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.