Job manages to highlight the contradictions inherent in the arguments of the conservative agenda (espoused most forcefully by John Howard and Kevin Donnelly), in that they accuse teachers of history of indoctrinating a 'black armband' version of Australian history as well as accusing these teachers of taking a postmodern, relativistic approach.
The reality is that Howard et al. are not against indoctrination, it is just what is being indoctrinated that they want changed.
Anyway, here's what I believe to be a great excerpt from the article:
The debate on history teaching is predicated upon two fundamentally different views of what history is for. Those who see history as primarily an intellectual discipline, a search for understanding based on evidence, see critical thinking as central to comprehension and exploration of the past, providing students with a moral compass with which to understand and question the present.
The debate on history teaching is predicated upon two fundamentally different views of what history is for. Those who see history as primarily an intellectual discipline, a search for understanding based on evidence, see critical thinking as central to comprehension and exploration of the past, providing students with a moral compass with which to understand and question the present.
Far from being post-modernist, such elements have been a vital element in quality pedagogy from at least the time of Plato. The position adopted by Howard and Donnelly, in contrast, is one in which the primary role of history is to engender a specific kind of national identity and pride in line with their own conservative preferences. Such a prism is hostile to the evaluation of evidence that is inherent in a critical thinking approach, for by considering different views it damages this project. Howard and Donnelly are not only hostile to what they call a "black armband" view of Australia's past, but to the notion that the education system should contain a dialogue of different views.
2 comments:
good post Steve! i think you're spot on about indoctrination; that what Howard's after is a shift in the content of indoctrination.
'indoctrination' is such an evocative word in the public mind.
what i find particularly troubling is the rejection by Howard et al of multiperspectival+critical approaches, which in my mind centralises the curriculum to the agenda of whoever's in Canberra at the time.
Such a precedent would leave the door wide open for, yes that's right, indoctrination.
a long time between posts...
Post a Comment