It's hardly a new discovery - that boys, on the whole, like boisterous and aggressive games of conflict.

Also, anyone who has watched a co-educational class of 13 - 14 years olds, and younger, too, - will surely see that by and large, the boys would be happier out playing physical sports - like football. Meanwhile, the girls are inclined to be happier in class, either doing schoolwork, embellishing it with decorative headings, etc, or chatting.

I think that there's quite a case for some degree of segregated learning. I feel sorry for many young boys, at the mercy of their hormones and somewhat uneven development in physical, mental and social skills. Why should they be cooped up all day in the classroom situation?
Meanwhile, girls, having passed their main growth spurt at around 9 years, do mature in a more even way, and are not so much troubled by that pesky testosterone, and by less well developed abilities of judgment and inhibition.

At the same time, some girls do enjoy those games of boisterousness and conflict. And they still have a hard time being allowed to do this. And some boys, who do like quieter pursuits, are discriminated against.

Anyway - I'd welcome an education system that gave the boys more opportunity to flex those growing muscles, and to play aggressive games, and play at gunfights.

BUT - I don't see how any kind of promotion of guns is going to help their development. The idea that schools might actually do this is a really backward and dangerous idea.
There are plenty of other ways, and not all of them actual physical activities, by which boys' (and girls') competitive spirit can be encouraged, rather than by war games. The world of fantasy offers exciting and adventurous games, as does chess.

Kids can tell the difference between imaginary and real. The promotion of guns as OK is education for war.
Christina Macpherson www.antinuclear.net

Frankly I don't see why these debates are always framed in terms of appropriate behaviour for boys and girls.

As girls, my sisters and I played with guns (despite efforts to tell me I was Annie Oakley or Calamity Jane, in my mind I was the Cisco Kid), as we played "cops and robbers", "cowboys and indians" and general war games launching attacks on the enemy's forts made from stacks of mown grass or pine needles, as well as Red Rover and British Bulldog - all played equally among girls and boys. Thankfully, my mother was a "tomboy" herself and never reined us in, unlike other mothers who didn't want their girls playing tomboy games. Mum also let the nice boy down the road play quietly with my dolls. I think we all turned out pretty well.

I feel sorry for all boys AND girls who aren't allowed freedom to play as they like. Also "aggressive" play does help learning - it develops strategy, planning and motor skills, among others. But don't make it gender-based, and allow it just for boys and exclude girls, or force it on unwilling boys. Let boys and girls decide for themselves if they like rough and tumble or prefer to sit quietly.

As for aggressive play leading to behaviour disorders, it's not the guns that are the problem (which is just role-playing, and usually as a hero) - inappropriate and dangerous behaviour needs no prop. At our school, there was a boy who took an unhealthy delight in hurting people, and once tried to hang another boy. This had nothing to do with the games and all to do with the boy.

There could be a misconception that girls are going ahead in leaps and bounds, but this is not the case

“From 1975 to 1998, the mean score for male students in reading comprehension decreased significantly, from 50.2 to 49.0. The results of female students did not change significantly during the same period (rising from 51.1 in 1975 to 51.3 in 1998).”

http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/publications_resources/profiles/educating_boys.htm

0.2 % improvement in over 20 years is not a significant improvement.

Teachers developing a more positive attitude towards boys would certainly not do any harm, but I have heard from a teacher that they were taught in teacher’s college that boys are immature. I have never been able to find any scientific evidence of this, or mention of it in any modern research carried out in education. But teachers being taught that boys are immature means that the teacher now goes into the classroom with a negative attitude towards boys from the very start.

In view of the fact that girl’s marks have hardly improved, it could very well be the case that attempts to dumb down boys and carry out feminisation of the school system have now backfired, and girls marks have not significantly improved either.

Whenever I read a bleat from HRS/Timkins about education, I reach for my (toy) gun.

CJ Morgan
If I make a post, you will inevitably follow with some derogatory remark, which is a form of stalking, and I regard a number of your remarks as being veiled threats.

Rarely do you mention the actual topic, which does not show that you had much training as a teacher. You must have went into a class, but rarely mentioned the subject, and had no regard for debate, but considerable regard for making veiled threats.

There are schools that have cadets, and girls have been in army cadets, air force cadets and navy cadets for many years.

Boys are not the only students to have an interest in guns or defence forces.

Timkins,

If ever there's an article posted on OLO about education or feminism, you will invariably make some inane comment under the guise of your HRS sock puppet.

I'm entitled to respond to your silly bleating, and there's absolutely no threat intended - no matter how precious you choose to be about it.

In dealings with teachers, it seems there;s a bit of a paranoia that male teachers will be accused of improprieties with students.
All it takes is an accusation, and that's their career and reputation gone - to have such power in the hands of the students is worrying. It means teachers (mainly, but not just males) have to be careful and ensure they're never alone with any student.
I'd say the risks associated with this are one motivating factor why males don't get involved with the profession.

HRS, as far as your comments go, it looks to me like you're being very precious.
Think about it - you're saying that maybe, teachers are told that boys are immature while they're training to be teachers, and this colours their view and makes them biased from the outset.

The idea that they can't figure these things out for themselves is a bit insulting toward teachers..
Just because you're told something in training doesn't mean they're all going to come out guns blazing against male students.
Believe it or not, these teachers have brains. Give them a little more credit.

And yes, they can be told the obvious. In most classrooms I've witnessed, boys are more boisterous which results in their learning style being different.

That was the point of this article. Getting all worked up and nitpicking these 'biases' is just getting far too politically correct in my estimation. There's some realities here that teachers need to be told.

As far as the navy comments go, this correllates with other comments you make - yes, okay. Sure. Females join the navy too. Fine.
But it's way out of whack. On the overall numbers, far more males do. Just because there's a minority of females that behave that way, you blow this up to be an issue of import.

And in relation to the comments levelled against you, I'd say get over it. Plenty of rough and tumble goes on here, and what's been directed at you looks pretty tame compared to the comments by some hardcore posters which populate the site.

I don't think the article looks at the issues facing boys honestly.

Many of the problems facing boys stem from the left-wing culture that permeates our educational institutions: from schools, universities, education departments and Boards of Studies. This culture has been highly influenced by a feminist critique which sees men as a threat to women and children, and maleness as some type of pathology. You'll notice that the men who do well in education usually suscribe to this view. They will tend to be self-depreciating when it comes to 'gender' issues; they will gladly criticise men but never dare to criticise women. Does anyone really think boys are so silly as to not pick this up? Children are told all thru school how to behave with women: its bad to hit a women, women are equal, men have subjugated women in the past, men get drunk and violent, children are in immense danger from strangers and abuse (read: from men). The obvious implication is that men are an immense threat to vulnerable women and children. Do educationalists ever ask what affect this will have on boys? Do they think boys don't understand that one day all these 'bad' things will relate to them? Educators really take boys for fools.

Girls and women, of course, are never portrayed negatively. They are seen as strong and independent, in control, and able to achieve anything. The same message is not received by boys. They are not VALUED as girls are. And they KNOW this. Until this CHANGES boys will not achieve their potential.

I think the fact that Dr Peter West is suposed to be an expert on boys' education but can only skirt the issues with meaningless talk about 'guns' (surprise: boys like guns, violence and are a threat to women) suports my argument.

Boys these days are aggressive and they do not think before they act. They are impulsive and aggressive because parents are not teaching them to consider how their actions impact on others. Girls are also catching on.

With this, boys will be boy’s, attitude boys are doing things that are very dangerous and can lead to harm. Boys are not being taught to consider the consequences of their actions they are pretty much left to their own devices.

I have two sons and two daughters and they tell me what is going on. Schools don’t help because they allow boys to kick footballs in crowded asphalt areas when it is very dangerous to other students as they kick like they are in a park. Often other students get hurt. Nobody stops them. They are allowed to play cricket and they swing that bat in ways that could kill a person. Sure the rules are that they are not allowed, but nobody stops them or punishes them if they disobey. They run around knocking other children over and nothing is done. It is just seen as kids being kids.

It is the adult’s fault that our children are not learning to be more caring and compassionate. Adults are not teaching the children well.

‘No mother, or father, wants their son to become a gun-wielding monster who destroys other people’s lives.’

No. But as a culture we reserve the right to glorify war, romanticise our dead warriors and canonise our living warriors every chance we get. One country’s gun-wielding monsters are another country’s ‘boys at the front’.

It’s hypocrisy to keep blaming TV, films and computer games for making boys violent, or the school system for failing to address their supposedly ‘natural’ rambunctiousness, when so much of the wider culture of masculinity is geared to glamorising the hyper-competitiveness of war, sport and corporate arse-kicking.

Turnrightthenleft.
I’ m not too concerned by a CJ Morgan, but I am intrigued that an ex-teacher can post so often but have nothing at all in their post that actually mentions the topic.

If, as you say, teachers should forget what they were told in teacher’s training colleges, then those colleges represent a major waste of money.

The misconception that girls marks are improving is being propelled by the media with articles such as “With girls blitzing boys academically”,

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/14/1087065080216.html

But in reality, girls marks have not significantly improved, its just that boys marks have significantly declined.

That newspaper article is interesting, because towards the end, it shows a school that is attempting to encourage its girls to develop more of an inquiring mind. But you don’t develop an inquiring mind by sitting still and listening to someone else all day long, and then repeating back what you were told at exam time.

You develop an inquiring mind by being more active, and perhaps more rebellious and more challenging of the teacher.

So eventually the feminist education system may go full circle, and girls will eventually be encouraged to be more active, and perhaps more rebellious and challenging of the teacher, just like boys (are or once were).

SJF
A well as joining the army, navy and air force, women also play football, and play other sports involving body contact or fighting an opponent. If they weren’t allowed, then they would probably say that it was discrimination.

HRS,

"If I make a post, you will inevitably follow with some derogatory remark, which is a form of stalking, and I regard a number of your remarks as being veiled threats."

Good for you! That's the only way to treat the ratbag CJ Morgan.

Don't worry about any 'threat' from Morgan. Even if he, she or it had the opportunity to do anything, he,she or it wouldn't have the guts. He, she or it is a thorough-going creep who never says anything original, but lurks like some sort of beast waiting to prey on anyone who has an opinion not according to Morgan.

CJ Morgan is a pathetic, sad grub who gets a kick out of trying (unsuccessfully) to put others down - an idiot best ignored.

Just to even up the ledger, I've got a slight crush on CJ.

HRS, I think the education system was dumned down for girls. Also, girls are really the violent ones. No feminist in the whole world has ever said a positive thing about boys or men. The incidence of marital rape in Australia is zero. More women abuse men than men abuse women,but you won't find a feminist saying that. More women than men abuse children. No men read men's magazines, it is women who like to look at other women with boob jobs in low cut dresses. You suffer a lot of verbal abuse in these forums, yet you never give it out to anyone. You are a better person than other people, because you are not an "ist" and do not believe in an "ism".

Your thoughts?

Re the topic, I'm glad to hear it. I enjoy playing with water pistols and pretend guns with several young men of my acquaintance, and always thought it was ridiculous of one of said young men's mother (he'd three, she's my mate) to dislike it. Does she think he will actually grow up to be Buffalo Bill? Good to see people being unafraid of male agression.*

* But you will never hear a feminist say that. Oh damn. I am a feminist. HRS, ignore this.

Wow, I must be doing something right :)

Timkins/HRS seems a little rattled and Leigh's living up to his self-description (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6728#101125) admirably. Poor dears.

On the other hand, a couple of OLO's perspicacious women contributors are saying nice things to and about me on this and the 'Zoo' thread. I'm truly flattered and gratified.

Weather permitting, I'll be offline for a while after Monday. I'm taking my 11 y.o. daughter camping and trout fishing in the New England area for as long as we can manage it, thence to spend some time with my older daughter and grandson in the Byron area.

No guns will be involved, toy or otherwise, but there'll be a fair bit of fishing, bushwalking and messing about in boats.

Have a nice time in my absence - and Timmy, you really should get some help. I'm afraid Leigh's beyond it.

Botheration,
You can have a crush on a SJF if you want, but I looked up a dictionary for a word used by SJF in their last post, and it was described as being “vulgar”.

However if you want to attempt to misquote me, then that is a little different.

The situation is that girl’s marks have hardly improved in 20-30 years, while boy’s marks have declined in that period of time

From what I have seen so far, there are very few teachers with a poor attitude towards girl students, but many teachers with a poor attitude towards the boy students, with a considerable question as to whether teachers are actually being trained to have a poor attitude, or a dismissive attitude towards boy students

I wonder if any of you sit back and listen too yourselves. Its really interesting! But back too the subject!(boys and guns) The world is paranoid, and I hope you all get-well soon. "The parent is totally responsible for the out-come of their children". I have five of them, and even my six year old can have a logical conversational input to a soft question. But we try not-to hide anything from them. My kids love water pistols, but they don't want to really kill someone. How do i know? cause I have asked them. Communication is the key!

"We must trust the richness of children’s ideas, the report says; not impose our own."

Where do they get their ideas from if not from adults. If adults didn't 'play' with guns - or make endless numbers of violent films and TV dramas and even cartoons that are about violence, where would they get such ideas in the first place? Is this fixation with violence by adults not imposing? It shows many children never really grow up and lack imagination for how to stimulate children.

Adults set the example and increasingly the examples we are providing children are not very good ones at all. Ideas like this and such overt support for such daft ideas is crazy. Why do you think teenage gun crime in the UK is an increasing occurrence and beginning emulate the US?

SJF, you raise a very valid point. As a culture in the past going to war was glorified. I can remember the old news reels saying they go away boys and come back men.

In part this was to convince the young and naive to go to war and risk injury or death.

It was not until I watch 'Born of the 4th of July' did I realise that going to war is an horrendous experience which deeply affected the men who went. A work colleague recently told me about her ex military husband who went to a country as a peace keeper and how watching civiilans being hacked to death and being powerless to stop it had affected him.

Dane and Jolanda, I agree with what you write.

"Girls and women, of course, are never portrayed negatively. They are seen as strong and independent, in control, and able to achieve anything. The same message is not received by boys. They are not VALUED as girls are. And they KNOW this."

Jolanda, what I understand that you are saying is that nobody is prepared to put limits on rough and hazardous behaviour. I guess in part that this is boys acting out against what they preceive is the unfair treatment they recieve at school and perhaps even in society.

Jolanda, You seem to be in every post on anything to do with education. Your children seem very willing to inform you of any infringement of the rules-I am not sure what "ideal" school environment you wish for your children but do you think harping on kids kicking footballs is that important. Your helicopter parenting style is one that does nothing to build resiliance in kids. I am assuming you live in Sydney somewhere- is this a particularly rough area or are you just incredibly persitent in highlighting any issue which may/may not upset your children.

I am commenting on this blog on this topic and on this thread. If you want to challenge what I say then do so. Your post seems to be directed at just wanting to discredit me and my children.

You wont come across many kids as resliant as mine and that is why they want to stand up against the bullies in the system and those who fail in their duty of care. It is my job to listen to them, respond to their needs and protect them.

Jolanda,

My boys (3 of them) arnt aggressive.
"Boys these days are aggressive and they do not think before they act.

Which boys are you refering to all others but yours? Where do you get your information from, have you done a study? or is it what your children say.

"because parents are not teaching them to consider how their actions impact on others. Girls are also catching on."

Which parents are you talking about all parents but you. where do you get your information from. YOUR CHILDREN.

I am sure that some boys dont think before they act, and some parents dont teach them to consider how their actions impact on others. Most parents teach their children well. There will always be a SMALL handfull of children,boys and girls, who give their parents and schools a hard time but the majority are kind polite caring just like your children,

But maybe you should think before you write/act and stop discrediting all children and parents , except you and your children.

Annoyed parent. I have two boys and they too are not aggressive but as a rule boys tend to be aggressive and they are aggressive because they are not taught to consider their actions or taught respect.

If your boys are not like that then good for you. I wasn't talking about those minority of boys who are different. Here we are talking in general about boys. I get my information from my children and from what I see, research and read.

Hey did you read the latest one from Corey
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/comments/0,22058,23052149-5001021,00.html

This type of child is the type that society is producing today.

Jolanda,

Boys tend to be aggressive because of their pesky testosterone. I guess its similar to when women go through menopause, its not the parents.

Annoyed Parent,
You are the result of testosterone, and I didn’t think it was “pesky”.

Almost every school has been built by a male, and males provide most of the money to run schools.

This is probably as a result of testosterone also, something perhaps teachers should remember when developing their attitudes regards boys.

Annoyed parent. It really is irrelevant what might cause the aggressive behaviour. Kids need to be taught how to control their behaviour and impulses. They need to learn how to respect others, how to handle confrontation. By leaving them to their own devices and giving them an excuse for their behaviour you do them no favours.

HRS. There is a negative attitude towards boys in schools. Teachers tend to prefer the girls as they are easier to handle and many have no problem making it obvious as generally they are annoyed wit the boys. Boys are getting the raw end of the deal but this happens because they are more active, more impulsive, less able to sit still and colour in all day.

Schools need to take into consideration that everybody is different and cater for individual needs and parents need to stop making excuses for bad behaviour and start teaching their children well.

I agree with you HRS. Our society has come to the point where anything male is seen as fair game, so much so that even the male hormone is now associated with exclusively negative connotations. When was the last time you heard something good about testosterone?

If you walk into any primary school staff room you'll find almost only women. Men now shy away from this environment because they have been successfully portrayed as a threat to women and chilren. There is barely disguised innuendo about why a man would want to spend time with children. We have become so paronoid. If you walked into this 'oestrogen charged' environment you'd feel sorry for boys, boys who have to endure endless verbosity, and non-competitive group work. If you look at the texts children study they're almost always 'female' type texts which concentrate on human relationships at the expense of 'male' type adventure texts. Because males tend to relate to one another through shared experience rather than verbalising their relationship, this is seen as less complex and dumb. Hence, you get the widely held belief that 'female' texts are more sophisticated and that males are poor brutes that need civilising. So in this environment 'feeling' is valued over 'doing', and emotion is valued over logic.

I realise I'm generalising and that there will be exceptions, but I think in general this is true and explains why so many boys are tuning out of class. Class is uncool for boys because education is so 'girlie'. While girlie stuff is without doubt necessary (half of school children are girls), my problem is that education is so dominated by a feminist perspective that boys are tuning out. They tune out because they receive the constant subtext that it's not meant for them. Yet even our so-called experts can't see this.

HRS boys and girls both have hormone issues. Boys get a bit of attitute and can get aggresive at times and girls get "bitchy" and nasty and become drama queens. When they grow up nothing much changes really just they learn to control it. Men suffer every month dont they... PMT! (PMT is very difficult to control") and then when menopause sets in watch out men.

Men that cant control their hormone urges tend to lose their temper and in the extreme rape and do major damage,(this is extreme cases)

I dont believe that parents can teach teenages how to control hormone issues, supporting them and making them understand that what they are feeling is quite normal and will settle may help.

Jolanda, you must be the greatest mother of Oz, , a godess of motherhood, empress of the south ,I read somewhere , you seems to have the answers to all questions/problems great and small. You come across thinking that you are the only parent that teaches their children well,

"adults are not teaching children well" you say

Annoyed parent. Well if you ask my kids they will tell you that I am the greatest mother on Earth.

I will say it again, adults are not teaching the children well! Of course there are exceptions but as a rule society is pushing children in the wrong direction and too many parents are too busy trying to be their children's friend and wanting their children to be popular and are not properly disciplining them and are not teaching them well.

I do have alot of answers to alot of questions and most of what I know I know because I am being told what is happening out there by my kids and from experience. Does that bother you? If you do not agree, put forward why, debate with me, don’t just try to make fun of me.

Education – Keeping them Honest
http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/
Our children deserve better

Jolanda,
"New Flash"
I just asked my kids, and they said that I was the greatest mum on the earth. I asked a friends sons thats over who was the greatest mum and he said that his mum was the greatest in the world. so all mums are the greatest according to their children. problem is that it looks like you truely believe that you are the greatest mother of all.

You couldnt possibly learn anything from anybody.

Annoyed Parent,
Hormones may play a part, but I don’t think hormones are everything.

Here is a project that was funded by the Lighthouse project as mentioned in the article.

“The project involves students in Years 6 and 7 from the two primary schools spending half a day a week at the high school, working with a male teacher on repairing and rebuilding motors.

All of they boys involved in 2003 improved their reading levels, some by as much as three school years, and all demonstrated a more positive attitude to school and reading.”

http://www.learningplace.com.au/deliver/content.asp?pid=408

In years 6 and 7 the boys would have very few hormones such as testerone, so the question is, why do those boys in a primary school have to go to a high school to get contact with male teachers so that they can improve their reading. What is occurring in the primary schools that has held those boys back, and how widespread is this.

"News flash". Of course your kids said that you were the greatest mum in the world. The vast majority of kids think that their mother is the best mother in the world. So we are all the best mother in the world for somebody!

Question is, do you think you are a bad mother? And, why does it bother you what you think that I think?

I don't recall ever saying that I was the best mother on this Earth, that seems to have come from you a number of times but I do everything that I can to support and protect my children.

Why do confident people seem to make some people hostile and angry?

Jolanda, reading the comments, I don't think it's 'confident people' that make others angry.

I think it's more likely, that patronising people by using pretty obtuse tactics, such as ascribing their reactions to something like 'confident people' is more likely to get their back up.

Especially when you make comments like "the vast majority of kids think their mother is the best mother in the world".... given that if you read between the lines, you're just reiterating the point that the other poster was making.

That isn't a response. It's agreeing with the poster, but acting as though you're not, and trying to claim the argument they just made against you.

You've made various points - such as the fact that you know these things because your children have told you. The response was, that this can be unreliable.

I've looked at the website you have there, and quite frankly, it's very worrying. I can only concur with other posters who have said you show all the signs of being a 'helicopter parent' who has too much involvement in their children's lives.

I've no doubt this will provoke a heated response, indicating I'm presumptuous and how dare I make such statements.

Though, given that my charge is that a parent who is too wrapped up in their kids lives can't be objective, this is to be expected.

And to back my case, I make the following argument:

Your website it a litany of grievances against education departments, government officials, teachers - basically, anyone who has disagreed with you. You've ascribed this to a hopelessly flawed education system, operating in some kind of cabal of secrecy.

Cont'd.

Alternatively, the other possibility is that you are a parent who loves their children, but perhaps doesn't know when to let them fight their own battles.

Given that overprotective parents are reasonably common, and state-wide conspiracies are less so... well, you see where I'm going.

I can sense you already warming up to respond to my 'fight your own battles' argument, given that it's a whole education system versus a couple of kids.

To this I'd say that most kids manage it. If your children are indeed gifted (though no offense, the last person qualified to say whether a child is genuinely gifted is their parent because all parents are quite naturally biased), and even if they're not being recognised for this, then it doesn't matter.

It really doesn't. If they're gifted, they'll succeed in life regardless, though they'll be better at it if they learn to fend for themselves.

The cold hard truth is, that kids who have overprotective parents, do not learn to fend for themselves, and you're displaying all the classic signs of an overprotective parent.
You're also making it very public, which undoubtedly is going to make things harder for them.

You can tell me to butt out, but to that I say, when you make such a public crusade and publish a website, be prepared for people who disagree.

Jolanda,

"Question is, do you think you are a bad mother? And, why does it bother you what you think that I think?" what makes you say this. You seem to be a very bitter angry deffensive peron.

You said that you don't recall ever saying that I was the best mother on this Earth,
then way say the your children said it and its like a statement and I have googles your name and you have said this on numerous occasions. Your writings come across as you are the only mother that teachers her children well example: my children tell me whats going on> so there fore your children behave differently to others> children behave differently because parents dont teach them
"as a rule boys tend to be aggressive and they are aggressive because they are not taught to consider their actions or taught respect."

What makes you an expert, your children, because they tell you whats goes on and that you and the best on the earth. Not the best in the world but the best on the earth. You have a lot to learn. The amount of people you have tried to help you (didnt agree with you) Is it possible that you may be making a mistake with your children.

HRS. my three boys raised same house same father totally different personality, one quie and sensitive, one loud and boisterous, and one just normal. I thinks its in the DNA. My boys always did better with male teachers.

Turnleftandright: I think you are wasting your time trying to help Jolanda, I read her blog and googled her name. and so so many have tried to but shot down and called a bully. Unfortunatley for her children this will be their life.

Turnleftthenright. What I was doing was being sarcastic in RESPONSE to a post that was very rude towards me. Why is it okay for others to be rude to me but not for me to respond in a sarcastic manner?

So let me get this straight you don’t know my children or me but you think that I am biased and that I am a Helicopter parent and that my children are liars? You appear to base that on the fact that you believe that mothers are overprotective and that Public servants are saints and would never conspire to do wrong so as to get back at a someonewho publicly complained about them.

You believe that young children who complain of being victimized, bullied, harassed and vilified by adults should be left to fend for themselves and that even if my children had been targeted and victmised, that I should teach them to just accept their lower ranking in society and not complain?

You appear to believe that because I made formal allegations after responding to complaints by my children and receiving documents under FOI that showed alarming evidence of bias, manipulation and discrimination aimed at my children that I am overprotecting them?

How does all that you say equal Child Protection and Human Rights and how does best interest of the child fit in?

As Law abiding tax paying citizens we should have a right to be treated fairly by Government Departments and we should have a right to seek access to the process used by our Government regarding decisions that impacted on us and we have the right to complain and seek justice and protection for our children when we witness injustices?

My children want me to make this public as they want to stand up against the bullies in the system that are treating them this way. My children are fending for themselves but it isn’t fair to ask children to handle a matter against adults in the Education system. It is my job as their mother to protect them and do this for them.

Jolanda-

1) You said, what you were doing was a sarcastic response.

No it wasn't. You're just saying that now as a defence.

Sarcasm refers to an instance when you say something in a facetious manner, implying the reverse.

What you said: "Of course your kids said that you were the greatest mum in the world. The vast majority of kids think that their mother is the best mother in the world. So we are all the best mother in the world for somebody!"

Unless you mean the reverse, and I'm pretty sure you don't, this can't be sarcasm. You've simply reiterated a point.

A similar situation stands for the 'confident' comment.

You say I'm basing my calls on the fact that public servants must be saints who wouldn't be vindictive.

No. You're exaggerating my commentary about the government. I never implied they were saints. As for getting back at someone who complained about them, well, I only think that would happen in the event of a sustained campaign, which brings me to your next comment.

In relation to your comment about the bias, manipulation etc:

Were it an isolated incident, then perhaps you would be correct. What's on your website shows a continuous stream of communication and complaints. It isn't just making a complaint - it is a sustained campaign against the education system.

Either a huge multitude of public servants, politicians and teachers are engaged in a conspiracy, or it's you that has the problem.

If it's the system at fault, then why aren't all the parents up in arms?

You also say that your kids have somehow been "lower ranked" but I've seen no indication of that - again, this is perception. They've been ranked alongside the other kids - not lower, but on an even footing. It's the fact that they haven't been elevated that has you complaining.

I don't expect you to take on board what I'm saying - if I'm right, then you're far too close to the situation to have any kind of objectivity, given that it's your kids at stake.

Turn right than left. Maybe your saracasm is different to mine. I didn't realise that it had to fit your criteria to be classified as sarcasm.

Oh and if you had read my blog you would have noticed that the reason that there are so many complaints is because they didn't investigate the matter in the first instance and as a result the victimisation didn't stop and even impacted my other children and further allegations that we made about fresh instances of bias and manipulation that came with evidence in support were filed away. YOu don't seem to understand that once you are targeted they continue to do you harm so that you present distressed and with a story to tell that is hard to believe. They have a story/tale that they have developed and created that they want to present about me and my children and they know that the will get away with it because people somehow always stick up for them despite the fact that the issues involve children.

The DET have breached their Policy by not investigating these serious allegations. They have breached their Code of Conduct by their actions. I have the evidence to prove it. Do you not think that when people are denied their basic human right to be treated fairly and are denied impartial and unbiased decisions then that is treating them like lower ranked citizens?

Do you not believe that allegations of the nature that my family are making should be fairly and independently investigated? Best interest of the child should always be of paramount concern so as to protect the children.

Jolanda, for your benefit, you may learn something today.

sarcasm means (from dictionary.com)
stating the opposite of the intended meaning, e.g. using "that's fantastic" to mean "that's awful".
so its not turnleftthenright criteria.

I have read your Blog and your original claims where investigated and it was found that an error was made and therefore corrected your daughter was placed in selective but you werent happy with that outcome so you continued to complain.

is this correct?

Annoyed parent. No it is not correct.

Jolanda, so you are saying that they never founds errors. and that your daughter was not then given a place in a selective school.

basic human right - the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled"
[1] Examples of rights and freedoms which are often thought of as human rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law; and social, cultural and economic rights, including the right to participate in culture, the right to work, and the right to education.

nothing about being treated fairly or right to an education and the level that each person wants or feels they dererve. note the word BASIC.
maybe you have learnt two things today.

Annoyed parent. Note the words 'equality before law'.

Jolanda,

Thats right why should you get any special treatment!

Annoyed parent. We didn't expect special treatment. When we complained it was because a teacher (who didn't like gifted children) actively bullied our daughter in ways that caused our daughter to suffer a severe depression, which attacked her immune system and made her sick.

Our children had been educationally neglected for years and we said nothing as we understood the limitations of the public school system, but the teacher crossed the line so we complained, privately about the teachers actions, and publicly about the neglect of the education of gifted children. That was in the Year 2000 and that is when our eldest son first sat for opportunity class and was first targeted, and it didn't stop. All our four children have been targeted and impacted by the same persons year after year despite formal allegations made against them. Do you think that is fair?

We didn't want special treatment when applying for selective schools. We just wanted our children's applications to be processed like everybody else but instead their applications were tampered with and changed; test scores manipulated and lies presented to the Selection Committees and Appeals panels. Had our children missed out on a place fairly then there wouldn't have been a complaint.

Four of my children have been targeted. The complaint given to those we allege are responsible who have just spun a lie and closed the complaints without any investigation despite the allegations involving children and have continued to be PERMITTED to target the children. They will not even 'look at' new fresh complaints even if involves the other children and even if it comes with evidence that clearly supports our allegations. We are being bullied, victimised, viliifed and targeted and there is a conspiracy to cover up.

This has been going on for 7 yeas. We made our complaints after the event not before.

Public servants should not be above the law and be allowed to have control of the Law and law-abiding citizens should be able to access justice so as to protect the children. We want fair treatment, not special treatment.

Jolanda,

how was your daughter actively bullied by a teacher?

Annoyed parent. I really do not have the time to go into the matter but if you go to these old links you will get an idea of what happened in the early days.

http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/2005/11/history_of_comp.html

http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/2006/04/katies_first_ye.html

http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/2006/04/katies_first_ye_1.html

During the years there were also issues with my eldest son's education and his treatment by some teachers. Allegations were also made of bullying by teachers that was ignored. Teacher kept humiliating my son in class.

It was my eldest son's OC marks that was targeted first in the year 2000 during the time I was having the issues with my daughter and making complaints. He was in the year above from his sister. I can imagine if a parent is making complaints about the education of gifted children and at that point having to deal with specific issues in relation to the younger one, it certainly would confirm the mothers situation if the older one was successful for opportunity Class. My son has a measured IQ on two different tests of between 150 and 155. He is an obvious gifted child.

Eldest son's applications targeted and victimised in 2000, eldest daughter in 2001, eldest son and daughter both targeted and victimised in 2002, eldest son marks/applications targeted by the SSU in 2003 and also bullied by his school in 2003, eldest daughter's marks targeted in 2003 and also systematically bullied at school. YOungest daughter's targeted and victimised in 2004 and 2006. Youngest son targeted in 2007. Juts to name a few as during this time there were all sorts of attitudes against my children and they paid the price.

Jolanda, one solution.

New school, then stop interfering. Don't draw so much attention to it.

Then, if the problem continues, you know it's not an issue.

As far as the gifted side goes, well then, they're going to do well in school, and all will be fine. The additional social skills they learn in a standard school will serve them well in future.

The only problem here, is if you're utterly insistent they be in a gifted school, or if problems continue, in which case you know it's not an issue of unreasnable discrimination, because you've started with a clean slate.

Jolanda,

All you are saying is allegations, here say. you werent even there were you. Please be specific, if you havent got time. just list two times your daughter was actively bullied.