Simon Templar, you say to Liz, "your arrogance and self-aggrandisement are overwhelming". And other people with whom you disagree are, in your words, "the bitter and twisted teachers who seem to flock to these fora".

Then with breathtaking hypocrisy you conclude, "Can I suggest your posts revert to vigorous debate of the issues rather than trading in ill-informed attacks on the postees."

As for your current claim that you did not "express contempt for teachers", don't you ever read your own posts? Was it not you who said, "The source of our national educational crisis is a massive failure of teachers to teach." Did you not describe teachers as engaging in "constant whining and excuses" and "bitter and twisted"?

Sounds like contempt to me Simon. How would you describe your attitude to teachers if you deny having contempt?

I'm a parent of three children. The eldest has just entered Uni, the youngest started High school. So would like to make a comment.

All three went to both private and public schools. My experience re teachers has been that it mattered not a jot whether it was in public or private schools. It is an astonishing myth that your child will automatically get a 'better' education in a private school.

All teachers have always been professional. Some teachers I found fantastic, but other parents grumbled about them and vice versa.

What does make the biggest difference is the principal of the school. An excellent principal seems to result in a school with excellent teachers, who want to stay and teach at that school. Whether private or public. Now why is that? So as a parent, I would suggest to start with principals' performances first. I think we'll see an immediate improvement in educational standards.

Teacher bashing does seem to be a sport here in Australia. I suppose if we can't blame our failings on our parents, there's always a teacher! And parents of course have an excuse why their little darling isn't a little Einstein,he would be if only he had better teacher

What I cant understand is why it is okay for teachers to critisize parents and their actions but when parents critizise teachers they are branded teacher bashers and seen in such a negative light. It is as if teachers think that all parents/adults complain solely out of malice and because they have nothing better to do and that all teachers are perfect?

Surely people are in their right to express concerns about some teachers. Of course not all teachers are the same, if teachers do not want to get a bad name because of those that do wrong they should not protect the bad teachers and they should agree and accept that within them there are some teachers who are failing in their duty of care and are not doing their job. These bad teachers do alot of damge and should not be allowed to hide within the good, they should be identified, re-educated and/or removed.

Getting rid of the bad is the best way to protect the reputation of the teachers.

Yvonne,

Your point about principals is well made. One extraordinary aspect of those who bash teachers and think the solution is to give principals more power is that they forget that principals themselves come from the ranks of teachers.

On the whole, principals are just not that good. I have seen good people passed over for promotion, while bullies, yes-men, yes-women and jargon-spinners are given principal class positions. For a more comprehensive account of my experiences than can be provided in 350 words, go to www.platowa.com and look at the thread “Farewell”.

Unfortunately, the Victorian principals’ club has persuaded the government that the five-person principal selection panel should have two members of the club on it to keep appointments in-house. The club will do all it can to keep teachers committed to their profession out of principalships.

It would be better to have two teachers on each panel, along with the two parents, so that those with more knowledge of the school had more say. But there are no guarantees with any system. Principals who are AEU members are no more supportive of their classroom colleagues than non-AEU principals.

Billie,

When I said that there were just over 40,000 teachers in Victorian government schools, I meant effective full-time teachers. When part-timers are taken into account, the number of individuals will be a little higher, but still nowhere near the 100,000 that you stated.

Chris C, I was going to give the figure of 100,000 a rest, it was meant to indicate the size of the workforce and indicate the sheer problems (diseconomies) of scale when you are trying to administer a system fairly but . . . . . . .

The figure of 100,000 was used by AEU and VIT officials in 2005 when the they were explaining the mechanics of the online recruitment system to provisionally registered casual relief teachers. I think they meant there were 100,000 on the education department payroll

Jolanda,

Someone who criticises teachers is not necessarily a teacher-basher. Teachers are as deserving of fact-based criticism as anyone else. What makes the difference is whether or not there are any facts there. Teacher-bashers write things such as the following:
“State education departments have been sheltered workshops for lazy job-for-lifers for too long.” (oz at December 22, 2006 11:17 AM, on “Is education fair?”, Your Say, The Age)
‘The schools are simply a racket and a rort for teachers who use it as a fully salaried system of outdoor relief.’ (Peter Ryan, “Teachers fail to get the point”, The Age, 1/8/1992)
‘The perks and privileges of this cosseted profession were absolutely sacrosanct.” (“A lesson in anarchy”, Herald Sun (editorial), 19/11/1992)
‘Schools…appear to be run more for the benefit and convenience of their employees than for their users.’ (Claude Forell, “A reckoning unions had to have”, The Age, 25/11/1992)
‘A strong moral case for the present Government unilaterally renouncing all agreements entered into by the previous Government with its employees can be made on the grounds that they were not arms-length agreements.’ (Professor Ross Parish, “Let the Public Service pay towards cutting the ranks”, The Age, 11/12/1992)
‘Money for schools was channelled into creating more jobs and better conditions for teachers.’ (“School lessons in economic necessity” (editorial), The Age, 27/1/1993)
‘The powerful public sector unions were permitted by default to run…education…’ (“Jim Kennan scratches”, Herald Sun (editorial), 29/6/1993)
‘…during the 1980s, the union movement “captured” the operation of the public sector. This led to considerable over-staffing and restrictive work practices…’ (Des Moore, “Why government needs to be rolled back”, The Age, 5/7/1993)
I have many more examples. The malice spewed forth by some commentators on education is obvious. You only have to read the various contributions on education on On Line Opinion to be hit in the face by it.

Billie,

There are nowhere near 100,000 employees on the Victorian Department of Education payroll. There are c100,000 teachers – government, private school and relief – registered with VIT.