THE current Australia-wide debate about literacy standards within our schools and the curricula that drive them is timely and incredibly important.
Cardinal George Pell raised concerns about the widespread adoption of “critical literacy” as the basis of English programs throughout Australian schools – both non-Catholic and Catholic.
He said at his National Press Club address on September 21 that the process of educational learning can become “all critique and no foundation”, leaving students seeking truth, “rudderless”.
Many have, since Cardinal Pell made this speech, critiqued his critique and suggested that approaching all texts from a critical point of view can only be beneficial.
Fr David Pascoe (“Points of difference in a pluralistic world”, CL 9/10/05) emphasised the concept of “pluralism” whereby we recognise that there are different opinions, “but also maintain that among these (opinions) there are better and worse ways, and by contrasting ideas with experience and through dialogue, human beings are almost always capable of recognising the superiority of one opinion over another, and of adhering to that better opinion”.
This is a valid point. Dialogue and debate about different opinions is a rich and valid learning approach.
However, it assumes that the person involved in the dialogue or debate has some kind of foundational knowledge on which they base their opinion and contribution to the dialogue.
It is on this point that I believe that Cardinal Pell has “sniffed out” the fundamental problem with “critical literacy”.
If I were to join an academic debate about, for example, global warming, I would need to have to have a sound knowledge of the subject.
My ability to enter into a robust critical debate would depend on my knowledge and experience on the subject.
What “critical literacy” asks a student to do is to approach each and every text from a critical point of view.
Even preschool teachers are encouraged to point out to little ones the underlying biases and “hidden messages” contained in books such as Thomas the Tank Engine.
The assumption is that no particular text should be read on face value.
To take this further, no particular moral standpoint has the right to be upheld above any other.
I think that this is what Cardinal Pell is referring to when he says that our students are being left “rudderless”.
As Christians and as Catholics we are biased in the way that we interpret texts. If we hold dear the teachings of Jesus Christ and aim to live the message of His Gospel, then we have chosen to exclude certain other ways of believing and behaving.
Christianity has very clear principles and teachings. Supporters of “critical literacy” would insist that Catholic teachers need to discard the priority of the Gospel, and approach all texts with a critical mind. All opinions need to be explored equally.
Whereas, in the past, the majority of Catholic students would have had a reasonably firm foundation of Christian knowledge and practice from which they could explore and compare a range of other opinions, today the majority of students in Catholic schools have a tenuous grasp of their faith.
Robust debate about a particular text can actually result in a student’s faith being decimated – too little foundation to support the critical approach.
Having studied interpretation of biblical texts at a postgraduate level, I appreciate the importance of critical reflection and debate among academics. What I see is a problem is that somewhere, someone has decided that this “critical literacy” approach should be applied from the cradle.
“Critical literacy” depends on a foundation of knowledge and experience. Cardinal Pell is, I believe, right when he says that today’s generation of students are being left “rudderless”.
It is because they are being asked to critique what they barely know or understand. They are being asked to dismantle what is barely upright and standing. They are being asked to question what they barely believe.
CATHY RANSOM
Bayview Heights, Qld
