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...