I like the sentiment of your article, David. Freedom and autonomy are integral to the motivation to write and critique representations of human life.
It is apparent that literature comes from specific contexts of time and place. They bring with them limitations and ideas about what is and is not true.
When we have come to a time in our history when the mechanics of writing have become more important than its purpose, I weep. I see the primary purpose of writing comes from the human compunction to perceive communion and forgiveness, and to dance within the space provided by the freedom of faith. Think of Christ Jesus' act of writing in the sand, words we will never know, in response to society's compulsion to stone a woman caught in the act of adultery. (Story reference: Gospel according to John Chapter 8, verses 1-11)

Jesus' action in writing in the sand was a profound act of forgiveness, characterised by simplicity and peace. It also reminds us of our mortality: to bend down and touch the dust from which we come and to which we return.

I think when English texts are dissociated from moral questions and the human need for God, we make them sterile of their purpose and function: to raise the hope of humanity.

I must admit, being forced to study Measure for Measure under the banner of "Gender Justice" became nothing more than a regurgitation of feminist mantras and bastardisation of Shakespeare in order to make it "relevant" to this narrowing of the play.

Rather than study it properly, the narrowing destroys the love of the play and means that students are less likely to develop a profound love of it, just a utilitarian view that you only study it to bastardise it to "prove" the predetermined position (always politically correct).

Bastardising a book or play to support dodgy theory is a game, nothing more.

Using the Tempest not only as an imaginative journey but as a discussion of colonialism? Are you for real? How about reading and reflecting the Tempset as a great work of literature and enjoying it for its own sake? Giving students an appreciation and love of great literature is infinately preferable to polluting their minds with post-modernism sludge rammed down their throats in a slinky manner disguised as "critical thinking"

So great literature is reduced to this - a tool to teach communications skills? "The stated aim of the syllabus is "to enable students … to become thoughtful, imaginative and effective communicators in a diverse and changing society"." This is a vision from a soulless bureaucracy, not from a lover of literature who understands what a powerful force it can be for understanding and self-development, as well as enjoyment and enrichment of our lives.

I agree with Daniel. Knowledge does not equate with wisdom. Unfortunately, the problem pervades in universities: independent thought is often frowned upon in favour of intellectual conformity. It seems that learning and creative thinking are not important: what matters is that you get your degree so you can earn exorbitant amounts of money.

The truth is schools and unis are factories to prepare kids for jobs as best they can. Parents and family help the child turn into an adult. School Curricula should be well formed before it gets to the class room so there is more of the teachers time for teaching.

two more points lack of teachers has more to do with teach status and pay then anything else.
Lastly there is no such the as God and parents should be teaching morals not schools. Parents have been teaching their kids moral code well before public education come along (and the Christianity cult for that matter) and they should continue to. It should not be the role of government to lecture our kids in moral issue's.

In Australia, the UK and the US, schools seem to be the last bastion of fundamentalist socialism.

The Economist newspaper reports this week that:

QUOTE
THE step is small, but a revolutionary principle lies behind it. Since the beginning of the year, Denver's school district [in Colorado] has been running a new salary system, ProComp, which is implicitly based on a simple notion: that some teachers do their job better than others, and should be paid for it. America's teachers' unions have long considered this idea heresy, but a majority of Denver's teachers backed it after several years of pilot projects convinced them that the right kinds of performance would be measured and rewarded.
END QUOTE

Naturally, the same system should be extended to Australian teachers, and to Education Department bureaucrats - get rid of any who are so incompetent or obsessively ideological that they were promoted in the hope (applying the Peter Principle) that the further from the coal-face they are, the less harm they can do.

Shakespeare's Tempest was written around 1615, more than 100 years after Columbus has discovered the so-called "New World". Even so, while it contains strong political themes, it has nothing to do with colonialism in the 16th century.

Are students really supposed to envisage Caliban and Ariel as African or American natives, and Prospero as a slave trader?

Spare me!

Since the Year Dot 'School" has always been about conformity.
That is what "school learning" is about, to teach students to conform to be like their teachers.
Tell me anyone in this world who has succeeded by not conforming? No one
Tell me anyone who has not succeeded because they conformed. The vast majority.
All our leaders are conformists. All their followers are conformists.
Isn't school a wonderful place.

I agree that the reality is that school and university are both about getting the marks to get the good job. Learning is very much a side issue, despite all the talk that it's the main focus.

I'm also quite wary of all the post-modern nonsense. Personally, I think the past fifty to one hundred years in western thought and culture have been a decline.

I just think the problem with education in English speaking cultures is an overarching problem of willing ignorance, hostility and aspiration to mediocrity. I haven't found this amongst all cultures, however.

In my teacher training and experience in schools (both here and in the U.K.) I haven't really found many people who have much knowledge outside their area of speciality, and this seems problematic to me when we consider that most of the humanities and social sciences require a broad social and historical context. Personally, I found it a little strange when students would ask me why I talked about history or etymology in a psychology class. Losing marks for confusing effect and affect is only the tip of the iceberg. I haven't really met many teachers whom I would consider really well educated people, and I don't think I'd even class myself as one, even though I possibly know a lot more than many.

Also, I think there's a real problem with the knowledge students bring to the classroom. The most striking (if not absurd!) example of this was when, a few years ago, I was teaching a sociology class to sixteen and seventeen year olds in the U.K. These were English, middle class students, so (stupidly!) I assumed a basic level of knowledge. We were talking about Marxism and Communism and I mentioned that the U.K. was a democracy. One girl asked what a democracy was, so I put it to the class. After two minutes of silence, one offered, "is it something to do with voting?" Where do you start with that as your basis? I'm serious when I say that high school is 95% a waste of time.

Shorbe, dead on. I'm reminded of the T.V. host/comedian Jay Leno. He does a bit called Jay Walking. He takes a camera to the streets of Los Angeles, Ca. and asks people questions taken from high school texts on history, science, social studies. The level of ignorance is astounding.

I am also required to teach occasionally, adults. I find it especially difficult as they lack the ability to think critically. It's as if their brains are wired differently. Their level of frustration comes out in childlike behaviors, name calling, sulking, tantrums. Some days I wonder if it's worth it.

We haven't much future as a society if we don't do something to raise the level of ability to learn and think. The desire to learn, the need to relieve ones own ignorance, is an internally generated need, which must be inspired from outside the individual. If I ever figure out how to do that I'll be sure to share that trick with the rest of you.

Shorbe, I agree with you there on the problem of a "culture of mediocrity"... one need look no futher than all the intellectuals deeply discussing the Big Brother phenomenon to see that the priorities are naval gazing rather than educating.

Tutoring students in years 8/9/10 at my old school in Mathematics, I can see that students with excellent mathematic knowledge are being held back from higher level mathematics by a lack of basic understandings of timetables, resorting to the calculator for even the most basic of sums. Tutoring in English, I can see that basic spelling, grammar and ability to learn off by heart plague intelligent students. The amount of times I have crossed out "should of" rather than "should have" is probably something you can relate to, Shorbe. Simply, if a student can learn poems by heart at a young age, the confidence and self-assuredness that arises - as well as a strengthened memory - will set them in good stead. It also makes literature more than just a game with theories, and makes it a personal and profound thing, as something learnt by heart is something taken to heart.

It is true that literature makes you think, and it is true that "literature affects people, and effects thought" (the mnemonic given me by a year 7 English teacher to teach me the different between affect and effect). That doesn't mean that you teach people how to think, and teach people how it affects other people. You teach the literature, and it does that itself. Otherwise, you cheapen it.

Patty: I honestly wonder what benefit (other than providing free baby sitting) high school provides to most people and society. Most high school graduates can barely write an intelligible sentence, have a very narrow vocabulary and poor grammar (either spoken or written), have no understanding or love for literature, have little to no knowledge of the humanities in general or of national or international events, likewise for an understanding of our political institutions and processes, have opinions on scientific matters that are blatantly wrong, function mathematically (only with the aid of a calculator) at or below grade six level, can't speak another language, cannot play a musical instrument or express themselves adequately artistically in other ways (let alone have any knowledge of the histories of such disciplines), and can barely string together a valid argument (let alone have any idea about the history of thought).

I think we are indeed heading towards dark times. I believe it's important to have education at a personal or spiritual (in a religious or non-religious sense) level, as well as civic. However, it's also necessary economically. Clearly, the future for the developed world lies in a skilled and educated economy, yet what basis have we for one? How long will it be until Asians come to their southern third world neighbour for cheap holidays and shopping?

DFXK: I'm sure we could compare very, very long lists. I agree entirely. Learning by heart provides the foundation for other things. Bought instead of brought is my current pet peeve.

When I did my dip. Ed. I actually tutored some future primary teachers in grade six level mathematics, which was a bit of a worry...

To be pedantic, shouldn't "the amount of times" be "the number of times"? Presumably, you would (if you could remember) measure such times as a precise quantity. Amount versus number is another of my pet peeves.

I heard a news story on the radio that I want to share with you. I will be paraphrasing. The main statement was this, "Watching television before the age of two years old has a negative impact on the brains of children, a disruption of learning pathways. This impact manifests as the inability to focus attention, interference with comprehension, and contributes to behavior problems which are often labeled as Attention Deficit Syndrome."

How many of today's adults were plopped in front of the television as a way to keep them quietly entertained? How many more children have been subjected to this electronic babysitter?

That any of us have a brain left at all after decades of watching the tube is a testament to the resilience of the human brain.

When I work with my adult students the complaint I hear most often is that their brain hurts. This in response to the requirement that they concentrate on a new language skill. Any new task requiring the brain to open new pathways causes headaches in these students.

In light of the radio news story, it makes perfect sense.

Whilst I sympathise with the concerns raised in the article, I am surprised at the objection of some commenters to the notion of reading "The Tempest" via a discussion of colonialism.

Indeed, Columbus had "discovered" (the very use of the word itself raising more questions than it answers) the "New World" (ditto) a hundred years before, but ships were sailing through the Caribbean and discovering all sorts of things that were new to European eyes. Shipwrecks were very real AND very scary, and it would be tempting to think that magical forces would be able to rescue one in such a situation. So "The Tempest" could quite easily have passed for a type of "magical realism", in that theatre audiences could be led to believe that such places, creatures, and events did really exist.

One of the results of the constrictive curricula is that while we are fed increasingly large amounts of "knowledge" we do not increase the amount of wisdom which will enable us to use the knowledge.

We have seen the development of more deadly weapons, and yet we do not have the wisdom which will render them unnecessary.
We have more and more consumer goods (in the rich countries, and yet we lack the wisdom to see that most of the goods are not necessities.

The lack of critical thinking has resulted in us being led by leaders who have no vision.

The thing is that you cant 'teach a child to think', you have to 'ask them to think'.

Schools only ask our children to memorise answers that they say are right for the tests. Asking questions is not encouraged as you dont need any more information than what they give you for the test! It stifles students and they dont use their brains and if you dont use it, you loose it.

Shorbe, my daugher is in a Selective High school in Year 10 and she said that the teacher asked whether anybody knew the role of the Ombudsman and my daughter said she was the only one who put her hand up to answer and who knew who he meant and the role of the Ombudsman. She was also the only one who knew who her local member was, who the Mayor was etc., and there wasn't too many who really understood anything about the different Ministers, let alone their names.

Its really is quite frightening how disconnected our youth are with the environment, society and their life.