A Broad View Is The Key To The Best Education

Sydney Morning Herald

Friday October 13, 2006

Carmel Tebbutt

THE latest comments from the federal Education Minister, Julie Bishop, signal that the public debate over school curriculums has descended to a farcical level with McCarthyist overtones. For the record: I was not a guest speaker at a "Marxist centenary conference".

The fact the Howard Government resorts to making such fictitious claims underscores the lack of substance in the agenda it is trying to impose on NSW as well as the other states and territories.

John Howard and Bishop apparently believe that they, and only they, should decide what children learn in NSW schools. They display a disturbing ignorance about the history of educational reform in NSW.

Clearly this element of history is not Bishop's strong suit. What is more alarming is that the Howard Government's attempt to implement its own version of political correctness under the guise of national consistency could see NSW lose more than it gains.

Until the NSW Labor Government reformed the high school curriculum, a student could finish school without encountering Shakespeare.

In NSW, our syllabuses are content-based, grounded in traditional knowledge. The history syllabus requires an understanding of facts and of linear history. The English syllabus has works by the world's great writers and poets.

Any concern that school syllabus documents have been "infected" by postmodernism does not apply in NSW.

At the same time it is dangerous to do as recent conservative critics have and use the label postmodernism as a catchphrase to criticise what are in fact very valid aspects of a well-rounded education. Canonical literature doesn't just sit on an altar. In studying works of literature it is important that students have a deep appreciation of the text as a work of art. But it is also important that students learn about the background and perspective of the author, the historical context in which the work was constructed and the audience for whom the work was intended.

Modern curriculums cannot be stuck in a time warp. It is relevant to ask whose voices are being heard in a text, and to ask which voices are excluded. Jane Austen's social status is relevant. Shakespeare's position as an Elizabethan courtier with aristocratic patrons clearly shaped some of his work. The role of women in most 19th-century novels is a point of interest and discussion for most students. Not only are these perspectives inescapable, they make literature come alive for the student.

Equally, while history is best taught through a sequenced progression, students also need to understand a range of differing views on the impact of agreed events.

Students learn about the great historical events through the perspectives of different people. How can you understand the Industrial Revolution without understanding the impact on the masses of people who left behind their rural life to work in factories? Equally, you need to understand the role of industrialists and how they were fundamental to opening up the world through technological innovations.

In an Australian context, how can any account of the arrival of the First Fleet ignore the effect of this event on the Aboriginal inhabitants, and lay any claim to historical accuracy?

Delving deep into the effects of historical events on the lives of ordinary people is part of a modern understanding of history. But in order to do this effectively, students must first be taught the chronologies, the facts and the important events.

We are right to reject faddism in our syllabuses. Education is simply too important.

In a modern democracy, the curriculum must be accessible to all. To have it otherwise will disadvantage students who rely on a quality education as their only pathway to a better future.

However, we should not reject the need for students to critically analyse works and understand the great conflicts behind many historical events. Those commentators and politicians who try to limit history to one "approved" version or English to the "great works" are doing students a disservice. We need to be careful not to replace one fad with a simplistic version of truth. To do so makes the study of literature and history boring and devoid of meaning and risks alienating a generation of students.

The Commonwealth does not run a single school, employ one teacher or teach any school students. It is all care and no responsibility. In NSW we have managed to retain traditional content and carefully modernise our syllabuses.

The federal Education Minister's recent forays into curriculum and teaching have not been productive. Her comments belittle teachers and undermine students and their parents' confidence in schools.

Carmel Tebbutt is the NSW Education Minister.