Romany and others imply that standards are declining. I don't think studies actually show that. Most show that standards are better now than 100 years ago, fifty years ago, thirty years ago, twenty years ago and so on. My memory is that a recent study (from the ANU?) suggested some standards had not improved since the 60s, but the reasons for that may have been less pay for teachers (among others.)

So maybe we are having the same discussion that occurred a generation ago and a generation before that.

But one "solution" if there is a problem would be to pay teachers much more.

HenryVIII: "We need to return to the old style of education."

And go back to steam radio?

Whatever for?

Surely the thrust of the article was a call for Rudd to introduce a national standardised school syllabus by end 2009. There may be numerous 'points of order' re grammar but King is carving through those and is putting the ball fairly in Rudd's court.

The writer is conservative but personally I don't care if he's Toad from Toad Hall. It's time to revamp the school curricula. I want to know that across the nation there's a standardised syllabus that all school kids learn from. There must be some room for local differences in case studies but that's all.

King has proposed letting the students decide whether post modernism stands up as an intellectual construct and whether it's useful in decoding history and texts or whether nation building can do without it. Bring this on.

Cheryl: "I want to know that across the nation there's a standardised syllabus that all school kids learn from."

If a national curriculum taken by all is excellent, then much good may come of it.

If a national curriculum taken by all is mediocre or worse, all our children - and the national interest - will suffer.

Think about what our children could have been learning if Howard's history had been foisted on all our children. A narrow escape. We can all cite examples where a perverse version of history has been foisted on generations of young minds with appalling consequences for national identity and the truth.

I'm more comfortable with diversity. At least no single ideology is implanted in the minds of Australian youth in the name of the so-called 'national interest'.

Good point Frankgol. Surely the nature of learning is diverse. I don't advocate for a robotic kind of curricula, but one where as an employer and parent I know that the kinds of 'stuff' being taught in Goondawindi is what is being taught in Albany.

Kids take from school what they want and reject or forget much. I'm a centralist on this. Some things are too important to be left for the states. Look at the bun fight over the Murray.

We need to return to the old style of education because, having brought up three children and having come across assorted articles indicating that all is not well in standards of numeracy and literacy, the old style of education produced better results. I'd certainly go for clockwork radio.

Romany, 'tis right that U R about texting being a new form of succinct language. Hadn't thought of it like that. Maybe one day?
Latin is now Italian and Spanish, and Portugese as well, not to mention a fair bit of English, which is why it would be very helpful to have it taught in schools. It would certainly teach grammatical structure. Then folk might realise why we pluralise curriculum as curricula and hold referenda, and it would be harder for medical doctors to impress us with big words, such as "Keratosis", which is from the Greek.

Language is fun, and it should be taught, grammar and all, properly, to kids at an early age, and indeed we should be teaching a tonal Asian language to kids from the age of two or three when their brains can really soak it in.

And by the way Austrylia, to say, "There's two", ain't write. It's, "There're two";plural; get it? Damn commas.