I take your point there, crabsy.

I guess where I am coming from is that the hours "recommended" for the basic subjects by ACARA when the Australian Curriculum is rolled out pretty much eliminate any flexibility. The "non-basics" such as the arts are already going to feel the squeeze without mandating any new subjects and initiatives. If we can fit it in, that's all good. Like I said, I think the subject is quite a good idea, but it seems to me that the people upstairs are so busy dividing up the time for each subject that, pretty soon, there'll be no room for anything new.

This is the fellow to listen to:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lifematters/stories/2009/2598512.htm

http://sirkenrobinson.com/skr/

Watch his TED talk here:
http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html

There is no one in Australia, in politics, that would or could understand a single word of this.

I suspect that as far as Qld is concerned at least, there is not a single person within ED Qld, in a senior management position, that would either understand this, or believe a word of it either.

Such is the poor quality of 'education' here in the 'smart state'.

The Blue Cross
Thank you for your comments and support. I was aware of Lyn Hynton and the Buranda State School story. Clackmannan is as far as I am aware the only situation where a control group was used when philosophical discussion was introduced.

I am disappointed that no effort seems to have been made to provide the control class students with the advantages later in their schooling.

But then all children not in a Buranda style school in Australia are presently disadvantaged.

As then Bishop Ratzinger said in a sermon on 31st December 1979 "The Christian believer is a simple person: bishops should protect the faith of their little people against the power of intellectuals." (from Geoffrey Robinson's "The Case of the Pope)

Haddad and his supporters want to keep up that miserable work.

Indeedy Foyle.... and now the miserable Pell and Jensen have conspired with the Liberal-National goons to declare that the ethics programme will cease when they win government, as they surely will, given the ALPs total ineptitude in all matters beyond corruption and idiocy.

I have just been sent a media release done by some goon called 'Piccoli' who says "The NSW Liberals & Nationals will not support NSW Labor’s introduction of ethics classes into NSW public schools."

Well, 'he would say that, wouldn't he?'.

But, of course, the Pell's, Jensen's and Picolli's of this world, and no doubt Senor Hadad too, have been encouraged by the strong similarity between Howard, Rudd and Gillard, in their fawning grovelling attitude towards the low rent Christians who seek to impose their views in public schools, and scream about 'tolerance', while having centuries of total, abject, intolerance from their side of the goings-on.

The NSW supporters of the St. James trial can now see the Coalition for what it is, a pawn of the xtian churches. No doubt many of these supporters are Coalition voters though, and there is no reason for them to turn to the ALP to vote the trial back in.

They should go to John Kaye, Greens, and demand that party comes up with a very clear secular public education policy designed to rid state schools of the ignorant, the proselytiser, the evangelists, that Pell, Jensen and the ACL are demanding should be in all public schools, stealing time, energy, resources and souls from innocent students and fed-up parents.

Good luck to you all too.

Well McReal, now you seem do deny what you said earlier:

"Children have a right to be educated in contemporary ideas that do not place them on the outer of their society or the rest of the world."

So what about children who do NOT want to be educated in contemporary ideas? what about children who WANT to be on the outer of their society and the rest of the world? What is your policy then if their representing parents tell you: "Our delicate child should be protected and not be exposed to the evil ways of the world, contemporary society and its false ideas"?

"Children have a right to current knowledge and understanding as peak bodies see it, and education authorities and experts conciliate to present it. They have a right to be introduced to techniques and methods of investigation, evaluation and appraisal which is age-appropriate."

Again, what would your approach be should the parents representing the child tell you: "Current 'knowledge' is mere ignorance. Current understanding is mis-understanding. Peak bodies serve only the devil. Those 'authorities and experts' are no authority and no experts for us and our children. Their techniques and methods are total rubbish, harmful and absolutely inappropriate"?

"It takes a community and a society to raise a child, to reduce the chances of "parent eccentricity" disadvantaging that child for life, or a long period of their early adulthood."

Again, what would your approach be should the parents representing the child tell you: "contemporary society is corrupt. contemporary community is disfunctional and spiritually crippling. It is completely disadvantageous for our child to be part of all this, so it is better for them to not even learn the tools that might lead them into temptation."?

A fascist and/or paternalistic state would use coercion to force its idea of 'education' on unwilling parents and children: Fascists because they do not care for individuals; paternalistics because they arrogantly believe to know better and assume a 'right' to disregard others' ideas and disrespect their free choice.

If yourself would not use such coercion in this case, then my apologies.

Christianity a contemporary idea?

It hasn't changed for centuries, and is only considered seriously by a minority of the population.