That's lovely Paul, very touchy-feely and I certainly feel much more confident that our children are in good hands when it comes to education.

A couple of problems though. Our kids are leaving school less literate than they've ever been, I've had young people apply for jobs with me who can barely spell their names, and they've left high school with quite good grades. I don't care that all your manipulated little studies show how great our education system is. I've got to live with it in the workplace and it's not meeting the mark.

The other problem you've got is your pin-up boy Sawyer who admits in his editorial that English teaching has failed because Howard was re-elected. So on one hand we've got you saying how rosie everything is, and on the other we've got your main mouthpiece saying what a failure you all are. Which one is it?!!

Congratulations on a fantastic riposte Paul.

Professor Wayne Sawyer has dared to express a point of view to English teachers quite capable of making up their own minds, and to raise questions about an issue that lies at the heart of maintaining an informed citizenry: ie. education's role in equipping students with the capacity to question and critique, rather than blithely to accept, assertions put forward by people, regardless of their political persuasion or context. This ideal is, after all, not new. Socrates, Aristotle, Cicero and, yes, even Shakespeare espoused the fundamental need for individuals to understand and critique the power of language to illuminate, to question, and even to distort and obfuscate 'truth'.

It seems that Editors of newspapers may express their views to which readers can respond as they wish, but an Editor of a professional journal is not allowed to exercise his democratic right of free speech to an audience quite capable of making up their minds, without the personal abuse and threat to which he has been subjected.

Clearly, there are some in our community who take hysterical exception to Professor Sawyer's position and employ ill-informed personal vitriol as a means of attempting to silence debate. There's always the 'Baxter' solution. Isn't that what we now do with people who don't 'fit in'? Long live our democratic principles, which include freedom of speech, and the right to dissent.

Dr Jackie Manuel & Dr Paul Brock

bozzie when you went to school could you program a computer?

"Long live our democratic principles, which include freedom of speech, and the right to dissent." It seems we're hearing this little catch-cry and variations of it on a regular basis these days. Nothing wrong with that, I absolutely believe in the views expressed. I just wonder where these people were during the 1980's and '90's when no one dared speak out on a whole range of issues for fear of being vilified or labelled rascist, stupid or worse.

Everyone knows the hammering given to anyone who said anything contrary to the politically correct ideology of the time. There has never been a period since Federation when free speech or the voice of dissent was more supressed with such vitriol and hatred.

Now that things are starting to swing back towards the centre, these cultural elites must be feeling a little bit insecure. Now they're demanding the rights that they denied others only a short while ago. Nothing wrong with that, but the hypocrisy is breathtaking.

No one is trying to stop Sawyer having his say. I'm just saying he's wrong. If you read his editorial there's no way he's arguing for critical, unbiased thought. He's saying that the majority of Australian people are brainwashed fools for re-electing the Howard government. His call is not for students to think for themselves, but to think like him. He deduces that people must not be thinking for themselves for if they did they would reach the same conclusions he has and Howard would not be in government. It's arrogant and insulting and it's a view that should not be let go through to the keeper.

Have you ever read any "Letters to the Editor" columns? Quite a bit of vitriol there sometimes about editorial comment, but I suppose that doesn't count? Newspaper editors aren't formulating education policies to teach our kids and young people. You can choose to read, or not, a newspaper. School students are a bit of a captive audience. If Rupert Murdoch did an editorial in one of his rags about how wonderful and marvellous John Howard was and how the people of Australia were obviously well informed, thinking people to re-elect him I can imagine the furore, the vitriol, the hate that would spew forth from these same people.

Kenny, I still can't. What's your point?

my point is computer skills are just one of the many skills that students have now when they leave school that students 25 years ago did not. Sure some things kids are taught are not the same skill level that you may have been taught but they have also been taught a great many things you were not taught or did not ever exist. Children come out of high more life ready then ever. We need more teachers (come on Kev) and more schools and to help pay for them we should have a levy like Medicare.

Another point to mention is the failing of school systems not just the curriculm. Teachers, from my knowledge, arent even allowed to discipline the students anymore in fear of being prosecuted by parents or the school. Sure, you can give multiple detentions but what does the kid learn from that? Shouldnt there be harsher punishment for those who disrupt class? Im not saying beat the kid to black and blue but rather embarass them enough as to shame them not to do it again.

In a classroom environment of adolescents, hormones raging and all, I cant imagine a teacher actually being able to teach anything critical and have kids listen and learn.

Yes, I agree that the curriculum isnt teaching kids to think critically. Kids tend to be "brainwashed" by hollywood, television, music, etc and become disinterested and I think that the education system has been dumbed down inorder for the students to pass. Am I being too cycnical?

Therefore, for teachers to truly teach, there needs to be a level of discpline and respect rather than a different curriculum. Get control of the kids first! Let the parents get control of their kids! Stop letting parents interfere with school discipline.I know from personal experience no parent likes their kids being told off by teachers but sometimes they deserve it.

No chav you're not being cynical. These days schools don't want to fail kids because it's bad for their self esteem! It's pretty bad for anyones self esteem to be treated in such a patronising manner either.
Kids don't get discipline at home, they don't get it at school, and ultimately they don't get it from the courts either. Another example of the decline of our society.

Dear Paul,

You ask:
Why is Professor Sawyer depicted as “peddling political views” when Donnelly’s latest book was published by, and available online through, an overtly political group in the Menzies Research Centre?

Why have repeated attempts to publish comment, such as in “Letters to the Editor” in The Australian, about Donnelly’s attacks on AATE failed, and he is repeatedly given prominence?

Yes, my book was published by the Menzies Centre and it clearly argues from a political (and educational) perspective. Unlike Sawyer, who argues that English teachers have failed in teaching ex-students the 'right' way to vote, I do not argue that it is the role of the classroom teacher to point out the faults of the Howard Government.

Secondly, I've noticed quite a few letters in the OZ critical of my opinion piece. A couple from those close to the AATE.

If political questions are going to be discussed in class, both sides should be presented with equal competence. Then students can form their own opinions. As it is, Left wing teachers are trying to brainwash their students, [ a betrayal of trust] and I'm very pleased to see that one of them has found, that in this instance,this strategy has "come a gutser".

Is it any coincidence on the day that the PM and the Education Minister condemned Wayne Sawyer in Parliament, Mr Howard said (words to the effect) that for too long in this country we have denied people the right to say what they think?

Such prime ministerial double-speak attests to the validity of the central thrust of Sawyer's argument. A healthy democracy demands that the language of our politicians be closely and critically examined by citizens.

In light of developments on so many fronts over the last two years (the reigniting of abortion as a public issue, the grubby attacks on the integrity of Justice Michael Kirby, the public censoring of the federal police chief for remarks he made about the increased threat to Australians as a result of particpation in the war on terror, the removal of certain art works from Parliament House...)the PM's statement can only be understood as code for 'we'll silence those with whom we disagree, and trumpet loudly the views of those who think like us.

Hi Mark,

I wonder, just who is into censorship? After the editorial was posted for some months, after a bit of flack, the AATE has now taken the offending Wayne Sawyer editorial off the site. A free and open debate - I don't think so.

Since when has it become such a terrible thing to offer an opinion?

Much of the criticism of Wayne Sawyer's editorial rests on a very selective interpretation of its central message. As I understand it, the primary purpose of the editorial is an argument about the importance of critical literacy in the English curriculum, and a reflection on the fact that the last Federal election was fought around many issues in which language was used to manipulate the opinions of the electorate - for example, describing 'asylum seekers' as 'illegal immigrants' or 'queue jumpers' presents a qualitatively different view of a group of people which enables political parties to exploit the nuances of language for their own personal gain.

Accusing English teachers of political brainwashing is something of a contradiction in terms. There is a world of difference between teaching students how to think and teaching students what to think. Professor Sawyer's editorial is concerned with the need for the former to occur in our classrooms. As a future English teacher, I am saddened and disappointed by the way in which the media has managed to offer its own opinions on A/Prof Sawyer's editorial without considering the nature and value of his argument. I suspect that the media's response to Sawyer's editorial is emblematic of profound lack of critical literacy skills on their behalf!

The criticisms hurled at Wayne Sawyer’s article in the past few weeks have focussed on the fact that he declares his political position upfront and with passion. What these criticisms fail to recognise is that his article is an editorial in a professional journal. As such, the writer has every right to express his opinion; indeed, that is the function of an editorial. And by stating his position, he does readers the courtesy of allowing us to place ourselves vis a vis that position in his argument. There is nothing covert here.

His opinion is NOT that we should indoctrinate our students with liberal leftist ideas, but rather that we need to examine the development of the critical literacy of our students. The profession needs to consider its effectiveness given the fact that the electorate chose to ignore the lies that were promoted by the current government (and these he cites specifically) in favour of a perceived economic benefit. The study of English has always had the mission of the development of social and ethical values. And Sawyer’s point is that there is no virtue in being critical, if that is divorced from humanity and the social good.

But aside from the subtleties of argument, the clearest evidence that Wayne Sawyer does not support any form of indoctrination despite his strongly held political views is that the article does not finish in a strong statement of his policy, but rather with a series of questions. These are flung to the profession for its consideration, such questions as
* “Has English failed not only to create critical generations, but also failed to create humane ones?
* Does a critical literacy need to become more direct and deliberate in its ethics and its critical stance?
* Does it mean having to have a deliberate and conscious ethical and critical agenda?
* Will we see a day when the potential values enacted through the study of English are made manifest?”

These questions are intended to open discussion within the profession, to further examine what teachers do to encourage a critical and moral citizenry, not peddle a party line.

Dear Kate and Eva,

Very difficult for people to rebut the points you make in defence of Sawyer; the AATE has removed the offending editorial.

Really Kevin? Are you sure the arguments made by Eva and Kate aren't just difficult to refute because they are completely sensible and valid points?
C'mon mate! I'm sure you kept a copy of that Editorial around - if not I would be happy to post or email you my copy. Seriously, just have a go!

* Explain to us why an Editor has no right to express an opinion in an Editorial.
* Explain why you think it is better for Editors to keep their politics a secret so that readers have no way of putting their views into context?
* Explain YOUR version of Democracy, where Education and Politics DON'T MIX.
* Explain why 'brainwashing students' is always assumed to be a lefty/liberal/hippy/greenie agenda, despite the fact that teachers in Australia make up perhaps the largest and most ecclectic workforce in the Southern Hemisphere (our students should be so lucky as to have all those different views represented in their everyday learning! Or is it better they just grow up only knowing about what Mummy, Daddy and the media tell them to think?)

And lastly, please, please explain why you are so intent on demonising teachers and setting the aims of education AGAINST the aims of parents and the community.