The Lost Art of School Debates Deidre Clary and Fiona Mueller
https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/education/the-lost-art-of-school-debates/
Galloping along new technological paths in education, including the high-profile tracks of artificial intelligence, extended reality, robotics and online learning, allows little time to consider what to keep and what to let go.
This dilemma is juxtaposed with evidence of generational decline in Australian students’ competence in the English language. There has been a loss of emphasis on the association between the development of sophisticated English language skills, including the capacity and willingness to read regularly and widely, and the requirement for students to produce reasoned arguments (either oral or written) on the basis of thorough research. Such a loss has catastrophic implications for a free and civil society.
At a conference hosted by the Christopher Dawson Centre for Cultural Studies, Dr David van Gend explained that[1]:
Free speech – which means free argument – is the expression of free thought, and the thoughts that matter most to individuals are those formed out of deep, conscientious struggle. Without free thought and free argument, we are not free citizens, or even free souls. We lose the capacity to defend our deepest convictions and therefore lose the essence of our humanity, which is to live according to what we judge to be true and right. Free speech – which means free argument – is at the heart of a society that settles its disputes by debate, not by guns.
Learning to settle disputes by debate should be at the heart of education.
The Australian Curriculum, the national document that ‘sets the expectations for what all young Australians should be taught’[2] claims that:
Education plays a critical role in shaping the lives of young Australians and contributing to a democratic, equitable and just society that is prosperous, cohesive and culturally diverse.
A democratic, equitable and just society places debate at the heart of decision-making, ensuring that all possible perspectives may be heard.
However, in contemporary Australian education, the place occupied by debate is so minor as to be a case of blink and you will miss it. In part, at least, this is due to new movements in schooling.
Across the world, curriculum development is increasingly dominated by the so-called 21st century learning agenda, which prioritises skills, dispositions and attributes deemed essential to ‘navigating’ post-school life and work. It can be difficult to see how this agenda, centering around technology and globalism, can ensure that Australian educators address longstanding academic deficits.
Despite the excitement surrounding international millennium goals for education, the publication of Australian education ‘roadmaps’ such as the Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Declaration and the significant increase in annual taxpayer expenditure on schooling in recent decades, too few students are thriving academically.
There is an unhelpful tension between the traditional commitment to knowledge acquisition – typically gained through methodical, rigorous research and consideration of the evidence supporting a particular thesis or hypothesis – and a 21st century learning agenda featuring far less quantifiable skills and dispositions such as the ‘four Cs’: communication, collaboration, creativity and critical thinking.
As much as the proponents of the 21st century learning agenda might like it to be so, the four Cs are not new to education. They are self-evident, quintessentially human skills and dispositions that have enabled extraordinary discovery and innovation over millennia. They are no more or less a product or necessity of human learning now than they were in any previous era. To assert otherwise is to fail to acknowledge the uniqueness and evolution of the human race.
Debating, which epitomises the human need and capacity to solve (and resolve) problems by way of verbal and written argument, belongs in the same category.
Ironically, critical thinking gets such consistent attention from academics and policy makers around the world that one might conclude no previous generations ever considered it important.
Globalist approaches to education attempt to make the case for replacing the tried and true with the experimental and unproven. However, Australian school education is already grappling with the consequences of decades of adopting numerous fads and trends without undertaking the due diligence necessary to determine their suitability in the Australian context.
As just one example, the unsubstantiated adoption of approaches to teaching English such as ‘whole language’, ‘critical literacy’, ‘genre theory’ and ‘balanced literacy’ has led to a decline in the linguistic competence and confidence of students and the professional preparation of teachers.[3]
Australian students’ performance in national and international assessments reveals that too many lack competence in their national language compared to their peers in other systems, especially multilingual Singapore, where English is the language of instruction in most classrooms.
Parents, employers, tertiary institutions and multiple government reviews have questioned the lack of improvement in student achievement. The Australian Productivity Commission has identified unsatisfactory educational outcomes.[4]
A risk for Australian education now is that subordinating human learning to technology – particularly through the use of artificial intelligence programs – will further dilute the requirement for original thought communicated in high quality English.
Nationally consistent instruction and practice in debating could help to mitigate this risk. It would be an evidence-based approach to addressing multiple official education goals.
Researchers have pointed to Singapore’s clear and consistent emphasis on both high-quality English (and other) language instruction and Character and Citizenship Education (CCE), which specifically aims to develop students’ ‘strong national identity’.[5]
Singapore’s national curriculum claims to ‘not leave learning to chance’, explaining that:
CCE cannot be perceived in a silo or taught as a subject. Instead, the educational experience that we provide in our schools for our students needs to facilitate the coherent development of character and citizenship dispositions, and social-emotional well-being, across the total curriculum.
The Australian Curriculum’s Civics and Citizenship material, which is tucked away inside the learning area of Humanities and Social Sciences, sets much less specific expectations for learning, places little emphasis on national identity and is not reflected ‘across the total curriculum’.[6]
The Civics and Citizenship curriculum aims to reinforce students’ appreciation and understanding of what it means to be a citizen. It fosters responsible participation in Australia’s democracy and explores ways in which students can actively shape their lives, value belonging to a diverse and dynamic society, and positively contribute locally, nationally, regionally and globally. As reflective, active and informed decision-makers, students will be well placed to contribute to an evolving and healthy democracy that fosters the wellbeing of Australia as a democratic nation.
Further, the design and delivery of Civics and Citizenship courses varies significantly across the country, particularly in Years 9 and 10 when ‘students’ access to Geography, Civics and Citizenship, and Economics and Business will be determined by school authorities or individual schools.’[7]
The near-invisible status of debating is seen, for example, in the Year 10 Civics and Citizenship curriculum, where that fundamental feature of a free and civil society – freedom of speech – gets just a brief mention.
This may involve students examining how our Western democratic heritage and values such as freedom of speech support participation in public debate about controversial issues; for example, the date of Australia Day, the Uluru Statement, reconciliation and truth-telling, or the call for a treaty between First Nations Australians and the Australian Government.
This suggestion appears under the Australian Curriculum’s Content elaborations, which identify material that is not compulsory but may be used by teachers at their discretion. Notwithstanding the reference to ‘public debate’, there is no stated requirement for students to actually learn about, and practise, the traditional art of debating.
Yet in the documents guiding Australian political leaders, the place of debate is clear. It is explained in parliamentary guides such as Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice.[8]
Debate fulfils one of the primary functions of the Senate, that of informing itself and the public by deliberation before decisions are made.
In Australia’s lower house, debate is guided by House of Representatives Practice.[9]
Chapter 14 | Control and conduct of debate
The term ‘debate’ is a technical one meaning the argument for and against a question. In practice, the proceedings between a Member moving a motion (including the moving of the motion)[1] and the ascertainment by the Chair of the decision of the House constitute a debate. A decision may be reached without debate. In addition, many speeches by Members which are part of the normal routine of the House are excluded from the definition of debate, because there is no motion before the House. These include the asking and answering of questions, ministerial statements, matters of public importance, Members’ statements and personal explanations. However, the word ‘debate’ is often used more loosely, to cover all words spoken by Members during House proceedings.
It is by debate that the House performs one of its more important roles, as emphasised by Redlich:
Without speech the various forms and institutions of parliamentary machinery are destitute of importance and meaning. Speech unites them into an organic whole and gives to parliamentary action self-consciousness and purpose. By speech and reply expression and reality are given to all the individualities and political forces brought by popular election into the representative assembly. Speaking alone can interpret and bring out the constitutional aims for which the activity of parliament is set in motion, whether they are those of the Government or those which are formed in the midst of the representative assembly. It is in the clash of speech upon speech that national aspirations and public opinion influence these aims, reinforce or counteract their strength. Whatever may be the constitutional and political powers of a parliament, government by means of a parliament is bound to trust to speech for its driving power, to use it as the main form of its action.[2]
The effectiveness of the debating process in Parliament has been seen as very much dependent on the principle of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the Parliament is guaranteed by the Constitution,[3] and derives ultimately from the United Kingdom Bill of Rights of 1688.[4] The privilege of freedom of speech was won by the British Parliament only after a long struggle to gain freedom of action from all influence of the Crown, courts of law and Government.
Logically, if debate (with all the specified constitutional implications for freedom of speech and assembly) remains a critical feature of Australian governance, it should be a key contributor to nurturing what the Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Declaration calls ‘active and informed members of the community.’[10]
All students deserve to understand the origins and purpose of debate, including the extent to which it reflects the development of Western and Christian values and beliefs such as freedom of speech, individualism, the pursuit of truth, justice, and the rule of law.
They should know that in this country, as in other free societies, brave and determined people have long argued their case in public squares, town hall sessions, parliaments and other forums. Australia’s first Prime Minister, Edmund Barton, honed his debating skills at the Sydney Mechanics’ School of Arts, and the long-term Premier of New South Wales, Henry Parkes, toured the country and engaged in countless wayside encounters with citizens in the lead-up to Federation in 1901.
It would be interesting to know whether students and their teachers discuss not simply the protocols of debating, but also the philosophical foundations of this skill, especially as part of the study of History and Civics and Citizenship.
How many teachers are intellectually and professionally grounded in these traditional practices that do, in fact, promote and develop the so-called 21st century skills of creativity, collaboration, critical thinking and communication?
The art of debate (or argument) has its origins in ancient times, evolving and prized over centuries to become an intrinsic part of the culture of free nations and free people. For centuries, debating has served to enhance an individual’s ability to structure and organise thoughts, constructing a sound argument on the basis of reason and evidence.
Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, among the best-known founders of Western education traditions, encouraged intellectual conversations – arguably, debates – about the greatest questions to which human beings can turn their minds.
At its best, a debate requires the speaker to convince an audience by exposing a weak case, a lack of substance and logic, and perhaps even factual errors. It assists participants to examine issues critically by detecting any gaps in an opponent’s arguments and counter-arguments. There is no room for opinion or feeling, only sound reasoning.
Socrates encouraged reasoning to expose truths about life, the overarching question being about how to live a better life. Discussions about human virtues such as wisdom, justice, courage, and acts of piety and charity were the means of creating knowledge. Rather than simply regurgitating the ideas and interpretations of others, reasoning requires interrogating one’s own beliefs, poised to learn from ignorance, confusion or error, and always mindful that what one believes might not be true.
American philosopher and educational theorist John Dewey described the act of the scholar ‘turning a subject over in the psyche, giving it genuine and back-to-back consideration’.[11] Dewey believed in the ‘social intelligence’ of human beings, reflected in their capacity to solve problems collaboratively, as a critical factor in improving society.
Nelson Mandela, lawyer, civil rights activist and South Africa’s first democratically elected President, saw debate as a means of achieving genuine collaboration.[12]
A good leader can engage in a debate frankly and thoroughly, knowing that at the end he and the other side must be closer, and thus emerge stronger. You don’t have that idea when you are arrogant, superficial and uninformed.
Collaboration, as mentioned earlier, is one of the designated 21st century skills. Although online learning appears to work against a revival of debating in the traditional sense, varied approaches such as discussion forums, break-out groups and chat platforms have been successfully integrated into educational programs, especially for older students, with an emphasis on collaboration.
It is difficult to quantify the commitment to debating in Australian schools. According to the Australian Debating Federation, about 30,000 Australian students participate in debating competitions each year.[13] The ADF says that:
Debating training imparts lifelong skills to students, including confidence in speaking in public to peers, an ability to logically make and assess arguments, and a willingness to engage with, and learn from, those with different opinions.
These students, and their coaches and supporters, stand out from mainstream education.
The Australian Curriculum developed for students in Foundation to Year 10 offers a continuum of learning in eight learning areas, seven General Capabilities and three Cross-Curriculum Priorities.
Depending on the interests and decisions of their teachers, the Australian Curriculum’s English programs for Foundation to Year 10 ‘may involve students’ in debating.
That there are at least a few references scattered across its various dimensions indicates that the Australian Curriculum acknowledges, albeit to a very limited degree, the contribution that debating can make to teaching and learning.
However, there is no overarching advice to help students in F-10 and their teachers understand the origins and benefits of debating. The more pronounced focus on debating in the senior secondary curriculum emphasises the disconnect between the minimal focus on that skill during the earlier years of schooling and what is expected of students later in Years 11 and 12.
The seven General Capabilities (GCs) reflect the 21st century learning agenda, identifying skills and attributes allegedly essential for students in the new millennium.
- Critical and Creative Thinking
- Ethical Understanding
- Intercultural Understanding
- Literacy
- Numeracy
- Personal and Social Capability
- Digital Literacy (previously Information and Communication Technology)
Critical and Creative Thinking is designed around four elements (Inquiring, Generating, Analysing and Reflecting) and would seem a logical place for a focus on debating. However, none of the GCs make a clear place for it in their continua of learning.
The Cross-Curriculum Priorities (CCPs)are:
- Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Histories and Cultures
- Asia and Australia’s Engagement with Asia
- Sustainability
As with the General Capabilities, the CCPs make no place for debating.
Although the Australian Curriculum also sets expectations for senior secondary subjects, each Australian state and territory makes its own arrangements regarding curriculum, assessment and qualifications for students in Years 11 and 12.
A key word search for ‘debate’ in the Australian Curriculum for senior secondary students reveals some three dozen references. The majority of references are in the Content descriptions, which mandate material for study.
A survey of English, Mathematics, the Sciences and Humanities and the Social Sciences (HASS) shows no consistency about how debate might be incorporated in teaching across Year 11 and 12 learning areas.
In English and Geography, for example, these older students are encouraged to practise the art of debating. In the Sciences, students explore ways in which a field of knowledge contributes to contemporary debate, but there is no requirement to actually practise debating. The Modern History curriculum challenges students to examine and interpret significant ideas and events of the 20th century, focusing on how this fuelled political debate, but there is no requirement to test their own interpretations through active debate.
Yet these teenagers are making plans for post-school life and work, and they are approaching voting age.
Technological advances are exerting enormous pressure on countries to develop more and new skills in the workforce, and Australia must find innovative ways to help its youngest citizens prepare for the future. At the same time, longstanding skills consistent with Australia’s national heritage and the Western traditions, values and way of life characteristic of a free and civil society, must be preserved. The art of debating is one such skill.
[1] van Gend, D. (2022) ‘Citizens of no mean city.’ 7th Colloquium – The Christopher Dawson Centre for Cultural Studies. Hobart, Australia.
[2] ACARA. (2023) Australian Curriculum (Version 9.0)
https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/about-the-australian-curriculum/
[3] Clary, D. & Mueller, F. (28 July 2021) ‘Writing matters: reversing a legacy of policy failure in Australian education’, Centre for Independent Studies, Sydney. https://www.cis.org.au/publication/writing-matters-reversing-a-legacy-of-policy-failure-in-australian-education/
[4] Australian Government. Productivity Commission. (December 2022) Review of the National School Reform Agreement (Study Report)
https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/school-agreement/report/school-agreement.pdf
[5] Singapore Ministry of Education. (2021) Student Development Curriculum Division – Character and Citizenship Education (Primary) Syllabus
https://www.moe.gov.sg/-/media/files/syllabus/2021-primary-character-and-citizenship-education.ashx
[6] ACARA. (2023) F-10 Australian Curriculum: Humanities and Social Sciences – Civics and Citizenship
[7] ACARA. (2023) Australian Curriculum – Humanities and Social Sciences (Version 9)
[8] Parliament of Australia. (2023) Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice, Chapter 10 – Debate. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Odgers_Australian_Senate_Practice/Chapter_10
[9] Parliament of Australia. (2023) House of Representatives Practice (7th Edition), Chapter 14 – Control and Conduct of Debate. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/Practice7/HTML/Chapter14/Control_and_conduct_of_debate
[10] Australian Government. Department of Education, Skills and Employment. (13 December 2019) The Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Declaration. https://www.education.gov.au/alice-springs-mparntwe-education-declaration
[11] Dewey, J. (1910) How we think? Lexington, Mass: D.C. Heath, 1-13
[12] Nelson Mandela Foundation. (2023) https://www.nelsonmandela.org/news/entry/nelson-mandela-foundation-responds-to-alleged-comments-from-president-trump-on-nelson-mandela
[13] The Australian Debating Federation (2023) https://www.debating.org.au/
Comments are closed.
