The importance of democratic education in today’s schools is highlighted in this article by Susan Engel and Marlene Sandstrom. This article identifies that, rather than shiny binders and expensive anti-bullying programs, the best way to deal with bullying and its attendant problems is through building a sense of community, where everybody involved in childrens education works to challenge incidences of bullying and encourage the democratic essentialities of
tolerance, participation and inclusivity.

The full article can be read here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/23/opinion/23engel.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=there%27s%20only%20one%20way%20to%20stop%20a%20bully&st=cse

The part I particularly liked was where the authors highlight the problems associated with standardized testing and an increasingly crowded curriculum. They write:

Yet, in American curriculums, a growing emphasis on standardized test scores as the primary measure of “successful” schools has crowded out what should be an essential criterion for well-educated students: a sense of responsibility for the well-being of others

Makes my research seem even more vital in this context.

A friend of mine was interviewed by the Sun Herald newspaper the other day. The journalist was Jessica Wright, and there was a photographer there, as well. The reason that he and his family were interviewed was because of the Lindsay electorate. David Bradbury, the local member, is from the ALP and holds Lindsay by about 6%. However, it’s seen very much as vital seat to win in this federal election, linked as it is to the idea of Western Sydney as a heartland of racism and the refugee issue – both of which I have some serious concerns regarding.

Anyway, it was interesting to see the process the interview went through. My friend, Jonathon, was actually reasonably positive about a lot of the Rudd government’s work. He was also positive about David Bradbury’s work in the local community. However, the reporter seemed only to want to focus on areas of negativity. So a statement like, ‘I’m supportive of the trade schools but worried about the waste of money involved in BER’ became ‘I’m worried about the waste of money involved in the BER’.

To me, at least, it seemed like there was a lot that was taken out of context in the interview, which basically skewed the whole point of view. Free and impartial press? Not in this lifetime.

Here’s the whole article:

Traditionally, Freirean pedagogy and popular education and its derivatives (most notably popular theatre) have worked with adult communities in informal settings. This setting has, of course, it’s own particular advantages and disadvantages, but it is worth noting that the applications of Popular Education is not solely restricted to either the informal education domain or the adult education domain.

Indeed, a number of scholars have been exploring the implementation of Popular Educationa theory and methodology in the area of high school education, an area that might be considered to the be the polar opposite of the traditional application of Popular Education. As opposed to adult education, educators working in this domain work with children. And instead of an informal setting, teachers in this area have to work within the boundaries of a strictly formalized curricula and setting.

However, the application of Freire’s work in such an area is an appealing prospect; to me, it seems that few institutions in a state seem to contribute to the acceptance of hegemony as much as schools. After all, one need only examine the work of people like John Taylor Gotto and you quickly come to a realisation that many schools (but not, I think, all) actively seek to not only oppress their students through the rigid application of coercive power, but also condition students to further accept such oppression in their wider and later lives. As an example, one might take the New South Wales History curriculum, which seeks to privilege the contributions to Australia made by certain groups – and in certain ways – over others. Furthermore, the way this curriculum is traditionally delivered – the Banking model that Freire described – only conditions students to further accept their role as passive objects with no further power to become more fully human.

Therefore, the idea of a theory that could empower students in this setting is a tempting one. However, it is a challenging prospect for teachers for a number of reasons. I intend to explore just one, in this blog posting – that of context. Freire’s work often highlights the importance of context, and it is especially pertinent in this discussion. Moving out of adult education into school education, one must recognize that both the age and the motivations of the group have changed. In addition, there are a number of constraining factors, like the demands of government bodies for teachers to cover certain skills and content, of which raising critical consciousness might come a long way down the list.

In addition, whereas traditional popular education works exclusively in the realm of marginalized groups, it is possible that when working in the school environment (and especially in a systemic religious school, like I do) one might be working with students who might be perfectly satisfied with the status quo. In this case, popular education might become more about recognizing privilege than understanding oppression. In this case, one must ask, what is the purpose of the popular educator? Is it to encourage students to recognize this privilege? And then to encourage them to commit, as Freire describes it, class suicide? It’s a confronting thought.

Even more confronting is the research that has been done regarding how an uncritical approach to privileging student experience might lead to the actual encouragement of oppressive views. In some examples that Kathryn Choules writes about, teachers attempting to apply a Freirean methodology to students from mixed groups might only encourage those who benefit from the status quo to speak out, thus concreting marginalised groups thoughts about oppression and their place in society.

Next blog post – Making the Method Fit the Message!

Found this fantastic infographic the other day. In actual fact, I think it was someone on twitter who directed me to it! Really shows the capacity of social media:

So we go to the polls in 5 short weeks. I’m not the oldest follower of politics out there, but I’ve always had an interest in politics, and that’s something that has only grown as I’ve got older, to the point that I’m reasonably active these days. The reason I mention this is because this election suddenly seems -to me, at least – to be very important. I don’t think I’m the only one that feels this way; I don’t recall the intense level of media speculation about the calling of the election in previous years. It seems – and I might be a little over the top here – that this is a really important point for Australia – almost a turning point between two very different ideologies.

That might sound strange, I know. A lot of people I talk to are really struggling to choose between JG and Tony Abbott, and a lot of others are saying they’ll vote informally, or for the greens or something similar. That kind of talk isn’t particularly unusual – however, usually this is because there seems to be little difference between the two main candidates. Certainly in the Howard/ Keating years, it often seemed to be a choice between two quite similar approaches, especially to economic policy. I know there were differences, but I don’t think people were actually capable of seeing those differences in any real sense.

This time, though, it’s different. There are major points of departure between the Labor party and the Liberals, although one could argue that since JG came to power, the differences have narrowed. Still, there are major differences in most of the policy areas – education (for example, the trade training centres), health (public vs private health care), industrial relations (work choices vs not) – and that makes this election vitally important.

I’m firmly committed to the labor movement – and always have been – but even I can admit that the government has made a lot of mistakes over the past 3 years. The education revolution money, the mining tax, the about-face on climate change have all contributed to a feeling that the labour government is struggling; but- and I reckon it’s a big but – how much of that is just the media apportioning blame? What about all the other things that the labour government has done – and sucessfully, too? Things like reconciliation with indigenous Australians, the national curriculum, increased health care funding, tax reform, industrial relations changes and – most of all – successfully navigating us through the GFC.

So, I guess I’m saying that it’s going to be a hectic 5 weeks or so. There’s going to be a lot of talking about Gillard and Abbott. I’m calling on everybody to just take a moment and remind themselves that a federal election is not a popularity contest. Instead, it’s an opportunity for us to enact our democratic rights by choosing the government that we think will do the best for Australia-  not the best for our back pocket. Although there’s a right in action here, there’s also a responsibility for us to consider the future, and how to best safeguard Australia for successive generations.

I’ve been out and about (closely aided by Andrew and Liz) putting up posters of David Bradbury around the Lindsey electorate. Along the way I’ve met lots of people – some of them who’ve been clear supporters of Bradbury and others who’ve not.

I think something that I’ve learnt during this process is the idea of reductionism – so many people seem to want to reduce the election to a Labor/ Liberal kind of dichotomy. You’re either one or the other – and there can be no middle ground. It’s almost a ‘you’re with us or against us kind of mentality.’

To be honest, I was a little bid disappointed with that approach because, allied to that blinkered view is a genuine unwillingness amonst most people to even enter into any kind of reasoned debate. I’m a labor member – simply because I think the labor party offers the most to all Australians, and not just to the privileged classes. I think that the Rudd government did some significant work in this regard, but also struggled in certain aspects that were poorly handled. Personally, I don’t see any hope for any improvement from the current Federal Liberal mob.

Anyway, here’s some photos from the work I’ve been doing:

So, despite my best efforts at procrastination, I finally got around to actually doing my paving that I’ve been planning for about 6 months. Pretty pleased with the way it turned out, and now I’ve got a hard standing that I can put some solid bits and pieces of furniture on. Quite happy with the way it turned out, but I’m pleased I’ve not got any further plans for working on pavers for the moment – it was bloody hard work! I realised that I hadn’t posted any of my work up here, despite saying that I would in my blog, so I dug back and found photos of my workbench, the compost bin and the paving. Enjoy:

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to speak with Wayne Swan, the Treasure and Deputy PM while he attended the local Federal Member’s (David Bradbury – Lindsay) opening of his new office. Mr Swan spoke at length about his views on politics to the assembled group and the importance of communities. He and David then highlighted the way that Labor had worked to support communities, and in particular, save local jobs for people. He specifically spoke about Labor’s success in dealing with the global financial crisis, which, I believe, is something that Labor should be rightly proud of. I was glad that I was with  David Currie, who understands financial trends and factors far better than I do – we talked later about the fact that part of the reason that Australia was able to navigate the GFC so well was because of the surplus that the Howard government left in place. Of course, another part of the reason was because Australian banks are so much more heavily regulated than their US or European counterparts, which in itself is, I believe, a legacy of the Hawke government, so I don’t think that Swan can claim all the credit for the successful navigation of the GFC. However, I think it is partly fair to say that the government used the resources that it had at its disposable to ensure that Australia managed to survive the GFC, with low unemployment.

Anyway, I also had the chance to speak privately with Mr Swan for a little while. I talked to him about the Trade Training Centre, and he pointed out that these ideas are originally from Queensland, and we agreed that there is a lot of important educational thought coming from Queensland at the moment, in particular the productive pedagogies stuff, as well. Anyway, I was fairly impressed at his depth of knowledge regarding education, considering I thought his main focus was economic policy.

Anyway, I got some photos on my phone. See below! And, yes, Wayne Swan is pretty short, so I look like the BFG next to him and David!

Recently, I met with Dr Rick Flowers, my supervisor, for another doctoral meeting. The purpose of this meeting was to consider how my research has been getting on, and to decide what are the best ways forward regarding said research. It was a really good meeting. Once again, as I was reviewing my notes before the meeting, I was pleased with how far I had come. Then again, as soon as I’d had this meeting, I was reminded by how far there is still to travel!

Anyway, there were a few key learning points about for my research from this meeting. Firstly, Rick suggested that I needed to ground my research in a particular issue. This was of vital importance. To be honest, I think this exposes a bit of a lack of understanding on my behalf; I’d got so convinced of the idea of the importance of a completely student-negotiated curriculum that I’d kind of lost sight of the fact that this is precisely what Freire himself had done. For Freire, it was illiteracy that was the grounding for his work on empowerment.

Therefore, it is important for me to consider what kind of issue that I want to ground my work in. It is easy for me to say that I want to look at citizenship education or active citizenship – but these ideas are probably a little too broad if I’m going to be working on specifically active citizenship. In brief, the students I work – and myself, of course – need something to be active about. Fortunately, there are plenty of possibilities for just such a topic. Rick and I brainstormed a few ideas: the environment, specifically water pollution. Substance abuse. Drink Driving. Alcohol fueled violence. Refugees, racism and asylum seekers.

We did discuss one of these at length: the issue of refugees and racism. It must be stated that, considering the headlines of today, it is certainly a very topical issue, with the talk of the Pacific Solution and so on. Even more so, it is particularly appropriate for Western Sydney, which is often identified as a ‘heartland of racism’.  Originally, I had concerns about this kind of project, because, as is clear from even the most limited understanding of Freire’s work, Freire worked with those who were oppressed; he used a kind of bottom up approach. I didn’t see how it would be possible for me to do this, considering my limited access to people who were refugees; my school is pretty uniform, although there are changes taking place pretty slowly.

Secondly, although I had read quite a lot of Freire, it had been quite narrow in scope. Thus, when Rick asked me about my action research project and how it would be based on Freire’s principles, I struggled to explain how it might work. What I need to do know is read more about the ways that Freire’s work has been applied in particular contexts. Rick suggested that I explore two phenomena in particular; photovoice and popular theatre, so these two ideas will be the focus of my reading for a considerable period to come.

Thirdly, we had the opportunity to discuss what my portfolio might look like. Although we didn’t discuss this much, we did talk about the online forum. Here, Rick cautioned me to make sure that I kept this as an intellectual exercise, because it needed to be this if I was going to keep using it as part of my forum. We talked about the best ways to keep it working, and agreed that the use of social media would be a valuable tool, as well as the university mailing lists. Getting this up and running will be one of my key projects over the holidays.

However, the part of the discussion that I thought was the most important focused on what I’m contributing to the academy by my research. In short, what am I doing that is new or unique? What are the particular features of my research that are important?What is the importance of my research? What am I doing that is new or different? I think that it is important to be clear about the benefits of my work. Here are my original thoughts to answer this question:

• It’s the first time (at least, the first time that I’m aware) that educators in Australia have tried to link Freire’s pedagogy with citizenship education.
• The context of the work is vital – it’s intensely practical. It’s not simply a theoretical discussion of Freire and education, but it is using Freire’s pedagogy to challenge the oppression of Racism in Emu Plains, Sydney. Personally, I think that this makes my research vital.
• Finally, unlike may Freirean approaches to education, this particular project is looking at children and Freire. Most Freirean prjects explore adult education. This too makes it valuable to the academy.

I’ve been watching with great interest the recent debate about the correctness of the Resources Super Profits Tax here in Australia. Although I’m by no means knowledgeable about taxation or taxation law, I do think that there are certain conclusions that can be drawn from the course of the debate that illustrate the ideology behind many of the corporate decisions that take place in Australia.
Firstly, though, a little background. Recently, the Federal Government of Australia (at that time, a slightly left of centre labor party) received the findings of the Henry Review. This review looked at Australia’s archaic tax system and made a number of recommendations about improving the system, in the interests of making it more equitable. Some of these recommendations specifically related to replacing the old system of royalty-based mining tax (where all mining companies had to pay a certain fee for using the land and taking minerals from it) with a system that charges a tax once the profits of a mining company exceeds a certain point. It is, to be fair, a tax that is placed upon all the other kinds of taxes, like company tax and so on.

Economists and academics around Australia agreed that this was a way forward for Australia; it made the system fairer and, by not taxing companies until they were making  a profit it would actually encourage investment, rather than hindering it. Here’s a link to an article about that: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Economists-back-RSPT-pd20100526-5SU45?OpenDocument&src=tnb

So far, so good, right? Well, that’s where it all seemed to go wrong. As soon as the tax was announced, the owners of the mining companies immediately used every resource (hah, hah) at their disposal to convince the public that this tax was an outrage, and it would damage the ‘little people’. Basically, you, your job, your house and everything about you was at risk because of this tax. What was particularly interesting was they way that some of the richest people in Australia, like ‘Twiggy’ Forrest, managed to make it look like he and the mining companies were on the side of the average ‘joe’ working hard for a dollar.

Seriously, the whole thing is ridiculous; what isn’t made clear is that this isn’t a new tax at all, but a reform of old ones. In all likelihood, it will make mining in Australia stronger, rather than weaker, and that will provide employment for more Australians. However, what it will do is charge those people who are taking vast sums of money in profits from mining companies more of their earnings. Naturally, this doesn’t make these shareholders happy and thus the stream of invective directed at the Federal Government.

So what is my particular interest in this? Well, I see it as another very clear example of the lack of critical consciousness present amongst the general populace, as well as an example of the ideology of the dominant capitalist hegemony in Australia. Let’s examine the ideology part of this first; one of the principles of ideology requires it to be presented as ‘common sense’. This has been done by the mining companies through their overwhelming use of the media and the tagline ‘If mining’s strong, Australia’s strong.’ However, at no point do they actually explain this tax; instead, they repeat things about people losing jobs and how it will affect all of us. And, here’s the clincher: because they have the power to influence the media, and purchase advertising space, this becomes the message that people hear more often, and therefore come to believe. It’s a short step, then, to adopt it as common sense.

However, if people had learnt to challenge this ideology, and resist the power of the mainstream media; that is, if people were becoming critically conscious, then I believe (and I hope) that this would be a different story; ideally, we might be able to see the vested interests and conflicts that lie behind both the mining companies arguments and the way the media has presented the opposing views to us. Until that point, are we to remain slaves to the capitalist hegemony?