Bravo Doctor Cat. You so elegantly articulated what has had me fuming everytime I hear negative mention made of "the teachers". Never mind your point about teachers being made accountable for every socially undesirable element in children and teenagers these days - the contempt that's shown for interpreting things through a so-called Marxist framework is more worrying.

The Marxist link was drawn through reference to one particular essay, but has now become synonomous with everything that has changed (read: become evil) about teaching. Rather than complimenting the fact that students, when asked to consider readings in a homosexual, ethnocentric, feminist or even conservative fashion, are in fact being taught to accept all manner of perfectly acceptable lifestyles that continue today to be vilified, teachers and school systems are criticised in a most exaggerated farcical manner of trying to convert their students to their secret cult of communism and hairy armpits. The constant insistence that modern education be chucked in favour of hand raps and Shakespeare ignores, as you quite rightly demonstrate, that society has changed to the point that these teaching methods won't work anymore - and that's ignoring for the moment whether or not they ever worked for the good of society.

Brilliant point about Titus Andronicus as well.

I think we can all agree that one of the great tragedies of our time is the adage, "Those who can't do, teach." As well as the financial aspects, with with such ready criticism and so little respect for teachers evident everywhere, how can we expect to create an education system that doesn't just function, but inspires?

My favourite Best Blog so far. Sorry Audrey, you've just been knocked off the top of the list - but you'd get my vote for best comment if that's any consolation.

What absolute dribble. Kids have always been quite happy to sit in rows and being organised. It is simply a matter of knowing your stuff, having a commitment to your subject matter (in my case mathematics), making the classroom experience interesting, teach well and help the kids to learn. It is quite possible for kids to enjoy mathematics or any other subject if the teacher is organised, interesting to the kids and works hard to have them get something out of the experience, and that includes a good deal of drilling.

As for English classes, unfortunately in the 1970's teachers started to get away from the strict grammatical approach like "parsing and analysis" which taught kids the structure of the language. Sure, kids found it tough but that is part of life. There are always tough bits to come to grips with as one moves through life.

There is a definite need in schools to gets the historical basics of language, mathematics, science, history and geography at the forefront of the curriculum before extending out into some of the lofty ideals stuff which is the focus of the Outcomes Based Education approach.

As for the author of this piece, she rates as a levitator, in my view, living in a dream world that just doesn't exist. Julie Bishop and John Howard have their feet planted firmly on the ground and are right on the money.

Sniggid, of course John Howard has his feet planted firmly on the ground. That's the only position possible when he's got his head so far up GW Bush's butt!

This debate should evolve into an attack on teachers- in my view the only reason that this perception exists is because the teachers unions and political activists are trying to divert attention and criticism away from the ridiculous curriculum that exists in schools and universities today (nothing to do with teachers)!

By way of background I'm a generation x, professional male who finished year twelve and went on to complete an LLB/ BA (Hons) during 6 years at university. I spent 4 of those years sitting on a student representative body (not protest group) that was committed to the unfashionable ideal of universities being for learning and not political activism.

The number of lecturers who could not grasp why law students wanted to be lawyers rather than chain themselves to troop trains was unbelievable! Similarly, I had students studying commerce repeatedly complain that the first four weeks of every subject were dedicated to the history of Marxism and that the final four weeks were interrupted by the rhetorical speeches of far left protest groups.

At school, English was dominated by Shakespearean Dress Ups, and those who did manual arts or a trade based subject were treated like lepers and excluded from post high school learning meetings. Strangely enough, that manual arts class is doing alright ten years on, none of them care about HECS debts and not having spent 6 years at uni. Furthest from their mind are the leftist, feminist, pinkos who made them feel like crap for turning their back on Marx and letting the good times roll

Having had teachers for roommates it was often interesting hearing them talk about their days, their requirements, particularly those teachers who taught in the private sector. They were often called on to work extra hours and take students on extra curricular activities. They were working and marking outside of work hours quite frequently, especially near the end of the terms, and while they did have decent holiday periods, these periods were fixed, and the work they put in during the school semester more than made up for the holiday time.

As for pinko marxist ideologues... seems to me it's only been since the conservatives got into power that there has been a huge rise in this kind of discussion. I suppose you can chalk that up to the lefties (and I use that term incredibly loosely) in power agreeing with what is going on, though I rather suspect it was more that labor was happy to leave things as they are. The Howard Government seems pretty thin skinned when it comes to criticism or views that clash with theirs.

Which I for one, find very concerning. Though I suppose that's because I'm some kind of pinko marxist right?

At some point in the last thirty years or so, school leavers have become less literate, less numerate have less general knowledge than their parents or grandparents. Of course there are many exceptions, and nothing in the generalization relates to the quality or the innate ability of our young people, but the evidence of the decline confronts anyone who deals with school leavers and undergraduates. Why is this so? Is it the increase in foetal alcohol distress syndrome which is driving the epidemic of ADHD and antisocial behaviour so destructive of classroom discipline? Is the influence of mass media and popular culture wholly adverse? Is it political correctness which declares that competitiveness is bad and that participation in organized team games is undesirable and unnecessary as a preparation for adult life? Is it because teacher training concentrates on factors which have little relevance to the classroom environment?

Surely, this subject is so important that there should be a well funded research program to identify the causes of inadequate education outcomes. It seems quite unlikely that these relate to education funding. Excellent outcomes were produced in the past with much less funding. Let us identify - carefully – how we can improve the results of our education systems. Let us invest much more in the very earliest years when the returns on investment are so much the highest – invest not just money but dedicated teaching skills.

This topic must depoliticized: it is not left vs right, but right vs wrong

I think that all this teacher bashing resonates with people whose last classroom experience was in the 1950s and 1960s when class numbers were very high, and teachers were not always trained. The catholic system was staffed by teaching brothers and sisters who were often trapped and frustrated and sometimes treated their students brutally. My Grade 3 class at state primary school had 44 pupils of varying abilities, if we were good our teacher would end the afternoon telling us tales of India, when we were naughty we got maths. [Bet she prayed we were good!] The local catholic school had 60 students per class.

The biggest classroom changes would be
• banning of corporal punishment – I prefer to be whacked than submitted to psychological terror
• retirement of aged brothers, nuns and other teachers who don’t want to be there
• rise in school leaving age from most pupils leaving at 14 to go to work to most students staying at school to year 10 or later who then proceed on to further education
• reduction in class sizes
• requirement for all teachers to have teacher training.

The biggest social changes would be
• change of culture from community service to individual gratification
• Rise in number of working mums
• Increase in number of children raised in single parent families
• In many schools the dominant culture is no longer Christian British - so teachers have to be careful about inculcating morals in the classroom

Politicians of all hues shamelessly attack teachers because the teacher unions are the largest union standing against the new IR regime. If Australia follows overseas experience then teachers will be re-accredited every 3 years like they are in HongKong, where teachers who don’t toe the party line are dismissed.

As I get older I think that school holidays exist so that kids can grow. Many kids find school stimulating but stressful and primary school age children often grow taller in the summer holidays. A good teacher calmly controls the class – difficult to achieve when you are stressed.

Ive had girlfreiends who were teachers, all of them out and out nutters, revelling in jamming this leftist crap down the throats of thier young charges.

You never quite left school did you ladies and I say ladies because there are precious little men to be found in the system now because of the hairy armpit brigade of feminazis that have infected the educational system.

Loads of paid holidays, student free days, public holidays the list goes on. People who actually work for a living dont feel sorry for you. Its your job and there are perks deal with it or find somthing else, perhaps a building site for a couple of months may give insight into what most have to do to get by while your on holidays.

Get a real job

chainsmoker, I'm flattered at all to be in the same league as the Good Doctor. I give you leave to favour her ;)

As for wre, I think we can all read between the lines:

"I spent 4 of those years sitting on a student representative body (not protest group) that was committed to the unfashionable ideal of universities being for learning and not political activism."

This would be the campus Liberals, who still run in the election process, and, if they win, receive pay from a system they claim to despise. Let's not forget how many of our own current government members began as factional headkickers in campus groups.

"Similarly, I had students studying commerce repeatedly complain that the first four weeks of every subject were dedicated to the history of Marxism..."

Students? Or....friends? Perhaps with similar political views? And in what context was Marxism taught? An historical context perhaps regarding....capitalism? That would seem to be highly in keeping with the study of commerce.

"...and that the final four weeks were interrupted by the rhetorical speeches of far left protest groups."

Would these speeches be regarding the student elections process that has nothing to do with the university or its teaching curriculum but rather the independent student union?

Your argument smacks of conspiracy theories, unfounded allegations and exaggerated rhetoric. Oh my god, are you a lefty, feminist, pinko Marxist?!?!?

Oh my goodness, what a nasty article. Playing the blame game along with the pollies is not going to help anyone. Despite the clever phrasing, the author looks like a dimwit. Of course today's children can be sat down and taught grammar. Yes, it is hard to make the trouble-makers shut up long enough to teach the majority of the class. I would have thought that where streaming would come in. I know it is unfashionable to grade students, but those that have reasonable academic ability should be put into classes with similarly-minded students so that they can focus on learning technical skills, which they will have some chance of using later, and split the remaining students into average and future dole-bludgers. Then structure the curriculum to skills suited to their learning abilities and future needs. This seems to happen in senior high school, but should be introduced earlier. It happens in maths, so why not in other subjects too. It would help keep the "bright" kids focussed and interested, whilst allowing students at other levels to be taught at a pace and be taught "things" that interest them. Win-win. But, we come up against the crowd that says that this type of segregation is wrong. My sister is a prime example. She is dyslexic (and finally no longer ashamed of it). When she started kinder, she could read at the level of the average 8 year old (not bad considering her condition and that she was 5). By the time she finished primary school, she could barely read at all, and she was still getting b's and d's back the front in year 9 (which she wasnt doing when she started school). She would have benefited immensely by being segregated into a class that worked on the basic skills of english and helped her in a manner suited to her learning abilities. We need to stop trying to be politically correct, work out what outcomes are desired at the end of school by various students, then set curriculums and teaching methods to achieve these outcomes.

ah Audrey Apple

Your response was so refreshingly predictable.

Firstly I sat on a representative group that was neither paid nor sanctioned by the university. We had no political affiliations and were not members of any political party. Unlike the gang that sat at the student council, we didn't get paid $40,000.00 a year to attend one lecture a semester, drive to Woomera detention centre in a university supplied vehicle and through eggs at police officers. We tried to address less honourable issues like making sure security was on hand to walk women to cars at 9.00p.m, ensuring lectures were not interrupted by ANYONE, and lobbying for the increase of transport options for all students.

Funnily enough, we ended up having more meetings with the VC and state government than the student council. We never needed to be paid because all of us had part time jobs while studying (yes it can be done) and wwere often approached by students of all political leaning who actually wanted to learn something. I could never understand why these students didn't feel comfortable approaching their 'elected representatives' in the 'Queer Space' (don't ask) where they were invariably resting up watching the plasma after Woomera trips.

If you're little lefty student union groups are so popular, why was the introduction of VSU the most popular idea amongst main stream student's since pub crawls? Get over yourselves-no one cares about your stupiod agendas and political muck raking.

Fear of the dumbing down or perceived dumbing down of the education system is always going to get parents( at least the ones who care) worried. My children have been home schooled in private and public schools. They have largely had good dedicated teachers in both the public and private systems. In Years 11 and 12 they have been confronted with the typical socialist rot but thankfully I was able to warn them of it before they got to it. Just look at the novels that the majority of students have to study in Yr 11 & 12 if you don't believe me.

Kids these days are more confident and dare say better educated then they were 30 years ago when I was at school. My wife homeschooled my kids for a number of years. Just the fact they could read and write gave them a great headstart on many.

Julie Bishop and John Howard will play politics on this issue just as Kevi Rudd and Julian Gillard will. So what.

I see Audrey is making a name for herself in these forums. Good for you! Hopefully, in time, a daily paper will pick you up so that you can write a weekly opinion piece where you can lament, with fellow middle class 'intellectuals', about how horrible life is under the Howard government.

I really have to agree with Country Gal. She has outlined the solution in a sensible and logical manner. I don't think I can put it better. Teachers are not the victims in this debate. They have been just as complacent (and complicit) as the Department of Education in supervising an erosion in teaching standards.

Primary and lower secondary education should be about instilling certain basic skills into students, not about getting them to talk about how they 'feel' and teaching them that we should be accepting of all views, no matter how illogical or abhorent.

Perhaps if students knew how to read, write and add competently, and they were allowed to feel like they were just as worthy as the next person (not some minority which should be either condescended to or alternatively blamed for the mistakes of previous generations) they wouldn't feel disenfranchised from society, and would be able to interact and make a positive contribution to society. This doesn't require bucketloads of money, just a sensible curriculum and sensible teachers.

Uh, gekko, because someone writes here and has written an article bears little relevance. I've written some under my actual name, and write for a newspaper, though not as a columnist... I don't really see what you're getting at there. Should only right wingers be allowed space in the media?
Despite protestations from the Right, I can't help but feel the majority of prominent columnists already hail from the right, regardless of their incessant breast-beating to the contrary.

I'll grant, literacy isn't is accomplished as it once was... though students today have one hell of a lot more to learn that they did 30 odd years ago. Aside from the obvious topics of information technology, what of the advanced mathematics that has been introduced thanks to the use of calculators?

I hear plenty of old timers claiming that students being allowed to use calculators is scandalous, but in practice, it has simply raised the bar. Simple computations are the province of earlier years of high school, and the students that elect to follow the more advanced classes of mathematics study matters such as triggonometry which weren't possible in the past, even with the best slide rule.

Similarly... biology classes. Now subjects such as genetic modification are on the menu. Was that a subject in the 60s?

That being said, there are problems.

Students today have more to learn, and as we keep palming responsibilities off on to the teachers, more time is consumed by the 'life skills' kind of classes. For each new class added, less time is devoted to the fundamentals.

I agree we should keep politics out of it and we do need to look at where the priorities should be.

But that isn't to say teachers have some kind of agenda. Rather, I suspect they are being made scapegoats for a society which regards them more as child caretakers than educators. Not only that, they are being used as a political tool.

Turnrightthenleft, my comment was directed at Audrey's style of reasoning and argument, which is reminiscent of many daily columnists, both left and right. That is, play the man and not the ball. Her response in this thread has been to either idolise those she agrees with, or demonise those she doesn't. I just thought I'd return fire :)

Getting back to the argument, I think it's disingenuous to argue that educational needs have changed. Yes, students need to know how to use computers, etc., but ultimately, if a person can't express their knowledge in the written form, or understand what others have written, they're at a serious disadvantage. I have no problem with anyone being exposed to all sorts of opinions, theories, etc., but I do believe that primary/secondary school is a place for the teaching of basic skills and knowledge, not a place where kids sit around and discuss a feminist or queer reading of Big Brother.

Postmodernism brings some interesting (and perhaps obvious) concepts to the table, but like any analysis 'tool', it can only be used properly if you understand how to use it, and if you understand it's limitations.

I'm sure the average person will be well equipped to handle modern society by being given the ability to 'deconstruct' Big Brother, even though they can't handle their finances or understand the contracts that are put in front of them.

There is a delicious irony in all of this mess. The right has actually gained a lot from the gradual dumbing down of the curriculum. The system has created a poorly educated population, that is less idealistic, more cynical and more self-centred (and therefore more likely to think of their own short term benefit rather than long term community gain). Moreover, for the first time in a long time, the right has more credibility over the issue of education than the left, because it is easy to attack a system that fails to teach and fails to inspire. Well done! :)

'Loads of paid holidays, student free days, public holidays[-] the list goes on. People who actually work for a living dont[sic] feel sorry for you. Its[sic] your job and there are perks[.] deal[sic] with it or find somthing[sic] else,[;] perhaps a building site for a couple of months may give insight into what most have to do to get by while your[sic] on holidays.
'Get a real job' (SCOTTY, Tuesday, 9 January 2007 11:49:26 AM)

Teacher: 40 weeks X average of 50 hours a week = 2,000 hours of work.
Normal employee: 46 Weeks X 38 hours a week = 1,728 hours of work.

'I spent 4 of those years sitting on a student representative body…' (wre, Tuesday, 9 January 2007 11:25:11 AM)

'I sat on a representative group that was neither paid nor sanctioned by the university. We had no political affiliations and were not members of any political party. Unlike the gang that sat at the student council…' (wre, Tuesday, 9 January 2007 12:12:21 PM)

A representative student body used to mean one elected by the students.

'Excellent outcomes were produced in the past with much less funding.' (Johntas, Tuesday, 9 January 2007 11:43:12 AM)

1981 funding provided Victorian secondary schools with a PTR of 10.9:1. Current funding provides those schools with a PTR of 12.0:1. 1975 funding paid a first-year- out 118.8 percent of MAWOTE. That equates to $65,379 as of January last year. A first-year-out was then paid $44,783 - a relative cut of $20,596.

'At some point in the last thirty years or so, school leavers have become less literate, less numerate have less general knowledge than their parents or grandparents…'
(Johntas, Tuesday, 9 January 2007 11:43:12 AM)

'Your boy has just got his HSC, and yet he has no cultural interests. He despises classical music, never reads a serious book, and seldom uses a word beyond the range of a six-year old child. And he has no manners….this generation of teenagers is inferior in almost every respect to the generation of, say, the 1930s. (William F. Broderick, “The Ugly Teenager”, The Age, 7/2/1976)

Runner:
"In Years 11 and 12 they have been confronted with the typical socialist rot but .... Just look at the novels that the majority of students have to study in Yr 11 & 12 if you don't believe me"

When I was in year 11 and 12 at the introduction of the "new" HSC in NSW, I had to study Shakespeare (Othello and King Lear), Austen (Pride and Predjudice & Emma), Arthur Miller (the Crucible), Robert Browning, Gwen Harwood and Ibsen (Dolls House). In HSC Drama, I studied two Australian plays.

With the exception of the Crucible (which was written in response to McCarthyism) and Ibsen (written in response to the plight of women at the turn of the century), I really don't think that any of the above titles could be considered "socialist rot". However, both those two title rank highly in literature critisim. When I was asked to critique the ideas in both, was I having a message rammed down myh throat?

I'm glad that you were able to warn your children before encountering these texts! It would be hideous if they found something within them that they agreed with.

As for SCOTTY's inarticulate rant, I was raised by a teacher, who used to start work at 8am and finish at 7pm. She would also work weekends, public holidays, student free days and school holidays. I'm sure that after all time was considered, she would have had far less time off than the 4 weeks annual leave attributed to every other full time worker. She did not do this work for the pay (which was meagre), or the "perks", but because she loved her job and wanted the best for her students.

Do you think that lessons prepare themselves? That school reports will magically appear without effort? That organising learning materials (from books to computers) just happens? If the "perks" are so good, why are we suffering a teacher shortage?

There are, of course, good teachers and bad teachers. But most teachers I have encountered take their job seriously and with dedication.

What a refreshing article. It is time that we realised that the commonwealth attack on the curriculum is just a smoke screen for their chronic underfunding of all services. (Tax cut anyone?)

I was married to an english teacher for over a decade. She had no say in what books were studied and did around 20 hours overtime each week marking papers. All that for about half the wage of an engineer.

Most people in this debate compare to their school days. Times change and so do the needs of the era. Even the classics are hardly values neutral. We spend many days translating Caesars accounts of conquering the Gauls (neo colonialism?) surely the endless days translating the new testament wouldn't fit in our secular school system. For the record we not only had to learn Latin and Greek, all kids had to create a list of 25 dutch novels and 15 english (and 15 french and german if those units were chosen to the final year) Each list had to include a mix of classics and modern texts.

My young nieces and nephews in Holland now have a much shorter book list but also learn about computers, how to negotiate a decent wage and other skills relevant to the modern world.

I think Howard is just waiting to privatise the entire school system and then cut its funding.

It is certainly ironic that the commonwealth gov wants schools instead of parents to teach values. If anything that smacks of Marxism.

Chris C,

There are more than 8 weeks annual leave for teachers in any state of Australia plus student free days etc.

Teaching is a safe place for the left to wage war on morals from an early age, guttless gorms, your stance will only reinforce the working class to educate thier children to the rot that has set in.

I can only hope that one day your inflated wages will be cut in half by inflation caused by your policies and indifference to your country.

Then you may know what it is like to be a hard doer rather than a leach on the system.

Teaching should be a passion, if you dont love it then you should leave it ladies, your choice.

SCOTTY,

Schools are open for around 200, 201, 202 days a year. That is why I chose 40 weeks for a teacher's work time. I ignored the extra work done in the holidays. None of this overtime is paid for. Student-free days are not non-working days. They are for report-writing and curriculum development.

In 33 years of teaching in five different schools with hundreds of teachers, I am unaware of the left waging war on morals in schools.

It is not usual to call wages that have fallen in both relative and purchasing power terms 'inflated'. Given that inflation was much higher in the mid-1970s than it is now, it is highly unlikely that my policies will cause any today. Cutting the salary of beginning teachers to less than the minimum wage, as you hope, will not encourage able people, even with passion, to become teachers.

Perhaps people of all classes will be persuaded by my stance that teachers work long hours, that education funding is low and that the same complaints were made about schools more than 30 years ago and decide to support an improvement to our education system rather than attacks on it made without evidence.

When you are faced with injustice and untruth, the best way to deal with it is to resist. I am pleased that there are people in teaching who do not find something else to do, but speak up for what is right despite the abuse heaped upon them.

I congratulate Kerryn for an honest and straight forward article. I also saw Julie Bishop's shaky interview. I wouldn't want a child of mine to turn out like her. I would hazard a guess she is a product of priviledged private schooling.
I come with fairly wide experience to the debate..My own schooling was in state schools from 1937 to 1948 and my memories of it are mixed with some great teachers and a couple of child haters whose enjoyment was gained from meting out corporal punishment for sheer pleasure. I left school with no political education or indocrination. That developed in my working world.I didn't enjoy Shakespeare or much of the reading material in the curriculum but developed an appreciation later in life when I chose my own material.

Whilst putting three children through pre-school,Transition,Primary, Secondary and Tertiary. I served on P&C's,School Councils,and as a Government appointee to an Advisory Council. Even then I found my argument was not with teachers but the establishment and bureaucracy's determination to ignore parental input.

My children survived to varying degrees depending on their own personal diligence. The eldest managed a University degree,and just paid off his hecs bill at age 35 !! The next dropped out after year 10 and went back to achieve required certificates as a mature aged student and achieved great results. The youngest finished yr 12 , entered the work force then decided he wanted to do a Graphic design course but couldn't obtain hecs funding so is in alternative employment wasting a natural talent, not because of trendy,lefty, pinko,feminist,marxist,
postmodernists but because of conservative Government policies which favour the wealthy and supervises a dumbing down of public education to accommodate advocates of the three R's.

Lets face it, Brony Bishop has lost it.

She would not have a clue what she is talking about: when was she ever a teacher? I admit Brony must be a great mum to have raised such talented children, well, they are adults now...

All the 'isms, posturing and finger pointing, the only valid point here is that private schools get too much money and state schools get too little. Lets face it, the Government schools themselves are literally falling apart by negligence. Federal blames State, State blames Federal for lack of overall funding, and so on.

As long as people have cat fights and throw red herrings to fog the basic issue of saving the schools, all we are left with is the cat fight and a dysfunctional mess.

I dedicate this song to those in this cat fight. This is another way to stack profound describers like "Trendy, lefty, feminist, marxist, postodernists, poisoning our children's minds". Now that is a 'whip dang' of a heading.

You deserve this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHjSh6nzYWk&NR

meow

Julie Bishop interviewed by Barry Cassidy:

"JULIE BISHOP: Barrie, the States are being very disingenuous, as is Federal Labor, on this. Back in 1993 when Kim Beazley was Education Minister, he wanted a national curriculum and in fact threatened to tie grants to a national curriculum unless the States agreed. So I think there is actual agreement on lifting standards, raising standards across the country and greater national consistency, and if we had a board of studies, for example, it would be subject to public scrutiny. We need more accountability and transparency in what is being taught, and this is one way of achieving it."

Frankly, I cannot see any benefit in States having separate bureaucracies to reinvent wheels. Put the dollars into the delivery end not in more ex-teacher bureaucrats filling airconditioned central offices in capital cities.

If Julie Bishop could find a way of introducing some robust consultation with the community on education that would be ideal.

Why denigrate a person with Julie Bishop's skills and achievements, when we want more like her in public positions?

Gekko, as TurnRightTurnLeft pointed out, I hardly think that one article and a handful of comments is the same as me 'making a name for myself'. I notice you don't level such claims at people who agree with you.

Your rebuttal:

"Turnrightthenleft, my comment was directed at Audrey's style of reasoning and argument, which is reminiscent of many daily columnists, both left and right. That is, play the man and not the ball. Her response IN THIS THREAD [my emphasis] has been to either idolise those she agrees with, or demonise those she doesn't. I just thought I'd return fire :)"

I've written two comments in this thread. The first congratulated Kerryn on what I thought was a great article, before going on to demonstrate some of what I think are the incorrect accusations levelled at teachers and the education system.

The second comment was in response to what I thought was self inflated anedoctal evidence provided by wre. Having been witness, but not party to, many of the university systems s/he's talking about as recently as last year, I found it amusing to see the exaggeraton taken regarding this 'infiltration' of marxist academic policy.

I'm bemused by the speed in which you sought, in amongst a sea of varying opinions, 'to take me down a peg or two'. I notice you don't apply similar criticism to SCOTTY, whose extremely generalised 'argument' frankly beggars belief.

As for being hoping to be picked up by a national paper, although the quality of some columnists suggests otherwise, I highly doubt News Ltd is basing their selection process these days on the publication of one article and a few lengthy opinions.

Audrey Apple

The very point that you're missing (alluded to within my 'self inflated anecdotal' previous posts-which you failed to meaningfully respond to anyway), is that the academia and educational think tanks in this country have generally lost touch with what mainstream Australians expect form our education system.

While 'intellectuals' like yourself patronise and belittle the community, all the community wants from the education system is children that turn 18 with reading and writing skills that reflect the fact they've just spent 12 years being educated. Why is this too much to ask? Why should a child be asked to evaluate abstract and quite frankly bizarre philosophies when calculating the interest on a home loan, learning the language of 200 million neighbours, or reading a job application is beyond them? When statistics irrefutably show that literacy is on the decline, surely the curriculum is deserving of criticism and adjustment.

Now before you call the above 'inflated' and 'anecdotal' misinformation, please don't deflect attention from those very real and reasonable questions.

The other major issue that needs to be addressed is the under valuing of the teaching profession in respect to salaries. By way of anecdote (just for you AA), I know for a fact that not one person with a graduating score in the top 25% of my year 12 class went onto become a teacher. I'd be interested if anyone knows of any studies or surveys that have taken place in this regard. The sooner the salaries of teachers are closely aligned with those of doctors, lawyers and miners (!), the better.

If ever we needed proof that the Leftoid influences in feminism are railing too far from the tracks of reality, this is it. I say to Goldsworthy, that as far as i can tell, the Left are rapidly establishing a monological order, and it is a Marxologists world view. If you don’t understand it, then try reading it, perhaps it well open your eyes to the reality of what Millennium movements are all about.

It is a sure certainty, the monologists in education cant help but dream of the fantasmagorical new order of things. Most displeased as they are with the current order, what with all thie wealth, the growth, the technology, and yes sadly enough, wars. Not that we have never had wars in our history. Wars have been fought over all sorts of things, even women. Perhaps in time, we will see a new world order where the matriarchy rules in a monocranistic, dynastical way, while the men are left in some Marxist struggle for survival. A sort of Darwinian, Feminised, post-construction post-modern Utopian based order in which men battle for survival, whilst women prance about preening and proselytising like Praying-mantasis.

Yes Ladies, you are reading this novel for the first time, here online in the real world of 2006. Not the dark ages, nor indeed early 20th century Eestern-europe or China.

Cont:

Which is where our education system run by the glorious states has its heads currently buried, it seems (cant think how they coulda been brainwashed). Goldsworthy, as imaginative as she is, is stuck on the monorail of Leftist logic. Proof being that all things wrong are the fault of that ole rat (in socialist/leftist/Maoist labelling terms) the rodent, the honourable Prime Minister, Mr John Howard. MP. Whereas, anything deemed socially suitable by our Leftoid moral guardians is but completely wonderful, graceful, tactile and certainly worthy of both publishing and emulating. And so the fourth estate gets its cake, and eats it too. Much to the dismay of the peasantry, who get neither.

So there is no point being all high and might about where education is heading, because ultimately, the states carry the burden. And they are all under Leftist Labor control. No cajoling of the facts here, it is Labors feminised finger-pointing that is doing the work of educating the young about monology. When all the world has to offer can be found online, and easily accessible for teaching and learning purposes, we find a rabid education sector, hijacked by the ugly Union movement, teaching only one way of thinking, Marxology.

The results are already coming home to roost. Our esteemed and enlightened ones need only look at the crime stats; in fact if one looks at the stats that characterise the health of the nation, one will find that all indicators are in the worrying zone. Crime and deviance is really out of control. And it is not connected to Central Government; at least not at this stage.

Audrey, don't flatter yourself. I singled you out because:

1. You were the first person to write a comment, and either implicitly or explicitly, you set the tone for the debate; and
2. In a subsequent comment, you chose to focus on wre's (supposed) hidden agenda (how postmodern of you).

In any event, let's not give this any more commentary. From now on, I won't make any direct reference to you, unless you invite such reference ;)

It is disingenuous of teachers to suggest that they are unwilling pawns in the education game. Firstly, a good proportion of the 'bureaucracy' of teaching are ex-teachers. Secondly, the teacher's union is composed (one assumes) entirely of teachers. Thirdly, there is a large gap between theory (i.e. the curriculum set down by the board) and implementation (i.e. what is taught by teachers in a classroom setting). So to claim teachers have no influence just doesn't wash.

On another point, Kerryn's article contains little reasoned argument. Snide remarks directed at those who oppose her viewpoint, suggestions that anyone who has not formally studied the humanities cannot offer a serious opinion on postmodernism, the old hoary argument about a lack of funds, the implication that parents and students are partly to blame. It's calculated not to provide a reasoned argument for the current curriculum, but to deflect the focus from a misguided curriculum and poor teaching back onto those who dare criticise (conveniently, the Howard government).

Kerryn also states that those who have studied the 'hard' subjects (I will out myself as the holder of a 'hard' science degree) have a certain disdain for the humanities. However, it's also true that many Cultural Studies academics have built their reputation by critiquing science as a discipline. Therefore, what was your point? That humanities scholars would not dable in a body of knowledge they arguably know little about? Trying to equate criticism of the secondary curriculum to a conspiracy by white male scientists isn't a reasoned argument. But then again, I would say that, wouldn't I? I must be constained by Western linear logic :)

Maybe instead of cultural studies and the humanities the kids should be taught the real truth about mankind .

All of mankind are not brothers. Biologically that’s a lie for a start.

Mankind is not going to avoid war by being tolerant and loving.

Teaching the kids that if they are tolerant of other races all the world will live in peace is a lie based on a misassumption that wars are about intolerance.

Wars are about food on the table and all the goodies in the shops and supermarkets (territorial resources).

Racism itself is caused by territorial hostility between tribes.

Truth in history to teach the kids-:

Territorial massacre of the Jews by the Germans
Territorial massacre of millions of Chinese by the Japanese over resources during great depression.
Territorial massacre in Somalia
Territorial massacre of Bosnians by the Serbs
Territorial massacre by one tribe against the other in Rwanda
Territorial massacre by Indonesian militia against East Timorese
Territorial terror war by IRA against british protestant settlers for control of Ireland
Territorial war between the American Indians and the white settlers
Territorial war between religious tribes in India when british pulled out
Territorial attacks by the indigenous people against the Chinese in the solomons
Territorial fight for control of country by Tamil Tigers
Territorial fight over the land between Jews and Arabs
Territorial fight between religious tribes Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq
Freedom fighters and suicide bombers are really fighting for territorial control.
Demands for sepratist states around the word e.g. Chechyna in Russia are really demands for territorial control.

It has been ever thus throughout the history of mankind the teaching of tolerance wont stop it . When animals fight over territory in the wild its not about intolerance so much as their need to survive and it is the same for humans. Animals don’t actually hate the other animal they just need the land for themselves and their progeny to survive.

Why not teach the kids the real truth instead of the way you wish it was.

Speaking as someone with an English, Irish, Scottish, French, possibly Roman, possibly Viking and definitely Rift Valley of East Africa background, I would like to point out that animals do not have a titles office to settle land ownership or the institutions of parliament, democracy, the rule of law and the judiciary to deal with disputes and the shaping of their world. Many of them depend on the character and the laws of humanity for the good and the ill of their lives.

The broad sweep of human history is one of greater inclusiveness - the ending of slavery, votes for women, the rights of workers to organise. Tolerance is a necessary virtue. If we think of our common humanity, we are not brothers or sisters, but we are literally cousins.

Of course, there are limits to tolerance if cohesiveness is not to break down.

It is not possible for teachers to teach tolerance effectively if children do not have it from their homes.

Kerryn,
This is a familiar tory tactic, it has been used extensively in the past by "Pig Iron Bob Menzies" reds under the beds, the yellow peril etc. What Bishop and Howard are about is teaching children to be conservative, and it may have already succeeded with the lying rodent winning 4 elections since 1996. Fear is a great motivator, it seems State Labor governments have not been successful in turning out little como, pinko, marxists so far, hell the ALP are nearly as conservative as the tories anyway.

good to see you back in form shonga
as ive said in my previous post, ideology and politics should not be used by EITHER side of politics to distract from the real issue-literacy being in decline.
i'd also be very interested in your reaction to the following statement from one of my previous posts on this topic Shonga:
"While 'intellectuals' like yourself patronise and belittle the community, all the community wants from the education system is children that turn 18 with reading and writing skills that reflect the fact they've just spent 12 years being educated. Why is this too much to ask? Why should a child be asked to evaluate abstract and quite frankly bizarre philosophies when calculating the interest on a home loan, learning the language of 200 million neighbours, or reading a job application is beyond them? When statistics irrefutably show that literacy is on the decline, surely the curriculum is deserving of criticism and adjustment."

wre - I think you are confusing literacy levels with work ready skills.

I think most students can read, write and operate a calculator well enough by the end of primary school to be as literate as Australians were in 1900. Additionally most sixth graders are capable of finding information on the internet and organising it for their school projects. They may have dodgy ideas about plagiarism and the abilities of adults to detect it.

Students who leave school after 12 years schooling have survived the regimentation of the classroom and unfortunately some may have lost skills through the miasma of boredom and coolness required to gain the street cred so important to some elements. However by the end of year 12 most students have grown enough to understand sarcasm, be able to question and developed the ability to reason as well as been exposed to higher mathematics, complex science, learnt further technical skills, learnt the rudiments of another language and developed a sense of self in the community that is seperate from their identity within the family.

Then the lucky student becomes a worker and has to learn the disciplines necessary for the workplace including givens like consistent attendance times, consistent spelling and consistent mood. The worker has to know the business and increasingly workers are only hired if they have the experience to do the job. You can't train kids for the workplace in a classroom environment where the student teacher dynamics are very different to the boss worker relationship in a small business. Small businesses of less than 5 employees can't afford to spend 3 months training up an employee to become productive.

Similarly employees can't afford to undertake expensive training unless they have certainty that they will be paid a differential for their additional qualifications / certifications.

Ok, here is a view that is bound to raise the ire of many.

'Rubbish in... Rubbish out.'

Entry level requirement to get into a teaching degree is amongst the lowest. Heck, in an ironic twist of sexism, entry requirements for men to enter this area of female domination have been markedly relaxed. Of course, its much more important to maintain ideolgical fuzzy thinking social facades like eekwalatee, than ensure the high standard of participants.

Teaching is very poorly paid, considering the implications of the 'product' that teachers produce, namely... indoctina... , er l mean, educated brains. This attracts a certain type of person. Dare l say it, the one's who travel paths of least resistence.

Unfortunately, there is as much indoctrination as there is education. The education system has long been guilty of teaching what to think as opposed to teaching how to think.

Of course, thinking hurts and ultimately it is very dangerous to SOCIETY for it to be infected with independent free thinkers. Thinking leads to truth and truth above all else must be sytematically thwarted, else the foundation of a civilised society will be undermined. Most effective way to do this is the half-lie/truth. Modern schooling is very effective in that regard.

Hence, modern schooling produces what our society is built upon... correct thinking, worker bees who will not question, will not seek the truth and will merely settle for their place as a cog in the machine.

To that end, l would say that the modern eduction system is a roaring success. It feeds the status quo and thwarts all possibility of free independent thinking.

Thinking is the disease... 'education' is the cure.

Good pluck brainiacs.

Sheesh, what a load of bollocks from beginning to end - not the article, but the vast majority of the posts. People with ideological axes to grind using the schooling of our children as the wetstones against which to sharpen said axes.
Go into most schools - public or private - and you will find a bunch of mainstream people teaching main stream stuff. There will - in every school - be some really talented teachers, some pretty good ones, some adequate ones and some crap ones - just as there are in any organisation or enterprise you care to name. There will also be a range of political and sociological opinions and beliefs. Schools are simply not the way ideologues like to describe them.
The reason standards are sometimes seen to have fallen are, by and large, because once only the top 20% of kids stayed on to year 12 and went on to uni, now about double the number stay on and go into tertiary education - no wonder it looks like standards have fallen. They haven't, there are just more kids competing at a higher level and 20% of them are not as exceptional as the top 20%. The fact that they are staying on is actually a tribute to their teachers, yet due to extreme ignorance by their badly educated elders (who love to wax smug about their grasp of the 3 Rs -pity about their lack of logic) is used as a stick to beat teachers with rather than a cause of congratulation.