How to be an education Expert.

Have you ever wanted to know what is really going on at your child's school? Well, the good news is that whether you are a doctor, a journalist, a burnt-out ex-teacher or a prison inmate, you know much more about education than you think. Certainly more than serving teachers know.

That's why you too can enjoy the public acclaim and consultancy fees that come with being an education expert! Just follow this prescription for success and a government grant can't be far behind...

1. There is a crisis in education - your business depends on it. Take every opportunity you can to point out the crisis. Think of it as advertising.

2. Teachers are Marxists. Teachers who deny they are Marxists are postmodern Marxists, which is worse.

3. Postmodernism is a world-view that makes it impossible for people to see that you are right. Postmodernism causes teenagers to challenge authority and spell badly. Before postmodernism, these problems did not exist.

4. There aren't enough men in teaching. And by men, I mean real men, not these postmodern Marxist nancy-boys you see flouncing about our public schools (there's something suspicious about them...). Be careful not to make too much of this however, because men will demand the same salaries they can get in other professions.

5. Repeat after me: repetition works. Studies have shown that a claim becomes true if you say it over and over again without listening to any alternative suggestions. Studies have shown that a claim becomes true if you say it over and over again without listening to any alternative suggestions. Try to make your claims truer than everybody else's.

6. Paying for private education is a noble act of self-sacrifice, made by parents without any thought for the future social or material benefits that may result. Parents who send their kids to private schools love their children more and are better people than public-school parents. If public-school parents only loved their children more, they would be able to afford a private education for them.

7. Public schools are not failing enough students, and are heartlessly providing them with nothing but support and encouragement. Fortunately, there is lots parents can do to balance things up. Start by telling your child every morning what a disappointment they are to you, and provide them with years of shaming and criticism. This will result in a happy, well-adjusted individual ready to negotiate in the modern workplace.

8. Teachers are to blame for teenage delinquency, moral relativism, greengrocers’ apostrophes, multicultural policy and Leo Sayer's comeback. However, to give credit where it's due, we should remember that when young Australians make great achievements, or grow up to be decent individuals holding down a job and raising a family, it is all thanks to their parents.

9. In the modern classroom, students don't do any real work. Instead, they get given namby-pampy "assignments" where all they have to do is think of a topic, find research materials, form a logical argument based on the evidence and make a persuasive presentation to their classmates. But since they do all that without copying anything down from the blackboard, they haven't really learnt anything, have they?

10. The golden rule: If you ever let anybody think that Australian education is doing well, they won't give you any gold to fix it.

Mercurius, brilliant! couldn't agree more!

how dare those nancy chardonnay socialist teachers try and encourage critical thinking, because if they start to think critically they may pick apart those extraordinarily misleading workchoices commercials, that im guessing Dr Donnelly had a hand in?

The irony is astounding, Dr Donnelly criticises the QLD curriculum for teaching students 'to analyse texts in terms of how more dominant groups in society use texts to silence and marginalise others.' THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOUR FORMER BOSS MR ANDREWS HAS DONE! Sounds like the QLD curriculum is spot on in preparing students for modern Australia.

Mercurius is clearly a very bitter person. Although his 10 points are written from a cynical perspective there is a lot of things in them that are in reality quite true.

Most teachers are hard working people and do care for their students. I should know having spent over 40 years in the Government secondary school system. However, starting in the 1970's and over the last decade in particular there has been a serious decline in both the recognition of the value of the direct teaching of core things such as spelling and tables and the commitment to put in the effort needed for students to learn to spell and compute mentally.

Many English teachers do not view their main task as to give students the groundings of reading, writing, grammer, spelling, sentence and paragraph construction and how to write essays and reports. Rather many have gone down the postmodern path because it makes them feel far more relevant or important or whatever and to them it gives English an "inner meaning". However, that is all utter rubbish and the sooner we return to the situation where English teaching is mainly as a tool for other subjects the better it will be for our children.

Kevin Donnelly is a master of recycling tired ideas and today’s essay doesn’t disappoint. What his latest pot boiler comes down to is a claim that the teaching of literature across Australia has been politicised in a direction he preferred it wasn’t.

Literature teaching has traditionally been - in Donnelly’s own words – “based on teaching students to read with sensitivity and discrimination and to value the aesthetic and ethical value [sic] of the classics”.

But what precisely does Donnelly mean by “read with sensitivity and discrimination” and “value the aesthetic and ethical value [sic] of the classics”? He refrains from giving an answer – except in the negative. If we let students study what the classics might have to say about those nasty things called relations between the sexes, for God’s sake don’t let in feminist perspectives. Or if we must read about the oppression of the powerless keep Marxism at arm’s length. Or when we read about Shylock, do it for some intrinsic value but don’t go into all that background nonsense about racism.

Above all, when our students are studying texts keep it nice - let it be “literature for its own sake”. Don’t let the kiddies in on our little secret about how language can be used to silence and marginalise people. Don’t let them in on our little secret that there is more than one way to read a text. Never, ever let students ask the critical question: "Whose interests are served by representations of the world in texts?”

These are dangerous ideas best held close in the bosom of people we can trust like Dr Donnelly.

Two quick points. I left Andrews' office just after the last election and had nothing to do with the workchoice ads. Secondly, workchoice ads, while it is OK to analyse them in the classroom, are not, I repeat not, literay texts.

Kevin Donnelly says, "...workchoice ads, while it is OK to analyse them in the classroom, are not, I repeat not, literay [sic - how literacy standards are falling these days] texts."

I say they are literary [sic] texts. They have ethical subtlety, adopt an ironic style and use language to persuade us of a world view. Above all, they are works of fiction.

This entire topic and debate of the teaching of English in schools is academic. (!) Within the next fifty years kids are going to have lessons heavily influenced by Indo-Chinese capitalism. Post-postmodernism will be all the rage then and the kids at school now, they won't stand a chance of getting to use any of their clever "read the blank spaces" or "listen to the unspoken" skills to interpret the unintelligible. Oh no. They'll be too busy working in cheap Australian offshore call centres for big powerful Asian telcoms

But of course that's not what this text means at all, is it?

Of course not. You have to interpret what I've written through your own reader subjective analysis. Only then will you be able to perceive the truth about what I've just written.

But for the less able readers, who haven't had the privilege of a post-modernist education, naturally what this is all about is a narrative text entitled, "What I did in the holidays: A feminist Marxist interpretation of 'Waiting for Godot in Disneyland'".

Go figure.

And oh yeah, BTW, only fools can't see that what I really meant.

Mercurius top post Kevin baby it an't the sixies anymore maybe you dropped to much acid.

I fear that we tried: "but what does Shakespeare MEAN when he says "get thee to a nunnery"". The problem was that no one could agree on what he meant, that's why the system has shifted to ask the question about how the READER interprets the text.

People who are unable to see things from the perspective of others are known as sociopaths - I'm happy to have my kids interpret Das Kapital from a capitalist perspective if it makes them able to comprehend a world view different from their own.

History might be written by the winners, and literature (particularly a body of work we now view as "the classics") is too, in the sense that literature of other eras was largely for the consumption of those who were LITERATE.

There are more than a handful of kids asking in their English classes: "who cares what Shakespeare/Dickens/Austen/Plato thought?" Cultural ideals and attitudes towards a whole range of things have changed dramatically since Shakespeare's era (open to debate, in some cases), surely this is worth considering as part of an analysis of his text.

Kids DO put up their hands and observe that various texts (from 'Huckleberry Finn' to 'The Merchant of Venice') are "racist": why shouldn't teachers engage with curious kids about the changing values of society and its inhabitants?

Interpreting something from a Marxist or feminist viewpoint doesn't MAKE you either of these things, but it might make you reflect on your own values, even for just a minute. If it makes people happier, I'd be more than happy to ask students to interpret texts from a capitalist or existentialist or nihilist viewpoint if anyone really thinks that will make people happier.

Seether writes

>>I fear that we tried: "but what does Shakespeare MEAN when he says "get thee to a nunnery"". The problem was that no one could agree on what he meant<<

Perhaps it would help if we subjected Mercurius' bitter monologue to the same test, and see whether that furthers the discussion at all.

"We tried: 'but what does Mercurius MEAN when he asks us to evaluate the text from a postmodern eco-critical feminist perspective?'. The problem was that no one could agree on what he meant"

Nope. I thought not.

There is great value, in my view, in challenging preconceptions, interpretations assessments or judgements of any kind. It is, after all, what our brain is for.

What does concern me is that the value placed upon "seeing" a text through the eyes of a marxist, a feminist, an eco-terrorist or a muslim freedom-fighter, should not take precedence over viewing it through the eyes of its author, in its own timeframe and within a framework of the customs and mores of those times.

Only when those features are assimilated into some kind of basic understanding of the text can we properly ask students to change any one or more of those variables, and evaluate it from that changed perspective.

Stands to reason, dunnit?

The proof of the pudding would be whether kids who receive this sort of approach to education are actually more capable critical thinkers, question the system meaningfully and constructively (rather than: "What are you rebelling against?" "What have you got?"), and have a deeper understanding of the world.

Is that true of kids coming out of high school or even university today? I'm not sure that it is, not that I think there was ever some golden age of critical thinking either. To be quite cynical about the whole thing, I think most people get little to no benefit from school after about year seven, give or take. I think for the overwhelming majority, it's all a bit dull and painful, quickly forgotten, and it's a matter of just getting through it all and reducing the pain by having a laugh with their mates.

I suspect the bright will see through any ideological war being waged (because that's largely what this is), and for the rest, short of making party pies, fairy bread and chocolate cake wrapped in a napkin part of the syllabus, you're not going to improve the educational experience or relevance.

Just a note for those non-Queenslanders out there - as Queensland has school-based assessment, the examples of tasks old mate Kev gives here are not state tasks, but tasks constructed by individual teachers. As an English teacher in Queensland, I don't expect my kids to take a feminist/Marxist/capitalist/whatever reading of a text. I do, however, ask them to think about what sort of society the text came from and how that is reflected in the text.

In the old, non-critical system, I studied Shakespeare and came out understanding that the man knew a lot of words, could use rhyming couplets and had a knack for creating twisted tales. My students are now able to derive meaning from Shakespeare by learning about the social trends and political undercurrents that influenced his writing. Will they take on the role of a feminist and deconstruct Lady Macbeth? It is doubtful. But they will understand that Jews were despised (hence the character of Shylock in The Merchant Of Venice), and that Queen Bess left no heir so the issue of rightful inheritance of the Throne was important at the time of Macbeth. I find that my kiddies are much more interested in Shakespeare than I was at his age.

The new (and, dare I say, more relevant) system allows kids to think about the events and ideas that influenced writers at the time of writing. Gulliver's Travels was written in an age of exploration, 1984 in a time of anti-totalitarianism. Yes, they are viewed as a product of their time. They are not reduced to the level of 'cultural artefacts' - instead, they are elevated to the level of 'symbols of their time'.

I just love watching the Right get terrified every time that students are taught to read between the lines.

It's perfectly possible to understand and study the political context of a work, and still admire it for being a great story.

My favourite example is Macbeth. I learnt at school about how it was in some ways a blatant piece of propaganda in favour of the House of Stuart - James I of England and VI of Scotland had only recently come to power.

James I/VI was supposed to be a descendant of Banquo, who was murdered by Macbeth - the play was designed to bolster James I/VI's conviction that kings ruled by Divine Right. Macbeth was punished for his rebellion against the natural, God-given order.

Now, this does not stop me enjoying Macbeth as a great work of art. Shakespeare was such a genius that he could turn even a blatant suck-job into something that stands out four hundred years later.

Every piece of art or literature has a political context. Artists and writers have conscious and unconscious biases, and if we are to understand the world we must look deeper, 'between the lines'.

Why is the Right so afraid of school students analysing literature? Might they start asking too many questions?

David Jackmanson

Lets Take Over
http:/www.letstakeover.blogspot.com

What is the pseudo-Left?
http://www.lastsuperpower.net/disc/members/568578247191

Pericles, when viewed "through the eyes of its author", to which you suggest we should give precedence, my "bitter monologue" is neither bitter, nor a monologue. It is a light-hearted attempt to have a bit of a chuckle at Kevin D's expense by making a crude caricature of some of his arguments, while also satirising a few common prejudices that many hold, but are too polite to say out loud.

Thus spake the Author, contemporaneously with my creation, and through "the customs and mores" of my day. As you suggest, this view should take precedence over yours, or any other reader, including even Kevin D who may have found it amusing, offensive or some combination thereof. In a similar vein, Mel Gibson, the author of some recent widely-publicised comments, isn't anti-Semitic. He, the author, has told you so himself and has gone to seek counselling. That is the end of the matter. Isn't it?

But why then is there a "comments" feature for every article here in Online Opinion? Should we not just read each article in deferential silence to the authority of the Author, whose views takes precedence over all? Surely these comments that hang off each article have nothing worthwhile to contribute...since they cannot, even in principle (according to you), take precedence over the Author's "eyes".

The trouble is that, once the words are written and out there, they have moved beyond the author's control. The fact is that both you and Sniggid will continue to view me as "bitter" and my post as a "bitter monologue" even though I, the author, have told you otherwise. Not even I, the author, can dissuade you. And not even Mel Gibson can dissuade me that he's anti-Semitic. So much for your claim that the "eyes of the author" take precedence.

When we read literature, or opinion pieces, or posts about opinion pieces, or "texts"; they also read us. I don't know from where the bitterness arose that both you and Sniggid ascribe so blithely to me. You will have to look elsewhere for its source.

David: Firstly, I think it's not just the right who are afraid of people asking too many questions. I think that's simply a feature of anyone who wants to maintain power. It's in their interests to keep people dumbed-down, docile and dependent. A quick look at anything written by expats or residents of the Iron Curtain will show that. Pasternak, for instance, had to refuse the Nobel Prize for Literature because Dr Zhivago did not meet the approval of the powers that were. Personally, I think Dr Zhivago was pretty boring and quite overrated, but that's not the point.

Secondly, maybe not every piece of art or literature has a deeper political context. Maybe an artist paints a picture because he thinks the subject matter is beautiful. Likewise for a composer. Maybe a writer just wants to tell a ripping yarn. I know we could then ask, "but what is beauty? How is that constructed?" However, I think once we start down that path, we can't scratch our noses without trying to work out the deeper political significance. Maybe sometimes there isn't any.

Nietzsche said something along the lines of the irony of the English socialists was they're so desperate to do away with God so they could replace it with something to the same effect. I can't help but think there's often a similar problem with those concerned with cultural studies.

Murcurius, if your comment was written in humour, I have to wonder what a comment that expressed bitterness was like. I quite like the contribution of shorbe, far more balanced.

If English teachers want to have their students concentrate on hidden meanings, the power an author wants to exert over the masses or whatever, then that is up to them. However, that is not what I want from English teachers for my children and grandchildren. I want them, as first priority, to teach them how to read and write, to spell, to speak well, to be able to construct and write essays and reports, etc. Schooling after all is a service to the community and, I believe, most parents and grandparents would agree with me. Once that has been achieved there might be an opportunity for some English teachers to indulge themselves in the post-modern stuff that one can imagine you feel is so important.

When students can leave school competent enough to be able to express themselves clearly and correctly, in writing and in how they speak, then English teachers might be able to indulge themselves in questioning the intent of authors. First things first.

Mercurius

What alot of hilarity-challenged posters we have here. When I read your very clever and funny posts, I had the best laugh in a long time. Do you do stand-up? Wonderful piece. You should write more like this, am impressed. Also gets the point across very well - particularly our much maligned teachers who are held responsible for everything from bullying through to homosexuality.

As for Kevin Donnelly, he has become to education what David Flint is to the ABC - forever bitter, forever engaged in an extreme right agenda. Fortunately Kev doesn't have any real influence or no-one would learn how to ask a question or critically analyse a subject.

Love Shakespeare, but what of the beauty and moral value of a Japanese haiku? We also need to be aware of contemporary authors both Australian and international. This world is large and complex why does Kev want to limit our horizons?

I'm with you Scout, this is the funniest post I've read for ages, far superior in quality to Kevin's original article. For all you lot complaining about Mercurius's "bitterness", I'd suggest you need to get out of the house a bit more.

Just out of interest, Sniggid - what would you like your kids to write essays about? Why not write about something complex to help them think while learning generic skills? Compare the question "How does Macbeth reflect the political climate of Jacobean England?" with "What is Macbeth about?". Which involves some higher-order thinking? Which could any Grade 7 kid do and which extends Grade 12 kids?

In theory, kids learn to read and write in primary school. This doesn't always happen, which is why many schools across Queensland (and, no doubt, in other states) are implementing a literacy program to teach the basics to these kids so they CAN engage in higher-level English.

It just seems absurd to me that we want kids to read Shakespeare but don't want them to think about it. Why not just read Noddy instead?

Otokonoko, we also have a literacy strategy going on in primary schools in WA trying to bridge the gap that has arisen because lots of kids are not learning how to read, write and speak well. My view is that secondary school English teachers should concentrate on generic skill development too.

People who write about something complex that involves higher order thinking need to already possess generic skills which are best learned in isolation. Golfers spend endless hours on the range driving, hitting long irons, short irons, chipping, playing bunker shots and putting. Then when they are playing the game their thinking can be about what shot to play, where to position the ball for the next shot, etc. On the driving range they learn the generic skills so that when they have made a decision during an actual round the shot itself just comes naturally. To be proficient at anything the generic skills have to become ingrained and used without having to think about them. Then higher order thinking skills can be used without the complexity of having to concentrate on the generic things at the same time.

Developing generic skills in isolation is repetitive, even boring. For teachers it is hard work and has to be done again and again. But the payoff comes when the generic skills are finally in place and can be used without any special thought. Then the power of the mind is available to be used on higher order thinking.

Teaching generic skills in isolation has become unpopular in schools and our children are all the poorer for that. I have friends in business who employ young intelligent people who come up with very good ideas. The problem is that many of them are unable to write a report that outlines their ideas and the benefits to the business in detail. The higher order thinking ability is present, but the generic writing skills to communicate them effectively is absent.

Once generic skills are established I'd ask "What is Macbeth about?". The political climate of Jacobean England is for political science classes.

I'm actually a little stunned about the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the education system in general.

Consider the following for prep to year 10 (inclusive) students in Victoria:

11 years x 38 weeks (ie. 40 - 2 weeks for illness, curriculum days, etc.) x 5 days x 5 hours (of class time) = 10,450 hours.

10,450 / 8 Key Learning Areas (KLAs) = 1306.25 hours/KLA

What the hell do they actually learn in all that time?

The Arts: Can the average kid play an instrument or paint, let alone know anything about major historic movements?

English: Even though it's used outside of school too, can the average kid write a meaningful and correct sentence? What's the average vocabulary? How many know much about (any) poetry or literature?

Health and PE: Obesity is on the rise. Enough said.

LOTE: How many Australians speak a second language (other than one taught to them outside of school)?

Maths: How many Australians can really handle fractions, decimals and simple geometry, let alone higher processes? How many can handle money? Credit card debt is approximately $2,700 p.p.

Science: How many have a functioning understanding of the world around them that isn't pre-Copernican or Lemarkian?

SOSE: How many know anything about (any) history or geography?

Technology: How many can do much more than check their e-mail? How many could design, build, repair or programme any machine?

If you spent 1,300 hours reading books, studying a new language or learning a new instrument, you'd have to get reasonably good at the activities, yet for that time in the "system", kids have little to nothing to show for it. So what's going on? Arguing over how to interpret Shakespeare seems to completely miss the deeper point to me. Education in this country is not even laughable, it's in the realms of the completely bizarre. It's hard to believe that this level of ineffectiveness is anything but a systematic programme to keep people stupid.

Shorbe, you throw wild assertions around like confetti at a multiple wedding. But you need some evidence, surley, or some reasoned argument to arrive at your conclusion that, " It's hard to believe that this level of ineffectiveness is anything but a systematic programme to keep people stupid."

Unless your argument is a subtle demonstration that you yourself are living proof of your own assertion.

FrankGol: So you would claim that the education system is effective at educating people?

How many people in this country could tell you when, where and by whom, WW1 was fought? How many could explain how our electoral system works, and how it differs from say, the American system? How many could explain the nitrogen cycle? How many could tell you what a conjunction was, or conjugate a verb in the past perfect continuous, or quote some poetry? How many could say what fields Russell, Rutherford or Rossini were involved in, let alone recognise their work?

Yet I bet a lot who couldn't do any of the above can pass exams well enough, so they're effectively educated, right? To answer your point though, I am indeed living proof of this. I did extremely well at high school and university. I didn't even have to study to get As or A+s in many subjects, yet I can't remember a damned thing on the matters now. I studied French for six years, got good marks, but basically can't speak a word of the language, yet I learnt more Russian from a book and travelling there for six weeks. Ditto for other languages. Ditto for European history.

My argument is that, say you decided to learn a new language, or take up an instrument, or read a few books on a particular field, how much would you expect to learn in 1,300 hours? Do people come out of the education system even approaching that? If you went to a private language institute and paid to learn a language, how happy would you be if, after 1,300 hours, you were still struggling with the basics?

Maybe it isn't a systematic programme to keep people stupid (although the basis for modern western education was a Prussian model to prepare an effective industrial warfare state). Maybe it's just gross incompetence. The irony of this article and its discussion is the distinct lack of critical analysis of how effective the educational system is to begin with.

Shorbe, I and my four children and their partners could answer all of your exemplar questions. And I still use my schooldays French. But what does that prove? That we are brilliant and you're not? I don't think so.

It could be argued we all wasted our time in school since the knowledge represented in the questions you cited is barely necessary to live productive lives. Some knowledge (e.g. old physics) is as bad as cold fish. Other knowledge (e.g. classical literature) is as fresh today as it ever was. But I wouldn't prescribe any single syllabus as 'core' for everybody because the price of any curriculum is the one that might have been---and I'd hate to impose a bad curriculum on anyone, let alone everyone.

What I valued most from my education was the joy of learning (and the hard work necessary to learn some things); the willingness to find out what I need to know (and the capacity to do so when it is important); the ability to spot a decent argument and challenge an indecent one; and a respect for evidence in deciding what is true (and the common sense to recognise that we don’t always have the evidence we need). Oh, and I nearly forgot, the capacity to relate well to other people from a variety of backgrounds and to make good friends. None of these is bound to a specific body of content (though I did come to love some bodies of learning more than others).

I still think you toss wild assertions about the education system like confetti at a multiple wedding. What are your benchmarks? How are contemporary standards assessed against those benchmarks? What are you using as your sample (more than personal experience otherwise we descend to swapping my anecdotes against yours)? How do you interpret exceptions to your rules?

I do agree with your final sentence, Shorbe: “The irony of this article and its discussion is the distinct lack of critical analysis of how effective the educational system is to begin with.

FrankGol: Okay, you and your family know such things, but who in the general populace does? Without being able to put anything about our culture in context, how can we even start to discuss bigger issues?

Certainly some things though have a very direct bearing on our lives. Wouldn't it bother you if people out there couldn't explain how our electoral system works? It might not be quite so bad if voting were voluntary, but instead, the ignorant masses get driven to the polls every few years without actually knowing how any of it works. What about the ignorance regarding WW1, and the details of our core national myth, Gallipoli?

I'm not saying that we need to prescribe any particular curriculum on anyone as I do think that's a recipe for disaster. What I'm saying is that there is obviously something wrong with the method of education if people are coming out poorly versed in whatever the curriculum happens to be. That's why I suggested that if people spent the equivalent amount of time in a private learning situation and came out so ignorant, they'd consider the experience a massive waste of time and money.

The things you list in your third paragraph are indeed good, but I ask once more, how many people come out of the education system in such a way? I don't believe people are educated in the classical sense. Yet I don't believe people generally come out of school actually having a love for learning something that interests them either since so much of what is taught in school is boring to students. Furthermore, given our present levels of average credit card debt (of which I have none, so for everyone like me, there's someone out there with double the average) and Australia's seeming difficulties with environmental issues, I hardly think people are coming out with real practical knowledge and skills to get through life successfully. So, aside from people like you whom I believe to be the exception rather than the rule, how does the education system benefit people?

continued...

The trouble with avoiding anecdotal evidence (and in my job I've been to dozens of schools and seen thousands of students and their work across a range of subjects, and I'm suitably horrified) is that governments define the how, what and why of educational outcomes (and a lot of the time, it's reported merely in participation rates, as though that means anything). As such, much like IQ tests, what they measure is what they measure, and they don't actually tell anyone anything meaningful.

I've tried to do some brief research on this and here's what I've found:

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/7d12b0f6763c78caca257061001cc588/7fa6c7bdd57f7bc0ca25703b0080ccc4!OpenDocument

Australian students came in the top third of 41 OECD and other countries in mathematics and science literacy (fairly nebulus terms). Yet only 43% could tackle items of moderate to relatively high difficulty, which is hardly cause for celebration. If anything, it shows how dumb most kids in the rest of the world are.

http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/7d12b0f6763c78caca257061001cc588/a1b5d7636e6719f7ca2570ec00753522!OpenDocument

A decade old, I know. Clearly though, people can't be that inspired by the education system to become life long learners. According to that survey, people had almost four hours of free time per day, yet 70.5% of people spent their free time watching television, for an average of almost 2.5 hours per day (and we both know that "educational" programmes barely rate compared to dramas, reality TV, etc.). Reading books wasn't measured on the survey, but of the 20.8% who read newspapers, less than an hour was the average per day.

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/7d12b0f6763c78caca257061001cc588/feff508f920ab48cca2570fe00198565!OpenDocument

Likewise, for internet use, whilst a time breakdown wasn't listed, 26% of people were finding information for study, compared to 68% for e-mailing or chatting, although the 57% using it for general browsing are a fairly nebulus group.

Shorbe, you are now asking good general questions like: “Without being able to put anything about our culture in context, how can we even start to discuss bigger issues?”

But as soon as you get specific, you run into difficulties related to evidence and benchmarks for your conclusions. For example, you say: “…the ignorant masses get driven to the polls every few years without actually knowing how any of it works.” But where’s the data? How do you know? Are Australians any better or worse than people in other putative democracies like the USA and UK?

And your next example is way off beam: “What about the ignorance regarding WW1, and the details of our core national myth, Gallipoli?” Why Gallipoli and not Fromelles and Pozieres? There were more Australian casualties on the Western Front in just seven weeks of battles in 1916 than in the whole seven months of the Gallipoli campaign in 1915. So why is one a ‘core myth’ to be regurgitated in our schools and other virtually ignored?

Often people who insist on a fact-based curriculum rather than an evidence-based curriculum can’t even get the facts right. I suppose that’s why we love ‘core’ myths (and even ‘non-core ones)?

Kevins articles strike a cord with me . I have two children in primary school & one in year nine .
Now after talking with some of their teachers about my childrens progress I often find myself quite concerned & more than a little bewildered at what some of these teachers seem to believe is important & what is not . This is particularly so at the high school .
I often wonder if these people should be required to work in private enterprise for ten years before being able to teach . Just to get some perspective .
I work part time as a fitter & machinist at a local engineering business , I've been in the game for over twenty years & over that time I've coached many young lads through their apprenticeships . With many of these lads I find myself performing the role of maths & english teacher as increasingly I see young people who seem unable to solve very basic arithmatic problems , As well as the inability to understand & follow simple instructions . In fact often on returning to check up on a lads progress with a task I've found that although the individual can repeat back to me word for word the instruction given his interpretation of that instruction is a fairly distant abstract of the meaning of the words given .
Add to this illegible hand writing needed for purchase orders , delivery dockets , material lists , etc etc . Makes for a difficult entry into the workforce . Which after all is what education is for .
I agree fully with Kevins views on OBE & decronstruction theory as I see the results frequently & I have three children at school now whom I feel are not getting the education they could be during their early years which obviously only come once .

You are absolutely dead right Jamo. What has happened over the last couple of decades is that many teachers don't recognise their role in putting in the quite hard work to ensure that children can read and write well and are competent in simple everyday arithmetic. There are exceptions of course. However, many English teachers do not see themselves as having the responsibility to build the "tools" that students need. Rather, they want to be involved in the "deeper meanings of life" and all that rubbish that is central to postmodern and deconstruction protagonists. Drilling and rote learning are seen as "useless old hat" with no place in today's schools.

There are, however, people such as Kevin Donnelly who are starting to be listened to, and I think that the time is rapidly approaching in this country when parents such as yourself, businesspeople and grandparents will make enough fuss that politicans will take up the baton and return some sense to our schools, particularly government schools.

The prime minister and Julie Bishop are already listening. The sooner the majority of politicans get the message the better it will be for the whole nation.

Shorbe, you are right to be skeptical of some types of government statistics on educational outcomes, in that, like IQ tests, they can be misleading.

Likewise, it is misleading to state that only 43% of students could tackle maths and science items of ‘moderate to relatively high difficulty’. It’s like bemoaning the fact that 49% of students in any representative sample are ‘below average’ (or, if your cup is half-full, applauding when you find 51% are ‘above average’).

And here we go swapping anecdotes again: in my job I’ve been to hundreds of schools and seen thousands of students and their work across a range of subjects, and I'm suitably impressed. You know, it’s actually quite hard work to make valid assessments of schools and their students. I wouldn’t be too quick to condemn or to praise. It would be nice if students and their teachers had some positive feedback when warranted from those who are interested in raising standards.

Jamo and Sniggid jump in with their personal anecdotes too. There’s no shortage of teacher-bashers. Never has been. Kids these days are not taught to count or spell (‘arithmetic’ not ‘arithmatic’, ‘deconstruction’ not ‘decronstruction’ Jamo; ‘politicians’ not ‘politicans’, Sniggid. How's that for a pedagogical pounce?)

So entry into the workforce after all is what education is for, Jamo?. Really? What about personal development and fulfillment? Or learning about democracy and society? Or learning how to solve problems, or to think, or to explore creativity?

Perhaps those are qualities Sniggid calls the "deeper meanings of life" and “all that rubbish”. Oh for the good old days of drilling and rote learning, lads. They served us so well until new-fangled technology and "all that rubbish" came along.

We should all be comforted, however, to learn that people such as Kevin Donnelly are starting to be listened to by parents such as Jamo and Sniggid, businesspeople and grandparents; and how wonderful that the prime minister and Julie Bishop are already listening. Mercurius (first post above) will be delighted that his thesis on how to become an educational expert is supported.

Thanks for picking up the spelling mistake FrankGol, I've written it out 25 times so I don't make the same mistake again. Politicians, politicians, politicians. It is a good thing that we have people like Jamo who have their feet planted firmly on the ground and understand what life is all about in the real world. Unfortunately, too many contributers to this forum are what I call "levitators"; they float around in an imaginary (ideal?) world that doesn't exist.

By the way, I have the greatest respect for teachers having been one myself for over 40 years. Unfortunately, the proportion with strict subject qualifications has diminished. All too many have gone for education degrees recently and this has been to the detriment of solid subject teaching.

We can turn that around over time. Outcomes Based Education is now being challenged and the return to getting the basics right first cannot come quick enough for me. Being able to fit into the world of work is actually an essential element of life. It brings with it the security to enable one to function well in society and appreciate the great country in which we live.

A good basic grounding actually enhances the power of modern technology, particularly communications technology. Let's get the education basics right and our lives will be all the richer for it. Some will take up the (what I call) "all that rubbish", fair enough, but for most of us it is just all gobbledegook.

Mercurius, you state that "when viewed 'through the eyes of its author', to which you suggest we should give precedence, my 'bitter monologue' is neither bitter, nor a monologue".

You have my sympathy. My partner frequently castigates me for poor communication skills too.

I might make what I consider to be a light-hearted remark on her mathematical or navigational skills, but it turns out that I am being an aggressive and thoughtless neanderthal.

While this is an interesting observation on my lack of clarity in communicating my views, it is hardly relevant to a text that the author has - presumably - worked conscientiously over in order to get across a particular idea or image. In the case of a train of thought that was recorded four hundred years ago, surely it is entirely appropriate to take into consideration the environment in which those ideas arose?

To do otherwise would be akin to a basketball player taking the ball under his arm and running the length of the court with it. The act itself might be totally appropriate on a rugby pitch, but entirely alien to the context in which it took place.

Everybody seems too preoccupied with one idea "taking precedence" over another. There is always room for fresh perspectives, but it should not be necessary for these to obliterate the author's own context.

FrankGol: Any such discussion must turn to anecdotes because there is very little data. What would we actually measure, if anything at all? Facts can be deemed irrelevant. Interpretations are open to bias in the assessment. The whole thing is open to bias when constructed (usually government).

So what do we say then? What would satisfy you, that each teacher ran his own fiefdom? Fine if it were a private system, which I would prefer. However, I think state education is here to stay, unfortunately.

If the government controls education then it is its responsibility to prepare people adequately. I can't provide you with data as to why the Australian masses are ignorant of the electoral process (though I think it's somehow dishonest to deny this), but then, why would governments want to highlight that? It might threaten their positions. Whether the US or UK are better or worse is not the point. We're all in the same boat I believe.

However, several times I have mentioned that the education system is clearly failing to prepare people in other ways, eg. credit card debt, obesity and environmental destruction (all related to Australians' roles as some of the world's most voracious with resources). For all of these things, there are masses of data. Yet you ignore that schools are failing in this respect, and should be called on that. Instead, you think that we shouldn't be so quick to criticise. Yet, as I've mentioned before, if a private enterprise fails us, we reject it. Where's the accountability? If it can't serve us properly, then it should relinquish control or be modified. Why should the state system (not just education) be afforded some divine right of kings?

I don't know why Gallipoli, of all Australian battles or campaigns, was chosen as the national myth and given a public holiday. Why does any myth achieve its status? I think you're just avoiding my point.

You reject fact based education, yet without it as a basis, there can be nothing higher. It certainly isn't an endpoint in itself, but it's a necessary stepping stone.

Shorbe, you say there is “very little data” about the outcomes of education and “Facts can be deemed irrelevant. Interpretations are open to bias in the assessment.”

Yet, knowing there is very little data, you’re prepared to lambaste the whole education system. You know, for example, “that the education system is clearly failing to prepare people in other ways, eg. credit card debt, obesity and environmental destruction..." For all of these things, apparently, "there are masses of data.”

Your assumption number 1: That there are masses of data. Questions: Where are those data? What do they tell us? Who collected that data? How? For what purpose? Whey are the data available those outcomes but not for more important things?

Your assumption number 2: That it’s the role of schools to teach children about those facts. Questions: Do parents have a role in these matters? Or banks (in the case of credit cards)? Or the medical profession (in the case of obesity)? If schools have the responsibility, what becomes of their role in the core curriculum of literacy and numeracy? What else would you require schools to teach – Sex education? Drug education? Driver education? Civics? Religious education? Water safety? Anti-racism?

Your assumption Number 3: That I reject school accountability. Fact: I do not. I have been president of three school councils and have always insisted on stringent accountability because it’s crucial to high standards and continuous improvement.

Your assumption Number 4: That I reject fact-based education. Fact: I do not. I can’t see how anyone can learn anything without learning facts. But, first there is a question about which facts will be selected to be taught; and secondly, if facts are all there is, or if they are the dominant learning, I think you’re not talking about education but rather instruction, which is a much more limited ambition for our nation’s children and their schools. (Easier to measure however.)

As for battles-as-myth, you don’t know why Gallipoli was chosen as the national myth but you think I’m just avoiding your point. I wish I knew what your point is.

FrankGol: You want data, yet when I provide data, you're not happy with it. Without being able to get into some deep analysis of how such studies were constructed and why, either you're willing to accept data I have previously provided or not. I suspect that even with a team of the world's best statisticians and social scientists designing such studies, there's some sort of sophistry going on here and it wouldn't matter to you.

I'm not saying it's the role of schools to teach the things they teach. However, given that they do teach such things, I think it's their responsibility to do so well. If they can't, they should relinquish those parts of the curriculum. That's my point about accountability. Short of entering the private sector (which plenty are), to what extent can parents really hold anyone within the education system to account? You want me to accept your purely subjective anecdote of accountability, yet you don't afford me the same luxury.

Regarding facts, I've said already that I don't think facts are an end in themselves. I've also acknowledged many of the problems you listed. I think you're willfully ignoring what I have already written.

As to your last point, there I think you're just being facetious. You know damned well what my main point is as I have stated it. My secondary point, which I again think you're being facetious over, is that any myth assumes a life of its own after a while, regardless of whether people are actually aware of its origins or not.

Finally, yes, I am prepared to lambaste the whole education system because I have witnessed enough schools and students, I believe, and seen it for the train wreck that it is. If you don't like that, fine, but I've had enough of your insincerity.

Shorbe, when you can't cope with the other fellow's argument, and the going gets too tough, slag off at him - say he's facetious and insincere. That will let you off the hook.

Well thats a very postmodern analysis of how the English syllabus is being taught Mr Donelly. But you never noticed that did you.LOL

Frank: Despite often repeating what my point was, you insinuated that I wasn't making one; you deliberately misinterpreted what I said even after I restated that that's not what I said or was trying to say; you engaged in sophistry; you hedged around what I said; or you tried out some other shenanigans. Yet now you claim I'm the one playing the man and being petty. Whatever.