Reading Between The Political Lines

The Age

Monday April 24, 2006

JOHN Howard has a gift for voicing public concerns in a way that anyone can understand. The Prime Minister's commentary ranges freely across portfolios (even contradicting embarrassed ministers) and is not confined to federal responsibilities. Not for the first time, Mr Howard has ventured into the state arena of school curriculums to condemn the "dumbing down" of English studies. He complains that "traditional texts are treated no differently from pop cultural commentary". While the states and teachers have rejected this sweeping generalisation, the potency of Mr Howard's critique is that parents and the public share his concern that some syllabuses might not only enable students to avoid literature, or at least its classic forms, but excuse their inability to read and write properly. The Age voiced just such a doubt about proposed standards for VCE English in Victoria, which were revised.

Mr Howard's remarks appear to have been prompted by Western Australia's move to allow year 12 students to compare film posters, rather than read a book, and not penalise poor spelling and grammar. When he insists all texts are not equally valid, "there is good literature and rubbish", most of us will nod in agreement. The Age would caution, though, against dismissing the value of studying contemporary English works such as songs by Paul Kelly. The accessibility of his word play can help foster students' interest and insight into the use of language.

Mr Howard also says he believes "if states are to have sensible functions", they should set their own syllabuses. So what is the point of speaking out now? Labor leader Kim Beazley had an unusually to-the-point retort: "Instead of telling everyone what they should read, John Howard should make his ministers read cables about the bribes to Saddam Hussein." Perhaps, though, after 10 years Mr Howard has perfected his political formula: it's all care and no responsibility.