It's OK Kevin,

The Howard economic-rationalist government has thoroughly re-engineered Australian society enough, so that anyone with a political left view (compared to Hitler) will be thoroughly impoverished (and therefore stripped of any power), by the new student loans system. Nothing stifles debate like the dearth of prospects, no tertiary education, low wages and a growling stomach

There is a glaring contradiction in this article. Dr Donnelly cites Bourdieu's claim that "education is a powerful tool used by those more privileged in society to consolidate their position". Dr Donnelly then rattles off a roll-call of names and organisations who, we are told, "identify education as a key instrument in overturning the status quo" and "a key instrument to change society".

They can't both be right.

Perhaps neither are right.

The people who Donnelly portrays as activists and radicals are in fact pillars of the establishment, whether academically or politically: in their status as senior members of the education fraternity, we could generalise that most, indeed perhaps all, property-owning, share-owning, tax-paying, car-driving, law-abiding citizens. The only reds under their beds would be comrades cabernet and merlot.

But perhaps Dr Donnelly himself is better evidence for Bourdieu's claim: Dr Donnelly's position in and association with the Liberal Party are well-known and long-established. He was seated recently at the left hand of the Education Minister Julie Bishop at the taping of an SBS show I attended. His recent efforts to influence education policy and curriculum appear to be bearing fruit. Curriculum have been overturned this year in WA and Tasmania, not in response to evidence-based research and formal policy review, as is proper, but by hysteria whipped up in the nation's press, fuelled by Dr Donnelly. And all to the benefit of his consulting business.

Could Bourdieu have been right? Could it be that Dr Donnelly is attempting use education as a powerful tool to consolidate his position? Or perhaps Bourdieu was wrong, and it is Dr Donnelly who is the activist attempting to change society through shaking up the education system?

Meanwhile, in media-land, the idea that education can be disinterested and that teachers should be impartial has given way to the argument that everything in education is leftist, feminist, postmodern, progressive and environmentalist.

Meanwhile, Dr Donnelly denies any agenda.

One of the largest high schools in rural QLD had planned to run a course for grade 12 students on Shakespeare titled “The Literary Cannon - Just Dead White Males”.

One of the teachers responsible for this course was contacted and asked why the course was sub-titled “Just Dead White Males”. They said that the school was being forced to run a course on Shakespeare, but they thought that a course on Shakespeare would not be relevant to girls, so they called the course “Just Dead White Males”.

This teacher was asked if they though that a course titled “Just Dead White Females” would be offensive to girl students, and they said that such a title would be very offensive to girl students. They were then asked if a course titled “Just Dead White Males” would be offensive to boy students, and they said that such a course would not be offensive to boy students.

There are now many teachers within the education system who have been trained by feminists in Universities to devalue the male gender, or to think only negatively of the male gender. These teachers now seem to have no regard for the male gender, and this is of particular concern for any boy students being taught by such teachers.

If the "left" are "taking the long march through institutions" in order to gain a political and idealogical advantage, they may have a long way yet to go, giving the fact that most governments in the country (including Labor state geovernments) are very conservative, and geneeration Y is criticised by both bommers and X'ers alike for being too far to the right.

Yes Mercurius, there is an agenda. It is about regaining knowledge as the basis of curriculum and building the skills and understandings for students to grow academically, starting from a knowledge base. It is about valuing traditional academic progress and the academic disciplines.

It is about recovery from the damage done by Outcomes Based Education. It will take some time to achieve, but the signs are emerging that the community is now starting to realise that such a recovery is in the best interests of the young people who are involved in the school and university sectors.

There will be resistance from the left. From the teacher unions and from those in the university teacher education faculties. But the subject disciplines will regain their proper place in the curriculum, for without this taking place Australia's scientists, mathematicians economists, etc will come from other countries.

Dr Donnelly is playing an important part in this recovery. I wish him and others working to see it happen speedy success.

What Mercurius said. At least Bourdieu had the decency to admit the awkwardness of his own position. Perhaps Big Kev didn't read that far.

Kevin Donnelly likes to portray himself as the standard-bearer for the Western tradition of Enlightenment and Reason. But even though it can be argued that much of the postmodern tradition he criticises sets itself against this current of thought, surely - if anything - the Western tradition is about the free and 'ruthless criticism of everything that exists'. There is room in our curriculum to provide for an appreciation of the liberal tradition, and even for a critical appreciation of Conservative thought.

But surely we should be teaching our children to think critically about, and relativise, all manner of intellectual, political and cultural traditions and movements. Surely this is what critical literacy is about - and while I don't think critical evaluation of popular culture should take the place of more traditional texts - surely there is a role for this in any relevant curriculum. (that is, any curriculum that truly prepares students for life and citizenship) And surely just because Marxist and feminist readings find a place in History and English curricula - this does not mean we should be 'sounding the alarm'. A relevant curriculum is necessarily pluralist - and Marxist and feminist readings - reflecting vital intellectual traditions - ought surely find a place alongside liberal and humanist readings of texts.

Finally, reflecting the prominence of 'civics and citizenship education' in modern debates about curricula - surely we ought be preparing students for citizenship through what could be called 'ideological literacy' - that enables students to independently form their own value systems - and RELATIVISE - ie: not necessarily negate - dominant narratives. In this - there must surely be a place in a pluralist curriculum for social, green and feminist perspectives - provided alongside liberal and conservative perspectives.

Unfortuntately, the education debate tends to focussing on returning to a relatively Conservative ideology - rather than embracing the true spirit of critical pluralism. Fear-mongering about Marxism and Feminism is a lot easier than actually engaging with these traditions critically within the framework of a pluralist curriculum.

Tristan

I find it astounding that Donnelly gives no credit to the knowledge of students themselves.

Its seems he thinks they are just empty vessels waiting to be filled with this or that ideology.

Its obviously a long time since he stood in front of a classroom and thought to himself "What can I teach them to prepare for the world around them. A world that they already know better than me".

That the Murdoch press regularly publish his cr*p is testiment to their their own poltical and ideological agenda - this is much more evil than anything a teacher chooses to teach students in high schools or universities.

Kevin, I'm giving you a C- on this one. How long has it been since you've been in a school? It sounds like you have read a couple of leftist books, but what have you done to "ground truth" the lay of the ideological land you so vividly picture?

Here are a three possible remedies for your essay's shortcomings.

1. Talk to some real live History, English and Environmental Studies teachers (since maths, science, music, PE and foreign language teachers seem to escape your notice). Interview them. Design an instrument which will identify their ideological bias and perhaps allow a cross-correlation with their age and political involvements.

2. Join a local school parents group, Kevin. You don't even need children enrolled at that school. You just need to be willing and able to make yourself useful. Then you will have the opportunity to investigate, in depth, whether the cadre of socialist teachers there are turning the place into a Maoist madrassa.

2. Investigate your local University's Batchelor of Education Program. Find out where the professors and instructors drink. Do a bit of private-eye type stuff. Keep a field diary of your findings. An erudite fellow like you should have no problem in rubbing shoulders with educated folk, or finding out what they +really+ think.

Admittedly, proposed remedies 1, 2 & 3 take time, possibly a lot more time than you have. But all you have otherwise is your selected quotes of "their" ideology and your ungrounded speculation about the implications of "their" history. If you don't gather some real evidence, such as might convince a genuine scholar or a competent detective, then you're just another half-baked conspiracy theorist.

During its long incumbency the Howard government has done much to consolidate its ideology in every sphere of public activity - from foreign affairs to all of our worlplaces.

Even if they were to be tossed out next year, it would take many years to restore some balance,

But a very long incumbency gives a government one final advantage, as many world dictators have found out. Having progressively weakened the ability of the people to protect their democracy, Howard is now locking in his ideology so that it inbreeds the next generation with his mould.

Howard is smart (thought many of his detractors won’t accept that fact). He is very smart. He knows that by re-shaping the education system he is now in a position to thoroughly re-shape society. Lock it in. Build his ideology into the next 50 years.

He also knows that he has weakened other sectors of democracy, including the union movement, so much now that there is precious little they can do about it but make a few grumbling noises.

Balance used to be exercised by the Opposition, but they too have been weakened and compromised so much now as to undermine any feeble efforts that are made by the citizenry to stop the ideological takeover

The title of the article (Long March Back to Reason) contradicts its contents. This is a pity, becuase I agree with Donnelly's whinge.

My youngest of three goes into Yr 12 next yr. I have been aghast at the shocking poverty of the high school education offered to my kids (a mix of private - Anglican - and govt schools).

Donnelly complains that "Worse, the idea that education can be disinterested and that teachers should be impartial has given way to the argument that everything is ideological. Meanwhile, the teachers' unions deny any agenda."

The problem is: the teachers are right. Everything is ideological. The only question is: what ideology should our curricula be premised upon? Donnelly, in his stirling efforts, must own this simple fact and then do the hard yards of promulgating an alternative ideology to the post modernist/relativism/critique based approach, which leaves kids awash in uncertainty, with too many tools and too little knowledge.

Just whinging, and claiming a non-ideological ideological high ground is unreasonable, as well as insufficient, if he really wants to win this crucial war in the decade and more ahead

Has anyone ever noticed that those on the "right" side of the culture wars who advocate the use of "reason" quite often use the word march as in marching. For instance "freedom" is on the march.And that their language and ideas are full of binary exclusions and also dogmatic certainty.
Genuinely free people seldom march. They laugh,dance,sing and celebrate in general.

Ho Hu, so true. I also find it interesting that they spend lots of time critisising the LEft but never really defining their own ideological position.

They tell us that they are not "Leftist" adnauseum, hate socialism, but fail to provide any real detail about their own ideological positioning.

Kevin Donnelly,conservative yes, but what does he stand for beside being anti-left?

Rainier and others who have posted castigating Donnelly miss the thrust of the argument about reason and knowledge. What we want is a return to the real world situation where academic disciplines and knowledge really count. The problem with all the "guff" that is talked by many who post on this site is that it is all pie in the sky stuff about a virtual "ideal" world that really doesn't exist. Unfortunately, too many education bureaucrats also have been believing this rubbish. For example, teacher unions who do not want to report student progress in grades or their equivalents because it might "upset" children. The fact is that the real world is quite competative and success and failure are all part the rich experience of life.

Hi,

A couple of points. If everything is ideological, how can we judge whether conflicting ideologies are closer to the truth or not? My argument is that a liberal/humanist view of education, what some term education for a rational understanding, can be impartial and disinterested. Education should not be confused with indoctrination and the 'right's' focus on economic rationalism and managerialism in education is just as bad as the 'left' belting on about the 3Rs - reconciliation, the republic and refugees.

Secondly, I taught for 18 years and I have spent the last two years looking at all state and territory intended curricula documents around Australia – a book will be published early next year that gives chapter and verse evidence of the ‘left’s’ long march through the education system and my view about what education should entail.

Sniggid - Kevin wants to do a lot more than maintain the letter grading of students - he wants to eliminate critical literacy programs, eliminate methods of literary criticism that don't sit well with his ideological prejudices, and get rid of outcomes based education - which is based as much on process learning as content. (which I think is sensible) He also seems to prefer a celebratory approach to history that is not sufficiently critical, and does not embrace important themes - rather focusing on a single linear narrative.

Now, I think there is a 'middle ground' between the caricature of so-called 'black armband' history and the kind of celebratory linear narrative Kevin seems to prefer. But history is failing our children if it fails to examine such issues as imperialism, colonialism, capitalist crisis and dispossession of indigenous peoples - alongside more positive aspects of our history - such as the bravery of Australian soldiers in WWII, the successes of liberal tradition in Australian history, the peaceful path to Federation etc. History, as well as English, must be pluralist - and again - as in English - Marxist and feminist readings are as relevant as liberal and humanist readings. Our readings of history must embrace all manner of perspectives and narratives 'from below' in addition t any 'authoritative' narrative imposed 'from above'. All manner of readings and perspectives must find their place in a pluralist curriculum.

Tristan

Tristan
I don't see Dr Donelly as having a 'linear' approach to history.
His remark

[In history teaching, instead of focusing on significant historical events and figures and celebrating past milestones, the focus is on victim groups, such as women, migrants and Aborigines.]

...contains a key word 'focus'. I suggest that what he is saying is this:

Don't FOCUS on just those groups, and especially don't focus on them in a way which is specifically designed to alienate the student populace from the political values of a certain segment of the community, i.e. the Social 'right' so to speak. But as far as I can see, the use of 'exploited downtroden neglected abused' minority groups (as they are portrayed) in history taught by the left, is more aimed at a philosophical ideological outcome, rather than justice for these groups. The lamentable footballing of Indigenous issues (by both sides) is a classic example.

The goals of the AEU seem to far exdeed 'achieving fairness and balance... a middle path' they are outright dogma in motion to gain control of a country.

I won't deny that all political movements including the 'right' are out to do pretty much the same thing. "Protect perceived social and economic interests"

So this is why we should have a balance between the very valuable 'outcomes based' education approach and the more content and competitive approach that Donnelly seems to be promoting.
But 'outcomes based' education should be structured in such a way that specific content is also inculcated.
I think this is what you are advocating anyway. The black armband approach is biased extremism as much as the naive celebratory approach.

Are you sure Donnelly does not want to critically scrutinize such things as you mention ? Are you saying he wants a linear and celebratory history because of his political affiliations or because he has actually stated his position in that way ?

Dr Donnelly, some unsolicited advice for your book:

You are perhaps aware of this research which identified significant differences between all Australian states in their overall achievement in the PISA 2000 scores for reading:
---
TI: State differences in achievement among secondary school students in Australia. PA: Marks G N; Cresswell J SO: Australian Journal of Education; v.49 n.2 p.141-151; August 2005
---

In essence, the study found Australia ranked fourth in the world for PISA reading scores (behind Finland, Canada and New Zealand); however, this overall national ranking obscured a much more varied state-by-state picture.

What the study found is that the score for ACT was the highest of anywhere in the world - and that NSW, Western Australia and South Australia were all second in the world - just behind Finland.

Meanwhile, QLD , VIC and TAS all lagged around the 10th position. And NT towards the 25th place.

The aggregate of all these managed to lob Australia into the 4th spot - but what a difference it makes depending on the state.

These differences pertained AFTER controlling for socioeconomic factors, and even factors relating to indigenous populations.

The study stopped short of attempting to identify any of the "administrative and policy configurations" leading to the huge variations.

But going on this study, whatever they were doing in ACT, NSW, WA and SA during the late 1990s clearly contributed to some world-beating reading scores.

Hope you might pick up on the researchers' suggestion to try and identify the "administrative and policy configurations" that led to these sterling results...

Since the Federal government seems hell-bent on setting up a national curriculum, they might as well pick what works - and ACT, NSW, WA and SA circa 2000 seem to have the goods...

Kevin,
Just because you taught for 18 years does not necessarily qualify you to judge the system old mate, What it qualifies you to do is to be a teacher, and how do we know whether or not you were a good one?

Dear Mr Donelly,

re:
" ... I taught for 18 years and I have spent the last two years looking at all state and territory intended curricula documents around Australia – a book will be published early next year that gives chapter and verse evidence of the ‘left’s’ long march through the education system and my view about what education should entail.
Posted by Kevin D, Friday, 3 November 2006 10:43:13 AM"

(1) It's good to know that you have at some time been a teacher, as it lends you some credibility. But you need to put your experience on a timeline that all of us can read. When were you last in a classroom or a school common room? The 18 years of experience could have ended 18 years ago. And what curricula and syllabi were within your brief?

(2) To which publisher should I write, to request a free review copy of your eagerly awaited book?

(3) Have you not appealed to your own authority in paragraph I quoted above? Is this sufficient for your argument, otherwise lacking the evidence which may be available in your as-yet unpublished book?

What if we consider another way of gathering evidence?
If we look at, say, the Roman Catholic Church, we may assume the presence of committed activists in Catholic schools who are delivering curricula and syllabi within an arguably ideological environment - the "Ethos" of Catholic schools.

Surely, here is a set of schools which can be compared to the schools infested with AEU members.

Both sets of schools, in given states, are subject to the same curricula and teach many of the same syllabi. A cleverly designed instrument should allow you to tease out, measure and compare evidence of impartiality or otherwise, and identify some of the consequences of subjecting students to ideological bias. Even better, you might be able to categorise the Catholic schools, based on strong and weak links to "liberation theology".

A robust, peer-reviewed comparison of states, schools, types of schools, curricula, syllabi, teachers and student attitudes would be a feather in your cap!

BOAZ David,

You stated:
“So this is why we should have a balance between the very valuable 'outcomes based' education approach and the more content and competitive approach that Donnelly seems to be promoting.
“But 'outcomes based' education should be structured in such a way that specific content is also inculcated.”

Outcomes based education does include content. In fact, when it was officially introduced to Victoria by the Kennett Liberal Government, one of the reasons advanced for it was that it would focus on content rather than process. Below is the major part of report I wrote on 20/6/1994:

'MEN IN SUITS

'Last Thursday, Alan and I went to a conference with the advertised title of "Improving Student Learning". We were addressed by a number of men in suits who earn more money than we do on the claimed latest fashion in education - which appeared to me to be LaTrobe Dip. Ed circa 1971 dressed up in new IPA language.

'According to the DSE et al, the new focus in education is on "outcomes", not "inputs" or "free-floating process statements" - on learning not teaching: the DSE is therefore moving from "course advice" to "curriculum support material", and the era of re-inventing the wheel in schools is over.

'The CSF (Curriculum Standards Framework) - all 300 to 400 pages of it - will cause schools to focus on content, the how of learning and the demonstration of learning having taken place…The professional development necessary to implement this initiative will be the responsibility of schools as we all have to operate within budget cuts and executive memos. Schools refusing to implement the CSF will be dealt with.

'The conference was not what I expected. It did not deal with improving student learning at all. Questions had to be in writing, and two vital ones asked by my group regarding teacher time and DSE support to rebuild morale in the profession did not make it through the censoring process to be answered…

Chris, Yes we need improve the focus of our teaching using a variety of diagnostic approaches to building the focus upon of both student and teacher attention to their respective strengths and weaknesses (in teaching and learning) - and developing programs and planning around these approaches will be crucial. Policing new content will deliver zilch. But nor will a demoralised army of teachers arguing for old content, old pedagogy, old and adhoc curriculum frameworks. I don’t know what the answer is but I agree with you in that these ‘suites’ (in their bid to sound globalised and synergised) have left out heaps of important information in regards to the real world of teaching in schools - where being underpayed and over supervised by people who don't really give a sheet is now accepted as 'best practice'. It is not.

Hi Shonga,

In relation to being a good teacher, when I went for promotion, based on 2 evaluations, I was graded 3 out of 3 as an excellent teacher. The more recent evaluation also graded me 2 out of 3 highly recommended for promotion to what was then known as senior teacher.

What is the value of the above? I shall let you decide. The fact is I taught for 18 years, enjoyed it very much and put a lot of effort into being with kids and teaching them something about English.

In the Journal of the Science Teachers of Western Australia (January 2006) Professor Alan Read has this final comment about one of Dr Donnelly’s many hysterical panic- button reports that he is payed handsomely to create for the Howard regime. I rolled around belly laughing when I read this - it still gives me a giggle.

It reads:

The Donelly report -

‘fails to meet basic research standards such as failing to relate the evidence to the results. Many of the recommendations in the report bear no relationship to the analysis of the documents under review.

In places it reads like wish list of the various educational predilections of its authors.

And ironically for a report that purports to be so concerned about falling standards, there is hardly one its 107 pages that does not contain a spelling, grammatical or formatting mistake”

Snip-

So why don't the likes of Doug White, Bill Hannan, Bob Connell, Dean Ashenden, Simon Marginson and Allan Luke take Donnelly seriously?

It’s quite obvious to me. He just doesn't cut the mustard mate. His ambitions are clearly political not educational

Hello Kevin, It is indeed a very long march back to regain the initiative within our institutions.
A silly question; Are you related in ancestry to Ignatius Donnelly?
A publication of this author is located here;
And book mark the site. http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/e
It is a Gold mine.

Dear Mr Donnelly,
re:
"The fact is I taught for 18 years, enjoyed it very much and put a lot of effort into being with kids and teaching them something about English."
Posted by Kevin D, Saturday, 4 November 2006 9:27:46 PM

But you haven't put this on a timeline yet. Was it, say, 8 to 26 years ago, or 18 to 36 years ago (assuming an uninterrupted career)?

I'm not seeking the sort of tedious detail posted on the Wikipedia entry on Ignatius Donnelly. At the very minimum, I'd just like to read the conventional 4-digit code for last year you taught (eg 1994), and maybe whether you ever took any roll in a school parent's group.

In Victoria at least, outcomes based education is not left wing. It was officially introduced by the Liberals after the public had been softened up by the right wing Institute of Public Affairs. Under the current Labor Government, it includes content. It includes academic standards. It has a very rigorous grading system. It retains traditional disciplines. Below is the content part of my school's Year 8 History course, which is based on the Victorian Essential Learning Standards (our version of OBE):

'A student should:

'1.show knowledge and understanding of medieval societies:
1.1 daily life, the role and work of various groups, the division of labour between men and women, education, rituals and family, clothing, housing.;
1.2 the values and beliefs of medieval societies through their religions, myths and legends, and their social and political structures;
1.3 the ways that medieval societies were governed, political features and the nature of the political system, the dominant groups and how they established and maintained power;
1.4 key events and significant individuals (the fall of Rome, the Viking raids, the Norman Conquest, William the Conqueror);
1.5 the influence of trade and contact with other cultures.

'2. know and use historical concepts:
2.1 time - chronology and sequencing, change and continuity, the ability to locate periods within a time frame;
2.2 cause and effect.

'3. compare key aspects of medieval and present societies;
3.1 aspects of 1 in medieval and modern times;
3.2 influences of medieval societies on contemporary societies; for example, the origins of written law, democracy and the calendar; the limitations on the power of the monarchs (through the rule of law and the writ of habeas corpus); and the origins of major world religions;
3.3 key concepts of democracy, governance, the rule of law, justice, religion, liberty, authority, leadership, culture;
3.4 key individuals' contributions and legacies.'

Rainier,

You are right in saying that Kevin Donnelly has a political motive. But that is equally true of the educationalists you refer to. The issue is not the political motive itself, but the extent to which that motive affects the way arguments are put forward.

Hi,

In relation to Australia's adoption of OBE, anyone familiar with William Spady's works and the Keating Government's national statements and profiles will know that OBE is new-age and left-wing. That is why the 1993 Perth meeting of education ministers decided not to endorse the national curriculum. Each state and territory then went its own way - NSW, as a result of the Eltis Report, maintained a focus on a syllabus approach, whereas states like Tasmania and WA went progressive and adopted OBE in a purer form. In Victoria, the CSF and CSF II adopted elements of an OBE approach and what in the US is called a standards approach. VELS, while not being as OBE focussed as Essential learnings still has elements of OBE.

Kevin

Quite so Kevin. Of course over here in WA we are still well and truely under the Outcomes Based influence, right through our school years. Even the year 11 & 12 debacle which has the government supposedly backing away from OBE, our Curriculum Council still wants to refer directly to the outcomes in assessment policy rather than assessing students on their progress against the soon to be introduced syllabii.

It is a problem over here as a result of the Liberals in government introducing OBE and some politicians, now in opposition, being loath to admit that it has been a failure. I am quite sure that the introduction of OBE was undertaken with the best of intentions. So I am puzzled that when it is now clear that good intelligent young school leavers can't spell or write a report and cannot do simple mental arithmetic calulations and other basic things, these same politicians cannot admit that it hasn't worked and it is time to move on get back to building academic success once more. The current facts are that many young people on leaving school "don't know much" and "can't do much".

The whole argument is not really political, but because the changes that are needed can only take place through government action, a political campaign has to be waged. I am quite confident that as more parents and grandparents recognise the harm that is being done to their children and grandchildren the government will get the message and act.

It is pleasing that NSW and Victoria are not so affected by negative impact of the purist OBE model that has been implemented here in WA.

Rainier, it is all very well to get a good chuckle out of Professor Read's demolition of Donnelly's work, but I'm afraid that rather misses the point.

The point is this: With no disrespect intended, who reads the Journal of the Science Teachers of Western Australia, except for West Australian science teachers?

The point is also this: With no disrespect intended, and with grateful acknowledgement to their contributions to the field, who outside of educational circles has heard of Doug White, Bill Hannan, Bob Connell, Dean Ashenden, Simon Marginson and Allan Luke?

It matters little if the educational establishment don't take Dr Donnelly seriously. They are not his audience. The public are, the politicans are, and they are listening to him.

It was not a West Australian science teacher or any of those eminent academics seated by the Minister's hand in that TV studio. It was Dr Donnelly. It was not a West Australian science teacher or any of those eminent academics pushing their barrow in The Australian for the last two years. It was Dr Donnelly.

Dr Donnelly's political agenda may be obvious to you and I. But what is also obvious, at least to me, is his sincerity and commitment to his agenda. While I count myself proudly as one of his most vociferous public critics, I can take nothing away from his dedication to the task.

Proponents of progress in education need to engage the public, not each other, with their arguments. Now. Preaching to the choir is a waste of time.

Thanks for your post Mercurius as you raise important issues about Donnelly's credibility as an educator and policy maker.

Yes I would agree that many read the Journal of the Science Teachers of Western Australia except for Science teachers of Western Australia- the very people Donnelly’s accuses of being new-age lefties.

Read did them a service by defending their reputations and hard work and dedication to teaching.

Show me one instance of Donnelly praising the work of teachers?

The public are in my opinion being duped by Donnelly, a well paid ideological hired cowboy whose credibility as an educator can only be attributed to his rants about schooling and how they are apparently infested with radical lefties.

He never provides any tangible evidence to support this claim and people like yourself unfortunately take this on board as gospel. It is not.

The title of Read’s article was titled ‘Manufacturing a Crisis in Education” which beautifully illustrates Donnelly’s purpose in life down to a tee.

He’s paid to create moral panics and thus explain what causes it to people who otherwise have no understanding of teaching and learning theory or how school systems work, their history and evolution.

Demonising his more qualified peers is part of the game.

The Murdoch press regularly publish his raves as “opinion pieces”, other times they appear to be editorial commissions. Such access is not because he is a well revered educator and practitioner; it’s because of who he works for. Get it?

Ever thought of why they don’t publish rights of reply from White, Hannan, Connell, Ashden, Marginson and Luke? They do try!

So I totally agree with your call “Proponents of progress in education need to engage the public” But I believe “who controls the media controls the public debates”.

You can’t know what you don’t hear or read- but you should not think the media is ‘the world of balanced opinion”. It is not

From an insiders perspective Donnelly is seen as a third rate academic who has attached himself to an ideologically driven agenda – something ironically he accuses others of doing

Mercurius and others, See the article I refer to by Alan Reid, from Uni of SA here: http://newwace.curriculum.wa.edu.au/docs/Redi%20Article.pdf

Another revealing snippet for this article:

"Quality teaching and learning result from a range of factors. One of these might be the way in which the curriculum is described, but there are many others including the resources available, the quality of the relationships, class size and so on. Donnelly concedes this point at one stage in his report, but then ignores it and bases a raft of recommendations on a review of curriculum documentation done at his desk. It is difficult to understand how a report can
generalise about the whole curriculum on the basis of a review of the intended (written) curriculum in three subjects"

In other words Donnelly is not interested in undertaking deeper research, he is happy to develop conjecture and his own escape route of "plausible deniability", from the comfort of his own desk. This is hardly the academic rigor one expects in the field of education and schooling rsearch.

He's not the Messiah, he's just a naught little boy.(apologies to monty python)

Hi Rainier,

You say:

"He never provides any tangible evidence to support this claim and people like yourself unfortunately take this on board as gospel. It is not."

Evidence of the cultural left's control of the curriculum can be found in chapter 4 of the book 'Why Our Schools Failing', found at:

http://www.mrcltd.org.au/content.cfm?PageID=PubsMonographs

Best wishes,
Kevin

All teaching is a political act. I am happy to state that I use my position in the classroom to work toward the transformation of our society to one that more reflects the values of justice, peace and love. The religious order who run the school I work at state in one of their documents: "There is no such thing as neutral of value-free education. The process of education either legitimises the existing socio-economic system of seeks to transform it in the light of different values and beliefs. In the end, education is a profoundly political activity which seeks to influence the way people live their lives." I take this to heart - there is no such thing as neutral in education! This, I suppose, is where I differ from Kevin. He seems to believe there is a thing such as neutral education. And I thought he worked at a church-based school when he was working as a teacher. Surely they had a socially transformative mission Kevin? Didn't you want your students to go out into the world and to transform it in the light of Christian values? Hardly neutral. Or did you not take the school's Christian mission to heart?

.

Hi bondi_tram,

You state:

"All teaching is a political act. I am happy to state that I use my position in the classroom to work toward the transformation of our society to one that more reflects the values of justice, peace and love."

If all teaching is a political act, how do you judge between different approaches and philosophies? Based on your assumption that all are able to use education as a tool to enforce their own particular ideology, how can you say that some are right and some are wrong? I favour a liberal/humanist view of education, one based on the disinterested pursuit of truth and cultivatiing the rational mind and discriminating spirit.

I feel I must correct the comment made early in this forum about Tasmania's curriculum change. The changes were first mooted by a group of principals here and strongly confirmed by the survey of almost 70% of teachers done by the state branch of the AEU. Both groups overwhelmingly showed that the ELs needed revision. It has not been "axed" or "scrapped" as the media delighted in putting it. It still remains standards/outcomes based education, but has had its 18 unmanageable, non-subject based outcomes reduced to five traditional learning areas and in response to teacher demand will have broad non-grade aligned scope and sequence documents written to match revised standards in those 5 learning areas. It will still have thinking skills embedded and explicitly taught, there will still be collegial assessment and it will still be assessed in levels. It was the union here which led this revision on behalf of members. The previous Minister would have continued to push the original "pure"/transformational OBE, but the new Minister recognised the unwieldy and unworkable giant it had grown into and applied some common sense to it. There are both avid supporters and avid detractors of this revised model amomg teachers here, but it is IMHO a fairly good compromise between the radical and the traditional.

Kevin,

I've used chapter four in my curriculum studies classes to highlight how clumsy, futile and politically charged and ideologically driven your agenda is.

I’ll leave it up to Allan Luke to put it more succinctly:

“As any teacher knows, approaches old and new coexist within staffrooms and across schools despite the best attempts by materials developers, researchers, and governments to swing the system in particular directions. Instead, the power and idiosyncrasy of the "local" is at work in all curriculum reform:

In classrooms particular approaches tend to coexist, blending and creating hybrid approaches to teaching that no textbook developer, researcher, or bureaucrat could have conceptualised.

By definition, curriculum and pedagogic discourses have a way of taking on lives of their own once in circulation in schools. So while many of the dominant discourses, professional debates, and research about literacy education moved toward whole language and personal growth in the mid-to-late 1980s in Australia, traditional approaches to literature study and basic skills approaches to reading remained-with (radioactive) half-lives and continuing influence.”

Critical literacy in Australia: A matter of context and standpoint
Allan Luke. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. Newark: Feb 2000.Vol.43, Iss. 5; pg. 448, 14 pg

My school has a budget of some $8.4 million. This is about $7,000 per student. This is called 'throwing money at education'. Top private schools charge $16,000 or $18,000 per student. This is called 'investing in your children's future'. In order to cut government spending on children in government schools, the Right had to change the focus of public thinking. It did this by creating the concept of 'provider capture', mercilessly libelling teachers, attacking spending as meaningless inputs and seeking an emphasis on outcomes. This is the genesis of outcomes based education in Victoria.

This campaign to change the language in which people thought began with a relentless softening up process:
'…teacher unions have “captured” the operation of education services in regard to staffing and working conditions so that the education system has become unduly teacher-driven.' (Institute of Public Affairs, Schooling Victorians, 1992)
'There is extensive over-staffing of teachers, inefficient work practices and “union” capture of education expenditure.” (IPA, Schooling Victorians, 1992)
'The schools are simply a racket and a rort for teachers who use it as a fully salaried system of outdoor relief.' (Peter Ryan, “Teachers fail to get the point”, The Age, 1/8/1992)
'Socialist Left ideology…is nicely entrenched throughout the state education administrative system, thanks to a continuing infiltration of the faithful throughout the Cain/Kirner years.' (Michael Barnard, 'Labor could not learn”, The Age, 28/8/1992)
'The perks and privileges of this cosseted profession were absolutely sacrosanct.” (“A lesson in anarchy”, Herald Sun (editorial), 19/11/1992)
'Schools…appear to be run more for the benefit and convenience of their employees than for their users.' (Claude Forell, “A reckoning unions had to have”, The Age, 25/11/1992)
'The Kennett Government is pledged to a course that promises to break the debilitating union stranglehold…” (Michael Barnard, “Teachers in a state of intellectual undress”, The Age, 27/11/1992)
'A strong moral case for the present Government unilaterally renouncing all agreements entered into by the previous Government with its employees can be made on the grounds that they were not arms-length agreements.' (Professor Ross Parish, “Let the Public Service pay towards cutting the ranks”, The Age, 11/12/1992)

The Right had to undermine the teaching profession by labelling their view as self-seeking, so teaching hours, class sizes, teacher numbers and the involvement of teachers in decision-making became 'provider capture', justifying cuts to spending and the need for outcomes based education.

'Mr Kennett…set out to break the power of the education unions which had been running then system…' (“A hundred high speed days” (editorial), Herald Sun, 11/1/1993)
'The present system has allowed education to become captive of its bureaucracies and powerful lobbies.' (“A testing year in education” (editorial), The Age, 25/1/1993)
'Money for schools was channelled into creating more jobs and better conditions for teachers.' (“School lessons in economic necessity” (editorial), The Age, 27/1/1993)
'The emergency teacher system…had not existed before 1980…' (Don Hayward, quoted in Denis Muller, “Schools already feel bite of education cuts”, The Age, 1/3/1993) [As a school daily organiser, I knew this was untrue because I had employed emergency teachers without restriction in 1978.]
'Money which could have been saved by reduced teacher numbers has been used to improve teachers' working conditions…the education budget has been allowed to become unnecessarily bloated…Throwing more money at a problem, by itself, can never be guaranteed to achieve the desired result.' (Kevin Donnelly, “Why we're inefficient”, Herald Sun, 3/5/1993
'That structure is prone to “capture” at the centre and the extremities by organised interest groups such as teacher unions…(page 9, Vo. 2, Report of the Victorian Commission of Audit, 1993)
'The powerful public sector unions were permitted by default to run…education…' (“Jim Kennan scratches”, Herald Sun (editorial), 29/6/1993)
'…during the 1980s, the union movement “captured” the operation of the public sector. This led to considerable over-staffing and restrictive work practices…' (Des Moore, “Why government needs to be rolled back”, The Age, 5/7/1993)
On and on and on it went.

This campaign was successful: it lead to OBE, and it so influenced the ALP that secondary schools are still more than 2,000 teachers short of the numbers provided by the 1981 Liberal Government's staffing ratio of 10.9:1.

Hi Rainier,

Thank you for stating the obvious. In all the benchmarking I have done and in my book, I clearly distinguish between the intended curriculum, the implemented and the achieved. The primary report I did for DEST, as stated in the intro, focused on the intended curriculum, that is the syllabus and framework documents.

In the book I clearly state that my beef is not with classroom teachers! That is why I have rarely, if ever attacked, classroom teachers - the people I am most upset about are the escapees from the classroom, the educrats forcing curriculum fads on schools.

'…cosy deals with teacher unions…wasteful school work practices.…It is understandable that some union officials who rode the Labor gravy train are resistant to reform.' (Alan Stockdale, “Education's future depends on savings”, The Age, 22/9/1993)
'Unions have focused on industrial relations to build up a cosy bracket of work practices rather than concentrate on professional standards.' (Don Hayward, quoted in Felicity Dargan, “100 schools to go”, Herald Sun, 30/9/1993)
'It is time for objective standards to be set and for reporting to parents about those standards. Parents will ensure that schools are accountable for their performance once they are given proper information.' (David Edwards, “Getting down to the business of quality education”, The Age, 19/10/1993)

'For too long, Victoria has resisted measuring outcomes. The community is entitled to evidence about student progress.' (Denis Muller(?) (reporter) “…Victoria measures up”, The Age, 9/11/1993

We next got official OBE documentation:
'The Victorian framework will be based on the national statements and profiles produced by the Australian Education Council, and will detail intended learning outcomes around which schools will develop their own programs.' (Joanne Painter (reporter), “Standard tests mooted for students”, The Age, 7/4/1994)
'The absence of even a cautious standardisation of school outcomes has made it impossible for employers to know the capacities of school leavers…' (Ronald Conway, “Time to test students”, Herald Sun, 6/5/1994)
'The framework would focus on outcomes, giving parents an idea of what their children should be achieving at various levels.' (Claire Heaney (reporter), “School shake-up to be unveiled”, Herald Sun, 30/6/1994)
'This framework leaves schools the job of fleshing out and clothing the curriculum framework but it is clear as to the general curriculum outcomes.' (Sam Ball, “Why assessment passes the test”, The Age, 26/7/1994)
'For the first time there is now a proper curriculum and standards framework…setting out the key areas for learning and the skills and knowledge students are expected to acquire…' (“Report on Schools of the Future” (advertisement), Diamond Valley News, 21/12/1994

Outcomes based education - not trendy thinking from the Left, but the outcome of the Right's nasty campaign to make teacher's lives worse!

Sure Chris C, Outcomes Based Education was introduced by a Liberal Government in WA too, in the second half of the 90's. Certainly the politicians did so thinking that it would be good for children. But with the passage of time it has turned out to be a lemon. The leftist demon was within it all the time, disguised within the vague, wordy and difficult to understand Outcome statements leading to a process driven curriculum albeit claimed as a standards based curriculum. What I am at a loss to understand is that some Liberal politicians have not had the courage to admit that they got it wrong and the OBE needs to be booted out.

I recall the situation that went on in Victoria when the Kennett Government came in and had to face an awful budget situation. The Teachers Union over a number of years during the Cain and Kerner Governments had implemented teacher / student ratios that were far more generious than anything similar in the other states. Any teaching person running a school in any other state knew that there were far too many teachers employed in Victorian government schools and were not surprised that Kennett introduced the reforms he did. It might have been argued as being justified at the time through the introduction of OBE, but the Kennett Government were really targeting the Unions more than anything else.

It is great that OBE has been watered down in Victoria, perhaps due in no small part to the disaster that followed its introduction into years 11 & 12. In WA we have still to "wake up". But I sense that this will happen before too long.

Kevin,

Without doubt you explore and discuss the "intended curriculum, the implemented" (albeit quite poorly) but then by inference you clearly suggest that this is what is being achieved and thus implicate teachers as part of your conspiratorial theory of Leftist totalitarianism is schools and classrooms across the nation.

Here are some particularly salient examples - written by your own hand of course: (Chapter 4-Education and the Culture Wars )

You declared;

“Teachers who have been taught in tertiary faculties steeped in political correctness have had, and are having, a significant impact on schools”.

Question: Which universities are you referring to here..? I’m sure the teachers you refer to would like to know they have been identified as leftist ideologues who are messing with the minds of their unsuspecting students year after year.

And;

“In the hands of left-wing teachers, such objectives provide ammunition to present boys and men as misogynist and to indoctrinate girls with the latest feminist tract about gender inequality”

But here is by far the biggest porky of them all -

“Across Australian schools, in areas like multiculturalism, the environment and peace studies, students are indoctrinated and teachers define their role as new-age, class warriors.”

Don’t you read your own copy?

Hi Rainier,

For further evidence of the cultural-left's long march through the education system, you will have to wait for the second book, 'Dumbing Down', to be pubished early next year by Hardie Grant. Also, don't confuse my criticism of education academics with classroom teachers.

Kevin

Kevin,

I'll look forward to reading it somewhere,sometime. I hope you address what is in essense -teaching students about decency and fairness in civil society, be it by either the Left or Right.

And I hope in this new publication you have the courage to declare from the outset what you stand for and why. Another didactic antithetical polemic against your imaginery comic-book Lefties will bore me to tears.

Sniggid,

My central point was that OBE is not essentially a left-wing idea. In Victoria at least it was the work of the Right.

Your statement that, 'The Teachers Union over a number of years during the Cain and Kerner[sic] Governments had implemented teacher / student ratios that were far more generious[sic] than anything similar in the other states' is wrong. Victoria had long had a better ratio than other states. In 1981, under the Thompson Liberal Government, the Victorian secondary pupil-teacher ratio was 10.9:1. In 1992, under the Labor Government, it was 10.8:1 - an improvement of less than one percent. This improvement fades away when the inclusion of student welfare co-ordinator positions is taken into account. For most of the Labor years, it was actually worse than it had been under the Thompson Liberals.

Nor was that Labor Government generous with pay, despite the lies you still read in the press. The January 1982 pay for a senior teacher was $24,456, or $49,499 in January 1992 dollars. The actual pay for those teachers in January 1992 was $39,975. That is a real pay cut of $9,524.

You are half-correct in saying that 'the Kennett Government were really targeting the Unions.' I say 'half' because it really dressed up its attack on teachers as an attack on unions for public consumption: it sounded better that way. The current Labor Government has improved primary teacher numbers after the Kennett cuts, but secondary teachers are still suffering. The current secondary PTR is 12.0:1: we are still more than 2,000 secondary teachers short of what we need thanks to the Kennett

Hey, Kevin,

Remember my earlier 3 questions?

”(1) It's good to know that you have at some time been a teacher, as it lends you some credibility. But you need to put your experience on a timeline that all of us can read. When were you last in a classroom or a school common room? The 18 years of experience could have ended 18 years ago. And what curricula and syllabi were within your brief?

”(2) To which publisher should I write, to request a free review copy of your eagerly awaited book?

”(3) Have you not appealed to your own authority in paragraph I quoted above [see my post of 3 November]? Is this sufficient for your argument, otherwise lacking the evidence which may be available in your as-yet unpublished book?”

re (1): I gather you taught English. Which years did you teach?

re (2) Your Publisher is Hardy Grant. Thank you, but

re (3) No answer yet, and I’m waiting with bated breath. Especially as you appear to have again appealed to your own authority, in your most recent post.

Are you hoping that restating a leaden opinion will transmute it into a golden fact?

Hi Sir Ivor,

How about we start by you posting a complete and full CV of your qualifications and experience in schools and education.

Best wishes,
Kevin

Dear Kevin,

You have answered a question with a demand (or was it a question?).

But thank you for the opportunity to show you mine before you show me yours. How about we continue by you answering my question about which years you taught?

Trust me, I will respond in kind.

Incidentally, It’s Sir Vivor, not Sir Ivor. My English-teaching uncle would have spotted the pun, I’m sure.

Yours faithfully,

From the website of Hardie Grant, the publishers of Dr Donnelly's forthcoming book about educational and academic matters:

"We do not publish poetry, educational, academic or children’s books."
(source: http://www.hardiegrant.com.au/html/indexbooks.html)

QED.

The above quote from Hardie Grant's submissions page: http://www.hardiegrant.com.au/html/subconts.htm

Hi Mercurius,

Not too sure what point you are trying to make. The book is not an academic one or one written as a textbook - more for the general public.

I've signed a contract and the book is at the publishers being proof read.

Make sure you buy a copy next year.

Mercurius,

I would not that worried about this upcoming publication.

Some titles of Hardie Grant's existing publications include -

• Plotting for Beginners: A Novel for New Beginnings,
• A Mermaids Tale: A personal search for love and lore
• The Faery Garden
• Nothing Serious
• World of Pies

kinda/sorta sez it all don't you think?