I am sorry ... in reducing the length of my comment I may have removed my solution ... or failed to explain it.

Among the suite of actions I propose for schooling is to reduce the age of compulsory schooling to, say, 13. The elemental fact is that many kids respond poorly to compulsion and we, with our blithe spirits, convince ourselves that it is good for them and that it will 'make' them. The world of work has changed so much and the society has changed yet we are stuck with an inflexible monolith that hides self-interest.

We can do better for them and with the dollars - the risk of course is that governments will withdraw the funds and use them for something else ... my key obective is to return reponsibility to the student and their parents ... I believe that coerced learning is a poor lesson.

aka-Ian

Congratulations, Don, on a comprehensively thoughtful article. In reply to Rosie, I must say that there is more than one type of 'ivory tower'. The other type consists of those, regardless of socio-cultural background, who do not consider an issue from a position of objectivity. While, I agree that education should cater for children such as your son, Don's article was less specific, considering education from a base level for all - including your son. Firstly, as Don pointed out, education is not solely an academic persuit, as per "Gardner's 8½" intellegences, and academic pursuits chiefly cover two of these. Does your child possess quantities of the other 6½? There are ample examples of people lacking in some of the less "academic" intelligences, whose contribution to society is questionable.

Secondly, your "poor" son is somewhat higher up on the equality ladder than many. Assuming that you don't live in a "ivory tower", I am sure that you are aware that there are still exceptionally "bright" children who are not able to enter University because of financial or other restraints.

I, too, am forced to pay University Education costs, and I, too, agree that these should be free - for everyone - not just your son. I come from a background where both my home life and school experiences were abominable due to myriad circumstances involving both a birth defect, bad teachers and an irrational maternal figure forcing me to leave home and school at a very young age. I am now an HD student! The point is that there are many with even worse backgrounds - I was lucky.

Don's article highlighted the general rather than the particular, discussing futuristic directions for evolving educations domain towards creating a more equal and school-ready population, attempting to improve perceptions of children's significant others (i.e. caregivers). Parenting education and parental involvement in schools as well as programs such as the "Volunteer Schools Program" are moving education towards this goal. May the trend continue into the future!

Ah! Now I see. Yes, aka-Ian, you have a point. We assume that more years of education must be better than fewer years, but that won't be the case if the student is browned off or badly situated. Dropping in and dropping out ought to remain a possibility - and in Australia, broadly speaking, that has been the case for a century. Universities will take people in as mature-age students, focussing on what they have done (and can now do) , rather than on their HSC result. As others have pointed out, we develop various capacities as we grow older.

We all do. Even those who do well at school and university have a lot of other capacities to develop, as Basil pointed out.

My starting point in all this is the search for a true basis for equal respect in a democracy of equals. Education is not just school and university - it is (now) available in all sorts of ways at all sorts of ages. I think this is a good thing!

I entirely agree with Don's main point. The idea that some people are 'bright' and everyone else isn't is a conspiracy by those of us who are academically gifted to define that as intelligence to the exclusion of other types of ability. Academic intelligence is not always transferrable outside the formal context in which it is exercised.

To address the problem we need, firstly, to find out at a much earlier stage what each child's potential strengths are. Then we need to guide the family towards educational opportunities (and make sure they are available) that will capitalise on those strengths. This will require a much more diverse educational system than the 'one size fits all' one we have all grown up with.

I’m fully onside with Don’s general thinking, and with some other comments in this forum. Yes Basil, I can see there has been some movement “towards creating a more equal and school-ready population”. But if we want “to improve perceptions of children's significant others (i.e. caregivers)” significantly with respect to Multiple Intelligences – as opposed to IQ Theory – then we must face the huge problem of satisfying the many people who insist on quantitative data and objectivity in assessments and planning.

Gardner’s theory is qualitative: it focuses on different kinds of intelligence. The traditional view, epitomised by IQ theory, is quantitative: it centres on measuring the amount of intelligence of an individual in comparison with other people’s. The prevailing assumption is that if you can’t measure it (preferably along a single continuum) then it is just airy-fairy. This is the thinking behind all the cries for school reports to give marks, position in class, etc. It’s also the essential thrust in government testing programs across all schools in at least some States.

Quantity versus quality – an age-old point of contention. It’s extremely complex and I don’t have any solution as yet. But if a debate about the nature of intelligence can be promoted through all of our society there might well be some progress.

"How do we get there? My advice is by talking it up and encouraging everyone, adult or child, to become a real person with interests and developing talents."

Don I think this is wise advice. One way of developing talent (and locating it) is through healthy competition. I think I see your tension with the idea of too much emphasis on "winning" and school "dux" and I was once very anti-competitiion. Tensions like this plays out in school grounds with winners of school events often being "put in their place" by students of lesser ability in that particular area. A lot of the negativity towards competitiveness has to do with attitude. Bill Bowerman the renowned (you have never heard of him have you?) coach and some of my own life experiences changed my mind. Bowerman is an athletic's coach who taught that it is not about winning but trying to run faster than the others. He frowned upon talented tactical runners who just raced to win. He argued that the athletes goal is to be the best that they can and as a consequence the winner will bring out the best in others. Put simply, competition is really about helping each other do our best. Have you ever noticed how some USA athletes and entertainers who have finished first clap along with the audience when being awarded their prize. It looks as if they are being big-headed yanks and clapping themselves but it is an American tradition to honour the other competitiors and fans who have made their success possible and meaningful. For a student competition can be a good thing and help develop and locate talents.

This brings us to the talented child of Rosie and the likely lad/lass who doesn't "give a s@#t about education an' all that useless crap" and the problem of equality and fairness. How do you convince the likely lad/lass that education is important when the Australian people (their parents) keep voting for people like John Howard who refuses to invest decent amounts in educating even the brainy ones (unless they are rich)?