Liz, it would seem like many, you prefer to play the person and not the issue when you assail those, like Simon and myself who hold positions different to yours.

You say that ‘good professional protocol prescribe that professional titles should only be attached to public pronouncements when making statements within your area of expertise’. Really? So a carpenter who happens to be a taxpayer should be denied the right to comment on say, the teaching profession, because she is not a teacher? Or because she didn't attend university and by implication is not cut from the right cloth? Give me a break. How biased would all articles be if only those who worked in the field under scrutiny wrote about it? What next? Let only politicians comment on politics? How about only members of the Bar commenting on the legal profession?

Permit me to set you straight: (1) I have no vendetta against teachers. I have a vendetta against flagrant abuse of tax payers money in every place it occurs, by ALL political parties; (2) you say I am a Liberal hack. First of all, I am not a member of any political party nor do I work for a party. Second, if my position is emblematic of ‘Liberal hacks’, then the mass exodus out of the public system would (to you I assume) indicate that millions of Australian parents are Liberal hacks; and (3) you mention a ‘culture of disrespect and arrogance’. I assume you mean those who question the status quo should button up and show ‘respect’ to the elites in society. Sorry, but last I looked this wasn't Mr Putin's Russia.

Jonathan,

I have advised what professional protocol is since you are obviously unaware. I didn't make it up. In future, should you choose to write publicly in a field outside your area of expertise, exclude your unrelated qualifications in the byline. Most academics follow protocol by the way.

'...So a carpenter ... should be denied the right to comment on ... the teaching profession?'

There's a difference between a comment and an article. Just imagine if a carpenter had a false assumption that their qualifications gave authority to their article, and placed their qualifications in the byline in an attempt to add weight. It would be stupid Jonathan wouldn't it?

This is what makes your article 'biased'. It smacks of 'elitist' assumptions of your qualifications as being THE 'right cloth' qualifications to do nothing more than deride teachers, as well as make 'flagrant' statements of what this profession should or should not be paid.

You do have a vendetta. Otherwise, you would not be speaking with such 'current crop' abuse. The graduates of the last few years, that I have been exposed to, are up there with other 'real world' graduates. They attended the same sandstone universities. They sat in the same science, sports science, town planning, English, economics etc. lectures as graduates from other programs. They graduated with the same first degrees. They had to compete with other professional graduates to gain entry into university in the first place. There is nothing inferior about their qualifications or their sense of professionalism. Don't be so elitist. They've had to spend up to five years at university to get their two undergraduate degrees.

'...the mass exodus out of the public system would (to you I assume) indicate that millions of Australian parents are Liberal hacks'

Many public school teachers send their children to private schools, including myself. It gives good insight into resources and Federal funding.

'mention a ‘culture of disrespect and arrogance’.

Must have been the 'current crop' and 'socialist' comments, and the inappropriate use of qualifications in the byline ... elitist attitude of considering yourself an enlightened social commentator.

Our children/students deserve better than this.

how about better class sizes
more class rooms

not demountables but real rooms.

better conditions and a stricker discipline rule.

Not will this only give better discipline but will also educate

off course at the cost off the parent.

Time for parents to get on board and if their children cannot act well pay for the program.

www.tapp.org.au

Anyone can comment here, or submit articles, for that matter. The authority of the comments rests in the eye of the beholder. It may be that a carpenter can speak authoritatively on spiritual matters.

Carpenters are unlikely to have tertiary qualifications in theology, which would likely eliminate them as expert witnesses before a court or tribunal, dealing with religious matters, in our enlightened times.

I'm happy enough for Johnathan Ariel to write his opinion concerning criterion-based pay for teachers, but bias and assumptions need to be more clearly stated and accepted.

Johnathan says:
"Sir Vivor – why do you say my comments are partisan? Surely they are common sense. They are intended to cure an ill. The ill being the one way flight from public schools. The fact that one side of politics holds similar views is a fact of life. If the Greens held this view, I would still be called partisan, but by others no doubt and not you."

See the first and penultimate paragraphs of the article:

"While Federal Education Minister Julie Bishop didn’t greet her state and territory counterparts with the proverbial, “Send in the clowns”, she may as well have, given their rank hypocrisy in rejecting her plans to skew teachers’ pay towards performance and away from length of service."

and

"It seems that the states and territories don’t want to do right by school students, if that means giving the Prime Minister a policy win several months out from an election. The spirit of former Senator Graham Richardson, is alive and well: do whatever it takes to (help Kevin Rudd) win. And pay any price."

So,
Johnathans views might be argued as "common sense", vouched for by carpenters and all others across the political spectrum, but if they are, then what need is there for plainly non-bipartisan references to Julie Bishop, Kevin Rudd and Graham Richardson?

It is the partisan references, not the particular players, which sully the impartiality of the argument.

Can common sense not stand on its own?

"Commonsense" is purely that, it would be accepted by any impartial observer. In relation to political issues "common sense" doesn't exist. A conservative political view begins from a different premise than does a more radical one.

While Jonathan may not be a teacher he has a right to any opinion he wishes. However, it is an affront if he claims that what he is arguing is "commonsense". From my point of view what Jonathan argues is shallow, as it takes a uni-dimensional approach to a multi-dimensional issue.
As already suggested there are psychological as well as socialogical matters that need to be taken into account.

"I make no apology for realising that you have been alluding to being a 'professional' within the field, and are still doing so (although now not as a teacher), with the intention of misrepresenting your opinion as informed, when the content of your posts clearly demonstrate the opposite. Teachers' on this forum picked that up in a millisecond."

Liz, your arrogance and self-aggrandisement are overwhelming. You have no idea what my professional background is. It is offensive and indecent of you to suggest that I have misrepresented myself in any way. In the field in which I worked in education I was not alluding, I was a professional. Many of the teachers I worked with were not. On a wide range of educational matters I would suggest I am much better informed than many of the bitter and twisted teachers who seem to flock to these fora. (I am for instance, appalled at the shallow and trivial reasoning you give as a public school teacher for sending your children to private schools.)

I did not express contempt for teachers, for instance, but did indicate I have low expectations. On the issue of education there are a multitude of stakeholders who have every right to comment and opine on educational matters. I wouldn't, for instance speak as an 'expert' on pedagogy, although I might comment. On broader matters educational I will have an opinion, whether it tickles your fancy or not. I have to say your general demeanor indicates a serious lack of professionalism on your part, and the tone of your censure of Johnathon Ariel merely reinforces my low expectations.

Can I suggest your posts revert to vigorous debate of the issues rather than trading in ill-informed attacks on the postees.