Cirrus

The material on this page is available to AustLit subscribers. If you are a subscriber or are from a subscribing organisation, please log in to gain full access. To explore options for subscribing to this unique teaching, research, and publishing resource for Australian culture and storytelling, please contact us or find out more.

Latest Issues

VIEW ALL ISSUES (15883097)

AbstractHistoryArchive Description

'The sensitive question of whether censorship is permissible in the classroom has not been effectively explored, nor has there been an exhaustive survey of all occurrences of public censorship in schools. Through tracking all public occurrences, this article seeks to understand whether censorship is ever justified in both the English classroom and the school beyond. The language surrounding occurrences revealed three different social discourses about the agency of the child: purity and danger, the pedagogy of the oppressed, and liberal consensus. Whether text censorship is justified is ultimately a nuanced ethical issue concerning what constitutes the good society and the free agency of its children. From a social utilitarian position, I conclude that the liberal consensus model is most constructive for the Australian social contract, and argue for a rare case for censorship when a consensus model is undermined.' (Publication abstract)

Publication Details of Only Known VersionEarliest 2 Known Versions of

Appears in:

y English in Australia vol. 53 no. 3 2018 15883072 2018 periodical issue Abstract
'In a 1966 edition of English in Australia Tony Delves considered the purposes and goals of teaching English in his article ‘English as She is Not Taught’. Delves identified a number of key debates and ideas around the teaching of English that feel, even to the teacher or academic revisiting them in 2018, surprisingly contemporary: the role of grammar, language versus literature, student experience, creative writing, personal response, and teacher and student knowledge (Delves, 1966). Delves’ piece speaks to ongoing debates around the nature and content of subject English, where English is at once imbued with huge breadth and scope, responsible for not only literacy but also the moral and ethical education of students (Patterson, 2000), but at the same time, seen as having ‘no content’ (Dixon, 1975) and lacking a tangible body of knowledge (Doecke et al., 2018). We might then ask, as many before have – what is subject English? Peter Medway calls the need to define the subject as ‘an itch some of us can’t stop scratching’ (2005, p. 19).' (Editorial introduction)
2018
(
2018
)
pg. 23-36