Climate change mitigation that does not include population control is pointless

In the Pinker article "The Moral Instinct", as well as in numerous articles in the Melbourne Age relating to housing needs, population control is never mentioned.
Regardless of what inventive technologies or cultural changes are developed, they will be completely meaningless if the population continues to increase.

It is fascinating that there is a deliberate combination of suppression and self-censorship in relation to this crucial part of the solution.

Attenborough: cut population by half : Surely this convinces you !!! Attenborough brings power to the argument ..... Trust him – just like you probably trust Bob Brown for the same reasons - they both carry referent and expert power.

Stephen Digby

Outside 'play' reflects the game

April 8, 2009

AFTER the father of an AFL player is assaulted [1] [2] [3], we need an "emergency summit" (The Age, 7/4) to appease the public. The fact that the AFL builds its popularity on an atmosphere of gladiatorial violence needs to be obscured once more.

No politician and few citizens dare to mention the fact that the culture of the game has become a "toxic asset". Drug abuse, violence and loyalty for sale to the highest bidder are the principles displayed off-field. Violence, verbal abuse and lack of respect for the spirit of the rules are the principles displayed on the field.

Is it any wonder that immature individuals do not understand that "playing the game" outside the arena may land them in jail?

Stephen Digby

No matter what a person does, it's society that is to blame.

The news report, Disabled student takes state to court (31/12/2008) seems to be little more than a press release in direct support of complainants in a court case. The reporters make a lazy attempt at balance by declaring that the government told them it was "inappropriate to comment". Half a thought would have revealed that government officials would be completely hamstrung by the draconian privacy laws. Government officials might also have more sense of balance that those with material interest in obtaining a punitive payment i.e. the lawyers and the mother. In today's news cycle, it was probably far to hard for the reporters to collect "off the record" responses from school staff, other parents or students regarding what it was like to share a classroom or a bus with this student. Alex's swears in ways that could be "misconstrued" as bullying or controlling behaviour. How bad does this have to be before one is refused bus transport ! Make me wonder what it was like for the others. Who cares about the community when an individual's rights are threatened ? Not reporters at The Age it seems.

Stephen Digby

Merit Pay for teachers

What a polarised debate ! Opponents froth at the mouth. Proponents make out it is all so clear and simple.
There is not much new about performance pay. It is built into any worthwhile career. Anything else is a "dead end" job by definition.
Over my 25 years, my pay increases have almost exclusively been according to performances outside the classroom. Each career restructure promises to value classroom performance, but ends up at a standoff between the union and the government - usually a place that suits no-one and has no logical coherence.
Today, to get better pay, staff must still go through paper shuffling and spruiking interviews for responsibilities outside the classroom. The message that the classroom is the last priority has remained clear and constant throughout my career.
How do we get out of this mess ? Who has the guts to cut the Gordian Knot rather than waste millions trying to untangle it ?
What we need is:

• Payment for all non-teaching duties to be completely separate from teaching salary budget so that anyone can apply - teacher or non-teacher, young or old.
• Payment for leadership roles to be completely separate from teaching salary budget and to continue to be for fixed terms.
• Payment for teaching merit to be completely separate from the salary budget and based on assessment of parent satisfaction and student performance changes, both measured objectively by instruments designed independently of the school (and preferably of the state bureaucracy).

In this way, teachers (and schools) would try to give parents what they wanted, rather than tell them what the government wants.
Teachers (and schools) would also tend to follow educational approaches that produced real results, rather than the latest government fashion statement.

Stephen Digby

We are all superheroes ! We just need "training"

The modern employers panacea for any dysfunction in the workplace is to propose some "training". The unchallenged and unstated assumption is that there is no limit to any one persons performance. Job expectations can be expanded without limit as long as "training" is provided. The mantra is most commonly espoused by governments that cannot seem to give up on trying to be "all things to all people". Yesterday the idiocy was repeated by a very frequent offender, the Victorian Education Department. "A Government spokeswoman rejected the need for new laws to protect teachers. She said the Government was taking action to reduce parent-rage incidents by providing training for teachers on how to defuse possibly violent situations." (Parent Rage pushing teachers to the edge 10/6). Teachers are being "trained" not to cope better before the police arrive, but to avoid the need to ring the police. The inference for teachers is that intimidating and violent behaviour is part of life and we must learn to handle it - not stop it. Similarly, despite the recent blustering about mandatory reporting of drug use in schools. The government's policy of "harm minimisation" is designed to "train" teachers to cope with and support drug using students in their classrooms. After all, drug use is part of life and we must learn to handle it - not stop it. But there's more... The government continues to push students with severe disabilities into "normal" classrooms maintaining that the teachers can be "trained up" to meet any parent's expectation about their child's special needs. There are many more examples of this dangerous fallacy in the way employers respond to when their policies create impossible situations in nursing, the police force, social welfare etc.
Training is seen as the cheap alternative to workable policy.

Stephen Digby

Population increases require environmental degradation

Average Melbournian's are told they need to get used to: tolls on public roads; synthetic grass for children's playgrounds; recycled water for drinking; high density development shadowing every suburb; living in flats because land is made so expensive etc etc. Just remember that none of these restrictions will apply to those who can pay - such as the politicians and leaders that call for them. Just remember that all these problems are by-products of an addiction to growth. Just remember that our government encourages this degradation because growth is the only short term fix that will pay the interest on public, corporate and private debt. Just remember, that regardless of how much quality of life we sacrifice, growth is unsustainable. One day we may get leaders who will realise the need to plan for improvement instead of growth.

Stephen Digby

Stop the rot in government schools

The drift to private schools will continue and probably accelerate in Australia. Government school classrooms face the disruption and distraction created by the continuing fragmentation of Australian culture and the increasing dysfunction of Australian families. The history and purpose of private schools substantially insulates and allows the maintenance of internal coherence – often called school “tone”. Nearly all government schools, rather than being nurtured, are continually reorganised, regulated, and standardised by ministers desperate to appease and appear active. A few government schools with selective entry or the right postcode have enough confidence and leadership to follow best practice as recognised by parents and mimic many private school practices. Government schools need many things – local flexibility in finance, organisation and curriculum organisation to match private schools; local community control of the school – not just the fete. Usually, instead of stopping the deep rot, politicians just want another paint job for their term.

Stephen Digby

Great need for selective secondary schools

Feb 2007, Stephen Digby in response to: 2007-02-17 Elite schools dominate uni places
Elite schools dominate uni places (Age feb 17) seems a bit of "beatup". In the VTAC 2005-2006 report, 51% of the students who applied for tertiary entrance came from government schools and they made up 48% of the enrolments the following year. It should be no surprise to anyone that although government students make up 48% of enrolments overall, they only make up 35% at Melbourne University .
Government schools have to use a junior curriculum structure (VEL's) that is not academically focussed on preparing students for university entrance. As government students approach VCE, many of those who want to beat the competition to get the most hotly contested institutions move to catholic and independent schools where this preparation is more of the focus. Furthermore, government school students are encouraged to consider a range of tertiary options of which traditional universities, like Melbourne, are only one. The proportion of students in government schools graduating VCE is then much smaller and a more biased sample than it is over all the years of secondary schooling.
The real unmet demand is for many more selective entry government schools that teach towards successful tertiary entrance ranks at least for years 9-12.
The government rhetoric that endlessly repeats that all schools can be all things to all students on a shoestring budget just contributes to dissatisfaction with the government school system.

Stephen Digby

VCAA Statistics: http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/vce/statistics/2006_statistics.html
VTAC Statistics: http://www.vtac.edu.au/pdf/stats/2005-2006/2005_2006_Section_G.pdf
(Extract: 2005-2006-VTAC-annual-report-extract-Section-G.pdf)

National curriculum needed

One problem in the debate on the proposal for a national curriculum is that people have such different ideas of what a curriculum is !
I have been teaching for nearly 25 years and every few years the Victorian Education Department trots out an amazing new ‘curriculum" that justifies the salaries of the Minister and the bureaucracy.
Most recently we have VELS ! Victorian Essential Learning Standards. Don’t get me wrong - this new plan is full of great ideas ! So was the last one – Frameworks II, and the one before that Framework I and the one before that etc. etc.
The trouble is that none of these curriculum standards or guidelines actually detail a course of study. They are just "standards", "guides", "support". The Department doesn’t work with publishers to produce approved courses of study. It’s senior officers openly express disapproval of any single published textbook or course.
Each school around the state is expected to cobble together a patchwork quilt curriculum that meets the new standards from a range of sources that don’t !
Teachers "at the chalkface", desperately need national courses of study so that we can begin to spend some more time on teaching, rather than continuously "re-inventing wheels".

Education – everyone’s had one so everyone’s an expert.

Opinion pieces by John Roskam (The Age, Jan 31) proposes parents would make government schools better if they were paying for it, and John Keating (Jan 31) proposes to merge the last years of secondary schools with other institutions to make them more flexible. Neither are government school teachers. Indeed, current teachers contribute only a minority of letters. In my 25 years experience their opinions are never sincerely sought – much better to design questionnaires that provide options within policy, than find out what people real at the chalkface really think. My fictitious poll question would be “What is the major factor that prevents you and your school from performing better ?” 89% of teachers would say “Government regulation and policy” and the diminishing remainder would be found to be applying for promotion and thus too scared to comment on the nakedness of the emperor. Over my decades, governments have continued to pile more and more regulations and responsibilities on schools while providing less and less guidance. Take curriculum: we don’t one ! We have a new set of “standards” deliberately vague so that curriculum developers have flexibility (e.g. Maths - Working mathematically - Standard 3.75: “Knowledge of appropriate historical information”). Unfortunately, the government is not willing to approve any of the curricula developed by publishers and strongly implies that those published are against the spirit of the standards. Teachers are left to write a new curriculum from scratch. Only the old hands remember the educational disaster of the 1980’s “school based curriculum”. The alternative is to use the published curricula and mash it up into some form that will appease the government regulations. Needless to say most such experiments rob the curriculum of quality, coherence and, of course, rigor.
The central problem these vage standards are attempting to address is the increasingly dysfunctional levels of social diversity. “Diversity” is actually a government goal – “valuing diversity”. Unfortunately, diversity is only desirable in certain areas and degrees – alternative cuisine cf. inability to accept women in authority; alternative style of expression cf. using fists to solve problems. Over decades governments have been rewriting educational regulations and standards more and more frequently and desperately as the raw materials in government schools become more and more “diverse”. Students who don’t learn must be promoted from year to year (government regulation). Students who endanger the learning of others must have more time (= money) spent on them at the expense of other students
I am lucky to teach in a school that has developed a school ethos supported by a community that has its own standards which are only very slowly being eroded by government policy. If you are in the right enrolment area, you can get into a government school that has similar control of it’s “diversity”. An alternative increasingly chosen is to buy into a non-government school where diversity wonderfully encouraged – within very well defined limits !.
Oh! You heartless traitor ! Heartless: What do you propose to do with those for those that fall outside the limits of your local school definition of “diversity” ? Traitor: Don’t you understand that anything other than effusive praise of government schools is disloyalty ? Full answers to these and other questions just don’t fit into the letters column.
The simplest advice I can give is for parents to fight for local control of the school standards in curriculum and behaviour against a government that increasingly does more harm than good.

Turkey slapping - should Big Brother Australia be banned from TV

See: 2006-07-05 Shun the crass, but why ban - The Age

I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment, but disapproval of values or practices do not constitute valid reasons for banning.

They are valid reasons for political pressure on media companies to "self-regulate" or "self-censor". There is nothing unhealthy about self-censorship being "encouraged" by an estimate of the level of reaction from the community. It is far better to guide social practice through these "intuitive" assessments of "the right thing to do" (and what happens if I don't !) than through vain attempts to write laws. Legal codes do provide some protection when brokering within cultures that have very high levels of diversity (or very low levels of tolerance). But, their complexity and the impossibility of defining all possible present and future circumstances make them increasingly oppressive, inefficient and increasingly counterproductive.Annie knows, as most "right-minded" people, that Big Brother should never have been put to air - but it represents a drift along a continuum rather than clean break with the past. The law would fail to make a distinction.Just imagine the response to my plea:"The AFL's values undermine us all and are more dangerous that terrorism; The AFL's misguides the audience; The AFL's exploits the participants; The AFL's values are shallow and untrue and lead to unhappiness; The AFL inspires terrorists and me to despise our society; The AFL diverts attention away from important issues affecting peoples lives; The AFL is an insidious diversion from the real loss of freedom of speech in the proposed cross media law reform proposals; The AFL is a right wing diversion to confuse people about issues of freedom of speech and choice; I have a friend who works for the AFL is ashamed and wants it to stop; I don't know how to keep my spirits up when I think of the AFL; Howard appears to have moral fibre by attacking the AFL and that is good for John Howard, particularly now that Costello has confirmed that he is a liar and has no moral fibre"Not far off my real sentiments !! And most statements taken separately would be defensible. To me, Howard is right but far too faint-hearted. He should begin a debateShould Big Brother be censored ?
Issues:
Censorship: Should it occur at all ?
Every society on earth exercises formal or informal censorship. Those who profess to be against all censorship, merely wish to see censorship relaxed. When confronted with clear (and real) extremities, they resile (choose one or more from a list including: child pornography, extreme violence, incitement to treason/ terrorism/ racial violence). The total absence of censorship would mean that the representation, recording and communication of acts of evil would be sanctioned as long as the communicator had no part in the act itself e.g. I would be free to sell a movie of a child being sexually assaulted and killed as long as I had no part in its production, or it was a simulation. Western societies have already drifted quite close to this ludicrous situation due to the inability of any law to deal with any continuum - as there is no clear line in logic or language, the line is defined in terms of social acceptance. Commercialism ensures that social acceptance is continually widened (the boundary events are always the most profitable e.g. "turkey slapping" so they are given greatest exposure and thus create social acceptance in readiness for the next relaxation of standards). Countries dominated by Muslim rulers are rightly contemptuous of the degraded nature of our media where the word "freedom" is indeed nothing more than "license".
Answer: Most definitely !

If, yes under what circumstances ?
The kernel of the debate ! Again, we return to the two major deficiencies of democracy - that it is prone to populism (especially in Australia due to a strong anti-intellectual strain in our culture) and that it can lead to a dictatorship by a majority. A populist can argue that only "wowsers", the "stuck up" or "killjoys" would want to stop "Big Brother Uncut" or the film Baise-moi etc. The argument rests on the "common-sense" belief that "I could watch it and not be harmed". This argument neglects both the cumulative effect of small exposures as well as the social effect on the whole society when just one person is tipped into criminality by the exposure. The populist would use the principle that government should only interfere with freedom as an extreme last resort, while stressing the widespread perception that the law is steadily eroding basic freedoms. Thus the banning of a film would be yet another interference, and worth opposing in principle regardless of the merits of the film.
Answer: Censorship should only used where communication would result in significant demonstrable harm to the viewer or to the producer. The viewer may claim that no harm will arise, but if it can be demonstrated that significant harm results from the viewing, then censorship would be justified e.g. children viewing sex or violence may say that they are not harmed but if measurements of attitudes or actions reveal significant harm, then censorship from these viewers would be justified.

Does use of a limited public asset (TV broadcasting frequency) imply a public duty to do good (or at least do no harm) ?
Television is currently a special case because the public licenses to broadcast are currently limited, unlike the capacity to print newspapers or provide online content. Within the next decade, this distinction will disappear as the ability to offer video information to the world will available to nearly every individual (just as the ability to offer text and images to the world is now).In the meantime, there is a strong argument that these limited licenses should be used to contribute to the public good, and certainly should do no harm. It would seem unreasonable to argue that limited public assets should be given to those with no consideration to the public good - even though that is in fact the current situation.
Answer: Yes

Is Big Brother morally or socially good, bad or neutral ?
The central purpose of Big Brother is to create stress by: isolating them from their normal social support networks (people, work, recreations); by ordering them to complete meaningless tasks in a highly competitive environment with the powerful reward and punishment of large sums of money; to deliberately encourage them to act co-operatively while requiring them to be disloyal to win the game; to stress the importance of popularity over principle through the anonymous shallow judgment of public voting; to encourage voyeurism through the exposure of highly personal activities to the public; ... to name a few.
Big Brother is a classic example of the strong tendency of globalization (in this case, media globalization) to actively undermine cultural autonomy in order to promote globally consistent markets. It also demonstrates that commercialism has a strong tendency to lower any standards of practice (moral standards, safety standards, employment standards etc) due to the absence of any guide to action other than the one dimensional inhuman measure of profit.
Answer: Big Brother is unequivocally bad.

Does Big Brother fall under the general justification for censorship
Any free society must tolerate a very wide range of "bad" (e.g. risky motor bike rides, cigarettes, table top dancing) because so much of the "pursuit of happiness" involves them. All these "bad" activities are controlled (and often taxed !) by society to some extent in recognition and compensation for their "badness". Nevertheless, they are tolerated as essential ingredients of freedom. Big Brother is definitely in this category. There are already (totally ineffective) restrictions on the broadcast times of its worst aspects (Big Brother uncut).
Answer: No. The argument for demonstrable harm could be made in relation to many of the aspects mentioned above, but the relatively mild degree (in our debauched society) would ensure that any "average" or "reasonable" person would not ban the show.

Does Big Brother meet the higher duty implied by TV broadcast license ?
If governments asserted the novel view that public assets should contribute to the public good, then Big Brother would certainly be a case for a review of the broadcasting license. Unfortunately, the normal experience over the last few decades is that government only regulates for harm minimization rather than promotion of public good. The reason that governments rarely do this anymore is bound up in the retreat from any "shared values". To promote something is to reveal that it is valued. To value a something specific (even such as "motherhood") is anti-diverse, a slur on all "non-mothers". Governments much prefer to be thanked for fixing a hundred problems, rather than be blamed for planning a healthier happier society that does not provide a solution to every problem.
Answer: No. While TV is still broadcast using a restricted public asset, Big Brother contradicts the requirement to contribute to the public good and to do no harm. therefore it should not be broadcast on public television.

Are there other social control mechanisms which could prevent broadcasts that harm ?
"Just change the channel" is a common response from defenders of Big Brother. This is of course, an effective method of social control. In some countries it has been used to partial effect. Other strategies have included street protests. Other strategies could be tried (such as the successful lobbying against advertisers used by the US Moral Majority). The strategies commonly promoted by the "left" such as "direct action" could also be effective - e.g. physical invasion of the studio and disruption of the broadcast. I support such actions, in exactly the same way as I support most industrial action, as part of the variety pressure valves needed to maintain a healthy democratic society. All of these strategies require sacrifice by the citizens involved (e.g. pay, fines, freedom, amusing TV viewing). These sacrifices need to me made willingly without compensation if the society is to remain responsive and avoid extremes through complacency. I hope someone tries some of them in Australia.

Conclusions: Censorship is necessary in every society. Where to "draw the line" is always a matter for debate. The line is being actively and continuously redrawn by the forces of evil (globalization and commercialization). Use of public broadcast licenses require a higher duty of care than for print or internet. Big brother is definitely bad. Big Brother should not be censored. Big brother should not be shown on public TV. Direct action should be supported in order to discourage bad social tendencies such as Big Brother.

Valuing diversity by exclusion

In response to Lesbians Only Need Apply, The Age 12/09/2003

“Valuing diversity” is a one way street. The ordinary citizen in continually exhorted to accept increasingly diverse ethnic, religious, political, sexual and family behaviours. When an individual fails to be accepting, the organisation that they work for is often publicly criticised for its “culture” of intolerance. Organisations that say “male only please” or “no lesbians need apply” are stridently attacked. The press usually jumps on the bandwagon.
It is astonishing and disturbing that groups like the Victorian lesbian festival organisers and Muslim men in ascot Vale (Lesbians only need apply. The Age Sept 12) can gain permission to discriminate against the general community in ways that would be illegal for anyone else. The tribunal is willing to do this to give the lesbians a sense of “security and well-being” and to allow muslims to continue their “religious traditions”. Surely many groups can also now argue “tradition” and “security” to exclude muslims and/or homosexuals from their activities.
Valuing Diversity is really a new code for the further undermining of values shared across our community. Without them, we will create an increasingly fragmented and segregated society.

Don't be fooled by Wahid's words

The Age Letters 28/12/2002 in Response to Indonesia's moderate Majority

Abdurrahman Wahid (Opinion, 27/12) states that the moderate Islamic movement in Indonesia is far more powerful than the radical movement. At the same time, he acknowledges that both these movements have as their aim the establishment of Islam as the dominant civilisation, and he states that even though the West is superior in technology, trade and communications, Islam is much more evenly matched in the sphere of culture.
Wahid's use of the word "movement" to describe both strains of Islam reaffirms the widespread concern in Western-style democracies that even moderate Islam sees itself as missionary - that is, sent to propagate religious faith.
In itself, the desire to share a deeply held belief system is a key facet of what the west calls religious freedom. Wahid’s Indonesia has proved itself totally unable to protect religious or political freedoms during the past half century. Most nations where people of Islamic faith dominate the political structure have even worse records.
The conclusion for many is that Wahid's moderate Islamic movement is content to allow the radical Islamic movement to trailblaze. More sympathetic readings of Indonesia's track record conclude at a minimum that they are impotent or cowed into silence by fear.
Our press in particular would do well to consider that much of what passes for political comment and analysis within Indonesia is far closer to what we would describe as extreme propaganda. Daily statements made in the Indonesian press and even more frequently within Indonesian mosques would be seen as incitement to racial hatred if repeated in Australia.
Wahid has packaged a moderate message to appease Australian ears. Australians would do well to look to internal Indonesian conversation - and, even more importantly, Indonesian actions.
Tom O'Lincoln (Age Letters Dec 30) is perfectly correct to indicate that the words "movement" and "missionary" are not restricted to Islam. They are indeed descriptive of all faiths at various times and places. In itself, the desire to share a deeply held belief system is a key facet of what the west calls religious freedom. Most nations where people of Islamic faith dominate the political structure have fearful records in the areas of religious as well as human rights. Wahid’s Indonesia has also proved itself unable to protect religious or political freedoms. An additional problem lies in the close association between Islam and violent political action around the world. Wahid's message is moderate and welcome. My point remains that the actions of his and the current Indonesian government in countering the culture of hate for "the West" are less reassuring.

Visions obscured

The recent debate about state school standards seems to have ended without any acknowledgment by state school defenders that there is anything wrong. The inference seems to be that all we need is more resources to cope with educating students who arrive with such diverse needs and are heading for such diverse destinations.

I agree that government schools need more resources. I agree that onedimensional measures such as ENTER scores do not include the full range of students achievements or school successes.

But I protest at the inference that there is nothing wrong. Many things are seriously damaging the ability of state schools to achieve the best outcomes for their students.

Victorian state schools labour under the crippling burden of too much government bureaucracy and too little clarity of vision and direction. Of the huge range of examples to choose from, four key areas stand out: curriculum, administration, resources and student selection.

Curriculum documents from Victoria are world leaders in theory. To stay that way, they need to change frequently and meet all the new challenges that are identified by each new political leader and pressure group.

All teachers in all subjects have been asked to embed in their curriculum and practice priorities: equal opportunity, valuing diversity, turning the tide (of drugs), student welfare and mandatory reporting, learning technology and many other wonderful initiatives.

I hear that driver education is in the pipeline and I am sure there are more where that came from.

After the directive, the bureaucracy steps in to ensure accountability by mandatory surveys and curriculum audits. Schools are left with the dubious freedom to balance all these issues within a curriculum that still has a core of academic credibility left. Do we get a clear vision of how to do this? No. The best we get are flexible guidelines and broad frameworks, within which each teacher needs to create a curriculum plan for each and every one of his or her pupils.

Imagine an architect's concept drawing being handed out at a building site (along with a global budget, of course) and you may see why the workers feel frustrated.

Please, Minister, give us complete, coherent curriculum and assessment materials in every subject, and the funding to implement them, and see what our students would achieve.

Administration of government schools was transformed in the Kennett years into line management. Nowadays nearly every statement from school administrators arises from a demand or a warning from the centre.

A demand will require some activity that can be shown to fit within the latest great leap forward - a briefing on copyright legislation for all staff, perhaps. Or a warning will remind of the principal's responsibility to organise for the testing of every power cord in the school to avoid being sued.

Few demands from the centre come with money to pay for them. None come with suggestions about what can be left undone to make room for the new activity.

Central bureaucrats seem to think that schools love to take on extra administrative responsibilities. Principals and administrative staff drown in paperwork and work with the dual frustrations of knowing that much of what they do has not been funded by those that demand it, and that they could do it far more efficiently if allowed to think for themselves.

Either give us whatever it takes to run little extensions of the centre in every school or take responsibility for school administration and do it for us!

Materials and personnel are two sides of the same coin, now that we have global budgets. Unfortunately, the budgets are not as big as they sound and are soon revealed as a series of little buckets of money with all sorts of rules about when you can get at them, and whether you can move money between them. This is great fun and occupies idle principals and business managers for many hours.

If the school decides to use money from one bucket to build an extra room, the centre will just remove one of their classrooms. If you decide that you don't need to arrange computers in strange groups called pods in imaginary found space, the centre will just keep the money.

Either give us the power and the money to make the most effective choices of staff and facilities, or take responsibility for doing it for us.

Bureaucracy is in place to prevent most schools from selecting students on the key criteria of curriculum interest, ability and behavioural suitability.

Directives are in force to prevent schools expelling students who misbehave by assaulting others or supplying drugs. These students need to be helped at the onestop shop - the school - which is a holding pool for those needing assistance from any and all other welfare agencies. Classrooms are often swamped by student needs, which draw attention away from the core curriculum. The creative approach is to deny that this is a distraction and, as advocated recently in this newspaper, make these issues the fourth R - relationships.

We need clarity of vision. If the school system is regarded as a catchall, many schools will continue to end up as basket cases.

Give school communities the power to create their own visions of education and to select the students who will benefit from that vision.

Show that you value diversity by funding a wide range of visions within government education, rather than a onesizefitsall approach.

Government schools are suffering from being handed too many responsibilities with too little power. The government does not want to take back the responsibility or give away the power.

Unfortunately, the middle point between two alternatives is not always an effective compromise or a happy consensus. In Victorian government schools, it can be a depressing noman's land from where creative, committed and caring people are continually tormented by what could have been.

Stephen Digby is learning technology manager and the year 9 coordinator at Cheltenham Secondary College.

Someone must pay

In response to The Church must pay for what it did to my girl Age letter 14/6/2002

It is a simple fact that people who feel pain want others to share it. The father grieving for his raped daughter says that "to (him) and his family, the money doesn't matter". Nevertheless he then spends the majority of his letter calculating, comparing and complaining about the size of various payments offered. He is moved by a desire to inflict pain. Because, our society has lost the desire, the will and the moral agreement necessary to inflict this pain on the guilty person, a widening net is cast for those that are "just as guilty" because of inaction rather than action. In this, as in many letters on the subject, one can hear the frustrated scream - "Some one must pay". The witch hunt, aided and abetted by newspapers such as The Age, has urged on the mob, until taking money from a church community and giving it to a victim is considered the just way to response to a rape. Giving money as a payment for such extreme wrong-doing leads very easily to a corruption of motives and allegations of "blood money".
Secondly, there are many raped children without a rich target to sue. Should not all money taken from a guilty party go to community programs that benefit all such children ? The increasing madness of jury determined compensation payments is widely reported and generally acknowledged as a sick joke which our leaders and lawyers have only just decided needs attention. One aspect of the madness that few have mentioned so far is the immense inequity of compensation being paid to individuals. Two children raped. One may receive the care that only millions of dollars can provide. Another raped by a poor person will receive only the support of a community (perhaps even a church !) made poor in part by the very payment paid to the other.

Program Dismantled by Stealth

Child abuse: How "The Age" fails it readers and encourages prejudice

In printing the article, “How the system failed an innocent and freed a predator” (The Age 10/2/2002) is guilty of prejudice and poor journalism because it fails to probe or question the veracity of its sources, or to analyse the evidence.
Although there are glaring inadequacies in the article’s condemnation of the legal system, I wish to challenge some of the hidden assumptions behind the blame heaped on the educational system.
In this story of rape by a father, obtaining corroboration is difficult and questioning your sources is painful. A good journalist would not consider this a convenient relief from the necessity of hearing the other side, or that tacky process of evaluation, balance and scepticism. But a journalist working for The Age, whose editorial prejudgement on so many issues is so well known, seems to be relieved from this burden. The modern criminal confession is aptly stated by Monty Python - “It’s a fair cop. Society is to blame.”
The story makes untested allegations that seem to be unquestioningly accepted. Blame is attributed to the alleged perpetrator and “the system”. Has the journalist interrogated (i.e. asked probing questions forcefully) or has he/she merely listened credulously - too afraid to be seen as unsympathetic – too afraid to even consider the possibility of exaggeration, faulty memory, or even lying (even to suggest this at The Age is probably to commit the equivalent of modern blasphemy).
Indeed, a list of maxims is printed in bold beside the article without any accompanying critique or analysis: to “be believed” is stated as a victim’s “right”. If the issue was not so tragic and serious, this sort of ludicrous sloganeering would be laughable - but to have it printed unchallenged as advice from a “qualified counsellor” is gross irresponsibility.
All people have rights. No right is unaccompanied by responsibilities. The failure to exercise responsibility can lead to the loss of any of our rights - sometimes through the action of the state, at other times through the action of others or the physical world.
The title of the article blazes forth with “the system failed”. What utter rubbish ! The central failures here, (and there are many !) are those of the family.
If the story is believed completely even in the absence of corroboration, journalistic interrogation or research, the criminal is the father.
The father failed at every test. First, he, with the mother, was responsible for breaking apart a family during the crucial years of childhood thus exposing the children to greatly increased risks of social and educational failure during adolescence and early adulthood.
Second, he was responsible for hideously violating the trust his daughter had a right to place in him.
Thirdly, he was responsible for committing, repeatedly and with premeditation, a crime against society by raping his daughter.
The “system” cannot prevent any particular father from acting in this way. It can only try to catch him early and them punish him in a way that: prevents him from offending in the immediate future by court protective orders, prison, chemical or other treatment (prevention), develops remorse (punishment) and self control (rehabilitation); makes him less likely to repeat in the future (deterrence); provides public warning to others (deterrence).
The mother was jointly responsible with the father for the family break-up. She was also responsible through not developing a relationship with her daughter that would have allowed the abuse to be discovered at an early stage, let alone during the seven years it was being perpetrated. The daughter should have had innumerable opportunities to hint, ask oblique questions, show her mother the draft of an essay etc. etc. The reporter, blinded by incompetence or another unwritten editorial policy of The Age, never asks whether the mother was not too busy with her own trauma from a failed marriage or with her work in the “big organisation” to observe, listen to, and be with her daughter so that intimacies had time to emerge. No, “you (don’t) go over things you could have done” because that would “impact badly on the family”. No, we must not look inward. The family is a tragic criminal failure but surely society is to blame ?
The child was responsible for failing to communicate with her mother. Any parent knows that the lesson, “You should have told me !”, needs to be restated again and again throughout childhood. Children are responsible for their own actions even though the level of their responsibility varies more than that of adults. This story is a warning to children that failure to talk about smaller worries can cascade into an inability to tell about horrendous issues. After failing to tell at first, the child experiences guilt for not telling which grows to match each new worry and requires greater and greater courage to overcome. She is silenced by imagined accusations including: “Why have you let it go on for so long without telling me ? Don’t you trust me ? Don’t you love me ?”.
The teachers in the story are responsible for not reporting that the child had spoken to them about “suicide and harming herself”. This report should have been made to the parent unless there was “ a belief on reasonable grounds” that he/she was part of the problem.
The grossly misleading aspect of the article is the inference in the title that the central failure is that of faceless systems such as the educational system which should have prevented the whole tragedy by knowing more of what goes on in the child’s life than her own mother !
The article is unclear about the sequence of events, but it seems that the teachers and the mother of a friend were the first to act. The abuse may have escalated to rape before any signs of disturbance were seen at school but it was a teacher who reported the matter to the police ! Is this evidence of failure ! What did the mother do when told of “worries” by the friend’s mother ? Anything ?
“And yet from the teachers, there was not one word.” If we use the benefit of hindsight, we may see many things that fit the pattern of behaviour of an abused child. Teachers only have oblique opportunities such as those mentioned in the article to find out intensely personal details if students do not volunteer them to their friends or school counsellors.
If small signs of disturbance had been noticed earlier, teachers (even school counsellors) had a responsibility to tell the parents of what they saw and heard, but this does not extend to suspicions of child abuse unless the teachers “form the belief on reasonable grounds that a child is in need of protection….and (that) the child’s parents have not protected, or are unlikely to protect”.
Unlike many teachers, the reporter seems to have no conception of the trauma involved for a family where a child abuse allegation is made. This trauma occurs whether the allegations are true or not - exaggerated or not. The child has little conception of what will happen when the social services and/or the police are forced to put their regulations into action. The reporter, and unfortunately many of the public who read such drivel, are coming to live in fantasy world where, not only are all allegations true, but also that every child will benefit if every instance if abuse is dealt with through the bureaucracy of social services and the police.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
In conclusion, the educational system has a primary responsibility to educate. The early detection of child abuse occurs incidentally but when a “belief on reasonable grounds” is formed, schools must act.
Unless the family is re-established as the first line of social responsibility, we will continue the current spiral into what Robert Hughes describes as the “culture of complaint” where the only people expected to be responsible are those who are paid. Everyone else can safely be a victim.

An "Age" of preaching to the converted

Given the virtual propaganda campaign waged by The Age against the government’s policy on illegal immigrants (i.e. people who attempt to migrate by illegal means), I wonder how many letters in support of the government’s policy (or merely in support of balanced coverage) have been omitted from your pages.
The level of bias that has permeated your “comment” articles and even your news reporting on this issue should be a worry for all your remaining readers regardless of their views.
The Age used to have a fine tradition of intelligent analysis that required an attempt to understand and communicate a range of opinions. Your editorial before the election against the government was not (as it should have been) an “on balance” judgement made after observing the election campaign. It was merely the last statement in The Age’s own campaign against the government.
Why is it that the majority of Australians, who voted in disagreement with your editorial, do not feel that they can express their views within your letters column ?
It speaks poorly of your readership if they read The Age to seek repeated confirmation of their views and vilify all who disagree. It should worry The Age staff that they increasingly speak only to the “converted”.
Whose interest is served by turning The Age into a newspaper that is used to propagate a consistent political opinion rather than be a forum for the most coherent expressions of all views. The Age staff should ask themselves what bias will they be asked to adopt next.

Nurturing optimism: Help Yourself

Tim Galbally (Age Opinion 4/1/1996) asks whether anyone feels the same despair in the struggle to nurture optimism in our children.

I revel in the delicious holiday luxury of hours in bed in the morning before the sun drives one out to more active entertainments (like morning tea). These hours are wonderful for catching up on that reflection that more spiritually balanced people must do regularly throughout the year. I escape from this exhausting and challenging task be sorting through last years press clippings, and reading any papers that more physically energetic people deliver to my bedside. Clippings, reflection and an Age Opinion article by Tim Galbally (411197) all coalesced today, and spurred me to labour over a pencil (a pencil does not totally dominate the holiday house like my computer).

Many of my 1996 clippings relate to the depression or meaninglessness felt by many children over the present and the future. The article expresses Tim's despair for the future of children's optimism and autonomy.

I know that I will be haunted as I write by the sheer connectedness of life which grows more and more powerful with age. An issue can expand within my mind from a single fine point to the rich tapestry of a Bayeaux Tapestry that will no longer fit on my page !

Tim worries about the "programming of consumerism" which others have us believe is a "youth culture". This is nothing more than an attempt to improve the legitimacy of a marketing concept. Many parents justify their failure to challenge the "dark side" of he media's message to our children because they believe that it is a reflection of the angst of adolescence. They remember that period of hormonally induced madness where to be free to seek the new, we felt compelled to seek out the old and reject it. Rejection would not satisfy unless it was "in your face". They forget that appeasement merely makes the adolescent enraged and motivated to push further. The only satisfaction and satiation is found when fighting against solid opposition wherever this can be found.

TV, newspaper, radio, magazine and music messages are designed to appeal to this adolescent search. But the enormous creative energies of media people (who in another culture would be serving the social good) are focused on selecting, manipulating, exaggerating beyond caricature to perversion. It constantly amazes me how mature intelligent adults parade their acceptance of this as evidence of their urbanity and tolerance. They are right when they say that this attempt to sway our children (some would say enslave) is not a conspiracy. It is rather a form of natural selection occurring within the culture that many seem to be accepting globally as the only rational choice the culture of commercialism.

The basic tenet of this culture is simple if it makes money, it is good. If it is illegal, it must be exciting so it must attract people; so if we cannot sell it (yet') we can simulate it in print, picture and sound. Good news., on the other hand, tends naturally to reassure, satisfy and relax. People buy less in this mood. Naturally, the media must choose stories that frighten, disturb, create craving for more those that sell. Local (e.g. national) cultures are sometimes useful because they define the local illegality, the local taboo, the local evil that can be used to attract consumers. Global culture is always better because that film, CTS, shirt or car can be sold around the world with minimal local investment just sales.

How can Tim nurture his child and give him (?) the opportunity to acquire the skills, knowledge, abilities and values that he would wish. His alternative is to stand by as his child is coaxed into being a commercial mannequin.

The solutions are so old fashioned (and therefore unfashionable) that many will not consider them for a moment until they are repackaged so that they can be found new again. Unfortunately, each tune this happens, the packaging takes up more space, leaving the product less powerful because it is less connected to our cultural tapestry. Everyone seems to be weaving extra at the edges, while the fraying centre requires the touch of a master weaver who can connect the old threads with a new and yet coherent weave.

Firstly, be certain and optimistic about yourself, Tim. You seem to know that Eli is already disturbed by your doubts and fears for him and the world. Children need the certainties of myth the most central being "Don't worry, daddy's here". you need a sincere personal mythology that you can share with your child. Choose from your own personal mix of Aesop, Freud, Humanism, Christianity or more. Unless you have a mythology to share you are preparing them for nihilism or fundamentalism. Some worry about the growth of cults and fundamentalist religions without realising that they offer something that many cannot find in our culture anymore.

Secondly, filter the world. When talking to parents, I am reminded of the scene from the film Poltergeist where a small child alone is unable to defend itself against an enticing evil coming from the TV. Much of popular parenting style is not so much immoral as amoral. Parents seem to have been paralysed by the replacement of shame by blame, and of all responsibilities by rights. Some believe that they can disregard the rough categories of the censor because they can provide balance or interpretation for their children. Self deluding rubbish. Other make the even more infantile statement that children will have to encounter the "real world" of the media later, so why not prepare them sooner !

The first responsibility of a parent is to select type and total access to the world outside the home. Children need tools (e.g. good toys), space and most importantly time to explore as children. The commercial world (enlisting even schools to its aid) is attempting to eliminate childhood by traumatising even young children in the service of good causes like the environment, war, racism, famine, child abuse drugs, the road toll etc. A parent should be a shield behind which the child can feel confident, secure and certain even when these feeling may be objectively false. It is only with deeply embedded and fundamentally irrational optimism that adults can bear to face the chaotic patterns of the world.

Thirdly, oppose and propose. Children interpret opposition and proposition correctly as an expression of hope. As children peek beyond the shield, they will often see confusion and evil in ascendancy. they need to gradually realise that is they way it is. The more that we provide powerful And illuminating "black and whites" to guide our children, the richer their developed picture of the world will be when they integrate the beautifully complex greys of maturity.

But they also need to self confidence to cope with the fact that throughout their lives they may deeply oppose most of what goes on outside their home.

To oppose is to reassure to propose is to lead. Ideas to improve the world, whether acted upon or no, are essential to maintaining hope. "I do not have a solution" is an expression of despair. A solution is not usually possible. It is facile to think that in any conflict, there is some resolution (if we only keep talking) that will make everyone happy. It is dangerous to believe the even more widespread fallacy, that second best to a resolution is some midpoint where both parties are equally aggrieved. Nevertheless, an idea for improvement is always possible. An action may bring only marginal benefit to the cause but may bring a sense of hope, control and meaning to the actor.

The lack of trust that you feel, Tim, is your reaction to the disappearance of goodness in the old sense for what is trust but the expectation of good ? The culture of commercialism is attempting to teach us and our children that all good is measured in money, and you do not believe it. There is no solution, only a winner in the battle for the mind of your child. Your only weapons are your actions and the values they follow from. Are you sure of them ?