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.