This education thing needs to be seen in the context of the revolution that Australia is undergoing. Until the advent of the Whitlam goverenment, Australia clearly understood who it was.
Since then Australia has been de-industrialised. Thus the secondary eduaction system has too the greater extent been acting as a detention centre : amusing a disparate audience to keep the same off the streets. The second movement in Australia is multiculturalism which is a right-wing policy - never mind the bleatings that Pauline Hanson and her One Nation were too grotesquely right wing for credibility's sake. Nevertheless multiculturalism holds and will hold Australia in an identity flux until who knows when.
Now the meat in the sandwich is education curricula and until Australia becomes mature again - through another Gallipoli? - education curricula will continue to be debated apparently aimlessly and without end.

Poor old Julie Bishop, with interventions from Dr. Nelson, she feels threatened, so do what any blue blood would do, take it out on the peasants.

Good old teacher-bashing seems to be raising its ugly head as ever.
Today's teachers have to contend with all the issues of multiculturalism, the "history wars", an apparent general decline in English grammar, and the poor rewards and status of their position, relative to other professions.
They also have to contend with the new media, and the breath-taking speed of change in the way kids are using the Net mobile phones with text-message language
Instead of drumming in the "facts" in a traditional way, today's education is more about encouraging kids to THINK, to use and evaluate a variety of sources of information, and ways to communicate.
Teachers are also expected to function as defacto social workers, in all the challenges and problems confronting today's young people.
The idea of reforming education, and a centralised curriculum from Canberra sounds Orwellian - are teachers going to have to spout some orthodoxy from the Howard government, and stay off contentious topics? Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.net

Two of the above, have it wrong. Well wrong.

The problem with the Left today is that they see it as their appointed and annointed duty to bash the Liberals. Even unto death.

They off course, dont have that mandate, except in the States. But, like the above examples, all Marx/Union/Leftys beleive that everything in life is/should be politicised. Probly in time, as the omnipotent Autocratic Council of Totalitarian Underdogs grows under state encumbancy, we will see child politics. We already see it now in schools, althought it is disguised as bullying. In Left/Labor/union terms it is the 'bring back the biff' scenario. A sort of nazi bully tactic which Bonhoffer tried to warn the world about.

Did you know that in a certain region, there was a left-wing outfit residing in town that used ferals and druggies to access school kiddies? These animals would go around passing out leaflet propaganda, and other elicit stuff. One was even rumoured to be pedaphile. And the parents had a devil of a time trying to be rid of them; and the pious State gov didnt do a thing. Why, because they were running under 'Arts' grants funded by the State.

Howzat!

Growing up, I moved around a lot, so I ended up going to school in 3 different states (and 1 year overseas). In SOSE classes I was very rarely taught facts (I had to learn those of my own accord), but I was always asked to express my opinion.
May I put it to the education establishment, that to have an opinion, one should be aware of the facts on which that opinion is based?
So I advocate cold hard fact teaching for the majority of education (say K-9), and then in 10-12 students should be asked to provide, clear, intelligent insights into what they have spent the first 10 years learning.
For example, it is ridiculous asking a 13 year old what her opinion of the Stolen Generation is if she has never read unbiased and/or first hand accounts of that period of Australian history.

I did my high school education in NSW, and finished my five years in the last year of the Leaving Certificate. What followed was the six year Wyndham Scheme which led to the Higher School Certificate. That was, in NSW at least, the beginning of the decline in standards. Since I did my university part time I was a few years down the track in classes with Wyndham Scheme products, and it became apparent to me even then how little advanced material they had learnt in science and mathematics.

However I believe there are substantial advantages in the way education is presently delivered. I have a daughter who is in her second year at Melbourne University, and doing very well. She is, I believe, one of a very small percentage of the population for whom the present educational method is very well suited. She has a great thirst for knowledge, so perhaps she would have done well under any system; but I suspect under the more rigid system I was a part of she would have done less well.

My point is that the people who support the present educational methodology do themselves have a point. But the system is only better for a small percentage of very bright students who are blessed with inquiring minds - I would guess this to be about 5% of the population. I am fortunate, because as I have said my daughter is in this small group. The problem is that the vast bulk of the population are worse of under the present ideology, and that is why it should be changed.