I've seen the term 'neo-liberal' used in OLO a lot, but what does it actually mean? Does it refer to any specific schools of thought, or is it just a general term of abuse used by big-statists to mean anyone who is not as in favour of big government, as they are? And what's the difference between neo-liberal and common-or-garden liberal?

I too enjoyed this insightful article.
I believe the author was trying to say that we have good and bad teachers in the education system, just as we have good and bad people in all professions.

If we have guidelines as to what is acceptable and unacceptable teacher behaviour, or methods of teaching, then maybe we can at least limit the numbers of the few ineffective teachers we do have.

How often do we hear of teachers in schools who have 'been there forever', and that all students and their parents hope the kids won't be in their class?
Education of our kids is too important to support the ongoing employment of very ineffective teachers.

Peter Hume - Neoliberal is like 'postmodern'. The terms actually have no consistent defined meaning. Because of this they are often bandied about by those who like to appear to be up with modern thought and intellectual movements. Postmodern, for example, can have directly opposite meanings depending on which dictionary you look at. Neoliberal mainly a hip buzzword with some vague relationship to economics.

Throw either of these in an essay and you're well on the way to intellectual superiority, at least in your own mind.

I've been following some of what's been happening in the US, and it isn't pretty - teachers in public schools are being denigrated and are being subjected to harsh budget cuts. I hope this doesn't start happening here. My child goes to a wonderful state school - so far she's had great teachers. I help out in the classroom once a week, and I've seen first hand how hard it is to teach 20+ kids - some with behavioural and learning problems - it is an exhausting task that requires great skill and dedication. Teachers need more support, not teacher bashing.

“The important thing is that our kids leave school with a passion for the acquisition of knowledge and the skills to make it happen.“

Absolutely agree this is one very important outcome of good education and teachers who can inspire this passion and impart those skills are valuable gifted people.

However I find the writers somewhat offhanded remarks concerning FOUNDATIONS of education disturbing:

"... we need to understand that good literacy and numeracy is a starting point, not the big aim of education. Add to this an implicit assumption that good results on standardized testing equate with a good education, and we have a big problem. A nation full of people who can read, write and do ‘rithmetic is one thing, but if we want to be a nation that can genuinely compete in the international knowledge economy, we need much much more than that."

If a child cannot read, write or do basic math, despite advancing through primary school, he/she is highly unlikely to develop "passion for the acquisition of knowledge". Rather, frustration, disruptive behaviour, withdrawal, lack of confidence, low self esteem and resentment. Add likelihood of torment by peers or bullying in turn ... and so on. As for "skills to make it (ongoing learning) happen" - WHAT SKILLS? There's a bigger Problem!

As I understand, Standards Testing has resulted from profound concerns about children failing and being failed by the education system. No child of higher than retard level IQ should leave school unable to read & write - but they have in the past and still do. No child unable to cope with complexity of tasks at their year level should be progressed into the next. Every child deserves to learn BASICS well enough to advance further - at a slower rate if necessary.

I see tests as an indicator of the state of educational health overall and find objections by many 'educators' both puzzling and disturbing.

Sorry Nicole, but I believe we NEED to be "a Nation full of people who can read, write and do ‘rithmetic" foremost. Thereafter? Reach for the sky ....

One thing that all the so called educators today fail to realise, is that not all kids are going to have it easy in life. In fact most of todays kids are likely to have much more stressful lives than these educators do today.

One thing they all appear to want is to minimise stress & competition in students lives. This is totally wrong.

Kids should come out of school ready to handle life, in something other than a feather bed. They also need to have a reasonable level of knowledge. If I hire a kid with a VHA, [very high achiever] in secretarial studies, I at least expect them to know the format of a letter. When I find they don't, I shudder what a low achiever would know.

To fix this we need an annual externally set & marked exam in all grades every year. This test should arrive in each school on the day of the test. No one can teach to an annual test. We will find what kids have actually learnt in that year, rather than how well they have buttered the teacher.

Along with so many facts, I still know the weight of a gallon of water, & how many liters it is equivalent to. I know because I learnt it in first year high school science. I have used this, & thousands of other bits of information millions of times. It would be great if my kids would say something similar.

They can't of course, because today every topic is finished & abandoned just days after it is introduced. There is no reason for kids to really learn the topic, as they will never see it again at school.

Just for interest, with all the discussion of the Murry Darling basin, I asked my highly educated kids, [2 with degrees] to draw where these rivers are on a map of Oz. None of them came close. I & my school mates could, do it in third class at North Ward State School Townsville. That class had 45 kids, & a real teacher.