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.