Our Archivist Roger Atkinson recently found evidence that WAIER has been in operation since at least 1936 with the following excerpt uncovered from the West Australian newspaper on Wednesday 6 May 1936 pg 20.
WAIER Early Days…
Critical qualitative research/ethnography: Selected reading list.
Compiled by Barry Down, Murdoch University.
- Alvesson, M. & Deetz, S. (2021). Doing critical research. London: Sage.
- Anderson, G. (1989). Critical Ethnography in Education: Origins, Current Status and New Directions. Review of Educational Research, 59(3), pp. 249-270.
- Angus, L. (1986). Developments in ethnographic research in education: from interpretive to critical ethnography. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 20, pp. 59-67.
- Angus, L. (1986). Research traditions, ideology and critical ethnography. Discourse, 7(1), pp. 61-77.
- Anyon, J. with Dumas, M., Linville, D., Nolan, K., Perez, M., Tuck, E, & Weiss, J. (2009). Theory and educational research: Towards critical social explanation. New York: Routledge.
- Atkinson, P., & Delamont, S. (2006). In the roiling smoke: Qualitative inquiry and contested fields. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(6), pp. 747-755.
- Barley, R., & Russell, L. (2016). Ethnography: More than the written field note. The Oxford Ethnography and Education Conference Plenary Session, 19-21st September 2016, Oxford. (Unpublished)
- Ball, S. (2006). The necessity and violence of theory. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 27(1), pp. 3-10.
- Burawoy, M., & et. al. (2000). Global ethnography: Forces, connections, and imaginations in a Postmodern World. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Burgess, R. (1988). Conversations with a purpose: The ethnographic interview in educational research. Studies in Qualitative Methodology 1(1), pp. 137-155.
- Cannella, G., Salazar, M., Pasque, P. (2015). (Eds.). Critical qualitative inquiry: Foundations and future. London: Routledge.
- Carmona, J., & Luschen, K. (2014). Crafting critical stories: Toward pedagogies and methodologies of collaboration, inclusion, and voice. New York: Peter Lang.
- Clair, R. P. (2003) The changing story of ethnography. In R. P. Clair (Ed.), Expressions of ethnography (pp. 3-26). Albany, US: SUNY Press.
- Cook-Sather, A. (2013). Translating learners, researchers, and qualitative approaches through investigations of students’ experiences in school. Qualitative Research, 13(3), pp. 352-367.
- Denzin, N., & Giardina, M. (2016) (Eds.). Qualitative inquiry through a critical lens. London: Routledge.
- Denzin, N., & Giardina, M. (2016) (Eds.). Qualitative inquiry – past, present and future: A critical reader. London: Routledge.
- Denzin, N., & Giardina, M. (2017). Qualitative inquiry in neoliberal times. London: Routledge.
- Denzin, N., Lincoln, Y., & Giardina, M. (2006). Disciplining qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(6), pp. 769-782.
- Fielding, M. (2004). Transformative approaches to student voice: Theoretical underpinnings, recalcitrant realities. British Educational Research Journal 30(2), pp. 295–311.
- Fine, M. (2018). Just research in contentious times: Widening the methodological imagination. New York: Teachers College Press.
- Foley, D. (2002). Critical ethnography in the postcritical moment. In Y. Zou & H. Trueba (Eds.), Ethnography and schools: Qualitative approaches to the study of education (pp. 139-170). Lanham, MD.: Rowman & Littlefield.
- Foley, D. (2002). Critical ethnography: the reflexive turn. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 15(4), pp. 469-490.
- Garman, N. (1994). Qualitative inquiry: meaning and menace for educational researchers. In J. Smyth (Ed.), Qualitative approaches to educational research. Adelaide: Flinders Institute for the Study of Teaching.
- Goodall, H. L. (2000). Writing new ethnography. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
- Goodson, I. F. & Gill, S. (2011). Narrative pedagogy: Life history and learning. New York: Peter Lang.
- Guajardo, M., & Guajardo, F. (2002). Critical ethnography and community change. In Y.
- Zou & H. Trueba (Eds.), Ethnography and schools: Qualitative approaches to the study of education (pp. 281-304). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
- Jeffrey, B., & Troman, G. (2004). Time for ethnography. British Educational Research Journal, 30(4), pp. 535-548.
- Jordan, S. (2003). Critical ethnography and the sociology of education. In C. Torres & A. Antikainen (Eds.), The international handbook on the sociology of education: An International Assessment of New Research and Theory (pp. 82-100). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
- Jordan, S., & Yeomans, D. (1995). Critical ethnography: problems in theory and practice. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 16(3), pp. 389-400.
- Kincheloe, J. (1993). Toward a critical politics of teacher thinking: Mapping the postmodern. Westport: Connecticut: Bergin & Garvey.
- Kincheloe, J. (2003). Teachers as researchers: Qualitative inquiry as a path to empowerment. New York: Routledge.
- Kress, T. (2011). Critical praxis research: breathing new life into research methods for teachers. Dordrecht: Springer.
- Lather, P. (1986). Research as praxis. Harvard Education Review, 56(3), pp. 257-277.
- Lather, P. (1993). Fertile obsession: validity after poststructuralism. Sociological Quarterley, 34(4), pp. 673-693.
- Lave, J. (2011). Apprenticeship in critical ethnographic practice. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
- Lawrence-Lightfoot, S. (2005). Reflections on portraiture. A dialogue between art and science. Qualitative Inquiry, 11(1), pp. 3-15.
- Lawrence-Lightfoot, S., & Hoffmann Davis, J (1997). The art and science of portraiture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
- Levinson, B., & Cade, S. (2002). Introduction: ethnography and education policy across the Americas. In B. Levinson, S. Cade, A. Padawer & A. Elvir (Eds.), Ethnography and education policy across the Americas (pp. ix-xx). Westport, CT: Praeger.
- Levinson, B., & Sutton, M. (2001). Introduction: policy as/in practice; a sociocultural approach to the study of educational policy. In M. Sutton & B. Levinson (Eds.), Policy as practice: Toward a comparative sociocultural analysis of educational policy (pp. 1-22). Westport, CT: Ablex.
- Lund, D., & Carr, P. (2008). Introduction: scanning democracy. In D. Lund & P. Carr (Eds.), Doing democracy: Striving for political literacy and social justice (pp. 1-29). New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
- Madison, D. S. (2005). Critical ethnography: Methods, ethics, and performance.
- Marcus, G. (1998). Ethnography through thick and thin. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- Mills, C.W. (1983 [1959]). The sociological imagination. New York: Penguin Books.
- Shacklock, G., & Smyth, J. (1998). Being reflexive in critical educational and social research. London: Falmer Press.
- Smith, B. J. (2000). Marginalized youth, delinquency, and education: The need for critical-interpretive research. The Urban Review, 32(3), pp. 293-312
- Smith, L. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. London: Zed Books.
- Smyth, J., Angus, L., Down, B., & McInerney, P. (2006). Critical ethnography for school and community renewal around social class differences affecting learning. Journal of learning Communities: International Journal of Learning in Social Contexts, 3, pp. 121-152.
- Smyth, J., Down, B., McInerney, R., & Hattam, R. (2014). Doing critical educational research: A conversation with the research of John Smyth. New York: Peter Lang.
- Smyth, J., & Hattam, R. (2001). ‘Voiced’ research as a sociology for understanding ‘dropping out’ of school. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 22(3), pp. 401-415.
- Smyth, J., & McInerney, P. (2012). From silent witnesses to active agents. New York: Peter Lang.
- Smyth, J., & McInerney, P. (2013). Whose side are you on? Advocacy ethnography: Some methodological aspects of narrative portraits of disadvantaged young people. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(1), pp. 1-20.
- Steinberg, S., & Cannella, G., (2012). Critical qualitative research: Reader. New York: Peter Lang.
- Sultana, R. (1992). Ethnography and the politics of absence. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 5(1), pp. 19-27.
- Swaminathan, R., & Mulvihill, T. (2017). Critical approaches to questions in qualitative research. London: Routledge.
- Uhrmacher, P., Moroye, C., & Flinders, D. (2017). Using educational criticism and connoisseurship for qualitative research. London: Routledge.
- Weis, L. & Fine, M. (2001). Extraordinary conversations in public schools. Qualitative Studies in Education 14(4), pp. 497- 523.
- Walcott, H. (1975). Criteria for an ethnographic approach to research in schools. Human organization, 34(2), 111-127.
- Walford, G. (2002). When policy moves fast, how long can ethnography take? In B. Levinson, S. Cade, A. Padawer & A. Elvir (Eds.), Ethnography and Education Policy Across the Americas (pp. 23-38). Westport, CT: Praeger.
- Willis, P. (1980). Notes on method. In S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe & P. Willis (Eds.), Culture, media and language (pp. 88-95). London: Hutchinson.
- Willis, P. (2000). The ethnographic imagination. Cambridge: Polity Press.
- Willis, P. (2004). Twenty-five years on: old books, new times. In N. Dolby, G. Dimitriadis & with P. Willis (Eds.), Learning to labor in new times (pp. 167-196). New York & London: RoutledgeFalmer.
- Willis, P., & Trondman, M. (2000). Manifesto for ethnography. Ethnography, 1(1), pp. 5-16.
International Women’s Day – Celebrate Feminist Researchers
Paul Gardner, Curtin University
In remembering International Women’s Day, WAIER celebrates the role of Feminist researchers. Many pioneer Feminist researchers drew attention to the fact that much so called ‘objective’, empirical research has been conducted by men on men. In the main, male researchers have been white and middle class, coming from the global North. Not only has male-centric research rendered women researchers ‘invisible’, it also distorts reality by excluding women’s perspectives. Such research has been justifiably critiqued as epistemologically flawed. ‘Man-stream’ science assumes ‘a detached knower’ who frames neutral questions and value-free findings and analysis (Wiggington & Lafrance, 2019). Feminist researchers, no matter their discipline, have been united around the construction of inclusive research methodologies and the promotion of women’s perspective of the world. One key theoretical perspective in feminist research is ‘standpoint theory’, which frames knowledge as being situated in one’s social position, which influences how the world is experienced. Feminist researchers have also drawn attention to the fallacy of the ‘detached’ neutral researcher, and have called on all researchers to acknowledge how their own subjective positions impinge on views of ‘reality’.
Further Reading – Britta Wiggington and Michelle Lafrance’s article which formed the basis of this piece can be accessed at:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0959353519866058
Wigginton, B. & Lafrance, M.N. (2019) Learning critical feminist research: A brief introduction to feminist epistemologies and methodologies. Feminism & Psychology. September 2019. doi:10.1177/0959353519866058
Looking at the child: The invisible scars of domestic and family violence
In this feature article, Jodi Dorney (EdD Candidate, CQ University) explores the impact of domestic and family violence and abuse on young children. If you or someone you know is experiencing abuse or violence contact the National Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence Counselling service on 1800 737 732. Alternatively, you can call lifeline on 131114.
Some scholars argue that the family home is the most dangerous place for women and children [1]. Whilst it can at times be easy to identify a child who is a victim of physical abuse, it is more difficult to identify the child who does not present with the external signs and symptoms, but rather suffers due to witnessing their parent – usually the mother – being abused in the ‘safety’ of the family home.
But how is a child a victim if they are not touched, pushed, or hit?
The rate of women experiencing abuse and violence in the family environment is estimated to be one in three globally[2] and homicides perpetrated by a current or former male intimate partner account for approximately 38% of all global homicides against women[3], a figure that continues to rise[4, 5]. We see or read these stories way too often, with an average of one woman dying every week at the hands of an intimate partner in Australia.
It is estimated that one in four children under five years of age live in a family environment where the mother is a victim of intimate partner violence[5], and whilst many of these children do not suffer direct physical abuse at the hands of the offender, they are witness to often horrific and violent physical attacks on their mother. They may also be witness to their mother being emotionally abused and/or psychologically abused. Emotional abuse is aimed at affecting the person’s feelings, while psychological abuse often involves frightening, isolating and/or controlling someone, consequently impacting their mental health.
Research identified indirect experiences of domestic and family violence can result in negative psychological, physical, and behavioural impacts [6, 7, 8] on the child, and negative effects on their cognitive development [5] , and social and emotional development and functioning [5, 8, 10, 11].
Also, much evidence suggests that because a child usually experiences recurrent exposure to domestic and family violence, often they develop cognitive and behavioural schemas over time related to their gender, such as devaluing their own worth, lack of confidence in adults as protectors, and they may believe that abuse and violence within in the family context is a normal experience for girls [5] and abusive behaviours are normal for boys, which explains the intergenerational transmission effect over generations.
Children learn about emotions primarily from parents and others within the family; however, children living in an abusive and violent family context may be deprived of positive emotional engagement with their parents[11]. Research suggests mothers who are victims of domestic and family violence can suffer from symptoms of anxiety and depression, and may be inattentive, unresponsive, and demonstrate a lack of interest toward their child resulting in insecure attachment [11, 12], impacting the child’s opportunity to learn skills to manage, identify, and express personal emotions [9, 13].
The sometimes erratic, aggressive, and explosive externalising behaviour of a child (usually a boy, because girls usually adopt an internalised victim-mentality) who has been exposed to abuse and violence in the family environment can hinder opportunities for the child to engage in positive social interactions with friends and adults [14]. Furthermore, unstable, unpredictable, and fractured connections between the child and parents within a violent environment can promote a lack of trust, safety, and security within the child and a failure to acquire and learn fundamental social skills [15].
Early childhood is a crucial time for a child’s language development[15] too, as language skills allow a child to communicate and connect with others, and these interactions promote the development of cognitive skills [15].
Family environments lacking in stimulation also have the potential of inhibiting the brain to develop to its full potential [15] . Suffering stress within an abusive and violent family environment has been identified as a potential precursor to diminished cognitive development as it can impair the young child’s brain [15]. Children living with domestic and family violence often experience fear and subsequently suffer chronic stress [15], and it has been identified that children who experience stress and constant anxiety may have cognitive difficulties such as thinking clearly enough to problem solve and reason, and may have difficulty sustaining attention, resulting in the inability to acquire new skills or new information [16], which can result in educational deficits.
As many people may not be aware that witnessing domestic and family violence as a young child can have such detrimental effects on a child’s development and wellbeing, and with 2020 being a year where rates of domestic and family violence have reportedly increased [16], it is crucial that as educators we engage in the sometimes uncomfortable and confronting conversations about the visible and invisible effects of domestic and family violence with others, including peers and parents.
The focus of my current research is on the impact of intrafamilial violence on children in early childhood, and through exploring early childhood educators’ knowledge regarding the impact of exposure to intrafamilial violence on a developing child, I aim to develop a professional teaching resource prototype that supports early childhood educators to effectively identify, respond to, and support children impacted by intrafamilial violence.
It is essential that we advocate for and be aware of all children impacted by domestic and family violence, directly and/or indirectly and keep their safety and wellbeing at the forefront of our endeavours.
Jodi Dorney is an early childhood educator from Victoria, currently completing her Doctor of Education at CQUniversity. Her interest and advocacy for children impacted by intrafamilial violence results from many years working in various early childhood education settings.
[1] United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2018). Gender-related killing of women and girls. https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/GSH2018/GSH18_Gender-related_killing_of_women_and_girls.pdf
[2] World Health Organisation (WHO). (2019). Respect women: Preventing violence against women. Geneva. Retrieved from https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/312261/WHO-RHR-18.19-eng.pdf?ua=1
[3] Lutwak, N. (2018). The psychology of health and illness: The mental health and physiological effects of intimate partner violence on women. The Journal of Psychology, 152(6), 373-387. doi:10.1080/00223980.2018.1447435
[4] Guggisberg, M. (2018). Chapter 2: Conceptualising intimate partner sexual violence: danger and harm to victim survivors and the role of persistent myths. In Guggisberg, M., & Henricksen, J. (Eds.)., Violence against women in the 21st century: Challenges and future direction (pp. 29-56). Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated.
[5] United Nations Children’s Fund. (UNICEF). (2017). A familiar face: violence in the lives of children and adolescents. Unicef: New York, NY. Retrieved from https://www.unicef.org/publications/files/Violence_in_the_lives_of_children_and_adolescents.pdf
[6] Carpenter, G., & Stacks, A. M. (2009). Developmental effects of exposure to intimate partner violence in early childhood: A review of the literature. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(8), 831-839. Retrieved from https://doi-org.ezproxy.cqu.edu.au/10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.03.005
[7] Howell, K. (2011). Resilience and psychopathology in children exposed to family violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16(6), 562-569. Retrieved from https://doi-org.ezproxy.cqu.edu.au/10.1016/j.avb.2011.09.001
[8] Briggs-Gowan, M. J., Carter, A. S., & Ford, J. D. (2012). Parsing the effects violence exposure in early childhood: Modeling developmental pathways. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 37(1), 11-22. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsro63
[9] Fusco, R. A. (2017). Socioemotional problems in children exposed to intimate partner violence: Mediating effects of attachment and family supports. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(16), 2515–2532. Retrieved from https://doi-org.ezproxy.cqu.edu.au/10.1177%2F0886260515593545
[10] Osofsky, J. (1995). The Effects of Exposure to Violence on Young Children. The American Psychologist, 50(9), 782-788.
[11] Gelfand, D. M., & Teti, D. M. (1990). The effects of maternal depression on children. Clinical Psychology Review, 10(3), 329-353. https://doi-org.ezproxy.cqu.edu.au/10.1016/0272-7358(90)90065-I
[12] Zahn-Waxler, C., Iannotti, R., Cummings, E., & Denham, S. (1990). Antecedents of problem behaviors in children of depressed mothers. Development and Psychopathology, 2, 271-291. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400000778
[13] Cummings, E., Cicchetti, D., & Greenberg, M. (1990). Attachment in the preschool years: Theory, research, and intervention.
[14] The National Child Traumatic Stress Network (NCTSN). (2019). Complex trauma: effects. Retrieved from https://www.nctsn.org/what-is-child-trauma/trauma-types/complex-trauma/effects
[15] Zauche, L., Thul, T., Mahoney, A., & Stapel-Wax, J. (2016). Influence of language nutrition on children’s language and cognitive development: An integrated review. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 36, 318-333.
[16] Morgan, A. & Boxall, H. (2020). Social isolation, time spent at home, financial stress and domestic violence during the COVID-19 pandemic. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 609, 1-18.
Would you like to write a feature article for WAIER? Contact us!
Teachers are expected to put on a brave face and ignore their emotions. We need to talk about it.
In this feature article Dr. Saul Karnovsky from Curtin University explores teachers’ emotions.
Australian universities enrol thousands of people to become teachers. Some who choose to study education are motivated by a desire to make a difference to the lives of young people, while others are looking for job security and intellectual fulfilment.
A course in education encompasses a broad range of cognitive and technical skills aligned to professional teacher standards. Yet, what is largely missing from a teaching degree is what to do with emotions as a teacher.
Despite all the theory, training and practical experience, research shows teachers’ professional lives can be highly demanding, pressured, stressful and at times, emotionally exhausting.
In doctoral research, I followed pre-service teachers throughout their course. I found there exists an invisible rule book that defines what teachers can and cannot do with their emotions.
Emotional labour is hard work
Our teachers recently started the school year. Many are likely facing a range of emotional challenges including working with difficult students and communities, managing increasing administrative control over their work and standardisation reforms. All these can result in substantial mental health issues.
One Australian study found increasing numbers of teachers suffer from persistent anxiety and depression. Up to 50% burn out or simply leave in the first five years of their career.
Early studies are showing the COVID-19 lockdowns of 2020 are further exacerbating the stresses facing Australian teachers.
Because teaching is emotionally demanding, teachers experience what is known as “emotional labour”. This is when teachers have to manage, suppress or feign their emotions as part of the work. Like other forms of labour, doing so can become exhausting.
Understanding these facts is a fundamental part of learning to become a teacher. I’ve come to know this through years of researching teacher emotions, specifically focused on those learning to teach.
Putting on a mask
I spoke with and collected questionnaires from almost one hundred education students in a large Western Australian university. I wanted to find out how someone who wants to become a teacher learnt what they should or should not be doing with their emotions in secondary schools.
I found pre-service teachers learnt about the rules for emotional behaviour from expectations and assumptions about teacher’s work, which was confirmed when they began training in school placements.
From interviews, focus groups, diary entries and questionnaires, I have summarised some of the unwritten rules these teaching students spoke of:
Don’t ever cry in front of students, because if you do, they will see you as weak and eat you alive.
Don’t lose your temper, shout or get angry, because if you do, students will lose respect for you.
Don’t show your emotional vulnerability, especially not to other teachers, because if you do, they might think you are not right for the job.
Many pre-service teachers explained they worked at “hiding” or “suppressing” their vulnerable emotions from students and other teachers.
Some said they put on a “mask”, “a brave face” or “façade” to show they were “professional” and could “control” their emotions.
One participant experienced “intense frustration” during school placement in trying to manage and engage a group of behaviourally difficult students, which led to her feeling “emotionally overwhelmed”.
She hid these emotions from her supervising teacher, telling me she did not want to “appear weak”. So she held back her tears because she would “hate” being the “little woman that cries at work, who gets upset”.
This shows there exists a demand for teachers to behave in ways they believe to be acceptable. All these pre-service teachers have learnt to keep a hold of their “inappropriate” emotions in front of other teachers or risk being perceived as incompetent and unprofessional.
Let’s talk about it
Navigating the emotional rules of learning to teach is a significant aspect of becoming a teacher, yet it goes largely unrecognised in an initial teacher education course.
Such labour in teaching can have personal costs and lead to emotional exhaustion, depression and anxiety.
If we are to ensure thousands of newly enrolled teachers are to thrive in their courses and careers, we must make the invisible emotional rules of the profession seen and heard.
I believe if pre-service teachers can come together with teacher educators to explore these emotional rules, they could build resilience to confront the many emotional challenges of modern teaching.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Dr. Saul Karnovsky is a member of the WAIER Committee for 2021.
Troublesome political interventions in curriculum
Dr Brad Gobby is a Senior Lecturer in the Curtin University School of Education and a WAIER member. The following is adapted from Politics, education and researcher ‘response-ability’, a Keynote delivered at the 2018 Annual WAIER Research Forum.
While the field of education is inherently political, recent direct political intervention involving submitting curriculum experiences to the wills and logics of political agents raises questions about the relationship between education and politics, and the role of schooling. Take the Safe Schools controversy.
In 2016, the Australian Federal Government-funded toolkit of learning resources for teaching about diverse gender and sexual identities became the object of a political and media furore. The Safe Schools program was designed to support the creation of inclusive school environments and address the ignorance and prejudice that same-sex attracted, transgendered, and gender diverse students experience in school (Jones, 2012).
While many educators and school communities viewed the program as worthwhile, others perceived it as corrupting young minds. The conservative media and politicians promulgated this position. Using inflammatory rhetoric that interweaved facts, misinformation and opinion, conservative media and politicians portrayed the program as ‘an enemy of public decency’ (Law, 2017, 73). They claimed schools were indoctrinating students in progressive ideas, fads and ‘weird’ gender theory. It’s not the first time the strategies of hyperbole and moral panic have been used to discredit gender and sexual inclusivity (Taylor, 2007).
The media and political storm resulted in the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, ordering an independent review of the program. This was conducted by respected Professor Bill Louden, whose report was handed down on March 11, 2016. The Review found that, while a few resources were not entirely appropriate for some children, the program was appropriate, especially given that schools would decide how to implement the resources in response to their local contexts.
The Review did not placate the Government’s waspish backbenchers who relentlessly pressed the Prime Minister to do more. On March 18, the Prime Minister intervened again by announcing the program would be dramatically changed beyond the recommendations of Louden’s Review. Ironically, this announcement came on the sixth Annual National Day of Action Against Bullying and Violence.
At the time, the Federal Education Minister, Simon Birmingham, said that ‘parents should have confidence in what is taught’ especially about potentially ‘contentious issues’ (Government reveals changes to controversial Safe Schools program, 2016). But who decides what a ‘contentious issue’ is?
The responses to Safe Schools show that what is controversial and contentious to some is common-sense to others. The program had no shortage of supporters, who believed the political and media attacks ignored the actual experiences of many young people in schools, were devoid of the most basic understandings of human sexuality, and were blatantly homophobic and bigoted in their portrayal of sexual and gender diversity as deviant. For a fuller account of the Safe Schools controversy, I recommend reading Benjamin Law’s Quadrant article (Law, 2017).
There are many lessons to be learnt from this affair, especially from the point of view of the relationship between education and politics. Formal education is an inherently political institution, but that the Safe Schools controversy was combatively and overtly played out in the media, and by our most senior political figures, is worrying. In this instance, direct political interference was one weapon used by political agents to contest school curriculum. This strategy resonates with the recent Australian National University-Ramsay Centre controversy over the Centre’s Western Civilisation degree.
Looking to the Safe Schools affair, the exercise of direct political intervention carried with it the following troubling political reasoning: that politicians are guardians and defenders of goodness, on the side of ‘the people’; that education institutions should be directly submitted to the will of politicians of the day; and that politicians have the sole right to control curriculum to the exclusion of others. There is good reason, therefore, to question these political logics.
Positioning themselves as guardians and protectors serves to legitimise the sidelining of key stakeholders in educational decision-making, especially those who experience the effects of that decision-making, such as students, teachers and school communities. The direct and top-down imposition of curriculum, knowledge and practices undermines both teachers’ situated professional knowledge, practical wisdom and experience, and schools’ ability to respond to the needs and interests of the local school context. Indeed, it is the lives, aspirations and curiosities of learners that need better representation in learning experiences, and not that of politicians far removed from classrooms, who believe they know what is best and what is right for children.
At stake in rendering schools into direct instruments of political objectives is also the erosion of the democratic role of education. Public institutions, like education systems, have and continue to act as bulwarks against narrow political objectives and the excesses of political power. The professional bureaucracy (i.e. Departments of Education), the teaching profession, and consultative processes around education policy have ensured multiple perspectives enter into educational discussions and decision-making. By contrast, direct political interference that submits teaching and learning to political logics and party values undermines the institution’s ability to protect citizens from the free, partisan and dangerous exercise of political power.
All members of society, and especially those working in the field of education, must remain vigilant about politicians who construe themselves as shepherding the flock from danger, and who seek to unilaterally impose their views of goodness on institutions indifferent to established institutional and political norms and processes. If we believe that the education of people is an enterprise far greater than the narrow priorities of any politician, political party or government, then refusing political interference and reclaiming the power of stakeholders to influence education decision-making is crucial.
References
Government reveals changes to controversial Safe Schools program. (March, 2016). The Sydney Morning Herald.
Jones, T. (2012). Discrimination and bullying on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity in Western Australian Education. Perth: WA Commissioner for Equal Opportunity.
Law, B. (2017). Moral Panic 101: Equality, Acceptance and the Safe Schools Scandal. The Quarterly, 67, 1-80.
Taylor, A. (2007). Innocent children, dangerous families and homophobic panic. In S. Poynting (Ed.), Outrageous!: Moral panics in Australia (pp. 210-222). Hobart, Tasmania: ACYS Publishing.
