As a junior academic in a relatively new university, with previous backgrond in high school education in addition to my academic disciplines, and many years spent in university administrations, I have a few thoughts on this subject.

Unless, and until, funding is targetted to quality education training, most universities will continue to focus on doing the things that attract income. Since they were cut adrift, finding sources of funding has become a full-time occupation. The staff time dedicated to finding funding at most universities costs a significant chunk of that income.

It is mere political rhetoric to say that universities ought to be training their own staff better. Each university I have been involved with over the past decade and a half has required their staff to complete education training as a pre-requisite to advancement and/or continued employment. They have been training their staff.

It is trite to say 'universities have the staff, they can use them' without explaining how that shoudl be funded. FedGov loves ot point at others and say 'thou must do ths for your crust', and then not provide any more money and resources to meet the new impost. University education departments are already fully occupied with teacher training and their research programmes. Where's the money for the extra staff going to come form?

Most universities have created a separate training and quality group within their administrations to address staff training and so forth. They take a hit on administration with a view to ensuring a good result on the quality audits. Unfortunately, niversities that perform poorly, for whatever reason, are punished instead of being given targetted assistance. Once on the downward spiral, how does FedGov expect them to pick up? By diverting funding from other areas.

People joke about academica living in 'Ivory Towers' divorced form reality. Sadly it is the political machinery that lives in some wierd space-time vacuum of unlimited hours and multiple use dollars.

After having studied in the UK then assisted with University teaching in Australia as a postgraduate student I conclude that there is far too much 'teaching' being done here already. I was quite stunned to find the University bookshop full of typed lecture notes for every course unit. It seems to be quite possible to pass a degree without either entering the library either in person or online.

Universities should be about providing the minimum information required for a student to do their own learning and research not spoonfeeding which seems to be the case. In some ways the best students are those whose lecturers provide the least information as they have to put in more effort. The best people to learn from are those who are enthused by their subject. It is already a problem in schools that those who know and love their subjects and can apply them in real world situations are put off teaching by having to study for years followed by a pay cut. There is a good case for staff professional development in Universities - as already occurs - but the last thing we need is teacher training.

I personally think that the problem lies within the curriculum and the way it is set up and presented and not with the teachers. Sure there are some teachers who should not be allowed to do face to face teaching during certain periods of their life, but given what many teachers have to deal with, its no wonder that they often look bad. However I don’t believe it is necessarily their fault.

When my children started school I remember sitting in a class room full of parents where we were told that every class was like a composite and that every child worked to his or her own ability. It sounded good. What they didn’t say was that they gave them all the same worksheets and books and that these books only provided them with a very small space so they are very stifled. What they also didn’t say was that the majority of the level presented to them would be at their age level not their ability level and that they would be restricted.

The system is set up so that students are boxed into grade barrels and the lids are put on tight and that doesn’t allow them to show what they know or to grow.

Teachers are no different to students they get boxed by the same methods and practices

Firstly, the idea by the author that Australia can't compete with American or European universities is blatantly untrue. Anyone who has been near the University of Melbourne recently will have seen the massive signs everywhere that it was ranked number nineteen in the world by a study done by the Guardian newspaper from the UK. Now I haven't gone into that study, but if we accept it as true and then consider the combined populations of the U.S. and Europe, then Melbourne Uni. isn't doing too badly.

As to everything else, well, there's so much to cover.

Some of my thoughts in brief:

It's not hard to sit through some lectures and then engage in a discussion in a tutorial. No, you don't get to do an activity, and yes, sometimes you just have to listen to someone who knows a lot more about a topic before you get to make a noise.

At the tertiary level, separate vocational learning from academic/self-interest learning. Then again, these days, the latter is shown decreasing levels of respect and relevance. We simply don't have a culture that really values learning.

The education faculty (at least at Melbourne Uni.) has some of the worst teaching staff in the university (it also has some really good teachers). It also has some of the people least in touch with the real world.

People often complain about the education system, but in reality, are completely hostile to the idea of having any direct responsibility for any of the usual hot issues (eg. funding or discipline). That's always someone else's problem.

We supposedly want excellence in education, yet are completely hamstrung by egalitarian ideals that actually lower the bar rather than raising it. The tall poppy syndrome, as elsewhere in our culture, rules: we'd rather have everyone reduced to the lowest common denominator rather than appear to be elitist in any way.

Shorbe, if our 'culture doesn't value learning' why not?
I would suggest that any culture that cannot learn is actually a non-culture, for culture means to grow, and in order to grow one must learn.

I suggest that learning is not and ought not to be presumed to be compatible with the status quo. For young people, the way things are is that they are seen as cogs of industry, not leaders, and hardly not learners.

After reading Isaiah Berlin, I see that there is a question of freedom at stake here. Notions of 'positive freedom' (to choose, to become, to identify with) are demanded from young people and enforced by materialistic models of relationship and work. The present English syllabus presumes this capability to chose forms of communication and to identify with characters. This is said to be intelligence, however it is really seeking to cater to industry demands for the kids to me malleable to others' needs and purposes.

At the same time, the limitations necessary for 'negative freedom' (to live free from entrapment, interference) are denied or harmed by too much aggression and neglect. Aggression such as is promoted by the teen-music fantasies and lyrics. Neglect as occurs when there is no adult presence to arrive home to, requiring and providing honest, empathetic sharing (of meal, life, thoughts, difficulties).

The limits necessary for human learning and growth characterise ordered and respectful communication in 'right relationships'. Also, they lead to the possibility of creative action.

What if kids learnt to listen to their elders, and to guide their elders to tell them what they need to know? What if they are assisted to place themselves in their own memories, and to find meaning in the places where they come from and now belong?

Perhaps then schools would not be needed so desperately as child-carrals, and they would become places of community culture and enculturation.

The question that i ask is 'are schools the best way to educate and socialise our children.

We'll always need people to impart knowledge and skills (and this could include teachers) but information technology (which includes computers) may outstrip traditional modes of instruction.

Just a thought.