After several years, I have decided to become an active blogger again. I would like to begin with an old post that is relevant to this Blog. Here is a link:

http://conscious-families.blogspot.com/2006/03/attachment-parenting-my-personal.html 

Enjoy!

Labour is at it again

Yesterday's Australian announced: "Labor will call for an 'education revolution' to deliver the next wave of economic reform, arguing that investment in human capital will revive Australia's faltering productivity" (Page 1). The Sydney Morning Herald quotes Opposition leader Kevin Rudd as saying: "There is now incontrovertible evidence that education should be understood as an economic investment" (SMH, Tuesday 23 January 2007, Page 1). By education, the Australian Labour Party (ALP) means - as was made clear recently (see previous post) - "early childhood education", through preschools, primary schools, high schools and universities and other tertiary institutions. Two things to note. First, what is at stake is competition with other countries. Second, the solution to the perceived decline is investment of huge amounts of money.

I really don't know what to say to all this. When the leader of a major party - one who is very likely to be the next Prime Minister - can use this kind of language to talk about education, without anyone even noticing the murder of the English language (not to mention the likely murder of millions of innocent souls when such thinking is put into practice) then we are lost I'm afraid. The point is not - and I wish I didn't need to say this - that education does not have, as one of its many functions, the provision of skills, knowledge and understanding that individuals can use for a variety of purposes, including economic ones. The point is that, in speaking this way, Mr Rudd has defined education in such a narrow way as to transform it into a mockery of itself. Enough. If you have read this far I urge you to obtain a copy of a book, written by John Dewey and first published in 1916, called "Democracy and education". I find the ALP's descent into mumbo-jumbo depressing. Yet, what alternative do Australians have? It will be difficult to vote in the coming elections I'm afraid.

Formal "early childhood education" - whatever that means

Today's Australian newspaper announced that the Australian Labor Party (ALP) plans "to switch childcare from babysitting to education" (The Australian, Tuesday 19 December 2006, Page 1). The Age put the ALP's new policy this way: "The opposition has proposed switching the focus of child care from babysitting to education by requiring all childcare centres, including home-based family day care, to provide an early childhood learning program for kids.
The proposal, put forward by opposition families spokeswoman Jenny Macklin, would be implemented if Labor wins government next year". She said that the proposal would "require carers to undergo early childhood education" (The Age, 19 December 2006). According to The Age, Ms Macklin claimed that "parents wanted their kids to receive the best education possible, and evidence showed that the younger children started learning, the better". She added: "We need to get more early childhood education into our childcare centres, into our preschools, into family day care, and that way our children can really get the benefit of early childhood learning."
My God, how low we've sunk in the education non-debate. The new leader of the ALP, Kevin Rudd, told reporters: "If you look at any specialist report on how a young person's intellectual processes are developed ... (early childhood education is) critical". He added: "If you like, the poor cousin of our entire educational system from early childhood through to primary school, secondary school, TAFE, technical college, university ... across that whole spectrum, the poor cousin ... is what happens in early childhood...We have to do better there and we're examining ways in which that can be done."

It is becoming more and more difficult even to discuss these things, so much damage has been done to the ordinary use of the English language. None of the news media spell out exactly what is intended and that, of course, is the essence of today's non-communication. A very careful reading, however, reveals what none of the newspapers are willing to acknowledge in so many words, namely, that we are talking about children of an unspecified age, but very likely between 0 and 3, possibly 0-5. Since this is nowhere spelled out, but has to be worked out from a variety of statements made by a variety of people in one of several places, the absurdity of the proposal is hidden from view. Indeed, it appears progressive. So, when do we begin to "teach" children to read and write or to use mathematical symbols and, more importantly, how do we do so? Do we begin in the first year of life? In the second? Or is the ALP thinking of three-year-olds only? Or do they mean four-year olds perhaps? The simple answer is that there is no answer to these questions because the entire scheme depends on catchy phrases and woolly thinking. The point is, of course, it's a vote-winner. We all want our children educated and the assumption is that the earlier we start the more effective the process. It requires no demonstration because we have all been told, accurately for a change, that, as Mr Rudd said, "what happens in early childhood is critical." We simply do not notice - and are not meant to notice - that the phrase "what happens in early childhood" is not coextensive with the phrase "formal early childhood education", even though the latter phrase is itself not a clearly-defined concept.

Most important of all, the existence of "childcare" as an institution is taken for granted even though the same articles point out that, as it turns out, only 25% of Australian parents actually use such formal arrangements (preferring, apparently, more informal arrangements making use of family members for example). I must admit I thought the figure was much higher and I am to some extent encouraged that most Australians haven't been brainwashed by the "childcare" lobby into abandoning their babies to the care of strangers.

This is the 21st century, of course, so we no longer read - much less heed - the message of writers like Jean Piaget or John Dewey (eg Democracy and education, 1916), nor, even, the more "recent" voices of wisdom contained in the writings of John Holt (eg How children learn, 1967, or What do I do Monday, 1970). And there is simply no interest whatsoever in studies demonstrating that "more" (formal education) may mean "less" (learning). I will continue soon [To be continued].