School debate not left or right

THOSE in Australia's cultural-left education establishment who fear a return of the educational culture wars - based on criticisms of the national history curriculum by Tony Abbott and Christopher Pyne in the lead-up to the election - may have to think again.

While left-leaning bodies such as the Australian Education Union and the Australian Curriculum Studies Association and academics such as the University of Melbourne's Richard Teese have a history of criticising conservative governments, the issues cannot be categorised as simply left or right.

Take the issue of curriculum and the best way to educate future generations, regardless of social background or school attended. Christopher Pyne's call for a more discipline-based focus, the adoption of direct instruction and a back-to-basics approach in areas such as literacy can be seen as conservative.

Those familiar with communist theorists such as Antonio Gramsci and left-of-centre intellectuals such as Pierre Bourdieu, and the concept of social and cultural capital, will also understand that many on the Left, in a similar way, argue for intellectual rigour and a curriculum based on the established disciplines.

While disagreeing on the purpose of education, radical social change as against a more evolutionary approach, there is no doubt that Gramsci believes the most effective education for the working class involves hard work, discipline and traditional subjects. He argues education, rather than being child-centred and restricted to what is contemporary and immediately relevant, must deal with the "humanistic ideal symbolised by Athens and Rome".

In opposition to open classrooms where learning is about edutainment and rote learning is obsolete, Gramsci also believes that teachers need to "inculcate certain habits of diligence, precision, poise (and the) ability to concentrate on specific subjects, which cannot be acquired without a mechanical repetition of disciplined and methodical acts".

The more academic approach to learning is also evident in some seminal curriculum documents produced by Labor governments in the past 20 to 30 years at the state and federal level. In its review of post-compulsory education initiated by the then Cain Labor government, the Blackburn report argued that education had to be about the "disinterested pursuit of knowledge" and that all students had the right to be introduced to the culture's "best validated knowledge and artistic achievements". More recently, the Federalist Paper 2, The Future of Schooling in Australia, published in 2007 by the then Labor-dominated Council for Australian Federation, argues for the conservative approach when it states: "Expertise requires deep knowledge of a particular subject discipline that shapes the way experts represent problems."

In the lead-up to the 2007 election campaign, then opposition leader Kevin Rudd argued against the new-age, progressive approach by promising to improve teacher training, adopting a more rigorous curriculum and focus on the basics.

On the whole, Australia's education establishment is committed to progressive fads such as constructivism, open classrooms, inquiry-based learning and teaching generic competencies. That the Rudd-Gillard governments centralised control of education in the past six years by imposing a national curriculum, national testing, national teacher registration and teacher standards also complicates matters.

Recognising that many on both sides of the political spectrum agree about the need for a more academic, discipline-based approach to the curriculum does, though, provide cause for optimism.

Kevin Donnelly is director of Education Standards Institute.