As an English teacher in Queensland, I deal with critical literacy every day. And I read the newspapers that use sensationalist tactics to bag what we are doing without really understanding it at all.

True, it has gone into overdrive and needs to be kept in balance. But critical literacy has a valuable place in our curriculum and is by no means cultural vandalism. I have never asked a student to take a marxist (or any other ideological) reading of a text, and doubt I ever will. But I do teach children to ask a few basic questions:
1) What does the author of the text want me to believe?
2) Is there another side to this story?
3) How has the author constructed the text to make me accept his point of view and reject others?
This is critical literacy. It applies to the news (how is a pre-emptive strike different from an unprovoked attack?), to Shakespeare (why is Romeo [a killer] better than Macbeth [a killer]?) and to pop culture 'texts' like Reality TV shows. In fact, at present, I am teaching students to examine the construction of reality in Reality TV and the ways this influences our perceptions of reality.
When we argue about an article (like some people are doing now) we are practicing critical literacy by refusing to accept information at face value.
You can't tell me that this isn't valuable in our society. And, in a time when kids have to 'earn or learn' until they are 18, we might as well be teaching kids skills they will use to enrich their lives, rather than teaching them to recite Shakespearean or Chaucerian extracts.
I make no apologies for what I am doing.

And another thing (I bet you can't tell that I'm passionate about this topic) . . .

One of the English-affiliated subjects I teach deals with texts in the contexts of the societies in which they are created. For example, when we are reading Shakespeare, we look at the world in which Shakespeare wrote. We look at the values of the society, we look at the social structures and we look at the customs and beliefs. We then look at the ways in which this society is reflected in his works. Far from sterilising the texts, I have found that this subject actually accentuates students' enjoyment. For once, they can actually understand the text. They can make sense of the bizarre twists and turns, and refrain from judging characters by today's standards.

This is critical literacy. It is an exploration of the way a text is constructed by the beliefs and ideologies of its socio-cultural context. It is also an exploration of the way a text influences its readers to accept or reject aspects of this socio-cultural context. While Shakespeare seemed content to uphold the social order of his time, other authors called for change. What is the harm in allowing students to see where a text comes from and what purpose it serves?

Otokonoko,
Well said my educationalist! Your fist post was spot on (not to say the second was not!). It’s not about filling a mind with a particular view but giving the mind the ability to think. Bravo.

From my reading, the author of the article has a particular barrow to push. Sad that politics, ego and economics gets in the way of improving the minds of our world...

Keep at it and I hope that there are many more teachers like you in our community. If only the resources were there (well, they are but in the wrong hands)!

Otokonoko

I would love to attend your classes. A bit too old unfortunately.

But on the positive side I can attend the latest Bell Shakespeare interpretation of Romeo and Juliet opening in Melbourne Friday. I love their performances of Shakespeare's works.

I also enjoy less 'literary' subjects such as 'Thank God you're here' on the Teev or Harry Potter books - all have a place and I don't really get what the author of this article is on about.

Concur with Reason - all about politics and ego.

Big Brother is not equal to Shakespeare or Tim Winton. It is also not equal to any text of merit by a member of an historically oppressed group, such as Virginia Woolfe. How do you define a text of merit? While I do not propose to give a definitive answer, there are certain 'texts' which have very little comparitive merit in a high school English class room, such as text messages and Big Brother. Discussing such texts would be much more appropriate in undergraduate sociology, pyschology, and culture studies classes.

I completed the HSC in 2003, and I studied Gwen Harwood's poems, Brave New World, the Fiftieth Gate and King Lear. These are all fantastic, engaging texts, as were all the texts I encountered through my high school years. I must admit, when we studied a related movie i was a little suprised, but eventually could see the merit in it. If i had been presented with Big Brother, text messages, etc, to study, I would not have stood for it. No-one should.

If students are not engaging with these more substantial texts, perhaps it is because they do not have advanced enough English skills to cope. It is hard to dissect a play when you have difficulty reading it, or your grammar is so poor that your essay about it will be equally poor. Students may like these popular texts, but is it becasue they are engaging or because they are less challenging? As Ed said, students should be given basic skills before they are expected to dissect texts.

The answer to excellence in English teaching is to make sure that students have a satisfactory grasp of the English language. Then they will be more likely to enjoy everything that Shakespeare etc has to offer, without worrying that the text will be too hard for them.

Excellence should always be strived for.

Accepting that Big Brother is a satisfactory text is setting the bar too low. Students deserve more.

In india students are taught western canons like Shakespeare and Milton with extensive notes and bar notes that the students dread these texts. They are not able to accept shakespeare wrote for people to enjoy themselves originally. PG classes use postcolonialism to politicise literature. It makes students hate all forms of knowledge ultimately. Literature classrooms have to redefine their purpose.