Kevin, I've attended both state and private school systems and can assure you that even private schools have some very leftwing teachers.

Rather than parents bailing kids out of "lefty" state schools it could be argued that parents are buying their children into private schools that enjoy higher prestige, better prospects for old boy/old girl career connections, and more recently increased funding from the Federal Government. As an analogy - it has all the gloss of a $4,000 42 inch plasma screen verses a tried and true 68cm TV.

If conservative education departments hold the the purse strings and teachers are often a little to the left, I think that provides a fairly healthy balance. Tipping to one extreme or the the other would provide a lop-sided education.

Speaking of balance, I would argue teachers should be biased to the left in order to combat the massive dose of right-wing bias students receive every time they turn on the tv.

Thats right, I went there.

At the start left and right wing have various meanings.
Let us say that left wing thinks their should be equality whilst the right believes some are born to rule and Creating wealth, which is, good for society. How else could fund education?
The problem is that education; the aim is immaterial for the moment depends on not only the teachers, but also on the social environment of the home. Are their books, is there stress, do the parents aspire to intellectual wondering? Kids from deprived background, cultured in anti school anti learning environment where aims of making money as oon as possible prevail, are more difficult to teach.

If classes have many pupils there is not opportunity for the time required for each individual student to be enthused by learning. Yes superhuman teachers are needed having empathy, patience as well as knowledge. One can train kids like Pavlov’s dogs; they will give the right answers to exam questions and be ranked accordingly. This of course has a price for teacher and kid. The kid does not become a citizen merely a cipher, whilst the teacher has little incentive to do more than prepare the class for testing. Thus if the child not the cipher is the object of attention funding must be such as to enable a child focus. More money devoted to educating future humans or weighted division producing elites and ciphers?
Presumably, if only for reducing the cost of policing, some conception of true and false must be imparted. To point out that the USA indulges in illegal wars is reasonable. To highlight this to the detriment of other examples is a bias.
Yes better teaching if we truly knew how kids learn. Yes better curriculum if we know the aim of education. Here I take it that the aim is defined as servicing the wealth structure with ciphers doing the slave work and the next level up concentrating on business. Mind you he may have been succesful because of the system as Prof. Stiglitz has shown for the world trade organizations, which advantage those already rich.

I commend Robert Thouless' Straight and Crooked Thinking (Pan 1962 and 2/6d then!) to Dr Donnelly (I would even consider breaching copyright, scanning it and e-mailing it to him!). Thouless described 38 dishonest tricks and Dr Donnelly used many in such a short piece.
Much of his argument relies on a most doubtful premise that teachers are influenced by the AEU or, indeed, any other 'great' influence. Most teachers would ask ‘what is the AEU?’
My hypotheses are that teachers come from widespread and probably representative backgrounds; most try to be professional and create discussion and debate where that is possible; and that most emit a sigh of relief when they have survived another day. The influences are the same as those on other citizens: the media (much of it right wing whatever that might mean); colleagues; and maybe a government or two. I am amazed that he thinks that the union views hold much sway at all.
These 'insidious' influences Dr Donnelly implies may even exist—and may even exist from both sides of the social debate—but the ones he has described do not really touch the consciousness of the teachers I know or have known.
Dr Donnelly may one day get tried for voyeurism as he continues to seek reds under beds, misusing history and dragging out quotes almost as old as 'reds under beds'.
Further, I am saddened that the media publishes such specious argument and the editors fail to correct such constructions as ‘Instead of addressing the reasons why …’ Possibly Dr Donnelly could return to basics for some clarification.

I am beginning to think Kevin Donnelly really dislikes teachers!

All the teachers I know really are just trying to do their level best to get the kids interested enough in issues to think about them- yes, that sometimes involves raising political issues, but in doing so, you might just get a spark of "hmm I wonder why its like that? Is it like that?" in a child. And surely that is worthwhile?

Thanks spendocrat, and although I'm not going EXACTLY there, it is a similar tangent I'm interested in...

I attended a public school at both primary and secondary level. I was then (and remain now) on the left side of politics, which is to an extent due to the teachings of my parents. My classmates were, in the main, quite emphatically NOT on the left side of politics, due in part to the teachings of their parents.

In my legal studies, economics and english classes, current affairs topics were canvassed and a range of views were expressed, predominantly by the students. While the students in my classes respected their teachers (for the most part) there weren't many teachers who could claim the kind of influence needed to inculcate their students with a radical Left world view, assuming that had been their intention. My grade four teacher who claimed that I needn't study advanced maths because I was "just going to leave school and marry a farmer", may have had a more sympathetic audience where I grew up.

We need to avoid this constantly floated idea that teachers are the only people "putting ideas in kids' heads", or that teachers exist separate to the communities in which they live and work.

I have to say that I like the idea of kids having their views challenged by a range of people in their lives, and one of the reasons for this is that it is only by challenging our views that we can refine our own value systems and strengthen our principles.

And let's not assume that teenagers aren't sophisticated enough to make their own judgements about issues, informed by a number of factors, just one of which is their teacher's opinion (nevermind the opinion of the teacher's union).

There was a lovely letter recently (I can't remember where it appeared) that suggested a possible reason why there weren't more right wingers in teaching. I laughed myself hoarse when i read it. The writer's thesis was because teaching is so lowly paid only bleeding heart lefties will enter it.
Kevin, my kids go to a co-ed, comprehensive public school. I have no idea what their teacher's politics are and I couldn't care less. Last time I looked, we lived in a democracy and people were entitled to hold whatever views they liked, yes, even people in teaching. At least in my kid's school any attempt at indoctrination is opposed to the ethos of secular, public schooling which is about diversity. In your beloved private schools, particularly church based ones, indoctrination into a world view is a stated part of the ethos. Such a part of the stated ethos, in fact, that our current govt is getting mighty nervous about what one set of publicly funded religious schools may be teaching; the Islamic ones. That's the problem with your ideal world, if you fund one lot of private schools that teach views you agree with, you have to fund others too, with views you may not like. How much healthier is it to fund schools that, at least in theory, are meant to teach not indoctrinate.

Dear Aka-lan,

Did you study comprehension at school? If you did, please re-read the first paragraph of the article:

Is Treasurer Peter Costello correct when he argues there is a left-wing, anti-American bias in our education system? Is Education Minister Brendan Nelson also correct when he argues that the 3Rs of reading, writing and arithmetic have been redefined as the republic, reconciliation and refugees? Judged by the actions of the Australian Education Union (AEU), the answer appears to be yes.

I refer to the AEU and not teachers! The speech I refer to is written by the AEU President, Pat Byrne - not a teacher.

Oh Dr Donnelly and I thought you were referring to the education system. What a silly conclusion to draw.

enaj, great post.

R0bert

'Is Treasurer Peter Costello correct when he argues there is a left-wing, anti-American bias in our education system?'
Yes, since he is the centre of (his) universe and 98% of Australia's population is to his left while 99.73% is less pro-American.

Kim

On what basis is 98 per cent of Australian people to the left of Peter Costello?

On the basis that you're stinky!

Hey, I use deodorant almost daily, I'm not French or British.

Seriously though, if 98 per cent of people really were to the left of Peter Costello (whose thoughts on the republic and reconciliation are fairly progressive) then we would be living in a Cuba, not Australia. Ditto with the 99 per cent of Aussies who supposedly dislike the Yanks.

I'd say the split between left and right of the Treasurer is pretty even.

t.u.s

Hey enaj, I'm with R0bert and love your post - shame it appears to have been completely ignored by KD. But then that would conflict with his narrow view and cause mental confusion.

KD certainly is ascribing a lot of influence to just one union. Methinks teachers have minds of their own and are doing the best they can in spite of government cut backs to the public sector in favour of the private one.

Support democracy and send your children to public schools for a broad education and a wide world view.

Yes well all this talk about education is well and good; but will it win us the ashes! Lets focus posters!. Warne's got a michelle on day one - and Boycott is worried;

so who cares about a few commie primary school teachers telling their kids Brendan Neslon is a bit of a lair or Mr Howard might have played fast and loose with the truth about WMDs, Saddams links to El Kayeeeeda, Osamas skin condition,Tampa, the GST, Tesltra what Peter Reith did. Teachers are people with veiws - kids can and do make very sound assesments about them.

My teachers told me I could do well at school if I tried and the Christian Brothers told me pre marital sex was bad - except when they did it with my mates. So there ya go - even in the sixties teachers were a bit suss.

And it is highly likely that the media, teachers, academics, sheet metal workers and lovers of the haggis will lean to the left when the staus quo is fundamentally conservative; in the event that the left holds sway we will see a resurgance of right wing bias in those domains; it's an internal social counter balance kind of thing; you can read about it in my forth coming book entitled - "it's an internal social counter balance kind of thing" (working title only).

Show me an unbiased teacher, journalist or academic and I'll show you a corpse. Well paid and highly superannuated as a rule but dead just the same.

The illogical, ratbag comments here from leftists to a reasonalbe article by KD mirrors the attitude of the AEU. In effect they say: we don't care what the parents think, we don't care what the facts are, we don't care that most Australians don't subscibe to our views, just let us rehash some tired old Marxist pretexts about equality. Of course the not-so-hidden agenda is class warfare (and then they have the hide to lecture us about tolerance and peace).

The desperation of the AEU (and the rest of the left) is clear for all to see: they wanted Mark Latham to be Prime Minister!

Crikey! mykah is hot under the collar on this one! gee willikers wot a spray for the left - and ratbags who occupy that land and awash with chardonnay, latte' and chatter.

Maybe the AEU reinforces left wing bias - after all they are a trade union - what do you expect a tribe of monarchists paying 'omage to Howard and Prince Brendan? people join unions for many reasons the least of which is that they susbscribe to all their policies; how many of us who vote really believe in everything those we vote for stands?

And I dont know that the AEU wanted Latham in the lodge as much as they wanted John Howard out of it (oops I forgot he does not live there )

My kids too sometimes come home complaining about over the top comments by teachers. We've encountered religious nuts, neo fascist bully boys and girls and yes, the evil lefty teacher. Our response is always the same - if you think they are wrong say so: and often they do.

I do not want teachers to care what I think; I dont want them to agree with what most of Australians think (how the hell you know what that is has me totally snookered) - i just want them to teach; throw in a few opinons sure but be prepared to be told your a drop kick if my kids dont agree.

Most of the comments so far have been fairly logical, some have been flippant and some irreverant BUT SO WHAT - even mine bear a resemblance to logic at times.

Things can be logical and you can still disagree with them, disagreeing with them does not make them illogical (there is a chapter in may book referred to in an earlier post on just that subject); it's headed - Things can be logical and you can still disagree with them, disagreeing with them does not make it illogical - to be published shortly by Readum and Wheap, a little known publishing house working from a disused factory in Ascot Vale.

Kevin D
Again you deflect. You also say:
"One might be forgiven for thinking that the AEU's prime responsibility is to raise standards by ensuring more effective teaching and greater accountability."

Surely you would be aware that the primary responsibility of a union is to represent the industrial interests of its members. There seem to me to be three options here: you could be lying, you may be misrepresenting the facts or you may be just plain ignorant. Perhaps you could enlighten us.

This seems to me to be the kind of intellectual deceit that Aka-lan was getting at: and you know it. Why you feel compelled to question his comprehension skills I cannot understand, unless it is just code for calling him stupid.

There is a perfectly good argument that Mr Byrne was not doing the primary responsibility of the AEU much good with his comments, but that is a more difficult and less marketable argument.

But then what can we expect from conservatives. The report released by the Minister should be an interesting read from this point of view.