The Forum > Article Comments > Education standards: stupid is, is what stupid does > Comments
Education standards: stupid is, is what stupid does : Comments
By Chris Bonnor, published 13/4/2010Our kids and schools are reasonably clever by all accounts but our organisation of schools is demonstrably stupid.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
-
- All
What a load of biased, ill-informed rubbish. I wish I had three hours to spare to dismember this 'article', suffice it to say that Mr Bonnor's knowledge of the non-government schooling sector is abysmal. For example: "As far as the others are concerned you might be better off (with apologies to Matthew 19:24) trying to push a camel through the eye of a needle than to enrol an Indigenous student in an Anglican or high-fee school." There are numerous independent schools, including those at the high fee end, doing great things for Indigenous students - if Mr Bonnor used his open eye instead of his closed one to look at the non-government schooling sector he might see lost of other great things happening too!
Posted by Ian D, Tuesday, 13 April 2010 12:18:06 PM
| |
Yeah. In the early 1980s, of 3rd year Medical Students at Uni of Melbourne, as I recall, 85% had gone to a fee–paying school (including Catholic) but I don't think that any had gone to a non–metropolitan high school. I doubt that much has changed.
Posted by Gorufus, Tuesday, 13 April 2010 5:34:38 PM
| |
Most aspects in this article are apt. Rousing for example should be replaced with extra funding in needy schools, which may for a variety of reasons remain disadvantaged.
Having experienced both the public and private systems much of what the author states is not entirely accurate. There are a number of Anglican schools who take enrolments on a first-come-first-serve basis so it is incorrect to summise that all Anglican schools are discriminatory. Also, some private schools are offering Indigenous scholarships as in the link below: http://www.aief.com.au/ There certainly needs to be more attention to low performing schools rather than a punishment or a whip approach. The problems need to be indentified first, then actions taken in regards to appropriate funding and teaching resources. This cannot be done without some understanding of social and economic issues where parents can also be involved and offered some form of support to ensure we continue to strive for the clever country. Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 13 April 2010 7:20:57 PM
| |
Yet another article dumping on systemic schools who are apparently to blame for the long tail in secular institutions. What rubbish. You only have to look at the Rudd/Gillard BER program which clearly exposes the gaps between the capital costs of buildings and maintenance. And Connor needs to study some history since he has been condemned to repeat the same mistakes. The State should not be involved in schools at all. They only took it on in the first place to cater for 5% who were missing out. And of course there's the spiritual vacuum that underwhelms state schools to the detriment of generations of kids, but that's for another time and place e.g. http://service-learning.com.au
Posted by SLA, Wednesday, 14 April 2010 6:38:35 AM
| |
SLA
How will most people afford to school their children if the public school system were to cease? Education should not be a profit making enterprise (unlike, sadly the brave new world of the tertiary sector). Sprituality (if you mean religion) is not a matter for schools where many children come from a variety of backgrounds. This is a matter for parents and their Church. Schools are about education. Education can also include discipline and reinforcement of manners and other respectful behaviours, but spirituality is too personal and variable to be able represent all groups in schools. Otherwise it just becomes about indoctrination and power rather than spirituality. Posted by pelican, Thursday, 15 April 2010 9:44:41 AM
|
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
-
- All