international comparison.
That having been said, English teachers are aware that there exist great commonalities in what we teach and how we teach it. English teachers are not opposed to the idea of curriculum consistency per se. However, with state ministers having already signed up to different initiatives in this area, and with work being done by ACER in conjunction with the teaching profession to identify what should be the ‘core’ of a subject such as English, teachers are left wondering why the Minister should feel the need to undermine in such a heavy handed manner the consensus building which has been taking place. Certainly, the idea of placing curriculum development in Australia the hands of an ‘inner circle’ of federal public servants is a worrying proposal. It is a much less representative and democratic process than that which exists at the moment at a state level.
Indeed, the Minister does not seem to understand the curriculum development process as it takes place at a state level. Teachers are widely consulted about curriculum changes, with consultation reports being made publicly available. New syllabuses are typically written by teachers seconded from schools by government authorities, meaning that a ‘real world’ professional understanding of the needs and interests of students in diverse school locations is brought to the curriculum writing process. To align these dedicated and expert professionals with the mass murderers of Mao’s regime in China is offensive in the extreme.
# posted by Mark H @ 8:50 am 
