I must confess that, the less cynical part of me supports Howard's plan to make it compulsory for year 9 and 10 students to study at least 150 hours of Australian history. It is a bit disturbing to see the perception among school children that, simply because history does not appear relevant to a particular career paths, it is a waste of time. It is important to know our past in order to put our present and future in context, to learn about where we come from so as to know where we may be going. It may be cliched to say "those who don't remember the past are condemned to repeat it", but those who don't know or care about the past can hardly be relied upon to build a future.
In fact I think that both history and civics/politics should be compulsory throughout secondary school. Not because it is important for getting a particular job, but because it is important for functioning as a citizen within our society. So why does the more cynical part of me have a problem with Howard's plan?
Perhaps it is the fact that, once again, he is using compulsion, (ab)using the fiscal strength of the Commonwealth to force the State governments to do it his way. Tying school funding to getting his own way with the school curricula appears to be yet another example of Howard's "attack the states" election strategy. However, there is a more fundamental problem. Throughout his rule, Howard has been persistently manipulating and changing the public discourse and mindset in ways that are disturbing, to say the least, making his view of the world the only "legitimate" view. He has done it subtly, persistently and very successfully. Those who object to dehumanisation of refugees are bleeding heart liberals who want to see Australia overrun, those who remember that our history includes massacring indigenous people, stealing children from their families and taking indigenous land are black armband historians, those who speak against Howard's policies are the lunatic fringe.
In light of this, it is difficult to believe that Howard would not impose his prejudices on the history curriculum that he wants to control. Ensuring that children across Australia learn history the way he wants them to learn it and ultimately perceive the world the way he wants them to perceive it. Howard is the consummate politician - whatever he does, he must derive a benefit from. If the only benefit he's after is to pursue his war on states electoral strategy, so be it. But if the benefit is to control what children learn about our past and consequently the way that they perceive the future, then it is yet another reason why this government should go.
October 13th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Howard government, Education, States |
one comment
In the previous post I commented on the government plan to "quarantine" a part of the welfare payment to parents who are considered not to be spending enough money on essentials for their kids and what the move meant in terms of using welfare as a means of control.
The federal cabinet approved the plan, also including a provision to cut welfare payments of parents whose children don't attend or play truant from school. It plans to cross-check Centrelink records and school attendance records to identify children who have not been attending school. Presumably such checks will need to be carried out on regular basis for the plan to work and the government hinted that the job would be outsourced to the private sector.
Naturally, ensuring that children attend school is of great importance. But, again, the proposal is about coercing and punishing people who are economically and socially vulnerable, rather than introducing reforms aimed at providing appropriate services and counselling to both parents and students to encourage school attendance. Without focus on affecting social change, the plan is likely detrimental consequences. Consider a student who is discouraged by having to turn up to school in second hand daggy clothes, with second hand books and with no lunch money. Consider the student who stops attending school because he has trouble understanding school material and has no one at home to lend any help. Consider a student with behavioural problems that his parents are unable to adequately cope with. Or even consider a student who feels schooling is pointless because his parents are too stupid or too apathetic to encourage education.
Is this student going to be assisted by his parents having even less money for clothes or books? Is the student likely to be encouraged to attend school or to perform better by being singled out as a delinquent by the government's welfare laws? Are the parents likely to be any more encouraging towards their child because they are singled out as bad parents?
While a punitive or coercive approach may be justified when all other approaches have been tried and failed - the government has not attempted to encourage school attendance or appropriate spending on essentials for children by putting in place positive programs, education or counselling. During the last eleven years the government has done nothing to remedy any of these social ills. It has gone from doing nothing to absolute control and coercion.
There can only be one conclusion - the government's plan is not about bettering the lot of neglected children. It is about control. It is about punishment. It is about treating all welfare recipients as meriting suspicion and being incapable of reforming without coercion. It is about equating poverty with social criminality. The plan is reminiscent of the Elizabethan (as in Elizabeth I) poor laws - the "deserving poor" get our help, anyone defined as "undeserving poor" is put in a pillory or whipped through the streets (or in our more modern version get their payments cut and get labeled as delinquents).
July 5th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Australian politics, Howard government, Health and Welfare, Family, Education, Social control |
no comments
About a week ago Tony Abbott was doing his best to pretend that his opposition to same sex couples accessing IVF or adopting kids had something to do with concern for children's well-being and development, rather than pure prejudice.
Well, now this "champion" of children's rights says that there is a case for reintroduction of corporal punishment in schools because some kids only understand that sort of language. That's right, Tony - a good beating is just what these kids need to learn that violence is wrong. A couple of whacks with the cane and they'll know that hitting kids or picking on someone smaller than them is not a good thing. Teach by example, right?
The ability of schools to deal with bullying and violence leaves a lot to be desired and reforms are necessary. But positive change is unlikely to be accomplished by primitive discipline methods.
June 16th, 2007
Posted by
Unsilenced |
Australian politics, Education |
no comments
RSS
