Michael F. Shaughnessy Senior Columnist EdNews.org
Eastern New Mexico University

1. Your most recent book discusses the "dumbing down” of Australia's curriculum. What prompted you to write this book?

Over the last 3 to 4 years I have undertaken a number of international curriculum benchmarking projects, comparing Australian state and territory school intended curriculum documents against stronger performing overseas systems. I was struck by the fact that Australian curriculum, as a result of adopting an outcomes-based education model (otherwise known as OBE and drawing on the works of William Spady) emphasises teaching politically correct values, feelings and dispositions in opposition to traditional academic content, skills and understanding. At the same time as evaluating curriculum globally, I was the consultant to the Commonwealth Government’s Civics and Citizenship Programme (Discovering Democracy) and, on analysing how subjects like history, politics and geography are now taught in Australia (under the banner of Studies of Society and the Environment), I realised that the ‘cultural-left’ had taken hold of the curriculum. I have written the book to be a ‘wake up call’ to the Australian public and to help fashion the debate on education in what is to be an election year, 2007.

2) You indicate that there is a "culture war" and that is impacting the schools of Australia. Who are the two sides, what do they seem to stand for and who do you see as the ultimate victor?

Broadly speaking, I differentiate between a ‘cultural-left’ view of education and a ‘liberal-humanist’ view. The first gained ascendency during the cultural revolution of the 60s and 70s that swept the English speaking, Western world. This was a time of Vietnam moratoriums, the Hippie movement, feminism and victim politics – the left decided to take the long march through the institutions, especially education, in order to radically change society. Education, so the left argued, was simply an apparatus used by capitalists to consolidate their power and a belief in the value of academic studies, meritocracy and education as a ladder of opportunity were all attacked as bourgeois and oppressive. Some associated with the ‘cultural-left’ even argued that there is no such thing as truth or objective reality as knowledge and understanding of the world are simply ‘socio -cultural’ constructs. According to the left, education cannot be disinterested as all discourse is ideological and the purpose of education is to transform society according to what the left defines as PC. Tracing back to TS Eliot, Matthew Arnold and the Renaissance, the Reformation and the Enlightenment to the ancient Greeks and Romans, it is possible to identify a liberal/humanist view of education, closely associated with the rise of Western Civilisation and our Judeo/Christian heritage. Education, in its truest sense, is disinterested, concerned with the best that has been thought and said and not immediately utilitarian or practical. Education should not be confused with indoctrination or training and the ideal is to engender within young people the ability to discriminate, to think and act rationally and to partake of what Michael Oakeshott described as the ‘great conversation’.

Given the global conflict between Western Civilisation and terrorist threat represented by what Michael Gove describes as fundamentalist Islam, it is vital that students in both the US and Australia learn to value and appreciate the unique qualities embedded in our culture that guarantee our democratic rights, freedoms and way of life. If the choice is between barbarism and civilisation then I expect and hope that a liberal/humanist view will prevail.

3) The schools in America seem to be overly preoccupied with being politically correct and attempting to offend no one. As a result, we seem to be only superficially exploring the issues. Is this is what is happening in Australia?

As a result of the ‘cultural-left’ taking control of the curriculum, especially in subjects like literature and history, Australian students leave school morally adrift and culturally impoverished. As students are no longer taught history properly, they have a fragmented, superficial and PC understanding of the past. A review of history teaching carried out by the Commonwealth Government concluded that many students know little about Australia’s growth as a nation or the kind of grand narrative associated with the rise of Western Civilisation. In literature, everything, from graffiti, to picture posters to SMS messages to the classics represented by Shakespeare are defined as ‘texts’ and students are made to analyse (deconstruct) them in terms of power relationships. The moral and aesthetic quality of the canon has been destroyed and many students enter undergraduate courses unable to write a structured, concise, grammatically correct essay. As a result of the PC movement, some primary schools refused to have nativity scenes related to Christmas because they did not want to offend other religious and ethnic groups.

4) You seem to indicate that the children of Australia are leaving schools "morally adrift". In America, some guy named William Bennett seems to indicate that we have lost our "moral compass". What has brought this about?

One reason that students leave school morally adrift is that literature and history have largely disappeared from the curriculum, or, even worse, when present, they are interpreted from a ‘cultural-left’ perspective. Instead of valuing history and literature for what they teach us about morality and the struggle for enlightenment, students are made to deconstruct what they learn in terms of victim politics and power relationships. As a result of postmodernism and deconstruction, students are also told that all cultures are of equal value and worth and that it is impossible to discriminate or decide right from wrong as all values are relative and how we relate to the world is subjective. Students leave school lacking resilience and a moral compass as they have nothing to anchor their values to or anything positive or affirming to believe in.

5) Are Australian kids leaving school "culturally impoverished"? And what do you mean by this?

Professor Brian Crittenden, my Ph.D. supervisor at La Trobe University, wrote a paper in 1987 in which he argued that all students needed to be culturally literate. Similar to E.D. Hirsch Jr, Crittenden suggested that there was a certain amount of knowledge and understanding considered essential if one was to be able to enter and contribute to the public debate.
In the media, the expectation is that references like ‘he met his Waterloo’, ‘Achilles’ heel’, ‘popular sovereignty’, ‘separation of powers’ and ‘narcissus’ will be understood. Such knowledge does not happen intuitively or by accident, students need to be taught and the traditional subjects associated with the liberal/humanist tradition offer the best and most effective way for this to happen. If students do not understand or appreciate the importance of key facts, events, dates etc then they are culturally impoverished. Much of contemporary culture, especially youth culture, is superficial, self-centred, materialistic and dumbed down – education should provide an alternative.

6) I personally believe that we have to study history, understand the past, and if we do not, as the old saying goes, if we do not study history, we are condemned to repeat it. What is happening with the study of history in Australia?

As a result of adopting OBE, history in most states and territories has disappeared as a stand alone subject. The result is that history is drowned in a PC stew incorporating feminism, environmentalism, gender, class, race and victim politics. An added problem is that much of what is taught has a contemporary focus or students focus on investigating slices or history (key episodes or incidents) instead of developing a broad narrative with a strong chronological framework. There is also the problem that indoctrination has replaced the ideal of educating students in a balanced, impartial way. Such are the concerns about the PC, fragmented and superficial nature of history teaching in our schools that, last year, Prime Minister Howard called for a “root and branch renewal” of how the subject was taught in schools.

7) Why are students not leaving school with some basic understanding of literacy and numeracy? How do you define these two terms?

As a result of fuzzy maths and whole language, many Australian students have very poor literacy and numeracy skills. When introduced, in the mid-1990s, the national benchmark tests in literacy concluded that some 30% of primary school kids failed to meet the benchmark, defined as: the minimal level of ability without which further progress is impossible. All Australian universities now have remedial classes for first year undergraduates as many cannot write a properly structured, coherent essay or master basic algebra. The problem is compounded as the basics are no longer taught in a structured and coherent way and many beginning teachers (given that they are the end product of education experiments like OBE) lack the required level of ability to cope. At years 3, 5, 7 and 9, there is agreement to introduce national benchmark tests in literacy and numeracy – the problem is in Australia, to date, such benchmarks are set at the lowest level (defined as above) and there is a suspicion that our benchmarks, compared to stronger performing overseas counties, are the weakest.

8) I know that parents are often given a lot of "edubabble " in the U.S. What are some examples of this in Australia and what does it do to parent involvement?

Australian curriculum, again as a result of OBE, is riddled with edubabble.
Teachers no longer ‘teach’ they ‘facilitate’, kids are no longer described as ‘students’, they are ‘knowledge navigators’ or ‘adaptive, life long learners’, the ‘f’ word has disappeared to be replaced by ‘deferred success’.

In school reports, it is impossible for parents to understand where their kids are ranked in terms of the class or their level of ability as percentages and letter grades have been replaced by generalised, vague and PC descriptions like ‘consolidating’, ‘not yet achieved’ and ‘shows evidence’. The way the curriculum is described is also full of jargon, words and phrases like: constructivism, social-critical literacy, multi-modal texts, developmentalism, OBE and process, student-centred learning.

9) Tough question that we always struggle with in the U.S. and that is " When has a student "failed"? And at what point do you try to determine if the student is mentally retarded, or has a disability or hearing impairment or some other problem?

I do not believe that all students have the same ability, motivation or academic ability – education should reflect such differences and I am in favour of streaming and having a variety of pathways through school. At the same time, there should be an expectation that all students, especially in primary school, are given the opportunity to master the basics associated with essential learning. The early years of literacy and numeracy are critical and I am in favour of testing to ensure that students at risk are identified and supported. Another key stage is the transfer from primary to secondary school and it is crucial that students begin secondary school, as far as possible, with the necessary knowledge, skills and understanding. Year 12 is another important year and there should be a clear indication of who has passed and who has failed. The problem in Australia is that summative, norm-referenced assessment, where students are ranked one against the other and where there are clear standards representing pass/fail, is considered politically incorrect and the prevailing orthodoxy is criterion-based assessment where all students pass as long as they meet the established indicator(s). The first time Australian students hit a competitive, externally set examination is at year 12 and many students are automatically promoted from year to year without having masted essential learning.

10) What do you mean by Australian history being taught by a “black armband " viewpoint (I am almost afraid to ask !)?

Geoffrey Blainey, one of Australia’s greatest contemporary historians, used the term black armband during his 1993 Latham Lecture to describe the way students are taught to feel guilty about the sins of the past. Instead of celebrating what we have achieved as a nation, the focus is on victim groups and interpreting the past in the light of today’s PC prism. Blainey states: “The Black Armband view of 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”. While accepting that the more traditional approach to history teaching may have been too Anglo-centered and congratulatory, Blainey, as I do, argues that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction.

11) You seem to espouse education, not indoctrination. Who is trying to indoctrinate who in Australia and why?

As previously mentioned, the ‘Cultural-left’ decided some year ago to focus on education as an instrument to radically transform society. As to why, to quote from my book:

As to why this is so, one needs to return to late 1960s and early 1970s, a time when established certainties and accepted social practices were cast aside by a cultural revolution that swept much of the Western, industrialised world.

Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive
But to be young was very heaven
William Wordsworth

Wordsworth’s comments in response to the early days of the French Revolution can also be applied to what it was like to be young during the late 1960s and 1970s. If the period following World War II in Australia was one of austerity and social conservatism, symbolised by Sir Robert Menzies’ reign as Prime Minister and a period of cultural stability, then the late 1960s and early 1970s can be characterised as a period of social upheaval and change. This was a time when the introduction of the birth control pill symbolised women taking control of their bodies and choosing when to have children, when films like Easy Rider and the British film If gathered a cult following as, in different ways, they portrayed a sense of rebelliousness against what was seen as the inherent violence and hypocrisy of the establishment. Beginning with singers like Bob Dylan and Joan Baez, generations of young people memorised lyrics that preached about peace, harmony and fellowship in a world increasingly seen as environmentally at risk, plagued by over-consumption and exploitation and, given the realities of the cold war, in danger of nuclear holocaust.

While overseas events such as Woodstock and the Hippie movement in the US and the May 1968 Riots in Paris influenced events, in Australia the increasing opposition to the Vietnam war, the rise of a counter culture movement among the young and books such as Germaine Greer’s The Female Eunuch and Mao’s Little Red Book all contributed to a sense of rebellion as conservative values were denounced as middle-class, obsolete and socially unjust.

Many of those at university during the late 60s and 70s became radicalised and saw the education system, given the failure of communism and the impossibility of Australia ever adopting the revolution, as the most effective way to bring about a left-wing utopia. While there are various elements that go to make up the ‘cultural-left’, ranging from Marxists to social democrats to new-age, psycho-babblers, they are all alike in their opposition to traditional academic studies, meritocracy and the ideal that education should be disinterested.

12) What does your book say to readers in the U.S. ? To readers of educational philosophy?

After reading US books like those written by Bloom, E.D. Hirsch Jr. and Ravitch (and following the debates about the impact of the PC movement and OBE on US education detailed by the Thomas B Fordham Foundation and the American Federation of Teachers) it is obvious that we share many of the same concerns and debates related to the impact of the ‘cultural-left’ on education. This is not surprising, as both the US and Australia have a similar ancestry, share a common language and our legal, political and religious institutions have a good deal in common. Both countries are also very much aware of the need to raise standards and to strengthen our education systems to ensure that they are internationally competitive. As in the US, we are debating the strengths and weaknesses of adopting a national approach to curriculum and there is much in the book the signals the pitfalls of such an approach, especially if it is based on the OBE model, as well as a preferred alternative.

13) Many years ago, a highly respected colleague named Charles Sykes wrote a book on "Dumbing Down" American schools. Have you read it and what are your thoughts?

Sorry, have not read the book (great title, though!).

14) Many individuals blame the "dumbing down" of the curriculum on the mass " inclusion” and “mainstreaming of students with special needs. Where do you stand on this point?

I think that the issue of the curriculum being dumbed down is broader than simply the impact of mainstreaming students with special needs (although, I do agree that getting rid of specialist schools in Australia and forcing mainstream teachers to cope with kids with learning and behavioural difficulties has exacerbated the problem).

At the senior school level, one of the reasons for dumbing down in Australia is that the focus over the last 30 or so years has shifted from meritocracy to increasing participation – whereas very few students once stayed on to year 12 and matriculated to university, the argument is that all students should have the right to tertiary studies. Much of the argument in favour of increased participation is based on the left’s ideas about increasing equity and social justice for so-called marginalised groups in society. As the left is anti-elitist, the ideal is where anybody should be able to enter university, ignored is that not all are capable or intelligent enough to cope or benefit from the experience.

The problem is made worse in Australia in that the overwhelming majority of year 12 certificates (the final year of secondary school) adopt a one-size fits all approach to the final years of schooling. Regardless of what students want to do, or what they are capable of doing (getting a job, undertaking a trade of apprenticeship, doing a vocational course or becoming a lawyer or a brain surgeon) all have to do the same certificate. In trying to be all things to all students, subjects are dumbed down and adopt the lowest common denominator approach. This is unlike stronger systems overseas, where there are a variety of pathways and different certificates through schools that allow the best academic students to excel without being held back.

15) When will your book appear and how can readers learn more or get a copy? Do you have a web site?

The book is to be released in Australia, 30th January and details can be found at: http://www.panmacmillan.com.au/display_title.asp?ISBN=9781740664882&Author=Donnelly,%20Kevin

A number of my education articles can be found at:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=95