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.