DFXK, I like your post and clearly you have given some thought to the matter. I can’t however, agree with some of the things you say.

Also, since you think schools should have place a greater emphasis on spelling and grammar I shall release the most petty pedantry and say:
- “emphasis” not “empahsis"
- “compulsory” not “compulsary"
- “grammar” not “grammer”
- “bureaucrats” not “bureaocrats"
- a comma is required between “positive” and “which”
- fulfilment not “fulfillment”

Pedants like correct spelling and grammar, however they can get excessively pedantic and risk missing the point ;-)

While I think your emphasis only on literature written before WWII is a bit restrictive, I do think it’s disappointing that there is less emphasis on reading whole books in the curriculum. I think children should be encouraged to read more quality books. I don’t see what’s wrong with teaching critical theories and postmodernism as long as many other theories are also being taught.

Diggers seem enjoy a bit of partying on Anzac Day. I don’t see what’s wrong with a solemn ceremony followed by some rum!

I definitely agree with preserving heritage buildings, and I personally like traditional styles of building but you might find that it’s now too expensive to build in sandstone.

Why should people in de-facto relationships be denied assistance? This proposal would also terribly disadvantage children of de-facto relationships (literally creating a nation of bastards!) because children can’t force their parents to marry. Also, homosexuals aren’t allowed to marry in Australia.

I fear, Pedant, that my inability to spell properly is a product not only of my writing in a hasty way, but also of our current school system. It is a system in which my spelling has not been corrected in six years, whilst my English teachers are compelled - and I assure you, they do not wish to do so - to shove post-modern theories down my gullet. I am trying to rectify this damage, and I pedants like you to help me in this process.

Noos - perchance one of us scholars of Greek - I can assure you that post-modern theories are having a terrible effect upon the young. It had little effect on my Catholic boys' school, as we considered feminism, marxism and post-colonialism to be a load of toss, but the amount of young people I hear denying objective truth and avoiding arguments which they cannot win is startling, resorting to lines like "well, all opinions are equally valid", or "that's your perspective", or "that's not my truth". It encourages the ever-onwards march of Unreason.

The problem with the teaching of many critical theories is that you assume that they are all equally valid, and thus give in to the post-modernists.

A sandstone facade often gives the impression of a complete sandstone building, and does the job fine.

Having some rum AFTER the Anzac day celebration is fine... just wait a few hours.

De facto relationships should be given assistance and benefits when children are involved, but not when they arn't. Encouraging marriage must be balanced with protection our future.

DFXK, I went to high school 12 years ago and my English teachers corrected spelling and grammar mistakes. We did not do a great deal of grammar in English but I seem to have come out reasonably well – I can’t name some grammatical parts of a sentence but I can tell if a sentence is wrong and how it can be fixed. I attribute this to reading lots and lots and lots of books. However, as I really only liked to read fiction I didn’t even know what postmodernism theory was until I did Theories of Law at University and concluded that it was an interesting theory but all theories have problems (we looked at many theories). Which part of feminism theory did you think was a load of toss – the “all men are w*nkers” part (tee hee)? Or all of it? I thought much of it made sense (eg. referring to a person rather than a man when describing a human being and eg. that women should be paid the same amount as men for the same job eventually leading me to conclude that I was a liberal feminist focussed on formal equality) but I couldn’t agree with the “woman’s right to abortion” part – it seemed that women were seeking the right to oppress and kill unborn men and women while complaining that men were oppressing and killing women.

Pedant - I agree. I don't think feminism and marxism are a load of toss either.

I do worry that post-modernism results in a soft-headed view of the world because it encourages kids to neglect empirically demonstrable facts, which are objective - not subjective. It also takes no account of economics or human nature.

Kids are not learning how to analyse and critique arguments at all these days. If anything, they are being taught to analyse everything in terms of power relationships and minority marginalisation and to automatically reject classical theory and writing as evil - sort of being directed towards proto-marxism. They accept any alternative idea as credible based on emotion and revisionist readings of history. They have no idea of historical context and everything they read in English has to be relevant to their own life, times and values.

That some kids get through English classes without reading Thomas Hardy and Shakespeare because the people who set the curriculum are fearful that those texts may replicate bourgeois values is just terrible.

Take any of those classical English Lit writers - their use of our language is astounding and teaches you good English comprehension, and critical analysis through close textual study. You don't have to agree with how class is portrayed in the text but you do have to accept that it was a fact of life then.

Yes Thomas Hardy is fully sick ;-)