This site is intended as a forum for people who are interested in social justice in education to express their opinions. it is not a 'true' blog, but it provides a forum on different topics where others can contribute to informed debate about issues that are current, particularly issues raised by decisions made by, and policies of, Australian federal and state governments as well as prominent commentators on educational issues.
I'm particularly fascinated by Dr D's admission that he used the 1996 literacy statistics to back up his condemnation of OBE. "I quote from the 1996 1996 national literacy tests showing that 29 per cent of Year 5 children could not read at the minimum level and 33 per cent of Year 5 children did not meet the minimum standard in writing" (response, paragraph 16). The book was written in the last 12 months. Where is Dr Donnelly's analysis of more recent results? Could it be that there is an improvement and that would go against his thesis? Surely not! If standards are dropping that would be shown in more recent results.
Dr D, if you're around (please note I know how to use the apostraphe...not all beginning teachers are illiterate) please explain why you chose one set of numbers to back up your statement. If there has been a continuing drop in standards, a more appropriate way to demonstrate this would be to show yearly or bi-annual results. Do you have these or do you need some help with your data collection?
It's easy to appal with statistics about illiteracy and innumeracy, writes Lorien Kaye
KEVIN DONNELLY VIGOROUSLY strikes a warning bell as he excoriates the effect of the "cultural left" on Australia's school system. His more restrained argument - that it's a case of the pendulum having swung too far - tends to get lost under the rumbling peals.
Donnelly, a frequent contributor to The Australian on education issues and the author of Why Our Schools Are Failing, has two strands to his argument: that current education standards in Australia are too low and that outcomes-based and politically correct curricula, a result of the cultural left's influence on the system, are to blame.
It's not hard to appal readers by citing statistics about primary students being illiterate or innumerate when entering high school. And it's easy to get them to agree that, for instance, education should be valued for itself or that some ways of understanding the world approximate truth more exactly than others.
But one's suspicion that there is a straw man somewhere in the vicinity of the warning bell (one imagines Donnelly rushing at them with a stick like a child bashing a pinata) is never quite put to rest. Donnelly is a manipulative writer, talking of "unsuspecting" students and "cultural warriors", leading one to wonder whether statistics and quotations have been chosen and interpreted selectively. And if things are as parlous as he believes, where is a full exploration of other factors that might have contributed?
Standing up for education Ross Fitzgerald MATP 872 words 17 March 2007 The Australian 5 - Qld Review 10 English Copyright 2007 News Ltd. All Rights Reserved
Kevin Donnelly is a first-class polemicist hammering the progressivists wrecking our schools, writes Ross Fitzgerald
Dumbing Down
By Kevin Donnelly
Hardie Grant Books, 230pp, $24.95
AS a liberal-humanist and member of the Left, I still find it disconcerting that so-called progressivists continue to oppose selective schools, unambiguous academic standards and the teaching in our schools of distinct disciplines such as history, geography, science, mathematics and English. This is because, for the working class, high-quality education represents the most effective avenue for social mobility and for ascending the ladder of economic and intellectual opportunity.
Kevin Donnelly is a first-class polemicist in the best sense of that word. In his regular contributions to The Australian, his provocative book Why Our Schools are Failing (2004) and now in Dumbing Down, he focuses attention on the pernicious effects of outcomes-based and politically correct curriculums and the impact of
the so-called culture wars on our primary and secondary schools and, by implication, our universities.
For the record, Donnelly and I were both on a committee appointed by then federal education minister Brendan Nelson to introduce the teaching of civics in our schools.
Unlike Donnelly, I am a member of a committee reporting to Education Minister Julie Bishop, which oversees the teaching of values in our schools.
In Dumbing Down, Donnelly is particularly strong in dealing with the teaching of history and English. With regard to Australian history, it is difficult to disagree with his contention that many students leave school "with a fragmented and superficial understanding of the past".
He usefully reminds us what the distinguished conservative historian Geoffrey Blainey actually said in his now famous-notorious 1993 John Latham memorial lecture. Blainey argued that what he termed the black-armband view of Australian history "might well represent the swing of the pendulum from a position that had been too favourable, too self-congratulatory, to an opposite extreme that is even more unreal and decidedly jaundiced".
Blainey in fact acknowledged that the stories, contributions and sufferings of women, indigenous Australians and of non-Anglo-Celtic migrants had too often been ignored. Hence he maintained that "it is wrong to ignore the sins of the past and that what is needed is a balance between celebrating our achievements and acknowledging our past mistakes".
Donnelly is also right on the money when he discusses the deleterious effects of English departments in Australian universities being recast as centres for cultural studies and of school children no longer required to be taught the basic rules of spelling, grammar and syntax. He rightly accepts that there is "a certain amount of truth in the argument that education can be used as an instrument to enforce control and to impose a one-sided view of the world". As Blainey acknowledged, the way Australian history was taught in our schools in the 1950s and '60s "undervalued indigenous history and uncritically promoted Australia's British heritage and the benefits of Empire". At the same time, it is important to stress that the rules of grammar and syntax, and of basic mathematics, remain the same "whether taught by a socialist or a capitalist".
In his 1869 article, On General Education, no less a person than Karl Marx argued that "Nothing [should] be introduced either in primary or higher schools that admitted of party and class interpretation. The rules of grammar, for instance, could not differ, whether explained by a religious Tory or a free thinker."
Sometimes Donnelly's stress on proper style and correct spelling, grammar and syntax comes back to bite him: too often in Dumbing Down he resorts to the worn-out phrase "of course" and once at least refers to "its principle conclusions".
Nevertheless, he usefully attacks the stupidity of entrenched notions of cultural relativism, which maintain that there is nothing inherently worthwhile about particular cultures and that all cultures are of equal worth. As he argues, this approach "ignores the fact that some cultural practices such as female circumcision, misogynism and sati (where wives throw themselves on their husbands' funeral pyres) are unacceptable in the West and that values such as tolerance, compassion, the rule of law and being committed to a free and open society are culturally specific."
Both the Coalition Government under John Howard and the ALP under Kevin Rudd have rightly nominated education as a key issue leading up to this year's federal election. It behoves us all as citizens and parents to ask, for example, why it is that competition and academic excellence, a belief in our best students being rewarded and in the central importance of an intellectually rigorous academic curriculum are so often attacked by educationalists as "elitist and socially unjust".
To the contrary, an understanding of the basic building blocks of science, mathematics, history, geography and English is the surest launching pad for culturally and economically disadvantaged children, as is an education system whose standards are assured via competitive examinations, discipline-based curriculums and more formal methods of teaching.
Ross Fitzgerald is the author of 28 books, most recently The Pope's Battalions: Santamaria, Catholicism and the Labor Split.
"To the contrary, an understanding of the basic building blocks of science, mathematics, history, geography and English is the surest launching pad for culturally and economically disadvantaged children, as is an education system whose standards are assured via competitive examinations, discipline-based curriculums and more formal methods of teaching" (Ross Fitzgerald).
Firstly, Ross Fitzgerald is missing out on some vital information ... "competitive examinations, discipline-based curriculums and more formal methods of teaching" have been shown to, time and time again, alienate "culturally and economically disadvantaged children" to the point where their achievements are well below "others". Has he missed out on reading the vast amount of literature including empirical analysis on the matter?
Secondly, "an understanding of the basic building blocks of science, mathematics, history, geography and English" is hardly good teaching. Good teaching goes well beyond the basics. And it seems that Ross is saying that the basics are enough for "culturally and economically disadvantaged children".
5 comments:
Here's Dr D's response to Mcintyre's review.
I'm particularly fascinated by Dr D's admission that he used the 1996 literacy statistics to back up his condemnation of OBE. "I quote from the 1996 1996 national literacy tests showing that 29 per cent of Year 5 children could not read at the minimum level and 33 per cent of Year 5 children did not meet the minimum standard in writing" (response, paragraph 16). The book was written in the last 12 months. Where is Dr Donnelly's analysis of more recent results? Could it be that there is an improvement and that would go against his thesis? Surely not! If standards are dropping that would be shown in more recent results.
Dr D, if you're around (please note I know how to use the apostraphe...not all beginning teachers are illiterate) please explain why you chose one set of numbers to back up your statement. If there has been a continuing drop in standards, a more appropriate way to demonstrate this would be to show yearly or bi-annual results. Do you have these or do you need some help with your data collection?
I forgot to post the link! :)
Here it is:
http://theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21353509-12332,00.html?from=public_rss
Another review:
Dumb and dumber
Reviewer, Lorien Kaye
282 words
17 March 2007
The Age
First
26
English
© 2007 Copyright John Fairfax Holdings Limited. www.theage.com.au Not available for re-distribution.
EDUCATION
Dumbing Down
By Kevin Donnelly
Hardie Grant Books, $24.95
It's easy to appal with statistics about illiteracy and innumeracy, writes Lorien Kaye
KEVIN DONNELLY VIGOROUSLY strikes a warning bell as he excoriates the effect of the "cultural left" on Australia's school system. His more restrained argument - that it's a case of the pendulum having swung too far - tends to get lost under the rumbling peals.
Donnelly, a frequent contributor to The Australian on education issues and the author of Why Our Schools Are Failing, has two strands to his argument: that current education standards in Australia are too low and that outcomes-based and politically correct curricula, a result of the cultural left's influence on the system, are to blame.
It's not hard to appal readers by citing statistics about primary students being illiterate or innumerate when entering high school. And it's easy to get them to agree that, for instance, education should be valued for itself or that some ways of understanding the world approximate truth more exactly than others.
But one's suspicion that there is a straw man somewhere in the vicinity of the warning bell (one imagines Donnelly rushing at them with a stick like a child bashing a pinata) is never quite put to rest. Donnelly is a manipulative writer, talking of "unsuspecting" students and "cultural warriors", leading one to wonder whether statistics and quotations have been chosen and interpreted selectively. And if things are as parlous as he believes, where is a full exploration of other factors that might have contributed?
And another ... of a completely different sort.
Standing up for education
Ross Fitzgerald
MATP
872 words
17 March 2007
The Australian
5 - Qld Review
10
English
Copyright 2007 News Ltd. All Rights Reserved
Kevin Donnelly is a first-class polemicist hammering the progressivists wrecking our schools, writes Ross Fitzgerald
Dumbing Down
By Kevin Donnelly
Hardie Grant Books, 230pp, $24.95
AS a liberal-humanist and member of the Left, I still find it disconcerting that so-called progressivists continue to oppose selective schools, unambiguous academic standards and the teaching in our schools of distinct disciplines such as history, geography, science, mathematics and English. This is because, for the working class, high-quality education represents the most effective avenue for social mobility and for ascending the ladder of economic and intellectual opportunity.
Kevin Donnelly is a first-class polemicist in the best sense of that word. In his regular contributions to The Australian, his provocative book Why Our Schools are Failing (2004) and now in Dumbing Down, he focuses attention on the pernicious effects of outcomes-based and politically correct curriculums and the impact of
the so-called culture wars on our primary and secondary schools and, by implication, our universities.
For the record, Donnelly and I were both on a committee appointed by then federal education minister Brendan Nelson to introduce the teaching of civics in our schools.
Unlike Donnelly, I am a member of a committee reporting to Education Minister Julie Bishop, which oversees the teaching of values in our schools.
In Dumbing Down, Donnelly is particularly strong in dealing with the teaching of history and English. With regard to Australian history, it is difficult to disagree with his contention that many students leave school "with a fragmented and superficial understanding of the past".
He usefully reminds us what the distinguished conservative historian Geoffrey Blainey actually said in his now famous-notorious 1993 John Latham memorial lecture. Blainey argued that what he termed the black-armband view of Australian history "might well represent the swing of the pendulum from a position that had been too favourable, too self-congratulatory, to an opposite extreme that is even more unreal and decidedly jaundiced".
Blainey in fact acknowledged that the stories, contributions and sufferings of women, indigenous Australians and of non-Anglo-Celtic migrants had too often been ignored. Hence he maintained that "it is wrong to ignore the sins of the past and that what is needed is a balance between celebrating our achievements and acknowledging our past mistakes".
Donnelly is also right on the money when he discusses the deleterious effects of English departments in Australian universities being recast as centres for cultural studies and of school children no longer required to be taught the basic rules of spelling, grammar and syntax. He rightly accepts that there is "a certain amount of truth in the argument that education can be used as an instrument to enforce control and to impose a one-sided view of the world". As Blainey acknowledged, the way Australian history was taught in our schools in the 1950s and '60s "undervalued indigenous history and uncritically promoted Australia's British heritage and the benefits of Empire". At the same time, it is important to stress that the rules of grammar and syntax, and of basic mathematics, remain the same "whether taught by a socialist or a capitalist".
In his 1869 article, On General Education, no less a person than Karl Marx argued that "Nothing [should] be introduced either in primary or higher schools that admitted of party and class interpretation. The rules of grammar, for instance, could not differ, whether explained by a religious Tory or a free thinker."
Sometimes Donnelly's stress on proper style and correct spelling, grammar and syntax comes back to bite him: too often in Dumbing Down he resorts to the worn-out phrase "of course" and once at least refers to "its principle conclusions".
Nevertheless, he usefully attacks the stupidity of entrenched notions of cultural relativism, which maintain that there is nothing inherently worthwhile about particular cultures and that all cultures are of equal worth. As he argues, this approach "ignores the fact that some cultural practices such as female circumcision, misogynism and sati (where wives throw themselves on their husbands' funeral pyres) are unacceptable in the West and that values such as tolerance, compassion, the rule of law and being committed to a free and open society are culturally specific."
Both the Coalition Government under John Howard and the ALP under Kevin Rudd have rightly nominated education as a key issue leading up to this year's federal election. It behoves us all as citizens and parents to ask, for example, why it is that competition and academic excellence, a belief in our best students being rewarded and in the central importance of an intellectually rigorous academic curriculum are so often attacked by educationalists as "elitist and socially unjust".
To the contrary, an understanding of the basic building blocks of science, mathematics, history, geography and English is the surest launching pad for culturally and economically disadvantaged children, as is an education system whose standards are assured via competitive examinations, discipline-based curriculums and more formal methods of teaching.
Ross Fitzgerald is the author of 28 books, most recently The Pope's Battalions: Santamaria, Catholicism and the Labor Split.
"To the contrary, an understanding of the basic building blocks of science, mathematics, history, geography and English is the surest launching pad for culturally and economically disadvantaged children, as is an education system whose standards are assured via competitive examinations, discipline-based curriculums and more formal methods of teaching" (Ross Fitzgerald).
Firstly, Ross Fitzgerald is missing out on some vital information ... "competitive examinations, discipline-based curriculums and more formal methods of teaching" have been shown to, time and time again, alienate "culturally and economically disadvantaged children" to the point where their achievements are well below "others". Has he missed out on reading the vast amount of literature including empirical analysis on the matter?
Secondly, "an understanding of the basic building blocks of science, mathematics, history, geography and English" is hardly good teaching. Good teaching goes well beyond the basics. And it seems that Ross is saying that the basics are enough for "culturally and economically disadvantaged children".
Post a Comment