Bullying

Yes it's a big problem . .
My problem is that no one can expect a new class program to reverse the growth in non coping with anger and assertiveness.
It's a world view problem that will only be better resolved by recognising we have somehow told ourselves,  as a post Christian culture, that  it is right to put the individual ( not the parent or teacher) in charge ..That such rampant individulaism actually works ( those watching our own cultural demose can see it) ..
We must find a way to give authority back to both parties before mere word stating reactions like "this is now a problem " will make a difference .
We now call anger a sin when for thousands of years we were told and trained to call it a risk ; the classical post modern crap of letting correlation be seen as  causation , We weren't taught to sit on it like we are now ; were taught to deal with it .We weren't tutored in the desperate art of denial ( somehow adrenalin is not mentioned) but in the realistic art of expressing yourself . Minister Cash wants men to not be angry and just show respect ( Today ) This is foolish unnatural unworkable blind religious talk  of a new kind
 Calling it a sin means we are tempted  to deny it in ourselves( a simple reality) and then  say the outward expression of it in others is "deeply wrong" . Jesus the master spoke to the inside , most moderns are hopelessly lost trying to read from the outside.
Our post Christian culture has no effective way of dealing with this projection guilt and denial; A program to" fix it " must involve radical surgery of ideas not the patches governments and reactionary medicine men will apply .
Denying that the old way is now wrong is denying history and experience . Denial leads to fanaticism and there is plenty of that in program ideas for schools at the moment. Watch it grow and fester as evidence of the denial it is.

Any wise parent with more than one child learns to deal with bullying before the kids go to school , So why would anyone expect a mere " education program ' at school to really resolve these things?.
I fully accept that school can be the place where modelling how to cope with bullying can occur ( mainly through individual modelling and personal coping strategies )but  only those who have never left school think you can deal with it easily in class .
Attitude standards is a very sensitive issue and hard work driving many teachers away from jobs they once loved - you can also be expected end up ALONE if you try to teach values carelessly making kids feel guilt and shame ; Whatever good you do there is more of the same behind the sheltershed.

It's also wrong to categorize all perceived "bullying "  as wrong .Calling a spade a spade is calling a real sin a real sin and not getting diverted-( precision helps )- that of course was the old way which is the only way it works .( precision a prerequisites= )
Now - people are confused--- is it natural to lie or be aggressive
Yet years ago , telling a lie shouldn't mean you are called a liar - thats the law of lible .To call someone a liar is an offence under the eight commandment.   Getting angry with your partner wasn't considered wrong and now that  it is it means the path to resolution is NOW closed in some households .The proper dealing of these complex matters is an urgent matter YES

Some people see bullying as assertiveness but we all need to learn assertiveness and whether you want to see it or not , we can learn it in the context of a situation of anger and mostly do.
.What we perceive as someone else's problem may become our problem if we don't see our part in resisting the call .Maybe parent training would help more , but not back door and "out the door with anger" policy .

Advocates of the proposed program in schools think they can run assertiveness training in schools .They are focused on a few things they know and not the full picture which "who knows who really knows" . I don't know many teachers who could do it and parents MUST have a say in the contents as they would have had in methods classes before school. As Neiman might say , its bringing uncertainty into the curriculum which it should not bear to achieve  the great status Fairfax gave it . Keep teachers comfortable in the job by keeping it simple . The ideologues will cause even more  early retirement .
 Integration as a means to effectiveness
Clearly both mentorship and modeling go together with insight on this . I simply don't accept secular schools should teach values unless they get parents approval to run those sorts of classes. As every one knows the system meddles with disintegrated concepts of  "confidence , assertiveness and resilience " and in a fractured and incomplete way that sends thinking parents off to Private schools  where subjects are subject to less pedantry .Humpty dumpty reactionary experimentation( non curriculum or temporary) instead of consistent competency ( known and accepted curriculum)  Training not playing . Pedagogy not pedantry,

Bland Curriculum constrictions

  James Paterson (IPA) in The Australian ( nov 11) and in Quadrant  makes a strong point about the reasons why Australians are now faced with more pedantic and overly bureaucratic education review . In presuming to tell teachers how to teach,  and what they are doing wrong ( perhaps rather than tell the parents ) our political parties are doing our best teachers and our educations system great wrong .  If only pollies wouldn't meddle or think they know things in other people's area of expertise.I must stop dreaming  

....And get back to a memorable lesson and how it happened . A good teacher  has a rather special way of approaching any subject , and its not helped by trying to define "The lesson" too closely in phrases and words  that everyone ( esp a non teacher ) understands. That is to bring boring forward and leave basic excitement outside the room . That is to make the teacher the educator of the bureau and as everyone knows on that subject -most of our best teachers don't want to go back to kindergarten .
The lesson is a whole and , like a good meal , is best enjoyed and approved  as a complete thing .
 I would argue  the case that it's  "the extras"and the links to them  ( the "externalities" in ecosystem or economics, if you like )  that often  make a subject  interesting  eg a powerful discussion on renewable energy links  maths, physics and plant biochemistry or fun food learning needs a bit of secondary level chemistry to make fun with food technology more than a mere list of checkboxes .Kids learn,  and learn how to learn by glimpsing process in nature , not nature in isolation - in categories . You will reduce boring if you have the right  links.     Kids,  like us, learn more by linking subjects than we do by studying them in isolation. Its part of what we say when we say "learning best by doing" too.
Just listing the components is just making a very, very long list,  which no teacher has time to check list ( even though bureau persons in Canberra and Spring street might )
There is a lot to be said for the old system in Victoria where non core subject matter is  categorized generally so that only the final product is approved ( rather than try and talk to the parts as they do in curriculum review)
For example learning about responsible use of alcohol is not a matter of telling kids how many stubbies is good for your health  . Good education is a matter of TRUST which means the pollies are probably undermining it by trying to take full control of it.
With alcohol and good health lessons you  either
-leave it to their parents,
-have a  clear approved lesson  of what is to be taught in a form parents can clearly understand ,( Vic system)
--or use only people the parents trust to teach the sensitive non core subjects ( has to be clear that they do ) .
Politicians meddling in the categories and undermining the trust and technical soveriegnty of a "good lesson " undermines,  like a good meal,  the right combination of ingredients that make them both interesting , tasty and memorable .Education should be edgy and the curriculum approach is anything but edgy.

Any more ideas on how we can avoid the ongoing dumbing down of education in Australia?
The stream of parents choosing private schools says something about  more interesting combinations of subjects and values than the plain flour meals offered as gospel in too many public schools