You can’t run an education system without a philosophy of education. To be for education, one has to be for some kind of education; be it democratic and integrated curriculum, theocratic indoctrination, skills-based industry induction or administratively convenient rote education. We know the Howard Government, by means of the disinformation it has been pushing, is against education philosophies that make use of integrated curriculum.
Wrongly claiming (or at least inferring) that integrated curriculum does away with disciplines such as history and results in a “post-modern stew”, we can assume that the Howard Government is also anti-homework (hint Julie Bishop; read your Beane.) Hell, Bishop’s “Maoist-Elitist” bungle shows that she is at least opposed to doing homework, if not opposed to the use of facts. “Maoist-elitist”?
It is clear from the campaigning that the Howard Government want’s to supplant existing teaching philosophies, but what do they intend to replace them with? It’s not enough to be just “anti-education-philosophy-x”, one needs to also be “pro-education-philosophy-y” otherwise you are just anti-education. What is their philosophy – if they have one – and is it supported by their premises? Or are they just anti-education?
It’s a serious question that needs to be asked and answered before the next federal election, that is if you value education.