Chaos in Australian Education

[Gringotts Bank]

The value of being able to program computers, as opposed to using someone elses program is very high. That where the IT geniuses will come from, those who can program properly.

To do this and produce worthwhile results you need to know the principles of the subject you are programming for, whether it be economics, physics, maths or anything else. Then you need to be able to think logically and string these principles together in the correct order. Then you need to validate your data and test your output for reasonableness.

All these requirements contribute to a better understanding of the subject so if they are used properly computers are a valuable tool for any subject I can think of except PE. Maybe they just are not being used correctly in schools.

If everything is done on computer, there's no need for a teacher. It's the overuse by lazy teachers that's the real problem. Computer use leads to 'zoning out' and isolation, whereas education should involve active engagement with someone who knows the subject.

Genuis kid programmers are going to teach themselves and be way ahead of anything you'd learn at school. They will do their own thing regardless.

In my day, programming was taught on the blackboard so that we could see the logic unfold. I mean why even go to school if all you're going to do is stare at a screen and follow on-screen instructions? Plenty of time to use the PC at home.

 

[Muschu]

This is one end of the spectrum

http://www.educatoronline.com.au/news/top-school-warns-laptops-a-distraction-to-learning-213838.aspx

I could find the other but I am rapidly losing interest with the fixed opinions and generalisations.

And if teaching is for the lazy, why the retention issue?

http://www.educatoronline.com.au/news/there-is-hope-for-teacher-retention-yet-213708.aspx

 

[Tink]

State-sponsored sexualisation of children is child abuse.

The state-sponsored premature sexualisation of children continues, under cover of another worthy cause; this time it’s domestic violence prevention.

Again, the aim for sexual “diversity” activists is to expose children as young as 11 to explicit lessons covering gender fluidity, transgenderism and anal sex.

Victoria was the first state to implement a version of the “Safe Schools” LGBTI-etc propaganda under the guise of an anti-bullying program, and quick to reject the federal government’s sensible refinement of the material.

Now, the Andrews government has come up with an equally pernicious project.

The $22 million Building Respectful Relationships program in Victorian government schools, purports to prevent domestic violence.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...s/news-story/1ccc661aecbb2099a4ff06739a3c0532

http://youreteachingourchildrenwhat.org/

----------------------------------------

The cartoon I posted was from a lecture at Sydney University

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...t=1202&page=56&p=902950&viewfull=1#post902950

 

[Tink]

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...=4171&page=196&p=904680&viewfull=1#post904680

Luutzu,

Well you were the one that complained about taxpayers dollars not being spent on what the parents/public want, well the parents are moving out of the public system.
What I am seeing is parents scrambling to get out, and trying to put their children in private.

What is happening in Victoria is a mess with this Labor/Greens Govt.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...s/news-story/2d4f796c2c53c26c22320df709719f7a

http://youreteachingourchildrenwhat.org/

You said your wife sent your children private -- correct me if I am wrong.

 

[luutzu]

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...=4171&page=196&p=904680&viewfull=1#post904680

Luutzu,

Well you were the one that complained about taxpayers dollars not being spent on what the parents/public want, well the parents are moving out of the public system.
What I am seeing is parents scrambling to get out, and trying to put their children in private.

What is happening in Victoria is a mess with this Labor/Greens Govt.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...s/news-story/2d4f796c2c53c26c22320df709719f7a

http://youreteachingourchildrenwhat.org/

You said your wife sent your children private -- correct me if I am wrong.

Where I live and the neighbours I have, who in their right mind would send their kids to public schools?

We send the kid to a Catholic school because it's pretty much next door, have small class room size. Though I have to put up with the kids having to attend Mass, learn about God and Jesus loving all people and things His father first created, then destroyed then forget about.

I guess kids have to have their fairy tales. I'm actually thinking of how best to put it to the kid what I think of all these stuff... but you know, can't offend teachers who's grading the kid with facts like that.

Sorry if I offended you. I went to public schools and they don't teach us manners - or proper English.

 

[Muschu]

I went to a private school but my own kids went to government schools - where I worked as a teacher, psychologist and Principal for decades.

I still do consultancy work for government schools.

Some years back WA moved towards developing "Independent Public Schools [IPS]" and we now have some hundreds of these. They do enjoy greater flexibility and autonomy particularly with regard to staff selection and how their budget is spent. But IPSs are still very accountable when it comes to performance and expenditure.

Whether it be the current difficult economic times or the IPS initiative there is now a drift here back to public schools.

Just my 2 cents worth. Basically - I think it is good that parents have a choice between public and private.

 

[Tink]

What is happening in Victoria is a disgrace, imv..

The fact that the Victorian Andrews' government is pushing the transgender agenda, against the recommendations of the Commonwealth about the Safe Schools Coalition is a concern.

The left have gone so far left, they have fallen off the cliff.

They need to look at their own bullying.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Roz Ward, the hardline Marxist behind the contentious Safe Schools program, has been *appointed to a high-level committee advising the Victorian govern*ment on education issues...

Ms Ward, already a director of the Safe Schools Coalition Victoria, has joined the education reference group set up to provide advice on the government’s LGBTI education priorit*ies and identify new ways to improve equality for gay and transgender youth in schools…

Ms Ward, an academic with a degree in gender studies, has *become the controversial face of the Safe Schools movement, largely due to her extreme Left political views; including publicly linking the program to a broader Marxist push to liberate society from “gender constructs”.

----------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the transgender bathrooms - it has already started here.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...=20836&page=14&p=903978&viewfull=1#post903978

The women have pulled off the sign from the door and put 'women only' with a dress on -- on the front door.

The left are hypocrites, when they talk about violence against women and children, yet set this up for the women and children?

 

[SirRumpole]

Lefty propaganda or a real problem in schools ?


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-17/beautiful-failures-education-making-kids-sick/7589084

 

[Tink]

'I think scholarships should be given on merit': Sonia Kruger slams university grants for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students as 'reverse discrimination'

Sonia Kruger calls scholarship for LGBTI students 'reverse discrimination
ABCN, is targeting high school students who identify as gay or trans
Kruger said she didn't understand how the scholarship related to sexuality

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nsgender-students-reverse-discrimination.html

------------------------------------------------------

Scholarships and the age of consent.

Since when are teachers allowed to ask YOUR children their sexuality?

 

[Tisme]

'I think scholarships should be given on merit': Sonia Kruger slams university grants for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students as 'reverse discrimination'

Sonia Kruger calls scholarship for LGBTI students 'reverse discrimination
ABCN, is targeting high school students who identify as gay or trans
Kruger said she didn't understand how the scholarship related to sexuality

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nsgender-students-reverse-discrimination.html

------------------------------------------------------

Scholarships and the age of consent.

Since when are teachers allowed to ask YOUR children their sexuality?

Some cultures just have to be dragged along with an incentive chain to catchup with the developed peoples, but I'm not sure that scholarships will be any sought of cure for the LGBTI breed though.

 

[luutzu]

'I think scholarships should be given on merit': Sonia Kruger slams university grants for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students as 'reverse discrimination'

Sonia Kruger calls scholarship for LGBTI students 'reverse discrimination
ABCN, is targeting high school students who identify as gay or trans
Kruger said she didn't understand how the scholarship related to sexuality

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nsgender-students-reverse-discrimination.html

------------------------------------------------------

Scholarships and the age of consent.

Since when are teachers allowed to ask YOUR children their sexuality?

Reverse discrimination: bad.

Normal discrimination: Foundation of our civilisation [?]


I thought the scholarship is also based on merits: be gay and study hard and [possibly] came from financially disadvantaged family.

It's not like it's given to anyone who's gay/transgender right?

 

[SirRumpole]

Reverse discrimination: bad.

Normal discrimination: Foundation of our civilisation [?]


I thought the scholarship is also based on merits: be gay and study hard and [possibly] came from financially disadvantaged family.

It's not like it's given to anyone who's gay/transgender right?

So why ask if a person is LGBTI XXX in the first place if it's based on merit.

It's an invasion of privacy for a start and liable to rorting. I mean do you actually have to prove it by going to bed with someone of your own sex ? It's pretty absurd when you think about it.

 

[luutzu]

So why ask if a person is LGBTI XXX in the first place if it's based on merit.

It's an invasion of privacy for a start and liable to rorting. I mean do you actually have to prove it by going to bed with someone of your own sex ? It's pretty absurd when you think about it.

It's both merit and LGBT.

Scholarships and such are never just about rewarding merit alone; they're always designed to give the disadvantaged a bit more of an equal start. That's why those of low income families, or ethnic backgrounds... believe it or not, the dominant race/gender/sexuality kids tend to be more advantaged than those who aren't born that way.

At end of the day, it's the people who set up the scholarships' choice in how they want their money spent. And if it help those they feel are somewhat disadvantaged but are studying hard... aren't there other more grievous injustices we should be fighting for?

I mean, should we tell rich parents to not spend their cash on their kids education because it disadvantage and discriminate against those kids whose parents are working hard just to put food on the table?

 

[SirRumpole]

It's both merit and LGBT.

Scholarships and such are never just about rewarding merit alone; they're always designed to give the disadvantaged a bit more of an equal start. That's why those of low income families, or ethnic backgrounds... believe it or not, the dominant race/gender/sexuality kids tend to be more advantaged than those who aren't born that way.

At end of the day, it's the people who set up the scholarships' choice in how they want their money spent. And if it help those they feel are somewhat disadvantaged but are studying hard... aren't there other more grievous injustices we should be fighting for?

I mean, should we tell rich parents to not spend their cash on their kids education because it disadvantage and discriminate against those kids whose parents are working hard just to put food on the table?

That doesn't really make sense. Merit should be the only consideration. I want people building bridges who are the best able to do it, not because they happen to be LGBTI. Somewhat of a cliche, but "political correctness gone mad" is a good description.

 

[luutzu]

That doesn't really make sense. Merit should be the only consideration. I want people building bridges who are the best able to do it, not because they happen to be LGBTI. Somewhat of a cliche, but "political correctness gone mad" is a good description.

Trust me, I always make good sense

There are already scholarships based purely on merits; and there are some position available based solely on merits.

But since our society are not all equal, since there are certain segment within it that are more disadvantaged than others... to look for and award the achievements and hard work for those within such sub-group makes a lot of sense.

Such is not reverse-discrimination; it is selective... but certain "discrimination" are necessary to just balance the playing field a bit for those they select.

Let say two students are equally capable and dedicated. One has little financial support while the other has a couple of Trusts waiting for their 18th birthday.

If a scholarship is given to the rich kid because, say, they answer a question or two better... is that really the more equitable thing to do?

What if the poorer kid wouldn't be able to attend uni at all without that scholarship?


Anyway, homosexuals and other deviants shouldn't be treated any differently... except for when they want to get married and have children.

 

[SirRumpole]

Trust me, I always make good sense

There are already scholarships based purely on merits; and there are some position available based solely on merits.

But since our society are not all equal, since there are certain segment within it that are more disadvantaged than others... to look for and award the achievements and hard work for those within such sub-group makes a lot of sense.

Such is not reverse-discrimination; it is selective... but certain "discrimination" are necessary to just balance the playing field a bit for those they select.

Let say two students are equally capable and dedicated. One has little financial support while the other has a couple of Trusts waiting for their 18th birthday.

If a scholarship is given to the rich kid because, say, they answer a question or two better... is that really the more equitable thing to do?

What if the poorer kid wouldn't be able to attend uni at all without that scholarship?


Anyway, homosexuals and other deviants shouldn't be treated any differently... except for when they want to get married and have children.

So are they going to take the applicants word for it, or do they have to copulate with their own gender ?

 

[luutzu]

So are they going to take the applicants word for it, or do they have to copulate with their own gender ?

That or just see how they dress or what music or pop icon they like, ha ha

 

[Tink]

Dead to History

A movement to censor our history is forming at Australian universities. Students and academics are campaigning for buildings and lecture halls to be renamed because of their association with ‘offensive’ historical figures. They no longer feel comfortable confronting, or even acknowledging, the past”” instead, they want to expunge it altogether. Their first target is the renaming of the Richard Berry building at the University of Melbourne.

Richard Berry revolutionised the teaching of anatomy in Melbourne. He wrote the standard anatomy textbook used by students for some twenty-five years. As dean of medicine he advocated for the placement of a hospital near campus that could work closely with the university, a dream that became a reality after his departure. Berry’s contributions to teaching, as well as an administrator, were so outstanding that when a new anatomy building opened, which he designed, it was only natural to name the building after him.

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2016/09/dead-history/

 

[Tink]

More on the unsafe school program.

Sydney University Law professor Patrick Parkinson has reviewed the evidence which underpins these programs and found that the statistics cited are “just not true”.

He’s called for a suspension of the Safe Schools material.

In his paper “The controversy over the Safe Schools program ”” finding the sensible centre”, released this week, Professor Parkinson writes: “The materials present statistics on same-sex attraction and transgender prevalence that have no valid scientific basis.”

The Safe Schools program has attracted great controversy. On one end of the spectrum it is defended as an anti-bullying program. On the other end of the spectrum it is regarded as social engineering. It is important to have programs in schools that offer support for same-sex attracted youth, or those experiencing confusion about their gender identity, particularly those who do not have support at home. However, this particular program has some serious flaws.
This paper seeks to draw attention to various problems in the Safe Schools materials which ought to be rectified if a program like this is to continue to be offered in schools. First, the materials present statistics on same-sex attraction and transgender prevalence that have no valid scientific basis. Secondly, they present sexual orientation as fixed when for school-aged adolescents it is very volatile, and many same-sex attractions are transitory.
Thirdly, they present gender as fluid when for about 99.5% of the population, there is complete congruence between sexual characteristics and gender identity. Fourthly, they promote gender transitioning without the need for any medical and psychological guidance and even without parental knowledge or consent. Finally, they offer potentially misleading legal advice to teachers. While a program of this kind may offer benefits for some young people, there is reason to be concerned that it may cause harm to other young people who experience same-sex attraction or gender confusion. There is certainly a place for an anti-bullying program that addresses the issues with which the Safe Schools program is concerned, but this program needs to be rescued from its progenitors.

The volatility of teenage same-sex attraction

Even if the adult figure for identification as exclusively or mainly gay or lesbian were corrected to be about 2% (or more detailed and accurate figures were given for adolescent same-sex attraction) it would not resolve another problem: it seems as if the entire program is premised on the assumption that same-sex attraction is something fixed, and defines a young adolescent’s identity, rather than being, for many, a transitory phase in psycho-sexual development.
Talk of ‘coming out’, being ‘queer’ and so on presupposes that a year 7 or 8 girl’s attraction to another girl is definitive of her sexual orientation as she grows into adulthood. The evidence suggests that this may be the case for some, but it is unlikely for most. There is, in other words, a major difference between having feelings of romantic attraction towards someone of the same gender as an adolescent, and going on to enter into a continuing same-sex relationship. There is also a gulf between ever having had a same-sex experience and identifying as an adult who is either exclusively, or predominantly, gay or lesbian in orientation.

Gender Fluidity as a Belief System.

What then could be the explanation for the exaggerated statistics promoted by the Safe Schools Coalition? A likely explanation for the exaggeration of transgender and intersex conditions is that it is regarded as necessary to support the authors’ belief system to show that gender is “fluid” and can even be chosen. This idea has its origins not in science but in philosophy. Leading gender theorist Judith Butler, for example, wrote in 1988 that
“…gender is in no way a stable identity or locus of agency from which various acts proceed; rather, it is an identity tenuously constituted in time – an identity instituted through a stylized repetition of acts… Feminist theory has often been critical of naturalistic explanations of sex and sexuality that assume that the meaning of women’s social existence can be derived from some fact of their physiology. In distinguishing sex from gender, feminist theorists have disputed causal explanations that assume that sex dictates or necessitates certain social meanings for women’s experience.”
The differentiation made between sex and gender, and the notion that gender is fluid and may be socially constructed, lie at the heart of the Safe Schools program. Here is a passage from All of Us instructing teachers on how to explain this idea to 7 and 8th grade students: “Explain that sex is about the body you are born with (male, female or intersex), while gender is about your identity, or how you feel inside. Gender refers to the way that you feel on the inside. It might be expressed by how you dress or how you behave and for some people these things may change over time.”
This is now quite a widespread belief system, especially in parts of the western world. This belief system is deeply held by some, and has many characteristics of being a religious belief. As with religions, there is a new language, helpfully explained in detail in All of Us for the uninitiated. The 99.5% (or more) of us who do not think we are transgender are “cisgender”, as if we represented just one type of gender identification. A vast array of terms have been developed to allow people to describe themselves as neither male nor female, and such terms have been adopted by social media such as Facebook.
The belief system also has its rituals. When students introduce themselves at formal meetings in university student unions across Australia (such as debating events), they are asked to say what their name is, the gender with which they identify, and their preferred pronoun….

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2839084

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/bl...i/news-story/f80587e97a6342be724435a6af87bd85

 

[Tisme]

More on the unsafe school program.

Sydney University Law professor Patrick Parkinson has reviewed the evidence which underpins these programs and found that the statistics cited are “just not true”.

He’s called for a suspension of the Safe Schools material.

In his paper “The controversy over the Safe Schools program ”” finding the sensible centre”, released this week, Professor Parkinson writes: “The materials present statistics on same-sex attraction and transgender prevalence that have no valid scientific basis.”



http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2839084

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/bl...i/news-story/f80587e97a6342be724435a6af87bd85

Psycho-sexual ... Never...homosexuality is set at conception, just ask anyone who rides the rainbow bandwagon.