It's a pity that Kevin is so blinded by the ideological compulsion to bag his opponents that he can't see the answer embedded in his own post. He quotes with scorn a prescription for analysing a text: "Who is in the text? Who is missing? Whose voices are represented? Whose voices are marginalised or discounted? What are the intentions of the author/speaker? What does the author/speaker want the audience to think? What would an alternative text say? How can the audience use this information to promote equity?"
Without actually doing this but with a fair bit of confidence about the outcome, I would think that if I applied it to, say, Hamlet, I would come to the conclusion that Hamlet represents a fantastic resource to perceive the human condidtion. If I applied it to Australian Idol I would conclude that Australian Idol is a TV show designed to provide a bit of escapist entertainment.
See, the method works!

You didn’t read my post I like Willies plays and it does have a valued place in drama class.
But in English it does not, well maybe should be mentioned for historical reasons. You see not many people talk in middle English anymore, and if your not into that kind of thing it is boring.
I ask you what lessons can’t be taught using popular culture. If you can drill passed all the boring bits even big brother of all things is a window into modern youth adult culture. That can be used as a vehicle. The irony of Kevin’s whinging is that old Will was derided for bringing popular culture to the stage. His little plays were not liked by the elitist Kevin’s of the day. Now we have Kevin telling us that nothing produced today will go on to become a classic today.
The real problem is Kevin is fixated on method rather then outcomes.

Does Kev have an "OFF" button? Could someone PLEASE show me where it is?!?! I suspect much of this public comment he insists upon spinning is to generate more business for "Education Strategies".

What a ridiculous comment about "Othello". How one could NOT read it with a racial perspective is beyond me. Most of the whole damn play is devoted to the issue!! When I studied it in Year 12 it barely made sense until I reminded myself that Othello is black.

Kev's a genius.

If we took a critical approach to his article we might conclude that he's a chauvenistic, property-worshipping absolutist proffering his opinion with highly selective evidence in a popular electronic forum - the here today, gone tomorrow kind. Pretty shabby really.

On the other hand we could take his work at face value and conclude that he's a really caring, sharing kind of guy who understands current youth. Ah, now I understand his problem with critical literacy.

Kevin Donnelly makes the valid point that regarding Shakespeare with Australian Idol as equally valuable 'texts' is absurd. But I would remind him that there is more to great literature than the Western Canon. Of course, the best way to appreciate the likes of Tolstoy or Balzac is in the language they wrote in. Nonetheless, I believe we should be thinking beyond the Western Canon and embracing a greater understanding of literature the world over.

Also, while I'm not a fan of post-modernism, I do think the emphasis in teaching literature should be around critical thinking. After all, learning is about getting students to think for themselves - not repeat dogma (of whatever shade) uncritically.

I wish Kevin Donnelly would clarify what exactly he thinks is so scary about critical literacy as a teaching method? What's wrong with thinking about how a text - or a play, or a novel or a poem - has been constructed to present a particular world view, usually a white, middle-class male one - like Shakespeare must have been, and I presume, like Kevin himself?
Just why are there so many experts on the teaching of English anyway?