Patience, posties, the backlash is coming. It is inevitable if people want their children to be educated. If I were put in charge of a school I could guarantee that I would fix the discipline problem within a week. I would give the students a lesson in Austrtalian history by doing four simple things:

1. I would not do anything until the State Parliament passed legislation authorising me to take the required action. Note: It would not be the Commonwealth Government, which has no constitutional powers in this area, and any stupid edicts from the United Nations would be ignored. We need to have different laws in different states, with people racing to the Queensland frontier with the police close behind. Remember, if state laws are different, there is no extradition.

2. I would have a suitable triangle erected within the school grounds.

3. I would post up a simple list of rules for all students to note.

4. Then I would get out the lash.

It would be my considered opinion that I would only have to expose the backbone of one or two students before all the others would get the message and perfect discipline would prevail throughout the school.

What all the go-gooders will never realise is that you have to make life more inconvenient for those who do not obey the rules. In the last resort you must rule by fear.

Obviously the school in question has a lot of students who hear it all around them at home. I imagine that a teacher in such a school has enough trouble just getting the students to bring their own pen and book to school let alone control the swearing. Restricting the f word to 5 times in a lesson is probably a very realistic and potentially achievable goal in such an environment.

Why should schools teach anything other then the three R's. The state should not be impossing manners on our childern. Parents are the ones to blame for this problem not schools, Parents are spending less and less time with their kids and even less time teaching them things like morals.

How apt that DavidJS invokes the spirit of Margaret Thatcher as evidence that "society" is to blame.

"why should you give a stuff about fellow students, your teachers and anyone else for that matter? If Thatcher (supposedly) once said "there is no society", aren't people (no matter how young) going to take that seriously?"

The quote most often attributed to her is "There's no such thing as society", and used as evidence of her unfeeling arrogance. But when these words are put back into their original context, what do we find?

"[People constantly requesting government intervention] are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours."

What she was actually saying is what a number of others have already articulated here - if you leave it (discipline) to the government, you have already lost the battle.

DavidJS “If Thatcher (supposedly) once said "there is no society-
Once you destroy collectivity, radical individualism and a lack of responsibility regarding your own actions - o thank you, free market ideologues - blah,”

Margaret said “There is no such thing as Society. There are individual men and women, and there are families.” If you are going to quote her please use the full quote and not some politicially contrived and manipulated abridgement to suit a particular agenda.

Margaret also said “We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.”

Your “Collectivity” that hapless notion of a group of people exercising greater “responsibility” and producing greater “collective benefit” than individuals pursuing individual objectives is a lie.

Individualism is the result of mutual respect. Some will be “radicals” – regardless of political persuasion.

The outcome of Free market policies is to breakdown the “protectionism” .
Hence cheaper clothing for consumers and farmers buying cheaper tractors than the ones which were once made in Australia.
It means greater market opportunity for people to be employed in businesses where their return for effort has greater economic value than sewing up underpants. Farmers can expands their export markets (check growth in Australian farm exports into India). Cars, clothes, electronics are cheaper in terms of price to number of average days/weeks earns than they used to be. All due to free market policies.

“Peace through Trade!”

None of that has anything to do with parental responsibility for children. Alexander Deans is right. Standards of behaviour are a matter of where we set the “bar” of acceptable behaviour. If we follow socialist policies of the 70’s, 80’s etc, Joan Kirner & Co removed the “bar” completely and are more culpable for low standards than any Liberal party – I cite Latham as example – and (from what he wrote) the Labor Caucus too.

Col Rouge, your hero Thatcher also said in 1986 -

"A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself as a failure".

I really would like to see you try and justify that one as being anything other than arrant nonsense.