Wayne Sawyer is an academic working in teacher education, who is an internationally renowned historian of the English curiculum. What is missing from Kevin Donnelly's piece is the fact that Dr Sawyer was,acting solely in his capacity as editor of English in Australia, the academic journal of the Australian Association for the Teaching of English, calling for teachers to reconsider the claims and influence of critical literacy given the current historical context in Australia. His editorial was not a call to teachers to indoctrinate students as to how to vote. The attempt to promote thought and discussion is, after all,an accepted function of an editor. The Australian population does not question, for example, the right of the editors of the major newspapers to recommend to them how they should vote on the eve of a federal election.

Dr Donnelly, and others who have entered the debate subsequently, take a curiously ahistorical view of English as a school subject.
Contrary to the strident claims of those pundits who have been quick to attack Sawyer, English has always served broad social, cultural and political ends.

To suggest, as many have this week, that the English curriculum has only recently been politicized flies in the face of the history of the subject. Given this history, to argue moreover that English has ever been solely about the cultivation of a ‘superior’ moral and aesthetic sensibility is plainly naïve, if not disingenuous.For example, according to the first official statement of the significance of English teaching, the Newbolt Report of 1921, the explicit political function of English was to bring a potentially revolutionary working class to heel and inoculate them against the insidious influence of popular culture through the great heritage embodied in the genius of English literature and the indelible beauty of the English language.

The timely and positive contribution Wayne Sawyer has made to the civic life of the nation is to call upon the English teaching community to not lose sight of the historically significant role the English curriculum plays in fostering democratic ideals and effective social participation.That does not mean pushing a party political line in classrooms and no where in his article did Sawyer suggest teachers should do this.He suggested, in all reasonableness, that a proper study of language will include the study of the language of our political masters.

What will those who would argue that Sawyer's position is a radical or unreasonabhle one advocate next? That the collected work of George Orwell, who had much to say about this topic, be banned from school libraries?

No matter what quaint little spin Mark H puts on Sawyer's editorial the document is what it is - a bitter little piece of tooth-grinding elitist frustration at a result he didn't like.

If Sawyer (and Mark H) were serious and Sawyer & his cronies have been teaching "critical" english for the last 10 years then surely the assumption should be that all his students did indeed apply his teachings and voted accordingly resulting in the re-election of the Howard government? But no. Sawyer says that the teaching of English in this country has been a failure BECAUSE HIS PREFERRED POLITICAL PARTY WAS NOT ELECTED!! Does this strike anyone else as being not only ridiculous and arrogant, but as far away from academic thought as possible?

There surely is a war going on in this country on many fronts, education being only one. If we want to save our society from slipping back into another Dark Age arrogant elitists must be defeated.

The author highlights the cultural war now occurring in the US education systems, and there has been ample evidence found that political indoctrination has been occurring in US universities at least, with many university departments now being made up almost entirely of Democrat or left-wing political supporters.

This has lead to a push to incorporate an Academic Bill of Rights into universities to help ensure more academic diversity. (EG …http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/abor.html)

It also becomes important to ensure that our own education systems do not become biased in some way, or begin to indoctrinate students into developing distorted perceptions. The signs are not all that good that our education systems are succeeding in doing this.

I see the new Girl TV program, but of course no Boy TV. I see the “Green Left” web-site, but nothing for the green right. I see quite a lot of media that derides marriage, but minimal media that supports marriage. I see so much biased social science research that it has become like a “junk science”, where nothing can be relied upon. I see consumerism run rife, where shopping centres have become like small towns. I see so much media that is obviously produced to just fill in the gaps between advertisements, or worse still, begins to mesmerize people into viewing that media again.

So eventually, I don’t think that our education systems are producing people who do see through all the hype and propaganda, and do seek more truth within society. So despite all the claims of the education system, those claims are not testing out very well.

So, maybe this teacher went upto or even over the line?? Could this bloke, like many clear thinking voters,see that lying, mean-spirited howard was buying the election through blatant bribery. Howard and his cronies are total, unmitigated, foul, obscene liars in any one's book - and this can be clearly shown. Maybe he, the teacher was stunned that the decent Australian electors could believe and reward such blatant, shameful lies and corrupt pork barrelling. That these same decent Australian electors could be so easily bought or bribed. Howard is much worse than those who went before him, I speak as one bought up to vote liberal, Menzie's brand of liberalism, open, clean, decent,honest and uncorruptable, in the main. John howard cannot be believed whatever he says and he has the now,new greedy voter in the palm of his hand and he knows it! Children and young people need to be warned and not be fooled like their parents. I used to wonder how a man like hitler managed to gain power through the ballot box - of course it was lies, lies and more lies. He was right wing as well!!
Regards, numbat

Numbat, you're making the same mistake Prof. Sawyer has. If you managed to see through all the BS and realise what a worm Howard is then how come the majority of other people could not?

Well said first time Bozzie, and exactly right second time. Numbat, you merely demean yourself by exposing your intellectual shortcomings when you use slurs and ad hominems against those who do not think the way you do.

Perhaps the greatest problem with Sawyer's thesis is that blind Sarah (oops, can I say that in this insanely politically correct world?)can see that the overwhelming majority of educators are leftist.

Therefore, even if we accept his view that kids should be 'educated' (brainwashed?) to think politically, the reality is that it will be all leftist indoctrination.

Hmmm....why does that ring a bell? Wasn't there such a monster created with the concept of "Hitler Youth"? And did not the political persuasion of those who created that 'education' program lean to the LEFT?

As in "National Socialists"---aka NAZI?

Wayne Sawyer fools with fire....

Sorry Numbat---Hitler was left-wing. Read http://www.oz-aware.com/leftistmind1.htm and then apologise...

Amen to ozaware and bozzie...
couldn't say it better myself

Actually Numbat..i can add to it.
I would not be 'bought' by a $600 family allowance boost.. nice as it was to receive it.
I was not 'panicked' into voting liberal because of the children overboard affair..

If anyone was, I would doubt their political intuition. The picture is MUCH bigger than those things.
Actually..I voted for some christian party :) which preferenced Libs

Raimond Gaita is Professor of Moral Philosophy at Kings College, University of London, and Professor of Philosophy as the Australian Catholic University. He says the following:

"Two days after the American elections I was at a conference at Dartmouth College, an Ivy league liberal studies college in New Hampshire. Some of the most distinguished academics from Harvard, Princeton, MIT and elsewhere attended. The topic was the future of liberal education. It was perhaps not surprising, therefore, that many of the people who attended the conference said that Bush's victory had sent them into "shock", "disheartened" and "bewildered" them, and made them "unsure about what to think about their country...On the last afternoon, a man commented on the claim that a liberal education was intended to make people think. If that is true, he asked, why are the beneficiaries of such an education so unanimous in their political opinions?

"I believe that the majority at the conference at the conference were right to be incredulous that a president who was incapable of presenting a coherent account of the reasons why he invaded Iraq and how this was linked to the war on terror could be re-elected, especially now that over 1000 American troops and (apparently) around 100,000 Iraqis have been killed. They were right to be dismayed that Bush's majority was in part secured by people, like Bush himself, who preach the sanctity of life, who apply the concept with ferocity to abortion and stem cell research, but who seem untroubled by the fact that the country went to war in a cloud-cuckoo land of conflicting justifications led by a government that cares so little for the people its soldiers have killed that it refuses to estimate their number..."

("Breach of Trust: Truth, Morality and Politics" by Raimond Gaita, Quarterly Essay No 16 2004)

NUMBAT....
I think that we should be able to come to some common ground on this issue.
Lets take 'mean spirited lying John Howard' for a start.

May I know at least one specific (and noteworthy) instance of his being 'mean spirited' and of 'lying'.

Then.. can you show me for example, a long serving past Labor leader, who never lied or misrepresented facts in order to promote the interests of his party ?

As Jesus said "He who is without sin, may cast the first stone"

LIBERALS IN SHOCK
Grace... doen't it make u ask 'why' ? Is it possible that these liberals are just plain out of touch with the American public ?
Perhaps the 'world' has moved on since they began to think they were the centre of the ideological universe ?
Perhaps many Americans are thinking more strategically ?
I don't know why I keep hearing 'they don't care about the Iraqi lives' nor do I know where this 100,000 keeps coming from, nor do I know 'which' Iraqis it is supposed to represent. I fail to see why people just pluck numbers out of the sky when they also admit that the coalition is not prepared to make an estimate. If they wont estimate, how can the other figure be accurate ?
Seems to raise more questions than it answers.
As for Iran.. wellll.. read their history .. see what they did to Jerusalem and Christians. It was far worse than the blood bath perpetrated by the Crusaders, but I only ever hear about the 'brutal crusades' rather than the Persian Genocide of Jerusalem earlier.
I draw all of our attention to the fact that it has only been 60 yrs since the last great world conflict. There have been periods of peace much LONGER than this, and I guess the same factors are at work now as were at work then.. 'human nature'
.. and now for the obligatory 'bible verse' :)

1What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don't they come from your desires that battle within you? 2You want something but don't get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask God. 3When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures. (James 4.1-3)

Grace, everyone is entitled to their opinions. If a bunch of professors want to sit around and bemoan the state of their countries that's fine. I had to sit through the Hawk & Keating years and I thought exactly the same thing - how the hell could anybody vote for these nauseous nitwits!

However, I would like to think that if I was in a position of influence I wouldn't have been so arrogant and haughty that I would have said so publicly and so insulted the majority of Australians who, at the end of the day, clearly are not nitwits.

Oh dear here we go again another piece of tripe churned out by Kev.
And the same rabid right wing zealots backing him up. But wait who is this ozaware chap have not seen them before (or have we?). First of all the link you gave us was rather sad. Putting your thoughts or more correctly ravings on a web page doesn’t make them come true. Hitler was a good catholic boy who when a little bit mad. Just cause he put some lefty sounding slogans in his talks did not make him a lefty.

Ozaware please don’t tell us your going to add your bantum weight to the already over represented ribid ring wingers on this site. I think I’ll have to call to ribid lefty’s I know to balance you out.

Kev have you applied for a job teaching yet? Some people say we need more right wing teachers.

I've been reading more of the web site that Ozaware put up. Did you put it up as a joke? For anybody not indoctrinated into Christian fundamentalism have a read it's a testament to the authors stupidity and ignorance . As Plato said “Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.”

Kenny... its 'RABID' not ribid.
and another thing.
All I see from you is 'abuse abuse abuse' I rarely if EVER see you take an issue and deal with it factually as opposed to emotionally.
Its probably a good idea to call some of your left wing mates, they might actually try to put fact and analysis ahead of the rantings and emotion that you accuse everyone else of.
Ozaware is not a Christian in the fundy sense at all. His position is from a cultural standpoint.

All politicians are liars and meglomaniacs so there is hardly any point in comparing the parties. Paul Keating was an arse who messed up the economy, John Howard is an arse who is wasting tax payers money on an immoral war. (Now we have started it we must see it through, but it was obvious from the start they were lying about WMD and had another agenda). I wish I could vote for my DOG. At least he is consistent in his likes and desires and he REALLY DOES have my best interests at heart, and you cannot say that about any politican or political party no matter what they try to spin.

Left wing or right, you'd be foolish to think your vote would make a difference.

The thing that annoys me the most is that politicians break election promises. I see this as a verbal contract, and I think we should be able to hold them to it.

JCL

http://www.familyfirst.org.au/

:)

Ken, you might want to check back on that page re Hitler. I did not write the piece to which you refer.
It was written by a fella named John Ray and merely posted on the oz-aware site for the convenience of readers.
All of which has no relevance to its validity which each will judge for themself.
Reading your response made me recall that scene in that book about the girl possessed by "the devil" (The Exorcist). When the priest comes to exorcise that devil it goes ballistic because it innately knows that the priest is calm and unswayable and represents an ultimate truth and purity that transcends all other.

In other words, "the devil" goes beserk because it knows there's nothing it can do to ultimately prevail against decency.

When I see leftists hurling epithets and ad hominems at those whose views contradict theirs, and whose views represent truth and ultimate decency, then I see that metaphor in action.

I see it disturbingly many times---which reminds me that indeed "the barbarians are inside the gates".

Take care Ken--you may literally "know not what you do".

Moving along to Grace's comment re 'distinguished academics':

Being somewhat more familiar with the workings of the human mind than most, I'll share with you a certain psychological concept. The danger of being out of touch with reality is that one may well be confronted by that selfsame reality. When that happens, the individual's mind simply does not know how to 'process' the incoming information.

It then 'hangs', much like a computer does when there's data or programming conflict. The fancy word for that is 'catatonic'.

That is essentially all that happened to those "most distinguished academics from Harvard, Princeton, MIT and elsewhere". They had always been out of touch with reality and could not deal with it when it confronted them.

You don't believe 'distinguished academics' would fall victim to such human failings? ` Perhaps they are even more likely to. Read (and shake your head in amazement)about MIT Professor Nancy Hopkins---- (quote) a woman “at the peak of the academic pyramid”----being overcome by the “vapors” upon hearing an “unwelcome idea.” Like a “Victorian maiden,” she collapsed waiting to be “revived . . . by the offending brute’s contrition” (unquote) at http://www.townhall.com/columnists/chuckcolson/cc20050209.shtml

(Note, Ken, also not a piece written by myself...)

Just because someone has been 'distinguished' by his/her peers does not automatically mean he/she and his/her peers are not a bunch out of touch with reality. Read "The Closing of the American Mind" (a book) by Professor Allan Bloom and you'll better understand that the more formally educated a person becomes, the more likely (but not always!) he/she will become...to put it succinctly...an idiot.

Ever heard of Peter Singer?

And finally, BOAZ, when Ken said "ribid" he meant not "rabid" but "ribit".

As in "ribit, ribit.....ribit, ribit....."

OZ....
yes.. salient point 'ribit' :)
and.. Peter Singer.. a great example !!!! a wonderful monument !!!
a classic incarnation !!!! a stupendous manifestation....of where atheistic existentialism leads. "Cull the sick oldies.. (GRACE !!! watchout for Singers balaclava clad goons).. 'put down' the downes sydrome kids,..etc etc..

yes.. as u said.."idiot"

What I term the new-age, cultural warrior approach to teaching is not restricted to English. Study of society and the environment is also a concern as noted in the following extract from my book.

A more recent example of a PC curriculum is the Queensland SOSE document that became the centre of a good deal of public debate after its release in early 2000. In fact, such was the strength of the public outcry that the Director-General of Education was forced to establish a review committee to investigate the complaints raised. In summary, the Queensland document was attacked for its uncritical left-wing view of studies of society and environment and the fact that it adopted the worst excesses of an outcomes-based approach to curriculum. The key values outlined in the SOSE document (p 4) include:

democratic processes;
social justice;
ecological and economic sustainability;
peace.

As with the original national SOSE profile, such values are interpreted from a distinctive left-wing, new-age perspective. In line with a socially critical, postmodern view of education, students are taught :

that “knowledge is always tentative”,
that they should “deconstruct dominant views of society” and “critique the socially constructed elements of text”,
“how privilege and marginalisation are created and sustained in society”, and
how “the consumer of a text is positioned and the possibility of who may have been marginalised by authors”.

Whereas education was once based on the assumption that there are some absolutes (truth telling, equal justice for all and the need for tolerance and compassion) in the brave new world of the Queensland curriculum students are told that everything is “tentative” and “shifting” and that the purpose of education is to criticise mainstream society in terms of what has become the new trinity of gender, ethnicity and class. Thus, students are told that they must “develop the ability to critically analyse social structures that unjustly disadvantage some individuals or groups”. Forget that Australian championed such egalitarian measures as the eight-hour day, the conciliation and arbitration system and votes for women.

KevinD,
If someone continuously deconstructs something, then eventually there is nothing left. I believe this is what is happening with many young people today. Because they are taught to deconstruct so much, they can become quite cynical of the world. They have less interests in such things as politics, religion, marriage, or long term relationships. They have little faith or belief in such things, and tend to have more interest in short term or “living for the moment” type activities.

Of course education systems are not the only reason for this, and such things as media also playing a part in the type of philosophies that people develop.

However as a parent, I have often found it difficult to know exactly what my child is being taught, so as to decide whether or not this would be healthy for the child. Finding out what the students are actually being taught can become quite difficult, and this is even after teacher interviews etc. When I have asked, the answers received are usually very vague type answers.

This then is another aspect of children's education. How much should the parents know of the subject matter being taught, and how much should the parents be able to have a say in that subject matter or methods of teaching being used “vs” leaving it all to governments or bureaucrats to decide.

bozzie: Electors were not bought in the great election bribery contest??? You mean howard did his bribing all for nothing spent all those millions of our money for nothing, if so he must be a dill as well - eh?? That others can't, don't want to see the real howard saddens me. Why did they vote for howard - They didn't read n/papers or listen to the Parliamentary b/casts, they took the biggest bribe, they were hoodwinked by propaganda - it works or it would not be used.
ozaware: thanks! demean myself by seeing the real howard - yet you say I have intellectual shortcomings, then you seem to mock the blind (But your safe as the blind probably won't see it)yet like the politicians you did not use their normal term of 'blind freddie'
Yes ozaware like all good howard people you probably see the ABC as left wing as well - especially the children's programmes?
boaz: children o/board, the siev sinking, iraq, concentration camps (just like hitler)the never-never tax, code of conduct for parliamentarians, a real independent speaker in the house - enough!
jcl: WELL said! Regards, numbat

The problem with lefties like Numbat is that they can only think in one tunnel at a time.Life is composed of left and right decisions.Right leaning decisions are usually about survival.while the left are usually about maintaining or extending our comfort zones.

The teaching profession needs to give a more balanced political/social view of the world.The left is too concerned with "common good"of sharing in someone else's hard earned toil,rather than the rewards of their own productivity.

It is not the job of teachers to present a left or right view of the world.Students should be presented with the harsh realities they will face in the workforce and a balanced view of their rights v's responsibilities.Too much of leftist philosophy is about envy and security,rather than individuals be responsible for their own destiny.

Presently individuals are being squeezed by bloated Govt bureauracies,lawyers selling us our rights and insurance companies pleasing them selves.Workers would prefer to have the money in their pockets rather than donating to those who think they know best.

Up until 1996 left wing philosophy has dominated,and what an era of lost opportunity it was.Many retiring people will live in abject poverty in the coming years when there should have been ample for all.The more Govt punishes incentive to work,the less wealth there is for the commom good.These are the realities the left continue to ignore.

SOMETHING
I've been harping on over and over and over for MANY years, is finally revealed so abundantly clearly in what Kevin has said in his last post !!!!
'PHILOSOPHY==> ARTS/EDUCATION===> MAN IN THE STREET'

I have always maintained that most people do NOT think original thoughts, (unless like myself they have separated themselves from the contemporary brainwashing process.. and I don't say that with any arrogance, it's been a conscious act).
When someone says "How can there be a God"? I ask.."Do u realize 'why' u can even ASK that question today" ??????

Then, with some effort u can trace back through the process outlined above, to a point where the existence of God was not even questioned, but the challenge was to understand 'HOW' God was at work in the world and our response to Him.

But then we had that bright spark NEITZCHE who took it upon himself to declare "GOD IS DEAD" and from him, and others like him, the idea was popularized, filtered down thru education and the arts to 'you' who think you are 'original' :)

One of the best coverages of this process is made by Francis Schaeffer. 'Escape from Reason" "The God who is there" 'He is there and He is not Silent".. etc.
I earnestly encourage anyone who has not seen his work, to try to have a read of 'Escape from Reason'.

The PROCESS he refers to, is seen in Kevs quotes above about the Queensland curriculim, about 'how' things are interpreted from teachers to student. When u see how pernicious this is, is it any wonder that there is a generation gap where the former cannot understand the following one and vice versa.

DANGER The hidden agenda of all the so called 'equality/peace/marginalization' speak is heinous. Its goal is nothing less than obtaining control of the state, nourishing youthful idealistic zeal and chaneling it into a revolutionary spirit to overthrow the state and replace it. ("Resistance".... school kids on the streets.... HAVE U READ their manifesto ?

arjay: typical liberal?? Let the sods, that is the lame, blind,incapacitated, un-employed starve. Better than spending "OUR" hard earned money on the stupid bludgers - it was probably their fault- or perhaps put them in uniform so they can be seen and humiliated and call it 'work-for-the-dole'. Anyhow hitler killed them so you are in good company. Regards, numbat

I generally don't post long post because most of you have not interest what’s so ever of actually exploring the topic. Your main interest is to vomit out (yes vomit BOAZ_David) your uninformed stand point. Kev here has some usual motivations which I will not go into here. His main rant about education is supposedly backed up by the PISA test the link below is a government site about this test and the one he likes to pretend does not exist. Have a read of the whole web site.

http://www.dest.gov.au/schools/Publications/2004/digest/science_default.htm

If you bother to read the whole thing you will see it’s not so black and white that our friend Kev makes out.

Below are some international links for your enjoyment, have a read remember the more you read the more likely you are to be able to make a valid opinion.

http://www.dilnet.upd.edu.ph/~ismed/online/articles/analysis/literature_review.htm

http://www.ifo.de/pls/guestci/download/CESifo%20Working%20Papers%202004/CESifo%20Working%20Papers%20November%202004/cesifo1_wp1330.pdf

And some more Aussie ones
http://www.dest.gov.au/schools/Publications/2004/digest/science_default.htm
http://www.educare.com.au/issue_155/155national_news.html

When you read these reports and what not try to find information that does not support your ideas not just look for the little nuggets that do. That goes for whatever side your on. It may come as a surprise to you but I’m not really on any side I do believe however that things can also be improved and that our educators have the very best of intentions and are the ones most able to develop curriculum not parents of pressure groups. If parents want their kids to learn something in particular then teach it themselves after school. Hell you may even spend some quality time with them.

I forgot this one from TIMSS own web site

http://nces.ed.gov/timss/pdf/naep_timss_pisa_comp.pdf

TMISS home page is
http://www.iea.nl/iea/hq/

and PISA is
http://www.pisa.oecd.org/pages/0,2987,en_32252351_32235731_1_1_1_1_1,00.html

enjoy

In my younger days, I used to share accommodation with a number of teachers. None of them did any work outside of school hours, but over time I became not that impressed with their attitudes towards students that weren’t doing very well at school. Inevitably they all tried to blame this on the child’s parents. However I often wondered if this was an easy excuse for their own failings, or the education systems failings.

Now with my own child going to school, I have kept this in mind, and I have tried to find out what the school is teaching, and how they are teaching it. I get very few straightforward answers when I have asked these types of questions, and I think that this is often because the teachers themselves are so confused about what they should be teaching, or how they should be teaching it.

The long time teachers know how to get the information into the children’s heads. They know this from experience, but those techniques do not go with the wishy-washy way they are being told to now teach.

I see education as just one area where parents will have to start to “take back the child”, or they will eventually have a child who is a totally confused product of a totally confused government or bureaucratic system

NUMBAT....

concentration camps..JUST LIKE HITLER ?

I'll resist the temptation to beautify my post with a few hundred question and exclamation marks, because I really do want this to be constructive.

Now.. u don't have to think too critically to realize that the resemblance between Auschwitz and Baxter is no further than the 'rectangular barracks with sloping roofs'.
Lawfully detained people are :
-FED well
-CLOTHED well
-PROTECTED from harm.
(with the notable occasional exception of from THEMSELVES... when some trouble makers take advantage for media/left wing fed political activism)
-CHILDREN mostly have access to external schooling, but also there are education opportunties within the centres.

Now, lets also be realistic.
1/ No one is trying to systematically kill, gas, cremate the detainees.
2/ They would not have to be there long, if they had reasonably reliable means of identification with them, OR.. if they can provide clear information about their origin and circumstances.
3/ Families are kept together.
4/ Those who end up detained for LONG periods of time, would usually be those who:
a) Deliberately Disposed of their papers/ID prior to arrival
b) Don't have any ID and therefore must be assessed with more effort.
c) Who have opposed the finding of the Government in determining if they are genuine and are using the system to its fullest extent to appeal and appeal and appeal..etc.
d) Have not given reliable information about their origin/circumstances.

Now..Numbat, without becoming emotional or side stepping or spinning... for each specific point raised above, can u refute it ?
If so.. give evidence/sources and be realistic, dont use some pie in the sky ideal which is not related to the real world when u consider it.

So, recapping what ALL of this one post is about, its about ONE point (of your many) where I believe you misrepresented the issue.
"Like Hitler"

Waiting for your careful and reasoned response.

KENNY
the reports you posted were mainly about science and were overseas stuff from what I saw.. its in the english/literature stream where the problems lie.

Boaz,
RE English/Literature

In Grade 8 my daughter was given a book to read about a “father who had abandoned his 2yr old son”, and then she had to write an essay on the book.

As well, the students had to make a doll out of rags, and carry this doll around with them wherever they went at school for 3 weeks, and then write essays on this also.

Now I couldn’t see the humor in this and thought it sick, so I complained to the school. On complaining I learnt that several other parents had complained also, and nearly all the students complained about the book, and many students were too emotionally upset by the book to write essays on it. As well, all students felt total idiots carrying around a rag doll all day.

Now in leftist thinking, the whole exercise was the best way of teaching the students English. However it is no wonder that the kids prefer reading Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings.

What will they make the students do in Grade 12?

Take back your children, before it is too late.

Tim
were there boys in the class too ?

One more thing.... I recall how the American pilots shot down over Nth Vietnam, were required to continually write ESSAYS' on their 'crimes'

Boaz,
Every student, boy and girl in grade 8. I think there were 6 classes of grade 8'S.

As the parent, I had to be involved too. The daughter had to bring the rag doll home and care for it at home. I had to fill out a daily form, showing how well the daughter was caring for dolly, and how dolly was feeling (EG dolly happy today, dolly slept most of the day, dolly bored today etc.

Numbat, no one starves in this country.Why do you pose such extreme senarios knowing full well that the Howard Govt.has spent more on social security than ever would have been achieved by any Labor Govt.?All we are ask is that the unemployed,weak or disabled contribute something back to society.It gives them self esteem and adds to the total productivity, be it social or monetary.
There is too much job snobbery in this country.Just because you have a degree ,doesn't entitle you to a secure micky mouse Govt job that adds nothing to productivity.It would be better that you pulled beers in a pub.Big Govt.punishes ordinary workers with tax,because they are easy prey.All jobs are important.Unlike the US we don't classify people by the type of work to the same extent.In the the US the job is who you are,while in Aust.we tend to judge people by their deeds or personality.I hope it remains that way,since all people who try hard and do the right thing, hold up this fragile umbrella we call civilisation.

Well if it involved boys it was a clear attack on gender difference.
Most pathetic.

Recently, I googled for a free internet service provider for a pensioner who was interested in connecting, but could not afford standard subscription fees. I soon found out there was nothing quite free – even those that claimed that to be the case, could onsell your personal information, and bombard you with their own advertising while you are connected.

Political indoctrination in the state school system is part and parcel.

Boaz,
The whole thing began to increase my suspicions about the school (QLD state school). I began to think that it was a part of a process to turn the kids away from fathers, and away from babies etc.

Carrying around the rag doll might stop teenage girls from getting pregnant, but I thought there would be better ways of education than this.

Of course as a parent, I never got to know about it until it was happening and I had to fill out the daily record, and as I mentioned earlier, it becomes almost impossible to find out what they will be teaching the kids. I don't think they know themselves what they will be teaching the students from one year to the next.

The student is almost owned by the state, and the parent thought irrelevant by the state.

Hmmm....now why have I always thought that CCTV cameras with recording devices would be a most excellent technological advance in schools? How about webcams so mum and dad can check up on their kids and also hear and see what sweet leetle lefty teacher is up to at any time of schoolday?

But no, there would be strident objections, right?

Hmmm...why would they object unless they have something to hide? Perhaps there's something they don't want mum and dad to know?

Hmmm...why are mum and dad---who after all pay the teacher's salaries via taxes---not marching in the streets until CCTV or webcams do get installed?

After all, since when is schooling or formal education a 'private' or 'secretive' activity?

All of which is to say that we---as a society---are far too irresponsibly 'care-less' with regard to such crucially important matters as our children's education.

Ditto and agreed on all that in principle....
I think parents groups having more say (and the occasional monitoring)
over various emphases and content of curriculum would be good.
For example ..they should be able to vet the literature chosen for 'study' for compliance with values they wish to see promoted in their community.
If u want to promote 'abnormal and deviate' lifestyles why of course you would read the 'Outsider' by Camus.. but if u wanted to promote healthy living and 'normal' lifestyles... u might choose something more (dare I say it) 'wholesome' :) Its weird how I only know of the books which I DONT want to be used. But then, I'm a techo type rather than literary.. but given time to think about it I could come up with some great titles.

In fact..we should choose material which will actually DETERMINE what is 'normal'.. (perish the thought eh :)

arjay:Australian families maybe not starving (many schools are giving students b/fast I believe because it is not available at home) but there are some very poor, very hungry families around. Of course they cannot afford computers so they will not post messages. arjay, just for a giggle, ring or drop in on any of the groups that feed & clothe the poorer of our fellow Australian families, or read newspapers. Please I hope you will not say that they are all free-loaders and bludgers and 'deserve' what they are getting either.
boaz:Not criminals just, in the main, asylum seekers locked up by a Christian nation.Have you ever been locked behind razor wire? - in this country it is a concentration camp. By the way the afflicted Ausralian CITIZEN was well cared for in the "baxter holiday camp" - eh?
Had guards in riot gear manhandle her, they don't do this to others?? Perved on her whilst she was bathing and using the loo, had lights on all night in her CELL,don't do this to others? To me it getting more and more like a c/camp, not nazi style but good Christian Ozzie style.Remember first we ridicule certain people, then we subject them to incarceration, then we put them in funny striped clothes, then we are told that they are sub-human and can be liquidated. We are at stage one at present!
Your questions -1.true - but to be locked away for YEARS just for seeking political asylum - to them a c/camp. Try to see thru their eyes. 2. Spoken like a free Australian. How many who leave their country of birth at night have papers. They, unlike us, cannot just go to a gov. office and ask for papers to leave their country, I thought you knew that. 3. Not always, one parent behind razor wire the rest of the family miles away in Adelaide. 4. We KNOW !! do we - or are we just repeating a loving Governments propaganda - that these people, YES people just like you, have disposed of their papers (see Q2)remember tis gov. covered up the 300+ who drowned when their boat went down - SIEV. Then this 'fun-loving' kind Christian Government LIED that is spelled L-I-E-D about the children o/board incident. Can trust them eh? of course they are ours! Regards, numbat

NUMBAT
we are making progress.. u were less paranoid this time :)
For the issue at hand, my position in reality, is a bit different from what I've been arguing, but I don't know how practical it would be.
I have written to both Family First and Libs to look at getting community guarantees in the form of forfeitable financial undertakings if assylum seekers 'dissappear' into the cracks of our society. I still feel we need detention centres, but I detest the idea that the government is not running them personally. Its a state responsibility, such things should NEVER be managed where profit is an element. Profit focus by definition means focus on cost cutting, and possible compromise of quality of care.

The other side of this coin, is that allowing people to establish roots in the community when there is a chance they may need to be deported, might in the end be harsher and more troubling than the detention camp approach.

Finally: I would never ever ever EVER accept an open door policy, because I've lived through a real life example of how this will inevitably be used as a political tool.

Numbat.. pls don't emphasise the 'Christian' aspect of the government in order to make the faith look bad. Howard is an Anglican, Costello Baptist, Abbot Catholic, but they still have a responsibility to protect the borders, which is also a Christian thing to do. "He who does not look after his own family first is worse than an unbeliever" (1 Timothy 5:8)
Always remember, we have laws, which have to be respected. Compassion for 'outsiders' is what caused the current problem in Ivory Coast. (please look up the background)

How does this sound ?

Gee fancy that none of you had much a read of the links so that you could have a more inform debate about the issue. I'm shocked :).
BOAZ_David the studies are international and if you waded through them you would find the Aussie data. These are comparative studies so you have to look at everyone’s data. you are quite right when you say TIMSS data is only about maths and science because that is exactly what it was looking at. If you read the brief of the TIMSS testing group you see they make very different claims about what their data can and can’t show then our friend Kev does. This is were the beef that many people working in this field have with Kev. Reading his articles on this subject would led many people to believe that there is data in the TIMSS reports that back up what he is saying. This is clearly not the case as the authors of the both the PISA and TIMSS.
Thankfully the state education boards don’t use chaps like Kev to develop circuli and if you people did a bit more reading and research on the subject you may well come to the same conclusion. Kev wants to make this issue in Australia simular to the current issues in the US and there in lies his real agenda.

So you wonder why I don’t post long post BOAZ_David well because it falls on deaf ears. It seems to me most people on this site don’t want to explore the issues that want to simply tell ever body else what they know (or believe they know). I listen because I find it interesting to try and work out the motives of people.

Kenny..
thanx... the problem with reading through swags of info is time....
Its better for you who have already done it, to just pick out the salient points, and post those, then give us the references which we can read further at our leasure.
If we have to read heaps of papers just to find the 'important bit' its a slog and a grind mate.
I am more concerned in regard to Kevs point about 'how the delivery is to be structured' and the main 'emphases' which are to be promoted.

Just curious about something, may I know your ethnic background ? I'm picking up bits and pieces here and there in your structures which suggest u might even be a Singaporean or malaysian chinese background :) but of course.. I have been wrong at least once or twice in this life time hehe.

Numbat ,you are obiviously a compassionate person of integrety.Politicians of all persuasions make promises they can't keep,or stretch the truth in all directions.I think, on average, John Howard is an honourable man.You cannot judge anyone by a single act of impropriety.We are all fallible and must judge people on the long history of their track record and not on occasional errors of judgement.Those who trumpet the ideals of the high moral ground too often, are often judged too harshly themselves, when their own flaws are laid bare.

We cannot just open our borders and be all things to the world.Open borders will see us just become another "banana republic" in the South Pacific.

arjay..... or... an Ivory Coast.

Howard is on balance an honorable man, but he is also a politician.
Beazly and Rudd seem honorable to me also.

Yes ,a very clever and astute politician who knows about the realities of survival that gives us so much prosperity today.

Keeping this to the matter of education (no point in spinning off into the la-la land and the detention centres for illegal aliens who try to thwart the migration laws of Australia - hint - anyone need to guess which way I feel about the issue?)

When I went to school, teachers left their politics at the school gate and worked on the idea that their goal was to produce someone who was equipped to make decisions for themselves. They were not their to indoctrinate me in one political creed or another - in fact when I think back - the only schools which taught "politics" to primary and secondary students were behind the Iron curtain - and I guess they have found how lacking in wisdom their "way" was.

When a teacher wants to "educate" the class in "the right way of political thinking" he has ceased to be a teacher and become a propagandist for his cause.

The last thing any "education system" needs is a propagandist they are (despite what they may say) anti-education and anti-individualist, the very thing which makes western society a superior social process.

Hi people - I usually refrain from posting to this kind of forum because these 'debates' seem invariably to descend to slagging matches between entrenched (and outmoded) "left" and "right" positions. However, I'm prompted to write this time by my observation that over the past weekend the august Dr Nelson has called for an inquiry into the training standards of English teachers at our universities.

Do forum correspondents think that this is merely coincidence, or is it possible that the discussions here are being manipulated by partisan editors?

Happy Valentine's Day.

Morgan

Morganzola the author of the article is a member of the Menzies group. They call themselves a think tank but they are really a conservative pressure group. To All the point of having to read most of it is to get a realist view of what the authors of both tests methods think the test show. It is very easy to distort the conclusion of the test when you try the make some sort of executive summary. This is exactly what Kev has done. Go back and read his article about PISA and TIMSS does it leave you with the impression that the TIMSS testing showed we are doing badly in English? Funny that the TIMSS didn’t actually test reading and writing skills.

For those of you not familiar with Kev’s views in another article that has appeared on this site Kevin admonishing the labors party for Uni more accessible to low income family’s because he thinks Uni is for the upper and middle classes and the ability to pay should be determine whether you can get into Uni that very egalitarian of him.

BOAZ_David I’m six gen Aussie with a Jewish and Scottish back ground ( not tight with money). I’m a software engineer with a large multinational and I do very little writing these days in English. What I do do is usually dot point stuff so that is what you may be picking up on.

KENNY
here is one for your scottish side :) (I'm half scottish)

A ship is coming out to Aussie land, from England. The Minister holds an impromptu service. He asks for the offering plates to be passed around. When the offering is back, he notices a 'farthing' in it, and declares "OHHHH.. I see there is a SCOTSman among us." whereupon a voice pops up. "OH noooo.. thats for TWO of us"

Thanx for the background Kenny. has anything I've said about Biblical history resonated with your Jewish side ?

Hi Kenny,

Here is a quote from my PISA/TIMSS article:

Unlike PISA, with its faddish approach, the TIMSS test focuses on what is taught in terms of essential mathematics and science content. TIMSS also identifies effective classrooms by analysing the characteristics of those systems that perform best. Effective classrooms are those where teachers actually teach, instead of “facilitating”, and where more time is spent on whole class work instead of students working individually or in groups.

Note the first line - I specifically state that TIMSS deals with maths and science and not literacy!

Boaz - you need not worry about my demise quite yet. In fact I am not that much older than you, old boy. Perhaps you will be a grandfather soon too... It certainly changes your perspective on life, and you could do with a bit of a change, another epiphany perhaps.

Morgonzola,

I'm not sure what you're on about, but it seems as though you're suggesting that this journal ought to ignore a debate that is happening because part of it is being promoted by one side of politics.

That ignores the purpose of this journal which is to be an open forum where issues can be debated. As part of that process we try to ensure that all sides of the debate are represented, and accordingly tried to get agreement from Wayne Sawyer to republish his editorial. When that wasn't available we solicited the article that appears here from AATSE.

Graham Young

Hi Grace
well I'm having an epipheny now.. or is it just the 30+ temperature after a week of pseudo winter ?
I think its the temp.
I'm very ANNOYED right now, not with you, my son didn't turn up for work today and never told anyone and the reallllll annoying bit, he had his MOBILE turned offfff.. aarrrggh..
So.. I think I need an epiphany to help me through the rest of the day.
I think I'll have him neutered if he keeps this up, won't become a granddaddy then. My young son also begged me to pick him up from school, grrr lovely day for a walk. When I whinged about that, he threatened to 'not taking you anywhere when ur 70'.. to which I responded "if u dont, the 'inheritance' register will have some negative points against YOUR name" :)

A bit off topic.. I know. But u didnt say anything about my last post, so.. ur stuck with 'family newsletter' :)

Hi All,

If you people think schools are bad then wait till you try English at university.

One quick anecdote. I did first year English at UNSW. One of the 'texts' we did was "Hamlet" but because of the heavy reading list we only got to spend one tutorial session on it. In that tutorial there were about 10 females with myself and another guy. The whole tutorial was spent with this horrible, horrible PhD student tutor facilitating a rant about the line 'get thee to a nunnery'. At the very end of the session she turned to us accusingly (of course, as males we knew our place and hadn't spoken earlier) and asked what we thought. As was practical we uttered something inane that towed the political line.

But I walked out of there incredulous. Here was this snotty nosed PhD student who spent a whole hour rubbishing Shakespeare, possibly the greatest writer in any language, because she didn't like his attitude to women. I just thought, he's been dead for about 400 years and is still read and renowned the world over. I wonder who'll remember you when you're gone!!

Needless to say I didn't do second year English.

This occurred during the mid 90s at the height of Labor's political correct madness, so hopefully thinks have improved a little since then.

Josh, bad news. Things will not get any better while men keep trying to be 'nice guys' in the presence of the 'modern' woman.

Read http://www.oz-aware.com/unconscious1.htm for a deeper insight into what's really going on with the 'fairer'** sex....

As you read, bear in mind the following:

For young males the ages 13 to 17 is the time when they should be developing/testing/experimenting with/becoming comfortable with their masculinity.

the overwhelming majority of those who teach young males aged 13 - 17.....(wait for it)....... are 'modern' females.

**and if one were to mean 'fair' as in 'justice, then there's only one response: yeah right!

Oh, and did I mention that this is just another example of why I quite regularly say that we are a very ill society---and getting sicker?

Morganzola, given your enlightened comments I encourage you to keep on (if I may quote you) "refraining from posting to this kind of forum".

That way both your comments and condition will be quite satisfactory.

Thanks Graham. I guess I'm concerned at the posssibility that this 'journal', having begun so promisingly, is declining into a thinly disguised organ for the promotion of the Coalition's various agendas. I think we're being softened up for a raft of outrageous legislation once the government has full control of the Senate.

And thanks also to Ozaware for his/her advice, the quality of which maintains the standards of his/her deranged website.

Morgan :)

Morganzola - since the posts are not editted or moderated, your claim merely indicates that, if what you say is true -

Those able to write, understand and use English effectively are more likely to be supporters of the coalilition.

Think on it - "intellectual socialism" is a spent and wasted force, discreditted by its own incompetence and inability to develop or deliver effective social policy.

MORGAN
if u perceive the forum as being biased in a particular way, simplest solution is to contribute (contstructively) from your own perspective.

I think the biggest danger is when people contribute from blinkered naivity or rabid one sidedness which cannot see any possibility however remote of the other side having any redeeming value.
When it comes to politics, and people start playing 'the man' (howard is a lying scheming this that this that" etc.. as though people on the labor or other side of politics don't indulge in their share of 'stuff'.
We all know that both sides use their power to 'breastfeed' their own consultants and put their own people in the public service. Its not like "suddenly" one side started to do that and are thus the biggest mongrels on the face of the planet.
Personlly, I try to show that there is another alternative, the Christian one. Or..'politics by biblical principle'. I get my share of 'you rabid right wing blah blah" :) but.. its all good. There are a lot of accumulated myths in most peoples heads about both Christianity and Christians. "There is much work to be done" :)

Enjoying the comments, but as my old English teacher use to say, can we keep it relevant. My original article in the OZ criticisng Sawyer was because I felt he was wrong in what he said and he allowed his political opinions to interfere with his better judgement. As an English teacher for 12 years, one time member of the Year 12 panel of examiners and somebody whose PhD thesis examined English teaching over the last 30 years, I accept that the subject has a strong political edge.

Orwell, Huxley, Dickens and Blake, to name a few I studied at uni, deal with power, authority and control. The old clear thinking part of Matric was based on the assumption that students had to be taught how to be good 'crap' detectors.

What I dislke is when teacher academics and professional associations blame classroom teachers for, apparently, not teaching students the correct way to vote. Indoctrination is not education.

Morgonzola,

The thing that offends me most deeply about Sawyer's editorial is the assumption that there is only one correct way of seeing an issue. I set up the journal originally because I see one of my "duties" as an intelligent person, to seek out information that not only confirms my beliefs, but that challenges them, and to treat both types with respect. As a humane person I also see my "duty" to be to try to understand why people hold the views they do, and not to devalue them as people because they hold different views from me. That is the antithesis of what appears to be Sawyer's position. It also means that if there is an agenda running from any reasonable quarter, I'll be giving a platform to it in OLO. This site is about critical thinking.

Graham Y - I Agree with your view - the "real" role of teachers is to develop in their students the ability to interpret and reason.

The conclusion to interpretation and reasoning are multiple outcomes - not one.

Sawyer wants to indocrinate his pupils with an image of his own making and deny them the capacity to interpret or reason for themselves -
Thus as a "teacher" he is both a failure and a fraud.

Graham, your point about Sawyer's assumption that there is only one correct way of seeing an issue exposes the core reality in these matters: dictatorship.

When educators unilaterally and arbitrarily decide to inculcate kids with propogandea, then all we are seeing is dictatorship in action.

The problem is that our educators, in the face of strong opposition from most parents and concerned citizens, are doing exactly that.

Because there is apparently little to nothing a great majority of dissenters can do about it points to the reality of exactly such a dictatorship.

We are not nearly as 'free' a society as we would like to believe--and the fact that anybody who rationally differs with their (leftist) views will be abused with ad hominems and epithets (eh,Morgan?), indicates how rigidly dogmatic and bigoted their ideology actually is.
That they so frequently and quickly resort to ad hominems is merely an indicator of their lack of rational fact with which to support their views. Morgan, for example, has offered not a single fact of any rational merit in support of his (leftist) ideology.

Here's the scary thing that is going on at the deeper levels of their psyche: the act of 'naming' or 'labeling' with epithets is an intent to demonise. Once anyone or any group has been thoroughly demonised, why then actual assault, arrest, imprisonment or some form of crucifiction, etc. becomes 'warranted' and 'justified'.

After all, they will then reason, it's only 'right' to get rid of 'devils', right? If Morgan could get enough people to believe that I am 'deranged', why then he would be 'doing the right thing' to have me institutionalised.

History has long shown that leftists are dangerous when allowed unfetterd power. A vast future power, voted to them by a mob of young people inculcated from childhood, is the ultimate, unstated intent of Sawyer's propositions. It's the Hitler Youth thing all over again.

Ozaware,

I think you completely overstate your case. Your comments about Morgan aren't helpful either, nor his about you.

I shall slink away with my tail 'twixt my legs....

Interesting post from the OLO editor Graham Young, who says: "This site is about critical thinking."

From my reading, it is the apparent absence of critical thinking in electoral politics that both Wayne Sawyer, and Professor Raimond Gaita (in my posting above) are concerned about. That is, given the lies and distortions that are our daily fare from the Bush and Howard administrations with respect to the war in Iraq, not to mention "children overboard" etc, how is that such lies are not recognised and rewarded at the ballot box with the boot.

If students are not going to learn critical thinking in their studies, so that they can recognise such lies for what they are, then how will they learn to discern the truth from falsehoods when they discharge one of their most important civic responsibilities in voting for the leadership of our country.

(There is of course an argument, which perhaps the editor would maintain, that students have learnt critical thinking in our education system (from Wayne Sawyer?), have no trouble in discerning such lies, and have freely voted to return the liars notwithstanding. So there is no problem.)

The fact that Howard is derisively referred to as the "lying rodent" on many forums, including this one on occasion, not to mention within his own political party, suggests that there is a definitely a problem with the truth in politics these days, worthy of critical attention.

Grace....
the 'children overboard' had zero to do with my vote, (which was for conservatives) I saw that as a blip, not having much more than the typical pre-election rubbish trotted out by any party.
It was not a reflection on John Howard's overall character, perhaps more of Peter Wreith, and not being privy to all the facts, I prefer not to judge him too harshly.
I also understand that for strategic reasons, (possibly) the WMD 'portrayal' to persuade a generally skeptical public,may be forgivable due to other aspects of intelligence that we are not and could not be given knowledge about.
It seems the choices are Liberal "Kick the enemy in the butt before they ever get near us" (which might be a bit too early) and Labor "kick them with a rapidly scrounged together military rabble when they are sailing thru the heads of Port philip bay" (by which time it would be too late)
Not much of a choice at all. But my advice is go read the history of the Hittite Empire :) might help you come to grips with 'today'.

Nearly all political parties lie, but there would be three main forms of lying.

- Saying that something is true when it isn’t
- Stretching the truth so that it becomes a distortion of the truth, or a gross generalisation
- Making known some truth, while hiding or suppressing other relevant truths.

Nearly all political parties indulge in all three types of lying (sometimes carrying out all three at the same time), and indeed most government organisations indulge in all three also. There are also many organisations who are government funded that consistently carry out lying.

As well, nearly every philosophy, political creed, set of ethics, religion etc contains some type of lie. For a person to actually live, it becomes necessary to find a balance between simple acceptance of what is being said, and what lies or fibs are being told. When the lies become too much, they have to be exposed.

The indoctrination that is occurring witin the education systems, now appears to be more of a “cultural” indoctrination rather than a “political” indoctrination. However the lies in this cultural indoctrination are becoming too great.

There is also great danger that Australia becomes too politically entwined with the current US administration. For a “possible” preview of the future see “The Next Four Years: A Political Forecast”

at.. http://www.irc-online.org/content/commentary/2004/0411next.php

Close, but no cigar, Timithy. At least you are on the right track. Boaz, you reveal a very slippery morality about truth in politics and I suggest it is you who need to come to grips with what is going on "today" by leaving the Hittites alone for a moment and reading the essay by Raimond Gaita "Breach of Trust: Truth, Morality and Politics", Quarterly Essay No 16 2004. Go on, I dare you.

Grace....
may that party without the sin of lying cast the first stone at BOAZ.......
That is my point......
I've been around long enuf to know them from all sides G, they are all slippery sods, at different times. Dont criticize ME for 'their' ethics grrrr.... I'm just saying I look at the bigger picture than some 'stunt' or beat up or whatever.. That does not mean I approve of lying to the public. But seeing as they ALL without exception do it, either by direct statement or by strategic ommision.. the political playing field is pretty 'level'.
Your not REALLY suggesting one party is 'more honest' than others... r u ?

grace, numbat and others suggesting that critical thinking will show that Howard, Bush are really dishonest eg.

>> From my reading, it is the apparent absence of critical thinking
>> in electoral politics that both Wayne Sawyer, and Professor
>> Raimond Gaita (in my posting above) are concerned about. That is,
>> given the lies and distortions that are our daily fare from the Bush
>> and Howard administrations with respect to the war in Iraq, not to >> mention "children overboard" etc, how is that such lies are not
>> recognised and rewarded at the ballot box with the boot.

You appear to routinely ignore the history of politicians on the Left of politics in dealing dishonestly with the voting public.

I am really unhappy about the lack of care about truth evident in the current Federal Government. I expected better from them. In terms of honesty they are behaving little (the "little" is a concession to my political bias) better than I would expect from a Labor government.

If I want to lodge a protest vote against dishonesty should I vote for a party where dishonesty seems to be normal fare rather than something that has only become a normal tool somewhat recently.

Please take a moment to apply some of that critical thinking to the various Labor Governments and oppositions of recent history and then tell me that on the issue of honesty the choice is clear.

Well Said Robert....
you highlight that the voices of criticism are really the voices of vested interest and agenda ! Good for Peter... good for Paul.. they all have track records, sadly the most vocal of Bush/Howard critics seem to forget this.

Imagine the outcry if a teacher academic argued that English teachers needed to re-double their efforts to teach students how to vote because of the dishonesty of the Keating Government. Mabo, the republic, multiculturalism and the policy on East Timor were all wrong and evidence that voters could not think clearly. I wonder why it never happened? Is it because the elites have their own agenda to run? Whatever the case, there is no room for political indoctrination on such controversial issues.

Kevin D

Kevin,
There would be lies, (or avoidance of the truth), and there would be indoctrination, which is slightly different. In the case of teachers, they would carry out forms of indoctrination or autosuggestion almost daily, as it is almost an essential part of teaching (eg teaching the alphabet though rhyme is like autosuggestion or mental programming).

In the case of politicians, there is a good example of attempts at brainwashing within speeches by President Bush at a web-site titled “Dubya Speak” . Within a speech, President Bush can go on a “freedom-fest”, or a “liberty-fest”, or a “nukyular-fest”, where he will repeat words such as freedom, liberty, or nukyular (nuclear) over and over. (NB. This has become of concern to some, as it may be that he believes freedom or liberty can only be won through a nuclear war. )

Of course teachers will repeat the same words over and over many times to get the students to remember something, and in effect they become masters of indoctrination. (Other people in society have become expert also such as feminists, who will continuously repeat words such as “choice”, “women and children” etc. like a type of mantra)

So if someone wants to indoctrinate the younger generation, teachers would be an ideal tool for that indoctrination. This is why I consider it essential that parents can at least get hold of the curriculum to see what is going on.

Unfortunately all my attempts at seeing the school's curriculum for my daughter have failed to date.

I'm experiencing some form of disconnect here - maybe there are differences between the States, between public and private, religious or secular, but I don't recognize my local school here at all.

>>Unfortunately all my attempts at seeing the school's curriculum for my daughter have failed to date<<

Maybe it is because it just the local public school, but I can walk in at any time (after the usual courtesies of course) and sit at the back of the classroom and listen. What I have invariably found is that the teachers are hard-working, conscientious, caring and dedicated - and, I would suggest, badly underpaid for the responsibilities we place on them. They are also good-humoured when dealing with parents, but above all are desperately concerned for the welfare and progress of the children.

I couldn't even guess at their political leanings from their demeanour in the classroom. So the rather colourful picture painted in previous posts is a complete mystery to me. There may be some value in finding out why there is such a wide disparity in standards of conduct.

Not be shown the curriculum? If I get any of them started on the topic, they don't stop.

Kevin,
With $80 billion spent on welfare, out of the $100 billion in personal income tax collected, we may be closer to that “unthinkable”, than you think.

Pericles,
This is at a moderately large state high school.

At primary school, it was very different, where basically the students were being taught what I was taught many years ago. Very little has changed. I used to be invited by a female teacher to sit in her class while she taught, and to help out. This was because there were hardly any adult males at the school. They used to invite men from the local cricket team, RSL, local companies, anywhere to get adult males into the school.

However it is totally different at the high school, where I found that they don’t want the parents to ask too many questions. I think that the course material changes so often, that the teachers don’t really understand it themselves, and some of it is just so ridiculous that they don’t want to talk about it, particularly with a parent of a student.

Wayne Sawyer's point, as Kevin D has subsequently acknowledged in his postings, is that critical examination of the language used by politicians has a place on the English curriculum. Let's be clear about this; as an academic working in the field of English curriculum, Sawyer did not advocate that teachers should tell their students to vote Labor. Rather he asked teachers to question the influence critical literacy has gained in English over the last decade on the basis that we have a government that can be complicit in the introduction of balaclaved men and alsation dogs on the waterfront and call it 'work place reform', that can - against all advice - persist with the fiction that children 'were thrown overboard',that desperate people fleeing civil war in countries where Australia does not have official representation are 'queue jumpers'; that vilifies asylum seekers as 'illegals' but then ends up having to allow the vast majority refugee status as their claims are subsequently found to be legitimate; that finds it is possible to avoid admitting a lie by distinguishing between 'core' and 'non-core' promises.

These constitute abuses of the English language and compel serious thought as to how we see and wish to project ourselves as a people and as a nation. The party political issue is secondary to one of 'truth' in public life and the 'values' of the nation.

Contrary to what has been suggested in many psotings about this issue, at the heart of Sawyer's argument is the need to look at two sides of an issue. As an editor, he was expressing a personal opinion - as he is fully entitled to do - in which he made clear that he is troubled by recent developments in Australia. His point was that issues such as those I have identified above have been, for a variety of complex reasons, subsumed by the good news around interest rates and employment, as well as the government's initiatives in the area of border security. Sawyer's point is a serious and compelling one: is a state of affairs in which one type of story (ie government triumphilism) dominates public discourse one that is ultimately in the best interests of the nation? This goes well beyond party politics.

Let me throw back to Kevin Donnelly and Minister Nelson the erroneoeus suggestion that Sawyer does not want to, and moreover does not want Australian students to, look at two sides of the issue. Which of these, taken from Sawyer's editorial, did not occur: government support for Patrick's introduction of balaclav'd security guards and dogs on the wharves? the distinction between a 'core' and 'non-core' promise? the suggestion that children were thrown overboard when advice had not been provided that would confirm this? involvment in Iraq on the grounds, against the advice of weapons inspectors, that there existed WMDs, and that the war had nothing to do with regime change?

To shift away from the thrust of Sawyer's series of probing rhetorical questions about these questions in his editorial in order to trumpet government achievements in the areas of employment, interest rates and border security, as Kevin Donnelly and the Minister have done, does not constitute opening up two sides of a debate. To the contrary, it is a deliberate attempt to down play or silence the substance of Sawyer's argument.

The Australian public is caught between a rock and a hard place. Of course most of the public can see through the misinformation (including lies, indoctrination etc) of the coalition, however the other parties at the last election were not offering anything of substance. A lot of rhetoric, but no substance.

“I will lead this great nation. I will be the best politician ever. I will make this country really, really great” etc. This type of rhetoric was about all the public was receiving from the opposition parties. That and mentoring programs for boys, and two free books to read to the children at night.

So the public choose the rock for another three years. Might be different next time if Howard remains attached to Bush, and the neocons begin to ratchet up their obvious attempts at taking over the US, and many other countries. I have heard that even Bill Gates is presently taking his money out of America, and investing it elsewhere

I find it ironic that in Sawyer's editorial he refers to the Howard Government as 'Stalinist', while stating we should make critical literacy more 'direct and deliberate'. This is, perhaps, another way of saying our students would be subjected to propaganda, destroying the very democratic rights that Sawyer seems to be crusading for.
It is also strange that Sawyer sees critical literacy as failing in this country merely because the Howard Government has been re-elected. I suppose there is no chance the Liberals were voted for by the vast majority of Australia for any legitimate reasons? Sawyer ignores common sense on this issue.

Culture war or slanging match? - Part A
Except that it was published in a national newspaper, there would be good reason to disregard Donnelly's article "Cannon fodder of the culture wars" because he, like many of those who comment on but do not practise teaching, reverts to "name calling" in the absence of an argument.

The name calling begins in the first paragraph. Australia's English teachers are the leaders of the "politically correct" army. "Politically correct" is a name you call when you couldn't be bothered analysing the flaws in the current doctrine; in this case of English teaching. It actually means nothing; since every politician believes they are politically correct otherwise they would not stand.

Donnelly's assertion that we are being doctrinally invaded from beyond our shores smacks of the "Yellow Peril" paranoia. Fortunately, it has no substance. The average English teacher is not only greatly resistant to American propaganda, but is usually too busy to bother to entertain it anyway. Whether such an assertion has any grounding in truth is probably fairly irrelevant to Donnelly, as it is to those who he lauds.

Regardless of whether Sawyer is right or wrong, a democracy is the place where people have the right to elect stupid leaders, but, more importantly, others have the right to criticise that election and teachers have a duty to promote a critical analysis of the reasons for the election. Donnelly's assertion that democracy is about silently accepting a mandate reflects a rather hollow understanding of democracy; one that suits tin-pot dictators who care little how the mandate was accomplished. The cry that "you should accept the umpire's decision" has a kind of popular resonance but has nothing to do with what is valuable in a democracy

Culture war or slanging match? Part B
The name-calling continues with "elites who seek to control Australia's cultural agenda". Once again, if you don't have an argument about how teachers actually work in the classroom, simply label them as something which you think most people will dislike.

In fact, teachers use things like the "children overboard" propaganda not because it has overt political bias in any direction but because it is wonderful "grist for the mill" - a perfect example to students of how a tin-pot dictator might manipulate the public service and the media to convince people of a particular point of view, regardless of its truth. As teachers, we would hardly pass up such a wonderful resource, complete with scads of commentary from left and right. Our motive for examining the affair is nothing to do with a cultural agenda and all to with being good teachers.

One wonders, from the final paragraphs, whether Donnelly ever intended his article to be anything more than an elaborate form of sledging. In a sorry attempt to discredit literary criticism (now euphemistically labelled "social-critical literacy") Donnelly uses an extreme, completely fictional example. Are we really meant to believe that this is representative of the average English classroom? And what is the data that is the evidence to prove that reading and writing are no longer central to English teaching?

I guess that even "the drover's dog" could take any piece of mindless "edubabble" and cite it as evidence that we are out of touch with reality. It is considerably harder to make a decent analysis of what is working and not working in English classroom and what is needed to improve reading and writing, something we do every day.

Regardless of who wins elections and how conservative the electorate may become, the imperative remains to teach students to view the world critically so that democracy can continue to survive. Donnelly would like us to be silent, but thankfully we will not be silenced and we will encourage our students to voice their criticism

i was glad to hear someone was interested in taking this crap out of the teaching system, but i don't think you'll ever get the power to do it. we need to make these educationalists who are responsible for this mess, and sue the pants off'em for souring the very vital learning experience for this generation, by forcing them into donning political bias.
yeah!