For someone who doesn’t speculate on who I am or what I believe, you do ok:

Mercurius
“you ….go off on some pre-determined (stereotypical) tangent/rant”

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

Is this what you mean by playing the ball and not the man? Or maybe you just dislike being confronted with your own prejudices.

You know not one but ‘several’ staffrooms where teachers agreed with the PM on the Tampa issue. They were even ‘suburban’ AND ‘unassuming’. Wow, what’s your point?

Teaching is one of the most unionised professions in Australia. I’m not sure about the AEU in particular, but in general the unions have a 50% vote in the Labor caucus (recently lowered from 60%). Unions provide the majority of Labor Party funds. Are you seriously suggesting your staffroom sample is indicative of the education profession? With a research methodology like that you could be an education PhD.

Your ‘feel sick’ soliloquy followed a similar flawed logic. So two principals made these remarks. What’s your point? Are you suggesting the remarks of two principals are indicative of the private system? Of course, by implication you are. A bit of a lazy assumption but hey, we’re talking about education; lets call it evidence based research.

And, no I’m not disparaging all educationists, just a good number of them.

Mercurius
“I'd wouldn't want you to experience the discomfort of having your prejudices challenged by the evidence.”

The evidence is people are losing faith in public education and leaving for the private sector. The evidence is the status of teaching is declining; it’s even seen as a fall back profession by some. The evidence is teaching is struggling to attract high calibre entrants. The evidence is our children are suffering.

eet,
Opinion pollsters do not normally report on the voting preferences of occupational groups, probably because the sample size is too small, but the Herald Sun of 30/10/1995 reported on a survey of 1000 randomly chosen teachers. In 1992, 32% voted Liberal and 29% voted Labor, while 29% preferred not to answer. For the 1996 election, 22% intended to vote Liberal and 31% Labor, while 38% preferred not to answer. We can only speculate on the exact percentages for particular third parties and on why many did not answer, but if you work out the percentages of those who did for the major parties, they show for 1992, 52% Liberal and 48% Labor; and for 1996, 42% Liberal and 58% Labor. The same poll showed that 61% thought that the cuts of the previous five years (two years under Labor and three years under the Liberals) had reduced the quality of education, while 28% did not.

Teaching remains a highly unionised area, though the AEU in Victoria at least is not affiliated with the ALP. I think one reason that teachers still support the ALP and the professional solidarity of unionism even though Mr Kennett has gone is that they well remember Liberal rule in this time in their lives. Two other reasons for the high rate of union membership are teachers' experience of bullying by principals and the collegiate nature of how teachers work.

The problem that I see has to do with Priorities. The Labor Governments first priority seems to be to those that want to come into this country and are from NESB (non-English speaking backgrounds), not to those that were born here or have been brought up here.

Priority in education is for NESB students first.

The Labor Government in relation to employment neglects the education of Australians, even in relation to developing skills, and then wants to bring in those from abroad.

I believe the Labor Government needs to keep bringing in those from abroad to boost their votes and as a result standards have dropped.

Liberals always looks after their own better than Labor. I know which one I would prefer.

Chris C

The poll is a strange result. Why would people who vote Liberal join a union? Trade unions and Liberals don't really have much in common.

You summation about industrial relations issues is probably accurate. At the end of the day, teachers are people and need to have a fair industrial system too. However, where I disagree with the unions is when they use their industrial might impose an ideological agenda on the community. I guess I see the close affiliation of the unions with the Labor movement as making them political rather than educational bodies. So sometimes I feel they illegitimately fight political battles under the pretence of education. You see what I mean - an unfair mixing of hats.

I would be much more comfortable with them if they either stuck to politics and kept out of education or stuck to education and kept out of politics. But perhaps I'm just being utopian..

eet, declaring that "the evidence is...", is not evidence.

eet, if you won't accept my evidence as primary evidence, what will you accept? The unsubstantiated opinions of newspaper columnists? You can dismiss verbatim quotes and opinions from real, live, classroom teachers if you want. Your evidence so far is....a series of assertions and opinions backed up by....nothing.

1. "The evidence is people are losing faith in public education and leaving for the private sector."
Intersting phraseology. What about 'the evidence of a media search reveals that the federal government has been busy undermining public faith in the quality, standards and values of public education for a decade'. One year they're accused of having a 'value-free' system, the next year apparently we are to believe it's nothing but left-wing values being taught. What gives?

2. "The evidence is the status of teaching is declining; it’s even seen as a fall back profession by some."
The evidence is that for decades, teachers have consistently scored higher ranks of public-esteem and approval in surveys comparing different professions. It is almost always police, nurses, teachers and the like who score highly in such surveys. Teachers certainly score much higher for public-esteem than do the politicians who spend so much time attacking them.

3. "The evidence is teaching is struggling to attract high calibre entrants; it’s even seen as a fall back profession by some."
The evidence is that 90% of education undergraduates at Sydney university (and there are hundreds of them), are in the top 10% of the state for their HSC. As for a 'fall back' profession, you must be referring to the hundreds of highly-qualified professionals from law, finance and the sciences enrolling in post-grad diplomas to become teachers. That sounds like fantastic back-up to me.

4. "The evidence is our children are suffering."
The evidence is that according to the OECD (2003), Australia ranks fourth in the world for literacy, seventh for science and ninth for maths. The evidence is that according to PISA (2006), Australian schoolkids are second only to Finland for problem-solving and analytic ability.

I just don’t understand why adults don’t just ask the students what they think is wrong?

I know what my children will tell you. They would tell you that Depending on what school they have been at they have been suffering even though they got high marks. They will tell you that some Public Schools are good and some Catholic schools are good and that some are terrible. Same with the teachers.

They will tell you that they want to learn things that they don’t already know and have information presented to them at a level they find interesting and challenging and they want to understand why they need to know the information and how it relates to them. Otherwise it is hard to focus, get motivated and become engaged in learning.

They will tell you that they thought they were going to school to learn but instead the focus is on competing for marks and that despite the fact that they are smart and they get high marks they are not enjoying their education.

They will tell you that students should not have to compete for access to education. That they compete at the end for career placement is another story, but during their 'education' equal access to information at all levels should be available to all that wishes to try so that the competition for career placement is fairer.

Why do they make the kids fit into certain classes instead of designing the classes to fit the kids and catering better for all?