Jolanda, I have to give it to you for tenacity re schools. You've commented on this a few times.

I've had experience with both the public and private school systems.

In both teaching and meeting special requirements for your children can be either excellent or mediocre. But the big difference is that, increasingly, in the public school system, parents are not seen as 'customers', but as people who should be darn grateful that the school has no choice but take your kids. It is irrelevant that you also have no choice but have to send your child to the school in your area.

So, I presume that your problems are not with a private school.

Complaining to any authority about any aspect in a public school is a monumental waste of time and energy. Other parents want to keep their heads down and distance themselves lest their kids get caught up.

The most that will happen is that your child will be made to pay in some form or other.

I learned the hard way when I protested about my child receiving a particular brand of Christian education without my consent (in a secular state school!). I was told I could request her not to participate. She was then made to take her desk and chair to the back of the class facing the wall when 'religion' was taught.

At the end of the year-before Christmas break-up, all the kids who learned all about Evangelical Christianity got a sweet treat from the person teaching, except: my daughter and the one other child who were removed from the sessions. She was rather distraught about this at the time-the teacher told her she couldn't get a lolly because she didn't do 'religious education'.

This is grade three I'm talking about.

I wrote letters to the Department of Education and quoted to them the relevant sections from the Mission Statement. Absolute waste of time.

So, I'm not the slightest bit surprised about your story.

How do you conclude it to be 'discrimination' and not just ineptitude, Jolanda?.

StG
"How do you conclude it to be 'discrimination' and not just ineptitude, Jolanda?"

She has done her homework and is capable of ascertaining the difference. Why do you ask? Are you having a bad day?

Its not discrimination, that's why the particular body you chose to complain to this time cant help. Discrimination is "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit" (dictionary.com). Jolanda and her children may or may not be the target of a cover-up by the education powers that be, and everyone else, but the alledged treatment has been aimed at her and her family, not because they belong to any particular group or class, but because she complained about a perceived error in her children's test scores.

A background for those of you that are unaware of the situation. Jolanda believes her children are "gifted" (which they may very well be, I dont detract from that). She claims that her chldren have been excluded from gifted programs and public "selective schools" and that their test scores have been manipulated to keep them out. Sounds to me very like sour grapes and not being able to accept that her kids, while being gifted, arent gifted enough when compared with their peers to be accepted into the selective schools program. Most parents would accept this and try to make alternative arrangements - a number of private schools offer full or near full scholarships to students that they believe will left the school's average academic performance as an investment in advertising. But Jolanda isnt interested in solutions, she wants revenge and has spent 10's of $1000's on legal fees that could have been used in hiring tutors and paying private school fees for her talented children.

I dont dispute that the system is quite capable of being vindictive and covering-up ineptitudes, but most of us have the good sense to direct our energies towards where they will be most productive.

Country Gal,

“Its not discrimination, that's why the particular body you chose to complain to this time cant help.”

If that is the reason for their decision to not act then why do they say things like the following:

“Back then the Anti-Discrimination board wouldn't investigate our complaints saying that it wasn't against the law to discriminate against gifted children.”

“The Anti-Discrimination board has said that it is limited in its scope and does not prohibit all possible types of discrimination or victimization and they will not investigate our complaints as only certain types of discrimination and victimisation is unlawful.”

Their responses are more consistent with either having not considered that issue or having considered it and deciding that the behaviour is discriminatory. Either way that doesn’t seem to explain their responses.

“good sense”

I haven’t looked into the background but it seems that you would be exhibiting good sense if you were particularly cautious about making any negative comments relating to Yolanda’s brain function in the circumstances.

Sorry, this is off-topic, but I just wanted to comment on mjpb's comment: "... gifted children and their adult counterparts are a small minority in numbers and haven't fared well from the 60s cultural upheaval..."

Interesting. Culture changed qualitatively in the 60s, and while I remain deeply grateful for the questioning of authority that resulted in civil rights advances, I agree that relativism devalued genius. These days, universities are democracies rather than meritocracies.

But what sort of special treatment do "intelligent" people want? Or deserve? Great intelligence combined with an aptitude in the law, or medicine, or literature, or maths, or science can still propel you to the top of your profession. More importantly, we have bequeathed to us the entirety of Western and other civilisations. Why should clever people ever be bored when the state is so kind to build us lovely libraries?

I'm not saying I'm particularly clever, but I'm sure a lot of people will relate to me if I say that I barely remember what I learned in school, or even at uni, but feel the bulk of my education came out of my own reading, which I endeavour to keep dynamic, varied and, for want of a better word, intelligent. I now have a job that's connected to a academic discipline which I have never formally studied.

As for being heard by culture, I agree that there's been a shift, but you can't argue that intelligence has been completely devalued. You may not like their politics, but the PM on one side and Mr Turnbull on the other are both demonstrably intelligent men. New Idea may sell more issues than The Monthly, but The Monthly still exists.

Besides, Aristotle's considerable genius wasn't valued by his society either. We shouldn't romanticise previous epochs.

One last point: intelligence isn't wisdom. The mandarin class needs to do more than just be clever.

My basic question is, sure, we are more democratic and less meritocratic since the 60s. From this, many gained. (The formerly unheard.) Some lost. (The ponderous.) But do the latter really have anything to complain about?