Kev at it again he should go back to teaching. He would be able to teach people to lie by omission, presenting half the story and general misrepresentation are Kev key skills here. Kev's a good enough in my day kind of guy and no amount of evidence will change his mind.

Three words that need to be understood

Education

Teaching

Learning

Who does them and why.

I'm still searching for the Kevin Donnelly "OFF" button.

Why on earth this man receives so much air time is beyond me. His advice is based on ideology rather than pragmatism.

Don't forget that KD is a die-hard vouchers fan and would love to see the entire Australian school system privatised and subject to a voucher system. No doubt he is waiting in the wings to cash in on that - he has his own company and will create his own school on the back of buckets of loverly government money.

Hi,

Good to see the continued interest in what I have to write. How about looking at the arguments, instead of having a go at me? If you look at the <www.platowa.com> site you will see a lot of classroom teachers agreeing with what I have been arguing for some years.

The problem is that Kevin Donelly seems to infer that education should not be based on some concept of what outcome we actually want from education. True, I can find many things in current, past and no doubt future curriculum that can be held to ridicule. Under the old curriculum in Maths I did 2 weeks on non unreal numbers with no idea why or within what context they were useful - are they? However that is the wrong way to argue against a concept - to pick bits - it is like anecdotal evidence - which is not evidence at all. Perhaps an analysis of "Home and away" would actually be more meaningful to most students than Shakespeare. That does not mean the Shakespeare is less literature, but be honest it is hardly relevant (bad word to some in education) to most students, as it was to me.

Science at school was taught and still is as though we were all to be come professional scientists. The problem is that very few do (includes me with a degree)It is much better than science is taught to students so that they can understand science as educated lay people. If they want more they get more. There is nothing wrong with seeking to institute a curricullum that aims to help students become thinking people. It is to me the first ime such aims have been expressed . We do not simply aim to have our children "good at maths or science" but better educated people.

Yeah, thanks for the link, Kev.

Bunch of whackos, evidently. Answers a lot of questions I had about you.

You have found the wrong target and are pursuing it relentlessly. How about reading Jonathan Kozol if your real concern is to help disadvantaged kids? At least he ventures out to the coalface rather than tossing stones from his ivory tower.