I teach English, history and geography, three of the subjects referred to in John Ridd's article. I do so in Victoria, and his account of modern education simply does no match my experience.

Victoria has outcomes-based education, thankfully not the WA version. Some stated outcomes are clear; other are not - but basing an education system on outcomes seems to me to make obvious sense. Victoria has dumped the abomination of SOSE (introduced by the Liberal Party here) and restored the traditional disciplines of history and geography.

Despite Professor Lidstone's comments, I teach the fundamentals of geography, such as the formation of mountains and the rainfall cycle.

I teach both facts and themes in history - ancient civilisations, the feudal system, the gold rush, World War One, World War Two.

I teach grammar, punctuation, comprehension and essay-writing in English.

The new Victorian reporting system being phased in tells parents the actual level of achievement of their children: if your child in Year 8 is achieving a Year 6 standard, the report will say so.

The picture painted of a giant left-wing conspiracy running education is false. The system is far from perfect. There is some trendy rubbish in it - some from the Left, but just as much from the Right - but the system simply is not the disaster painted by the critics.

eet, I haven't addressed you directly until now because you seem incapable of directly addressing any of my points. Instead, you misrepresent my remarks and (smugly, conceitedly) assume you know what I'm thinking and go off on some pre-determined (stereotypical) tangent/rant.

I don't speculate on who you are or what you believe, as I have no evidence with which to do so.

You thought I felt "sick" or upset because of your remarks. Not the case. It was the two principals' respective remarks that made me feel sick, because I happen to believe any schools' job is to do more than turn out a batch of "mini-me" kids. I also feel sick because I visited a private school where the deputy showed me around for 45 minutes and talked the entire time about the school buildings and the facilities. He did not once mention the children. Any teacher who can talk that long without mentioning kids needs to take a good long look at themselves.

I know of several unassuming suburban public school staffrooms who in late 2001 were in near-unanimous agreement that turning back the Tampa was the best thing John Howard ever did. Many of them vote Liberal. I have voted Liberal myself on 3 occasions, twice for the current government. You made false assumptions to the contrary.

Your lazy assumptions and prejudiced approach to this topic make your remarks increasingly error-prone and fantastical.

I may be smug and conceited, and you may go on playing the man instead of the ball for as long you like, but you've yet to offer any substantive rebuttal of any of my points. My experience, and the experience of thousands of teachers, some of whom post here, refute your claim about teachers being "apparatchiks" trying to mould children into some sort of politically-correct view of the world. Tired recycling of a whole lot of meaningless stereotypes does not an argument make.

But by all means, continue on in the same vein; as you were. I'd wouldn't want you to experience the discomfort of having your prejudices challenged by the evidence.

Regrettably, all subjects you teach, Chris C, do not make technical progress substantially better:

<I teach English, history and geography, three of the subjects referred to in John Ridd's article. I do so in Victoria, and his account of modern education simply does no match my experience.>

OK, cool it. The discussion about public v private is nothing to do with John Ridds article. His contention is that all syllabi are made by a state/territory Board of Study and that all schools irrespective of type have to follow those syllabi. Furthermore the Ridd article is a clear attempt to demonstrate that opposition to current syllabi/practices/theories is across the board. A self confessed 'dyed in the wool' public school man he quotes a Catholic Principal and the Skeptic magazine.
Another issue which I think is irrelevant to the article is the suggestions of a central nation wide set of syllabi. Ridd makes it clear that he is calling on governments (plural) to do something. presumably he means the State/territory governments.

eyejaw,
I agree I think that a meeting of State and Territoty Education Ministers to hammer out a uniform standard should be done asap.

What could our respective state governments do then? A good place to start would be to call on those who have been given the authority, time and salary increases to bring about curriculum change to justify their continued employment. I’m of course talking about the school based curriculum leaders – Heads of Departments and to a lesser extent Deputy Principals.
Forget about what the current syllabi contain, in many Queensland High Schools the last set of syllabi were never implemented the way they were intended to be anyway.
Why not? Well that might require a change in teaching practice, a change in class organisation and, heaven forbid, a change in staff.
Comparing the teaching practice in some of our children’s classroom to the stated intention in the syllabus is like comparing……. well a northern England assembly line circa 1958 to the current productive output of some of our North-West Pacific Asian neighbours.
It’s time to cut loose those self-appointed protectors of “high standards” and get on with the job of educating our children.