August 13th 2005

  Buy Issue 2713

Articles from this issue:

COVER STORY: BRAZIL: The slippery road to communist dictatorship

EDITORIAL: Australia's clean, green image at risk

CANBERRA OBSERVED: Howard Government's industrial relations pain

SCHOOLS: Subverting the English curriculum

NATIONAL SECURITY: Re-thinking Australia's response to terrorism

ECONOMICS: Ethanol and the national interest

CONSTITUTION: What is wrong with a Bill of Rights?

FAMILY LAW: Paternity fraud penalises the innocent

UNITED STATES: John G. Roberts and the US Supreme Court

STRAWS IN THE WIND: How to lose with a royal flush / Hard cases / Another 'bottom of the harbour' scheme? / Waste disposal

CINEMA: 'Vigilante justice' and movie culture

FORTHCOMING TOUR: The 'Mother Teresa of Africa' to tour Australia

Better way to help African poor (letter)

Clinical judgement on treatment of dying (letter)

Serious omission (letter)


BOOKS: NED KELLY'S LAST DAYS: Setting the record straight on the death of an outlaw

Books promotion page

Subverting the English curriculum

by Kevin Donnelly

News Weekly, August 13, 2005
Postmodern teaching theories, such as critical literacy, threaten to deprive students of their cultural heritage, and should have no place in English classes, says Kevin Donnelly.

It is no wonder the head of the Australian Association for the Teaching (AATE) of English would defend critical literacy. Writing in The Australian (Letters, July 25), Paul Sommer argued the approach does not represent a "radical notion" and that critical literacy is part of the mainstream in the US and Britain. Wrong on both accounts.

Critical literacy represents a fundamental and radical shift in the way literature is taught, or not taught, and the way children are expected to read.

The cultural heritage approach is based on the conviction that all children have the right to encounter those literary classics that say something profound and lasting about the human condition.

Especially in primary school, the emotional and psychological wellbeing of children depends on a rich and steady diet of those myths, fables and legends that explore elemental emotions such as bravery, selfishness, greed, sorrow and love.

In secondary school, it is also vitally important that students learn to value and to read with discrimination the literary canon, from Greek tragedy to Shakespeare, from Jane Austen to David Malouf.

Advocates of critical literacy, on the other hand, argue that everything is a worthwhile text for study and that there is nothing privileged about the classics. According to Terry Eagleton, an English disciple of the theory who subsequently recanted:

"Value is a transitive term ... we may in the future produce a society [that] is unable to get anything at all out of Shakespeare ... In such a situation Shakespeare would be no more valuable than much present-day graffiti."

Whereas literature was once read for the joy of reading and for its aesthetic and moral influence, a critical literacy approach asks students to deconstruct texts in terms of power relationships.

In the words of a Queensland curriculum document, education is no longer about accepting received knowledge; instead, students are taught that "knowledge is always tentative" and how to "deconstruct dominant views of society".

Students are also taught to "critique the socially constructed elements of text" and how "the consumer of a text is positioned and the possibility of who may have been marginalised by authors".

Sharp political edge

Of course, good English teaching has always had a sharp political edge. Nobody could read Blake's poetry or the works of Swift, Dickens and Orwell without coming face to face with the power of rhetorical language and the ills and injustices of Western society.

Where critical theory goes one step further is to embrace a left-wing, politically correct view on social and political issues, especially those related to sex, ethnicity and class.

Advocates of theory associated with the AATE regularly criticise Australian society as bourgeois, patriarchal and Eurocentric and, notwithstanding the lip service to critical thinking, there is little room for students to disagree.

US and Britain

Sommer is also incorrect when he says that critical literacy is the mainstream in the US and Britain. An analysis of the English national curriculum and the Californian English-language arts content standards documents finds literature pre-eminent.

Not only are students expected to read a wide range of literary genres, including myths, fables, legends, poetry, drama and fiction, both classic and contemporary, they are also expected to evaluate technical aspects such as alliteration, assonance and rhyme.

Australia's approach to teaching literature is the opposite of that of the US and Britain. In Tasmania, literature disappears under the heading "Communicating, Being Arts Literate" and students are asked to "construct and deconstruct arts works".

In the West Australian curriculum framework document, students are asked to "analyse how texts and ways of reading encourage certain ways of thinking and ignore or marginalise others. They understand the way in which stereotypes can reinforce preconceptions about certain social groups and may serve the interests of some groups and disadvantage those of others."

The Queensland English years 1 to 10 syllabus is awash with the dense and convoluted jargon associated with what the document describes as "a sociocultural-critical model of language".

Luckily, not all academics agree with the AATE and teacher educators such as Sommer. As Melbourne University academic S.L. Goldberg argued:

"People are more likely than not to go on being interested in people, as much as they are in abstract theories and ideologies, or impersonal forces, or structural systems, or historical information, or even the play of signifiers.

"So it is more likely than not, I'd say, that people will go on valuing those writings that they judge best help them to realise what the world is and what people are, and to live with both as realistically and as fully as they can."

  • Kevin Donnelly, author of Why Our Schools are Failing (2004), was an English teacher and a member of the AATE for 14 years.

Join email list

Join e-newsletter list

Your cart has 0 items

Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers

Trending articles

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Memo to Shorten, Wong: LGBTIs don't want it

COVER STORY Shorten takes low road to defeat marriage plebiscite

COVER STORY Reaper mows down first child in the Low Countries

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Kevin Andrews: defend marriage on principles

COVER STORY Bill Shorten imposes his political will on the nation

CANBERRA OBSERVED Coalition still gridlocked despite foreign success

ENVIRONMENT More pseudo science from climate

News and views from around the world

Menzies, myth and modern Australia (Jonathan Pincus)

China’s utterly disgraceful human-rights record

Japan’s cure for childlessness: a robot (Marcus Roberts)

SOGI laws: a subversive response to a non-existent problem (James Gottry)

Shakespeare, Cervantes and the romance of the real (R.V. Young)

That’s not funny: PC and humour (Anthony Sacramone)

Refugees celebrate capture of terror suspect

The Spectre of soft totalitarianism (Daniel Mahoney)

American dream more dead than you thought (Eric Levitz)

Think the world is overcrowded: These 10 maps show why you’re wrong (Max Galka)

© Copyright 2011
Last Modified:
November 14, 2015, 11:18 am