The degradation of the public school system is clear; more money, as is desired by the teachers’ unions, will not fix the problem. Social inequality isn’t the issue. The design and purpose of the school system, and the way students are stunted by it is the issue.

“The implication is that teachers at such a school are not doing their jobs well enough – and if they work harder, improve their methods or are replaced by better teachers, the problem will be solved.”

That’s only part of the implication. Better teachers will help reduce the negative effects the federal school system is having on its students, but the real solution is to go back to the foundational principles on which our country was founded, and abide by them in every sphere of civil duty, especially education.

“The concept of the under-performing or failing school is based on a number of myths. The first is that student performance is entirely dependent on what happens in school, and that it is a consequence solely of the activities of teachers and principals and not of any factors outside the school.”

No one is saying that student performance is entirely dependent on what happens in school, or that no other factors are involved. However, the truth is that most of the influence exerted on the student during his school years is from the school- with all its negative influences and its erroneous foundation. Thus, the school is to be held mainly responsible for influencing its students in an (all too common) undesirable direction. Since the public school system as presently constituted is not based on a Biblical foundation anymore, the change will have to be to the foundation, not only to the school staff. Please also note that student performance in school is not the only, or even the primary concern. The concern is for the student’s welfare and the condition of his inmost being.

“The second myth is that all students come to school equally prepared, with equal ability and with equal levels of motivation, so that all they need is excellent teaching to excel.”

Not so. We all know that students come to school prepared to different degrees, with different abilities and with different levels of motivation. They do need excellent teaching in order to encourage best results, but that alone will not guarantee success in school or in life. What they do need is a positive, beneficial foundation of absolute principles and wisdom on which to learn.

“Students who start school with the best chances of ultimate success will come from a home where the parents are well educated and where education is highly valued; where the child’s imagination and cognitive development have been stimulated and enriched by a wide variety of play and other creative experiences; where English is the first language, and the parents and other adults with whom the child has contact have strong linguistic skills in the English language.”

These things aid and promote success in school. We are not denying that at all. The basis on which these things are taught is what will make the difference in the life, not just the schooling, of the student. What basis are these things taught on? The basis that man is a cosmic accident and on an equal level with animals? Many are well educated on that basis, and though they have good careers, find themselves miserable indeed.

“The absence of any or all of these factors will affect a child’s readiness for school. Lower parental levels of education, limited linguistic ability, lack of reading and books in the home, little use of the English language in families of non-English-speaking backgrounds, high levels of family unemployment and non-attendance at kindergarten are all more prevalent in the northern and western suburbs.”

Likewise, the absence of beneficial factors will make it more difficult for any person to learn and thrive. Notwithstanding, if each student was allowed to learn at his own pace without being hurried along or put into special needs classes, the slow or disadvantaged learners would catch up and the fast or advantaged learners would eventually moderate their pace as the difficulty of learning material increases. At the end of their education, you would not be able to tell a significant difference as far as aptitude is concerned if this method of education was applied. This, we know, is a hard thing for the public school system to adopt because it is (as said before) on the wrong foundation. Until the foundation is changed, all other attempted fixes are like band-aids on the broken bone.

In a nutshell, the teachers blame the parents for not taking responsibility for their children’s development, and the parents point out that the children are influenced most at school. The teachers believe the issue is performance in school, while many parents believe that the issue is also the way the students are influenced for life. As is often the case, both sides have valid points and both sides are at fault. The real question is, “What are we going to do about it?”

Haven’t they heard? They were instrutemental in it. We’s been americanised and its all awesome.

Louis Hissink made an intersting comment over there:

The Greens are essentially utopians.

I think, on this, he is correct. Capitalists, on the other hand, are essentially exploitative. From my perspective, that is the essential dichotomy and paradox of human existence, both among and within ourselves. The desire to cooperate for the good of all and the desire to exploit for private gain. I and Thou or I and Other. Greens, Capitalists, Teh Left, The Right are labels we use to judge where people are at along the spectrum.

At Larry’s suggestion, Jennifer might start a Defining the Skeptics series. Luke offered to set the ball rolling: Let’s see – defining the sceptics – right wing, geologist, economist, retired, conspiracy theorist, wrong, evil, … LOL !

Ya gotta laugh!

Isn’t everyone a bit green? Met anybody who hates trees lately? Or thinks that oxygen sucks, eating’s for those damn disease carrying flying vermin of the sky–birds. And as for doing a poo. Never!

What is that woman on about? Frankly I don’t think she knows or maybe hasn’t been briefed by anyone for a while. Still I think she’s right about a couple of things. I propose a study. Do people who like trees tend to be more intelligent than people who have never ever thought about them before. Err.. (I’ll hazard a guess.) Yes. Do people who like trees tend to be more educated than people who have never thought about trees before. Er . . . Yes. Are people who would consider the implications of removing vast tracts of rainforest and evicting hitherto unknown inhabitants of all species, morally superior to people who would consider none of these things and think only of what they will get out of it and start up their bulldozers and get on with it. Er . . . Yes.

(oh and if you think my comment is going to start some sort of mindless flame war with the little green/purple/brown folk, please delete it, I won’t mind a bit)