This article was downloaded by: [York University Libraries]On: 10 November 2014, At: 18:48Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdis20

MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION IN QUEENSLAND: THEASSIMILATION OF AN IDEALRobert Lingard aa Brisbane College of Advanced Education , Kelvin Grove CampusPublished online: 06 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Robert Lingard (1983) MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION IN QUEENSLAND: THE ASSIMILATION OF AN IDEAL,Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 4:1, 13-31, DOI: 10.1080/0159630830040102

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0159630830040102

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representationsor warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

DISCOURSE Vol. 4 No. 1, October 1983

MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION IN QUEENSLAND: THEASSIMILATION OF AN IDEAL

Robert LingardBrisbane College of Advanced Education, Kelvin Grove Campus

Introduction

The endorsement of the Galbally Report by the Federal Governmentin 1978 established multiculturalism as the official government stanceon the migrant presence in Australia. Multiculturalism had bipartisanpolitical support; before Galbally, Al Grassby as Minister for Immi-gration in the Whitlam Labor Government had given the policy parti-san political legitimacy. Paragraph 9.6 of Chapter Nine of the Galbal-ly Report summed up the central assumption of the new approach inthe following way:

We are convinced that migrants have the right to maintain their culturaland racial identity and that it is clearly in the best interests of our nationthat they should be encouraged and assisted to do so if they wish.

(Galbally, 1978: 104)

The notion of the right of migrants to maintain their cultural identitycould be contrasted starkly with the previously dominantassimilationist approach.

Schools were now expected by the Federal Government to respondto the migrant presence in classrooms in a multicultural way. Duringthe period 1945-mid 1970's schools operated as assimilationist agen-cies for migrant children, as did the other major secondary institutionsof Australian society. Migrant children had to change to participateand to succeed within the Anglo-Australian education system; schoolsoperated to teach the values of the dominant culture. It was not untilthe late sixties that migrants became a 'problem' in education andthen the problem was defined largely as one of language (Martin,1978). With the acceptance of the Galbally Report and its conversioninto educational terms in January, 1979, in the Schools CommissionReport, "Education for a Multicultural Society", schools are now ex-pected by the Federal Government to respond to ethnicity throughmulticultural education. Schools are expected to change to accommo-date migrant children, not vice versa, as was the case during the peri-od of 'assimilationist ascendancy'. Schools through multicultural edu-cation must encourage the retention of cultural identity amongstmigrant children, including the retention of their language, and as wellthey must prepare Anglo-Australians for life in a multicultural soci-ety.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:48

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

-14-

The actual practice of multicultural education as endorsed by theGalbally Report (pp. 106-108) and more fully outlined by the FederalGovernment in the Schools Commission Report of January, 1979, hasto be implemented by the State Departments of Education and finallyby classroom teachers. The Queensland Education Department re-sponded fairly quickly to the Galbally Report and Schools Commis-sion support for multicultural education in the production in June,1979 of a discussion paper on multicultural education—"Educationfor a Multicultural Society" (not to be confused with the SchoolsCommission document of the same name mentioned above). This dis-cussion paper was reprinted in December, 1979; the reprint included a"Departmental Policy Statement" on multicultural education whichhas been approved for Queensland schools.

In addition to the preparation of the discussion paper "Educationfor a Multicultural Society" and to the formulation of a specific poli-cy on multicultural education, the Queensland State Department ofEducation has responded in more concrete ways to the Federal Gov-ernment initiatives and funds for multicultural education. A Queens-land Multicultural Co-ordinating Committee (herafter QMCC) was es-tablished by the Minister for Education. This Committee had itsinaugural meeting on the 3rd August, 1979. The Committee was esta-blished following the recommendation of the January, 1979 SchoolsCommission document "Education for a Multicultural Society". TheCommittee administers the distribution of federal funds for multicul-tural education to both state and non-state schools. Two federallyfunded 'ethnic liaison officers' have been appointed by the State De-partment of Education in accordance with another Schools Commis-sion recommendation.1 Also, the State Department of Education hasseconded six teachers to the Curriculum Branch to 'multiculturalise'primary and secondary school syllabus documents in line with theadopted state multicultural education policy.2 The continuation of thisproject would seem to be contingent upon continued federal fundingfor multicultural education. Four of these seconded teachers are work-ing in primary education and have been doing so since the beginningof 1981. A fifth teacher has recently been seconded (early 1982) tobegin work in the secondary area. This project has a co-ordinator whois also a seconded teacher. There are other initiatives in the area ofmulticultural education, some at the 'regional office' level, some atthe school level and some implemented by individual teachers. Someof these programs, for example the Brisbane South Region Multicul-tural Education Project, are funded federally through the QMCC,while others receive no such funding.

After an analysis of these Queensland policies and practices it willbe argued that while the Federal Governnment in theory, appears tosupport a type of multiculturalism which is a reasonably close approx-imation to what Smolicz (1981) has called 'stable multiculturalism',

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:48

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

-15-

the Queensland State Education Department endorses a policy whichis fairly much akin to what Smolicz (1981) calls 'residual multicul-turalism'. Smolicz (1981) argues that 'residual multiculturalism' oper-ates as a surreptitious form of assimilation. Thus, it will be arguedthat the Queensland policy subverts the federal intentions for 'stablemulticulturalism'.3

In a more general sense, the paper is a case study of the 'refraction'of a Federal Government policy commitment—in this instance onmulticultural education—by a State Government bureaucracy. Thepractice of multicultural education in Australia is of course more com-plex than this. 'Refraction' occurs at a variety of levels from policyformulation to classroom practice, for example, between the theoreti-cal discourse surrounding the concept and the Schools Commission, aswell as between the Schools Commission's position and that of theFederal Government, and so on. However, the focus of this paper isthe 'refraction' which has occurred between the Federal Government'spolicy on multicultural education and that of the Queensland Depart-ment of Education.

Freeland (1981b: 373) has defined 'refraction' in the following way:

The notion of 'refraction' is used to convey an understanding of politicaldecisions necessarily passing through a number of apparatuses/institutionsin the implementation process. Just as light is refracted on passing throughwater, glass, etc., the initial political decision is necessarily refracted (vari-ably) as it passes through the stages of implementation. This being so, thefinal impact of a political decision tends to be different from the initial po-litical intention. The degree of refraction varies with the number of stagesnecessary for implementation and the level of intervention by specificinterest groups at each stage.The paper then analyses this subservion of'stable' multicultural education via refraction and also attempts to explainwhy very little change has occurred in most classrooms in Queensland in thearea of multicultural education.

Jakubowicz (1981: 5) has argued that an understanding of 'multicultural-ism' requires an analysis of the role of the capitalist state in cultural andsocial reproduction. Such an analysis gets into most difficult and complextheory concerning both the conceptualization of the state and the questionsof social and cultural reproduction, to say nothing of cultural production(Willis, 1981). Jakubowicz (1981: 12) argues further that state action in anypolicy area is limited structurally by the imperatives of its role in culturaland social reproduction. Jakubowicz's position is accepted here, while thelinks between multicultural education policy and cultural and social repro-duction are not directly addressed.

Finally, the paper touches on some more general points in the area ofpublic policy evaluation following Young (1981 b) and using his distinctionbetween 'progressive' and 'degenerating' education policy theories.

Types of Multiculturalism: 'Transitional', 'Residual', 'Stable'

Smolicz (1981) has categorised multiculturalism into three types — 'transi-tional', 'residual', 'stable'. This conceptual distinction will be outlinedbriefly here. The major emphasis will be on the distinction between 'residu-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:48

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

-16-

al' and 'stable' multiculturalism. As suggested earlier, the Federal Govern-ment's approach approximates 'stable' multiculturalism, while the Queens-land State Education Department's approach more closely approximates the'residual' type.

'Transitional' multiculturalism 'takes the form of providing instruction inethnic languages and cultures, or even bilingual education, but only as akind of temproary scaffolding' (Smolicz, 1981, p. 123). As stated earlier, themigrant education 'problem' in the sixties was seen simply as one of lan-guage (Martin, 1978). The response in some states was to implement'transitional* type programs. In Queensland, the approach did not even gothis far—the sole emphasis was on direct acquisition of English. In 'transi-tional' multiculturalism, 'once English is acquired, the ethnic props can beremoved and education can proceed in English alone, perhaps with the ad-dition of a traditional modern language, for intellectual purposes' (Smolicz,1981: 123). Currently in Queensland the only programs of this type aresome bilingual programs in Aboriginal education. The Migrant EducationCentre programs were developed within the old assimilationist frameworkand are not bilingual; they only involve the teaching of competence in En-glish.

'Residual' multiculturalism views ethnic culture as simply one type ofsubculture amongst many within a pluralist society. This framework firmlyrejects any notion that multiculturalism is solely ethnic multiculturalism.The Curriculum Development Centre's document on the Core Curriculum(1980) presents this notion of ethnic culture as one among a variety of sub-cultures. No distinction is made in 'residual' multiculturalism between eth-nic subcultures and, say, the subculture of the handicapped or the subcul-ture of pigeon fanciers. Ethnic cultures are viewed only as subcultures. Onthis point Smolicz (1981: 128) states:

By their relegation to the level of a subculture, ethnic minority cultures areimplicitly made part of the dominant culture.

Such an approach to multiculturalism is not concerned with themaintenance and integrity of the core values of each ethnic culturewithin a given society. Smolicz argues that language is a core value ofmost cultures.4 The attitude to community languages of 'residual' mul-ticulturalism is symptomatic of the whole approach. Such a stancedoes not see ethnic cultures as alternative cultures with language as acore, and thus does not support the teaching of community languageswithin the schools.

'Stable' multiculturalism supports the retention of the core values,including language, of ethnic minority groups. On the language ques-tion, Smolicz (1981: 129) states:

It is elimination of ethnic languages which now appears to represent thegreatest danger to the cores of most minority cultures.

At its 'deepest and most meaningful level' stable multiculturalism alsorequires the teaching of community languages to members of the his-torically dominant group. Smolicz distinguishes 'stable' multicultural-ism from separatism by pointing out that the former does involve the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:48

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

-17-

loss of certain ethnic institutional forms, for example, legal system,while the latter does not. In a society practising 'stable'multiculturalism, ethnic diversity is valued and all individuals wouldbe encouraged to become both bilingual and bicultural.

In concluding his description of 'stable' multiculturalism, Smolicz(1981: 142) states that to achieve such an ideal 'the education systemat every level must give all individuals the chance:

1. to learn the shared values of society, including the English language;2. to study their mother tongue in its cultural and literary context;3. to gain access to ethnic community languages and cultures other than

their own;4. to understand and value the multicultural nature of society and learn to

appreciate the various cultures within it.

There are two clear distinctions between 'residual' and 'stable' multi-culturalism. The first relates to the classification of ethnic cultures;'residual' multiculturalism views them simply as one among many sub-cultures, whereas 'stable' multiculturalism defines 'multicultural' tomean 'multi-ethnic' and regards ethnic cultures as viable and accepta-ble alternatives to the historically dominant culture. The second dis-tinction between the two approaches relates to attitude to communitylanguage teaching for both 'ethnic' and 'non-ethnic' groups; 'residual'multiculturalism does not support such teaching while it is a crucialcomponent in 'stable' multiculturalism. One's attitude to language isthe cornerstone of the conceptual distinction between 'residual' and'stable' multiculturalism (Smolicz, 1982: 126).

At the public policy level multiculturalism has replaced assimilation.However, 'residual' multiculturalism as defined above would representbasically the old policy, the only difference would be that societywould be embellished with fragments of ethnic cultures (Smolicz,1981: 130). Such a policy could be fairly easily implemented throughthe schools. On the other hand, the implementation of 'stable' multi-culturalism would require substantial changes to schools.

Multicultural Education Policies and Practices in Queensland

As outlined above, the major distinction between 'stable' and residualmulticulturalism centres around the commitment to teaching of com-munity languages to both 'ethnic' and 'non-ethnic' groups. The Gal-bally Report (1978) recommended support for the teaching ofcommunity languages. The Schools Commission policy statement"Education for a Multicultural Society", January, 1979, and the pro-vision of funds ($500,000 in 1979 for example) indicate Federal Gov-ernment support for the teaching of community languages. TheSchools Commission Report for the 1982-1984 triennium made a spe-cific recommendation that funds for multicultural education be splitbetween community language programs and general multicultural pro-grams. This Report also states that: 'It is an important affirmation of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:48

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

-18-

the rights of individuals from a cultural background which is not An-glo-Celtic to be able to find expression of that culture in their schools,specifically in the form of language maintenance' (p. 115). The 1980Report of the Institute of Multicultural Affairs strongly supported theteaching of community languages stating that 'the teaching oflanguages used in the Australian community is of importance to allAustralians and the opportunity to learn them should be available atall educational levels both within and outside the formal educationsystem' (para. 2.22). In contrast, any commitment to the teaching ofcommunity languages is completely missing from the Queensland De-partment's policy statement on multicultural education, and further-more, the discussion paper "Education for a Multicultural Society"fails to give any strong support to the widespread introduction ofcommunity language teaching, the community language issue will beconsidered here as part of the argument that Queensland's multicultur-al education policy is of the 'residual' type, and that this is a subver-sion of the Federal commitment to 'stable' multiculturalism.

'Stable' multiculturalism requires that the mother tongue be taughtin both its cultural and literary context to ethnic groups and that com-munity languages also be taught to members of the dominantAnglo-Australian culture (Smolicz, 1981). The Queensland "Educa-tion for a Multicultural Society" discussion paper, which has been dis-tributed to all Queensland schools (both state and non-state) by theQMCC, does not support the introduction of community languageteaching at either the primary or secondary level, either in the sectionsof the paper canvassing issues or in the specific recommendations. Forsecondary schools, the document supports the continuation of modernlanguage teaching (French, German, Japanese, Chinese, Indonesian,Italian and Russian are currently taught but to decreasing numbers ofstudents). The document does not support the teaching of either mod-ern or community languages in the primary schools. However, the in-corporation of modern languages in cultural studies programs is re-garded as essential and the discussion paper suggests the followingpossibilities for primary schools:

• the incidental use of words and phrases where appropriate;• comparisons of how different languages deal with concepts or matters

under discussion; and,• a concentrated study of aspects of a language, as a part of a cultural

program extending over a few days to a few weeks.("Education for a Multicultural Society", 1979: 19)

Thus there is no commitment to the full scale teaching of communitylanguages in either the primary or secondary schools. In canvassingthe possibilities for community language teaching, the discussion papersuggests that the incidental use of community languages in social sci-ence programs is the most likely option for both primary and secon-dary schools.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:48

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

-19-

When one comes to the specific recommendations of the DiscussionPaper (pp. 23-24) there is no support whatsoever for the introductionof community language teaching at either the primary or secondarylevel. The only recommendation touching on the matter (p. 24) sug-gests that community language programs be piloted whereappropriate. No action has been taken in this regard since the paperwas first released in June, 1979.

Turning from the Discussion Paper to the actual Queensland De-partment Policy on multicultural education (incorporated in the De-cember 1979 reprint of the Discussion Paper "Education for a Multi-cultural Society"), one finds that there is no mention of communitylanguage teaching or the need for its introduction as central to the'multiculturalising' of Queensland education. This obvious deletion,along with the policy statement that only a 'redirection' or 'change offocus' rather than a complete redrafting of existing programs is re-quired (p.21), would seem to indicate quite clearly, that (for whateverreasons) language is not seen as central to the retention of culture andthat the teaching of community languages is not seen as central tomulticultural education or that community language teaching was seento be 'dangerous' in the Queensland political context. The Queenslandmulticultural education policy is more about the encouragement oftolerance rather than the 'stable' multicultural aim of ensuring the re-tention of culture and language by ethnic groups.

In a speech to school principals in June, 1981, the Chairperson ofthe QMCC indicated that the Committee had been committed to apolicy of general support for multicultural education programs 'withthe teaching of community languages having a legitimate, but not re-served, place within that policy.' The Chairperson spoke of theSchools Commission recommendation for the 1982-1984 trienniumthat multicultural education funds be divided between general multi-cultural programs and the teaching of community language progeams.If the Federal Government accepted this recommendation or if theSchools Commission pursued this recommendation further, in thewords of the Chairperson of the Multicultural Co-ordinating Commit-tee, 'the future could be both interesting and difficult.' These state-ments would seem to indicate some reticence concerning the political'acceptability' of community language teaching in Queensland schools.

In Queensland Parliament on the 27th October, 1981, theGreek-born Labor Member for South Brisbane, Mr Jim Fouras,aware that the Queensland Government had indicated little commit-ment to community language teaching,5 asked the Minister for Educa-tion if the Government would accept its share of about $240,000 outof the $1,613 million allocation by the Schools Commission for com-munity language programs. In reply, the Minister indicated that in itsreport for the 1982—1984 triennium the Schools Commission hadrecommended that Multicultural Education funds be divided between

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:48

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

-20-

general programs and community language programs. The Ministercontinued: 'However, that recommendation was not pursued in theCommission's Report for 1982, prepared in response to the guidelinesgiven to the Commission by the Commonwealth Government on 4thJune, 1981. In the 1982 Report, the Commission stated that it had"decided to recommend that funding be on the bases of block grantsto the states in relation to total enrolments. The Commission intendsthat in the allocation of funds within states, some balance be main-tained between support for community languages and support for gen-eral activities in multicultural education and will be drawing attentionto this in its program guidelines." '6 On this basis the Minister indicat-ed that the Queensland Government would be accepting the full grant;in so doing he did not give any commitment to the introduction ofgenuine community language teaching. When one sees programs beingtaught in a handful of Queensland primary schools—programs thatteach about language rather than teaching or developing competencein a languae - it is very obvious that little, if any community languageteaching is being done. Given the Minister's reply in the House itseems this might remain the case in the future. If in the future theFederal Government ties its grants for multicultural education to pro-grams, rather than distributes them on the basis of enrolments, thefuture, to use the words of the Chairperson of the QMCC, will cer-tainly be both 'interesting' and 'difficult'.

In March/April, 1980 the Research Branch of the Queensland De-partment of Education sent out questionnaires to all Queenslandprimary schools to ascertain the extent and nature of the teaching of'languages other than English'. Twenty state schools and thirty-eightnon-state schools were identified as teaching about languages. (Moreis being done in Catholic schools than in the state schools.) Bothschools with high migrant enrolments and low migrant enrolmentswere involved. It needs to be pointed out that these few state schoolswere carrying out this activity under their own initiative, rather thanbeing sponsored by the State Department. Of these schools, mosttaught the 'traditional* languages of French and German rather thancommunity languages. It needs to be stressed that these schools wereteaching 'about' language rather than teaching competence in a com-munity language. The most common text used in these schools wasAngelina De Fazio's Lingvo: Language Communication for JuniorSecondary Students (modified for their purposes). The 'Lingvo' pro-gram aims to teach about language.

Federal Government funds for multicultural education in Queens-land are administered for both state and non-state schools by theQMCC. Grants given to schools for language programs have usuallybeen given to programs which teach about language rather than pro-grams which aim at developing competence in a community language.

In 1980, the QMCC established a joint committee with the Modern

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:48

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

-21-

Language Teachers Association of Queensland to 'examine the placeand contribution of language studies in education for a multiculturalsociety'. The terms of reference for this joint committee were en-dorsed by the QMCC on the 27th June, 1980. The interim report ofthis joint committee was released in October, 1981. This report makesa significant contribution to the community language debate. If therecommendations were accepted and implemented by the State Depart-ment of Education a giant setp would be taken towards a policy of'stable' multiculturalism. However, the QMCC has shelved this Reportand another working party has been formed to reassess the communitylanguage question.

One of the terms of reference of the QMCC is 'to initiateappropriate programs in multicultural education' using federally pro-vided funds for this purpose. Thus the QMCC could initiate commu-nity language programs in the schools. It has not done so to date. Allmembers of the QMCC have to be approved by the Minister. The re-presentatives of the Ethnic Communities on the QMCC are drawnfrom the ethnic 'umbrella' organisations (e.g. the Ethnic Communi-ties' Council); there is no provision for the representation of individu-al ethnic groups as in other states, for example, Victoria. In Queens-land the Committee represents the views of educators rather than theviews of the ethnic communities (see para. 19, page 4.7 AustralianInstitute of Multicultural Affairs: "Review of Multicultural and Mi-grant Education"). In its statement of philosophy, aims of multicul-turalism and aims of multicultural education, the QMCC makes nomention at all of community languages. In the final analysis any eth-nic support for community languages could be blocked (if the othermembers did not support the notion) given that the ethnicrepresentatives are in the minority on the Committee.

Enough evidence has been provided to show the lack of commit-ment by the State Department of Education to the introduction ofcommunity language teaching in both Queensland primary and secon-dary schools. Indeed the evidence would suggest that there is a consid-erable reticence on the Department's behalf to the introduction ofsuch programs. On this account Queensland multicultural education isobviously of the 'residual' rather than 'stable' type, which is in noway to suggest that 'stable' multiculturalism is simply synonomouswith community language teaching.

The second clear distinction between 'residual' and 'stable' multicul-turalism is concerned with one's attitude towards ethnic cultures.'Residual' multiculturalism sees ethnic cultures as simply one among awhole host of other subcultures within the society, for example, thesubcultures of the blind, the poor, the blue-collar workers. In con-trast, 'stable' multiculturalism sees 'multicultural' as synonomous with'multi-ethnic', and secondly, sees ethnic cultures as viable alternativesto the dominant culture. 'Stable' multiculturalism supports the mainte-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:48

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

-22-

nance of the 'core values' of these ethnic cultures through society'sinstitutions such as schools. The latter approach, while accepting thatthere, is something in the notion of a common humanity and whilediffering from separatism in that institutional separatism is not sup-ported, stresses the differences between cultures. The 'residual' ap-proach, on the other hand, stresses the similarities.

Something of these tensions concerning the classification of ethniccultures is apparent in the Queensland Departmental Policy Statement;for example, the Policy comments:

All pupils should have access to accurate information about culturalsimilarities and differences, (p. 2)

There is no mention in the Policy Statement of ethnic cultures. Theemphasis seems to be on .tolerance of difference rather than themaintenance of difference. Now, one could hardly criticise the encour-agement of tolerance. However, this is not 'stable' multiculturalism.The Policy Statement suggests that, 'Programs and provisions in allQueensland State Schools should emphasise the intrinsic worth of allpeoples and the positive contributions that differences among groupsand individuals make to the whole society' (p. 2). Culture is a groupphenomenon. This policy suggestion could be interpreted to mean thatteachers should be tolerant of and encourage individual differences.Indeed Smith and Sachs (1980), in their evaluation of the BrisbaneSouth Multicultural Education Project, found that some teachers per-ceived multicultural education to be synonomous with coping with theindividual differences of their pupils. Because these teachers felt thatthey had been doing the latter for some time, little change was re-quired, they believed, to implement multicultural education. 'Stable'multicultural education involves more than catering for individualdifferences.

The Discussion Paper "Education for a Multicultural Society"states that the policy of multiculturalism means the valuing and recog-nition of the various cultural and ethnic groups forming Australiansociety' (p. 3). There would seem to be the suggestion here that 'multi-culturalism' is not synonomous with 'multi-ethnicity'.

The evidence on this distinction between 'stable' and 'residual' mul-ticulturalism is not as strong as the evidence concerning commitmentto the teaching of community languages. However, Smolicz (1981)points out that the latter criterion is the cornerstone of the conceptualclarification.

The 'change strategy' for the implementation of multicultural edu-cation in Queensland schools will be considered briefly in the next partof the paper. There is no coherent, worked-out strategy to 'multicul-turalise' Queensland education as there is in some other states, for ex-ample, South Australia with its 'Ten Schools Project'. TheQueensland "strategy" appears to be ad hoc; so far resource materialshave been placed in teachers' and education centres throughout the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:48

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

-23-

states; "Education for a Multicultural Society" has been distributed toall schools; some projects have been funded through the QMCC; littlein-service education has occurred in the area.

The "Multicultural Education Project" has been going for over ayear now. One of the functions of this project is to develop guidelinesto be distributed to primary school teachers to help them 'permeate'their curricula with multicultural objectives. (Very little has occurredto date in the secondary area.) The project is working within the par-ameters of the "Departmental Policy Statement" that 'a redirection orchange of focus' rather than 'a complete redrafting of existing pro-grams' is required (p. 2). Once these guidelines are drawn up two co-pies will be distributed to each primary school in the state. Theseguidelines will not become part of the existing syllabus documents.

The 'change strategy' involved seems to be a 'watered-down' ver-sion of what Whiteside (1978: 46) calls the 'empirical-rational' ap-proach. This approach assumes that materials will reach classroomteachers, that they will read the material, and that because they arerational human beings they will develop an intellectual commitment tomulticultural education and thus change their practice. There are somequestionable assumptions here. This type of 'change strategy' is not aseffective as what Whiteside (1978: 46) calls the 'normativere-educational' approach, whereby in-service education provides a ve-nue for two-way communication so that attitudinal changes are effect-ed which result in changed practice. Not much is happening at theclassroom level now in the area of multicultural education and muchof what does occur results from teacher initiative and commitment;given the 'change strategy' one wonders about the extent of thechanges in the future at the classroom level. A strong commitment tomulticultural education would surely ensure a detailed implementationstrategy.

Analysis

Enough evidence has been presented to support the contention that the'refraction' of the federal policy of 'stable' multiculturalism by thestate education bureaucracy has subverted the intent from the pursuitof 'stable' multiculturalism to that of 'residual' multiculturalism. Thisis not to suggest that there are no problems in the implementation of'stable' multiculturalism in the other states. The Australian Instituteof Multicultural Affairs in its "Review of Multicultural and MigrantEducation" (1980) suggests that there is a commitment at both systemand school levels throughout Australia to multicultural education.However, they point out what appear to them to be the major obsta-cles at the level of implementation. They suggest obstacles and diffi-culties in terms of relationships with funding authorities, the availabil-ity of suitably trained teachers, the absence of career paths, theavailability of suitable curricula and materials, the constraints on indi-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:48

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

-24-

vidual schools, and the lack of research and a substantive data base(p. 4.41). This section of the paper will attempt to explain the currentQueensland situation in multicultural education by considering factorsbeyond these administrative obstacles suggested by the Institute ofMulticultural Affairs.

The all-encompassing nature of the concept 'multicultural educa-tion' allows for easy subversion, particularly when its implementationhas to be refracted through state bureaucracies. There is no consensusdefinition of the concept. Thus many things can be done under therubric of 'multicultural education'. The failure of the Federal Govern-ment to accept the recommendation of the Schools Commission, thatfunds for multicultural education be tied to either general programs orcommunity language programs, has made it easy for the states to ac-cept the available funds, and then implement a policy at variance withthe federal intention. The fact that the Schools Commission's grantsare paid into the State Treasury and not administered separately fromstate money, allows for the possibility of the money being used forpurposes other than those intended (''Review of Multicultural andMigrant Education", 1980: 8.28). These factors all ensure the possibil-ity of the subversion of the federal policy of 'stable' multicukuralism.Indeed this is very likely, given that the formulation of the state policyon multicultural education was a response to federal initiative and theavailability of federal funds. The support for multicultural educationwas not a Queensland Department of Education initiative.7

During the late sixties and early seventies Queensland schooling, atboth primary and secondary levels, moved in the direction of moreliberal and progressive educational ideology and practices. This liber-alising movement occurred against the backdrop of the final stages ofthe post-war economic boom. From the mid-seventies, the Australianeconomy has been undergoing a restructuring; recession has followedthe long boom. Concomitant with this economic restructuring havebeen attempts by governments to restructure schooling and to changethe content of the educational debate. In ideological terms there hasbeen a shift from an emphasis on equality in education to an emphasison quality (Henry and MacLennan, 1979; Sharp and Freeland, 1980).The idiosyncratic nature of Queensland conservatism (Smith andKnight, 1981; McQueen, 1979), which derives from the primary indus-try bias of the Queensland economy (Smith and Knight, 1981;McQueen, 1979; Lewis, 1978; O'Shaughnessy, 1979), has ensured thatthe conservative attacks on liberal/progressive schooling have beenmore concerted in Queensland than elsewhere in Australia. As this 're-structuring' of schooling occurred, the small group of liberal Depart-mental administrators, who had been central to the liberalising ofschooling during the sixties and early seventies, came under both di-rect and indirect attack by the State government.

The contention of this analysis is that the economically based at-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:48

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

-25-

tacks on liberal/progressive schooling, which manifested themselves inQueensland in the 1978 bannings of MACOS and SEMP, and the sub-sequent legitimation of this reassertion of state government controlover schooling by the Ahem Reports, have produced an extremelycautious attitude to educational innovation amongst senior administra-tors in the state Department of Education. The climate within the De-partment is one of caution towards innovation, particularly when theinnovation has its policy and funding origins at the federal level. Thisclimate militates against the implementation of 'stable' multicultural-ism which is progressive in orientation, and the implementation ofwhich would require fairly substantial changes to schools. However,federal funds are available for multicultural education. The state De-partment of Education accepts these funds, but in the process subvertsthe federal policy intention.

In Queensland, residual multiculturalism is politically 'safer' in thecontext of recent developments in education and also in the broaderpolitical context. In other areas of public policy the state governmenthas indicated its support for assimilation; for example, the policy onAborigines is one of assimilation rather than self-determination. Alsoother state government departments have not taken up Galbally funds;the Health Department did not accept federal funds for the placementof interpreters in hospitals.8

'Stable' multicultural education is imbued with the liberal philoso-phy of schooling in that the assumption is made that schools can beused to achieve a more open and tolerant society. The epistemologicalbase of 'stable' multiculturalism is relativist; no evaluation is made ofthe worth of any particular ethnic culture, all are valued equally. Eventhe Queensland Departmental Policy Statement asserts that in the im-plementation of multicultural education 'change must occur in people,as the change in focus is primarily affective, dealing with attitudes anddispositions' (p. 2). All of these characteristics seem to be at odds withthe directions towards which the state government has been pushingschooling since the intervention against MACOS and SEMP.

The attacks on liberal/progressive schooling in Queensland weremost clearly and forcefully articulated by the far rightwing funda-mentalist Rona Joyner and her twin organisations STOP and CARE.Recently, multicultural education has come under her purview. In theSeptember, 1981 education of her STOP/CARE newsletter, shestrongly attacks multiculturalism in education. In her investigation ofthe "True Meaning of Multiculturalism in Education", she states thatmulticultural education is 'simply another way of getting the MACOSand SEMP ideology and aims into the classroom.' She goes on tostate that multicultural education is an alternative means by which se-cular humanists, using the schools as social change agencies, seek topromote a universal, godless brotherhood of man (sic)! On the natureof Australian society she claims, 'Our country is not, and never has

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:48

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

-26-

been, "multicultural". We are a "multinational" (sic) communitywithin a single culture—Christian.' Given the apparent congruence be-tween her world view and that of the Premier as indicated during theMACOS/SEMP disputes, one can understand the caution of the De-partment of Education in embracing 'residual' multiculturalism, letalone the 'stable' variety.

The September, 1981 edition of the STOP/CARE newsletter also in-cludes an article by Dr. Rupert Goodman, former Reader in ExternalStudies, Queensland University, vocal opponent of MACOS, and edu-cational adviser to the government's Ahem Inquiry. In his article"Multiculturalism, Education and Society", Dr. Goodman suggeststhat multiculturalism is potentially socially divisive and that it is a fed-eral policy which has been foisted on the states without any state com-mitment to the idea and without the support of the people of Queens-land.

Dr. Goodman appears to be opposed to 'stable' multiculturalismwhile at the same time confusing it with separatism. Rona Joyner, onthe other hand, appears to be opposed to both 'residual' and 'stable'multiculturalism, because she opposes the secular humanism of the no-tion of 'multiculturalism' and because she rejects the relativist epis-temology of both approaches. In the past, both Dr. Goodman andRona Joyner have articulated stances on education which were con-gruent with those of the government and which met the needs of capi-tal at the time of economic recession and restructuring (Freeland, 1979a; 1979 b). The Queensland policy of 'residual' multiculturalism withits emphasis on tolerance may be safe for the present, or even it maycome under close state government scrutiny in the future. Queenslandis ethnically more homogeneous than the other states of Australia (inthe 1976 Census 86.9% of Queenslanders were Australian-born com-pared with 79.9% for all of Australia). Given the lack of secondaryindustry in Queensland, migrants have not been as important in aneconomic sense as they have been in, say, Victoria or New SouthWales. Migrant pressure for change has not been as forceful or as ef-fective in Queensland as in the other states of Australia. It may not bein the interests of capital in Queensland to support multicultural edu-cation, as it may be in some other states or at the federal level (Jaku-bowicz, 1981).9 Whatever happens in the future, the state Departmentof Education's response to multicultural education may be seen to beat least politically pragmatic.

Young (1981 b) using Horkheimer's concept of 'immanent critique',has attempted to develop a framework which allows for asophisticated discussion of the complexities of policy choices in Au-stralian education (p. 1). Young's (1981 b) framework will be usedhere to discuss Queensland's multicultural education policy. There aretwo central components of the methodology of 'immanent critique'.The first, when applied to policy analysis, requires the evaluation of a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:48

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

-27-

policy in its own terms; the internal consistency and coherence, of apolicy theory need to be analysed (Young, 1981: 1). The second aspectof 'immanent critique', when applied to policy analysis, requires thata particular policy be considered in the context of other contemporarysocial policies and then be considered within the totality of the con-temporary social reality.10 An evaluation of a policy theory also re-quires an historical analysis to ascertain whether the core values of theparticular policy theory are realisable or attainable in the existing so-cial reality. For Young (1981 b), applying Lakatosian criteria for theevaluation of the progressiveness or degeneracy of a scientific theoryto policy theory analysis, a progressive policy theory is one whichensures over time 'an increasing degree of realisation of the core val-ues of the policy' (p. 22); alternatively, a degenerating policy theory isone whose core values are not realisable in the existing historical cir-cumstances. Young (1981 b) also argues that the justification of thevalues inherent in any policy must be examined.

The Queensland Departmental Policy Statement seems to be reason-ably internally coherent and consistent, while at the same timepursuing different goals from the federal policy. The Quensland Dis-cussion Paper "Education for a Multicultural Society", on the otherhand, is fraught with inconsistencies and confusion. At one level thereis confusion concerning the definition of multiculturalism. At timesthe document seems to support a 'melting pot' notion rather thanmulticulturalism. Sometimes the Discussion Paper seems to supportassimilation. For example (emphasis added):

... the changing and growing 'common culture' (p. 2)Even when the school does attempt to provide cultural maintenance oppor-tunities, its program must be flexible enough to allow minority groups toopt for preparation for life in the mainstream society as opposed to culturalmaintenance, if this is their wish. (p. 12)

Children must be educated to take their place in a multicultural society; tobe able to achieve some objective view of the strains and tensions inherentin it; and to be able to achieve some objective view of the strains and ten-sions inherent in it; and to be able to strike a balance between preservingtheir cultural and personal identities, and yet contribute sufficient of bothfor the good of the whole, (pp. 13-14)

All pupils should accept:that no culture is ever static and that constant mutual accommodation willbe required of all cultures making up an evolving multicultural society, (p.15)

There are other very obvious inconsistencies; for example, it is statedthat: 'Recognition of the rights of ethnic groups to maintain and fost-er their ethnic languages and cultures is imperative ... ' (p. 3). Yet,there is no recommendation that schools should teach ethnic/community languages.

Multicltural education, even of the 'residual' type as supported at

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:48

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

-28-

the policy level in Queensland, seems to be at considerable variancewith other contemporary developments in education in the state. TheAhem Report (1980) legitimated the reassertion of government controlover schooling manifested in the 1978 bannings of MACOS andSEMP (Lingard, 1982). The Report recommends increased ministerialcontrol over all aspects of schooling, including the plethora of Boardswhich oversee education and school curricula. The state has sought toreduce the relative autonomy of the schools. The Ahern Report rejectsany complete embracing of liberal/progressive schooling and throughits encouragement of greater inspectorial control over schools and theintroduction of wide-spread testing in the basics covertly supports amore conservative educational ideology and a more traditional pedag-ogy. In this educational context, even the mild 'liberal pluralism' ofthe'residual' multiculturalism, which has been cautiously embraced bythe state Department of Education, seems out of place. (Similarly, ofcourse, the federal policy of 'stable' multiculturalism is disjunctivewith the ideological intent of the Williams Report (Sharp and Free-land, 1981) and indeed seems to be more in line with the 1973 'KarmelReport' and its support of diversity within education.)

Habermas (1975) has written about the seeming paradox within ad-vanced capitalist societies whereby the basic assumptions of capitalismcome under closest scrutiny and questioning during economic boomtimes and less scrutiny during times of recession. Young (1981 b), us-ing Habermas' (1975) argument, points out that:

In times of recession ... modern capitalism, which is a technologicallyoriented capitalism, due to the increasingly strong nexus between techno-logical development and productivity, is likely to throw up pressures whichdirect ideological forces back to more formalist and objectivist conceptionsof knowledge—that is, back to orthodoxy and away from ... . diversity andheterodoxy ... (p. 18)

Multicultural education, even of the 'residual' type, is all about diver-sity and is thus at variance with the economically-based developmentsof contemporary social reality. One then needs to question how multi-cultural education functions in this social reality as ideology (Young,1981 b; also see de Lepervanche, 1980, and Jakubowicz, 1981).

The federal policy of 'stable' multiculturalism as outlined in theSchools Commission's "Education for a Multicultural Society"(1979), is a degenerating policy theory (Young, 1981 b). Its core valuesdo not seem realisable at the present. To some extent the federal poli-cy is unrealisable because of the flexibility of the concept of 'multicul-turalism' which leaves the policy open to ready 'corruption' when re-fracted by the state bureaucracies. In one sense, the Queensland policyof 'residual' multiculturalism is less degenerative, because its corevalues are more readily attainable. However, in contemporary Queens-land these core values may not even be realisable. It must be remem-bered though, that 'residual' multiculturalism operates as a surrepti-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:48

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

-29-

tious form of assimilation (Smolicz, 1981). In Queensland, this 'subli-mated type of assimilation' (Smolicz, 1981: 122) is labelled as'multicultural' education.

Notes

1. In a speech to school principals in June, 1981, (he Chairperson of the QueenslandMulticultural Co-ordinating Committee defined the 'major tasks' of the two liai-son officers in the following way:• the facilitation of liaison between government and non-government schools and

part-time ethnic schools (and their supporting ethnic communities);• the provision of assistance to part-time ethnic schools regarding curriculum

materials, learning resources, and appropriate in-service and teacher develop-ment programs;

• the provision of assistance to ethnic communities regarding regular school pro-grams and the particular needs of children from non-English speaking back-grounds, and the use of regular school facilities;

• the fostering of an awareness of the philosophy of education for a multiculturalsociety among all teachers, parents and community groups; and,

• the dissemination of information to schools, parents and community groups re-garding programs and initiatives being undertaken in multicultural education inQueensland.

2. In an address to the Brisbane South Multicultural Project Schools Seminar, JohnDwyer, an Inspector of schools, listed the following as the activities of the Multi-cultural Education Curriculum Project Team:(a) Analysing the Department Discussion Paper, "Education for a Multicultural

Society;"(b) identifying and reviewing resources suitable to support multicultural activities;(c) development of materials for in-service seminars;(d) examination of existing curriculum guides.

3. It is not the intention of this critical analysis of Queensland State Education De-partment's multicultural policy and programs to imply that the Fraser govern-ment's stance on multicultural education is without reproach. At the same time asthe Fraser government is supporting multicultural education it is cutting expendi-ture on education generally, in line with its commitment to Friedmanite monetaristeconomic policies. More to the point, these reduced education funds are beingredirected from disadvantaged schools to the wealthier independent schools(Sheehan, 1980). Migrant children are concentrated in disadvantaged schools. Inbroader terms the Fraser Government's social and economic policies are exacerbat-ing the disadvantage of the already disadvantaged (Walsh, 1979; Crough, Wheel-wright and Wilshire, 1980); migrants constitute a significant proportion of the dis-advantaged in Australia (Henderson Report, 1975: 260-281; Deveson, 1978: 350;Birrell and Birrell, 1981). The Fraser Government's current commitment tomulticultural education and its attempts to reformulate the 'equality of opportuni-ty' debate in terms of 'cultural equality' (Jakubowicz, 1981), glosses over a centraldeterminant of educational disadvantage, namely class (Lingard and Henry, 1980and 1982; Branson and Miller, 1979; O'Donnell, 1978). In this context the FraserGovernment's support for multicultural education loses some of its shine, as itwere. It seems obvious that this support alone will not provide equality of educa-tional opportunity for migrant children.

4. I would argue that language is a core value of all cultures. Smolicz (1981), on theother hand, argues that this is not necessarily the case.

5. The Greek community in South Brisbane have sought the teaching of modernGreek in the local High School. To date, their pressure has been to no avail.

6. The failure of the Federal Government to accept the Schools Commission recom-mendation that funds be earmarked for community language programs and forgeneral multicultural programs is another example of refraction.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:48

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

-30-

7. Constitutionally this is an interesting situation. Usually it is accepted that the stateshave prime responsibility for education while the Federal Government has primeresponsibility for migrant and ethnic affairs.

8. Personal communication from Mr. Jim Fouras, the Labor member for South Bris-bane in the Queensland Parliament.

9. Jakubowicz (1981: 8) has argued that contemporary multiculturalism has beenco-opted by the state through the definition of the ethnic labour aristocracy andthe ethnic petty bourgeoisie as the 'ethnic communities'. It could be argued that astrong and vocal ethnic labour aristocracy and petty bourgeoisie have not devel-oped in Queensland to the same extent as elsewhere in Australia and thus the statehas not needed to instigate 'multiculturalism'. Multicuituralism in Queensland hasbeen a response to Federal initiatives.

10. For Horkheimer, immanent critique attempts to reveal the contradictions betweenideology and reality; such contradictions are the driving force of history. "Imman-ent critique seeks, by revealing the contradictions of claim and context, to trans-form legitimations into emancipatory weapons" (Antonio, 1981, p. 338).

ReferencesAntonio, R.J. 1981 "Immanent critique as the core of critical theory: its origins and

developments in Hegel, Marx and contemporary thought". British Journal ofSociology, 3, 330-345.

Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, 1980 Review of Multicultural and MigrantEducation. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs.

Birrell, R. and Birrell, T. 1981 Class, Sex and Education in Capitalist Society. Malvern:Sorrett.

Collins, J. 1975 "The political economy of post-war immigration". In E.L. Wheel-wright and K. Buckley (eds.) Essays in the Political Economy of Australian Capi-talism. Vol. 1. Sydney: A.N.Z.

Crough, G. Wheelwright, E and Wilshire, E. 1980 Australia and World Capitalism.Ringwood: Penguin.

Curriculum Development Centre. 1980 Core Curriculum for Australian Schools. Can-berra: C.D.C.

De Lepervanche, M. 1980 "From race to ethnicity". The Australian and New ZealandJournal of Sociology. 1, 24-37.

Deveson, A. 1978 Australians at Risk. Stanmore: Cassell.Dwyer, John. 1981 "Current Trends and issues in Education for a Multicultural Soci-

ety". Brisbane.Freeland, J. 1979 (a) "Class struggle in schooling: MACOS and SEMP in Queensland".

Intervention. 12, 29-62.Freeland, J. 1981 (a) "Ideological representations of human nature, politics and school-

ing: conservative, liberal, social democratic". Paper presented to the AustralianAssociation for Independent Education Policy Research Conference, Sydney.

Freeland, J. 1979 (b) "Stop! Care to come and probe the right-wing pie—behind theattacks". Radical Education Dossier, 8, 4-7.

Freeland, J. 1981 (b) "Where do they go after school: a critical analysis of theEducation Program for Unemployed Youth". The Australian Quarterly, Spring,351-373.

Habermas, J. 1975 Legitimation Crisis. London: Heinemann.Henderson, R.F. 1975 First Main Report of the Australian Government Commission of

Inquiry into Poverty, Poverty in Australia. Vol. 1. Canberra: A.G.P.S.Henry, M. and MacLennan, G. 1980 "From equality to quality in education: shifts in

ideology". The South Pacific Journal of Teacher Education. 3 and 4, 91-99.Jakubowicz, A. 1981 "State and ethnicity: multiculturalism as ideology". Australian

and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, Vol. 17, No. 3.Kapferer, J.L. and McConnochie, K.R. 1980 "Three models of multicultural educa-

tion". The South Pacific Journal of Teacher Education. 1 and 2, 27-37.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:48

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

-31-

Lewis G. 1978 "Queensland nationalism and Australian capitalism". In E.L. Wheel-wright and K. Buckley (eds.) Essays in the Political Economy of Australian Capi-talism. Vol. III. Sydney: A.N.Z.

Lingard, R. 1982 "State economy and schooling in Queensland: Politics of recentdevelopments". Forthcoming Radical Education Dossier, 18.

Lingard, R. and Aby, S. 1981 "The ideology of competency-based assessment: a socio-logical analysis of developments in assessment in Queensland secondary schools."Paper presented to the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advance-ment of Science Conference, Brisbane.

Lingard, R. and Henry, M. 1980 "Multiculturalism: rhetoric and reality". Paper pre-sented to the Australian Comparative and International Education SocietyConference, Bendigo.

Lingard, R. and Henry, M. 1982 "Multiculturalism: rhetoric and reality". ForthcomingNew Education, 2.

Martin, J.I . 1981 The Ethnic Dimension. Sydney: George Allen & Unwin.Martin, J.I . 1978 The Migrant Presence. Sydney: George Allen & Unwin.McQueen, H. 1979 "Queensland: a state of mind". Meanjin, 1979, I, 41-51.O'Donnell, C. 1978 "Making the link—the economic role of migrants and the experi-

ence of migrant children in Australian schools". Radical Education Dossier, 7,4-7.

O'Shaughnessy, T. 1979 "Joh and Don: capital and politics in two peripheral stales".Intervention, 12, 3-28.

Queensland Department of Education. 1979 Education for a Multicultural Society. Bris-bane: Government Printer.

Report of the Select Committee on Education in Queens/and (Ahern 1980 Report). Bris-bane: Government Printer.

Review of Post-Arrival Programs uncl Services to Migrants: Migrant Services andPrograms, (Galbally Report), Report and Appendices. 1978 Vols. I and 2, Can-berra, A.G.P.S.

Schools Commission. 1979 Education for a Multicultural Society: Report of the Com-mittee on Multicultural Education. Canberra: A.G.P.S.

Schools Commission. 1981 Report for the Triennium 1982-84. Canberra: A.G.P.S.Sharp, R. and Freeland, J. 1981 "The Williams Report on Education, Training and

Employment: the decline and fall of 'Karmelot'". Intervention. 14, 54-79.Sheehan, P. 1980 Crisis in Abundance. Ringwood: Penguin.Smith, R. and Knight, J. 1981 A Step in the Right Direction: People and Processes.

Report of the Process Evaluation of the Brisbane South Multicultural EducationProject. Brisbane.

Smith, R. and Sachs, J. 1980 One Notion: Many Perceptions. Report of the ContextEvaluation of the Brisbane South Multicultural Education Project. Brisbane.

Smolicz, J.J. 1981 "Cultural pluralism and educational policy: in search of stable multi-culturalism". The Australian Journal of Education. 2, 121-145.

Smolicz, J.J. 1981 "The three multiculturalisms". In M. Garner (ed.), CommunityLanguages. Melbourne: Applied Linguistics Association of Australia.

Stop Care. Stop Press. 1981 Margate, September.The Role and Responsibilities of the Queensland Multicultural Co-ordinating Commit-

tee. 1981 Brisbane, June.Walsh, M. 1979 The Sociology of Educationul Innovation. London: Methuen.Willis, P. 1981 "Cultural production is different from cultural reproduction is different

from social reproduction is different from reproduction". Interchange. Vol. 12.Nos. 2/3.

Windschuttle, K. 1979 Unemployment. Ringwood: Penguin.Young, R.E. 1981a "Science, democracy and education: the view from critical theory."

Paper presented to the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advance-ment of Science Conference, Brisbane.

Young, R.E. 1981b "Progressive and degenerating education policy theories". Paperpresented to the Australian Association for Independent Education Policy Re-search Conference, Sydney.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:48

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14