Bushbred Part Two

It says Mr Howard’s dinner speech marking the 50th Anniversary of Quadrant Magazine poses few risks for his position because of three people who long ago attracted his admiration for their moral clarity.- Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II.

Toohey was possibly himself confused because he did not line up Mr Howard’s three historicl favourites properly. But choosing Pope John first, Toohey’s depiction of John Paul’s character, was simply more like a good crack at the character of Howard.

Further it seems that John Paul would never have been an admirer of John Howard seeing that he was not only against the 2003 war on Iraq, which Howard still argues was a moral cause, but also he was a stern critic of the robust form of capitalism espoused by both Reagan and Thatcher.

It is also interesting historically how much Margaret Thatcher virtually despised Nelson Mandela, and also how Ronald Reagan was also a supporter of the South African white Supremists.

Reagan called such support “constructive Engagement” similar to his US support of Saddam Hussein when Iraq attacked Iran in 1981.

It is interesting that so many Humanities’ tutors tell students to give both credit and criticism where they are due. So it is also understandable to hear them say that John Howard has the political knack but not a good knowledge of history.

Going by the above, maybe Johnny Howard just suffers from a poor memory.

George C, Mandurah - WA

Gadget, you are right on the money.

Wildcat, you sound like you're a teacher or have a deeper insight into day to day teaching in secondary schools than most others. Taking some of your arguments -

"Total lack of community respect for those that attempt to educate our young." The reason for this is that most public school teachers are doing a woefully bad job of it. I speak from personal experience as a father.

And, "In fact, many students find the whole school system a complete waste of their 'precious' time. To learn means you have to concentrate, but that's impossible when you have too many toys to distract attention away from the teachers..." Yeah right! So teachers have competition to grab the learner's attention - big deal. Good teachers use their personalities to infect their students with enthusiasm. Anecdotes, jokes, humour, multimedia, illustration and exciting dialogue are basic tools in a good educator's toolbox.

If teachers are having trouble generating interest in schools, the chances are that the teacher is boring. Basic principles - if a student is demonstrating apathy, educators must firstly assume they're at fault and analyse themselves and their methods, then modify and experiment.

Teaching is about showmanship and salesmanship. Timing is essential, but at all costs, the show must be entertaining and the message of the sale (subject) must get through. The teacher must entertain and infect the student with his/her own passion for the subject. If the teacher is dispassionate, so too will be the learner.

You won't need to lift a hand to a student or fear litigation if your show is entertaining. Think about it. In public schools today it's mostly the singer and not the song that's the problem.

Although, second thoughts, the lefty song in public schools today really isn't worth listening to. That's why I pulled my kids out of public school. So it ends up being both the singer AND the song. Public school teachers = a boring act. You guys need new talent and new material and it's about time you had new management too!

John,

QLD is not alone. I remembered this story from 3 years ago ( http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/04/1067708212432.html?from=storyrhs ) Unfortunately, although the SMH is too politically correct to say it, it has much to do with the social engineers who were unhappy with the way girls were comparing with boys. Girls had been out performing boys in many disciplines but not in the hard sciences. So our gallant educationalists did the only sensible thing - they changed the rules making physics more like a social science so girls could do better.

One quote:
"The head of physics at the University of UNSW, John Storey, said the HSC syllabus, for which exams were first held last year, was an "interesting subject - but it's not physics"."

For those people who lament the decline in the status of teaching I can only suggest the first step in haling this decline might be for teachers to spend less time being social activists/advocates and more time teaching what parents (ie society) wants them to teach.

Perhaps the problem is that all the people who know how to run the country are driving taxis, and all the people who know how to run the education system are too busy posting on OLO...

That's an interesting suggestion eet that teachers just teach what parents want them to teach. Which parents? Christian Bretheren parents? The ferals up at Murwillambah? The good burghers of the lower north shore? All their kids are at our schools. We have to teach all of them. Or by "parents", did you just mean "me"?

How would it work if we applied your statement to that physicist you admire - John Storey - what if he just taught the physics that parents wanted him to teach? Or does being a university professor give him some special status that doesn't apply to high school teachers, who can be kicked around at will?

I've got an idea, why don't teachers teach what is suggested from the corpus of thousands of international and Australian articles in peer-reviewed literature, the results of conference papers; and then engage in rigourous and ongoing curriculum reform in response to years of data and feedback about the existing curriculum, as implemented, gathered from teachers, parents and students.

Oh wait, we're already doing that.

Dear Ms Wilcat, & Shonga.

A: Mind not my allegiances, for they are with you.

B: You might have better said I am not of your 'left fibre'.

The overheads of delivering education are too high. There are too many administrators and too few teachers delivering the services to students. Because there are too many administrators, they do things that get in the road of delivering the services.

As far as education is concerned, the federal government is all care and no responsibility.

I am aware of the goals and policy of the Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training, however in fact it produces very little apart from brochures. If the department were disbanded tomorrow things would probably operate a bit better. That is as much an indictment of our system of government as anything else.

As regards the State education departments, I cannot see any reason why a small nation like Australia has as many curriculums and curriculum development units as there are States and Territories. Where is the efficiency in each jurisdiction reinventing the wheel, unless you are one of the senior educational administrators who need a job that is?

As a parent with several children now in secondary education, I have seen first hand some of the PC bumph that masquerades as educational policy and the 'busywork' invented by educational administrators that claims hours of teachers' time each week.

I have also witnessed the loss of many fine male teachers and the erosion of the confidence and motivation of new teachers, who came to teach but were quickly exhausted by the petty politics that result from too many administrators at school and departmental level.

I think it is nonsense that continual change is required to curriculums and teaching methods at primary and secondary levels to keep up to date. We should be concentrating on fundamentals and that is not as simple as just teaching the 'three Rs'.

Our first priority should be to return resources to the sharp end - more teachers and better pay. At the same time we should very open about the overhead management costs because that is where the economies should be found.