Can someone tell me what Pynes message is?

[i-need-a-martini]

Here is Pynes piece in the Sydney Morning Herald this week. Not just an article but a whole body of work in his own words. http://www.smh.com.au/comment/politics-have-no-place-in-curriculum-review-christopher-pyne-20140119-...

Firstly, I am wondering how the heck he got as far as he did (particularly) as education minister when he writes so poorly. He can barely string a sentence together. He has grammar all mixed up. His writing is nothing but a confusing, convoluted mess.

Secondly, I would have thought the Coalition spin doctors would have reigned in the pre-election defensiveness, aggressiveness and negativity by now. But not in this case - Pyne is still droning on about Gillard and Rudd.

Thirdly, is he that stupid that he does not see any irony in what he writes? Describing Labors policies on education as rushed and ad-hoc? Hello Mr Pyne, have you not read your own press clippings from the last month? And if politics has no place in the education debate, then what of his entire article?

And lastly, what on earth is he even saying? Is he doing a review? Or is he rolling out a new curriculum? Why even write this? What is this?

After being able to see the light at the end of the tunnel, it looks like our children will be thrown into educational darkness again thanks to Pyne.

[freakiness]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

Here is Pynes piece in the Sydney Morning Herald this week. Not just an article but a whole body of work in his own words. http://www.smh.com.au/comment/politics-have-no-place-in-curriculum-review-christopher-pyne-20140119-...

Firstly, I am wondering how the heck he got as far as he did (particularly) as education minister when he writes so poorly. He can barely string a sentence together. He has grammar all mixed up. His writing is nothing but a confusing, convoluted mess.

Secondly, I would have thought the Coalition spin doctors would have reigned in the pre-election defensiveness, aggressiveness and negativity by now. But not in this case - Pyne is still droning on about Gillard and Rudd.

Thirdly, is he that stupid that he does not see any irony in what he writes? Describing Labors policies on education as rushed and ad-hoc? Hello Mr Pyne, have you not read your own press clippings from the last month? And if politics has no place in the education debate, then what of his entire article?

And lastly, what on earth is he even saying? Is he doing a review? Or is he rolling out a new curriculum? Why even write this? What is this?

After being able to see the light at the end of the tunnel, it looks like our children will be thrown into educational darkness again thanks to Pyne.

---

pot meet kettle  😄

To suggest the review is a political ploy is disingenuous. Those who think so should have a close look at their own motives for articulating such a nonsense: partisan politics is at its worst when dressed up as public concern.

[i-need-a-martini]

Every line he writes is hypocritcal. He is either really stupid or he thinks we are really stupid.

[spotweldersfriend]

Dont be so harsh martini.We know there are too many Marxists in the education sector and the ABC 🙂

[freakiness]

It was rushed, ad hoc, stop-go; frequently involved threats; lacked a clear evidence base and was driven almost solely by a desperate government seeking to pursue a politics-first policy agenda designed to get the government over the line at the election. It was not about developing a good, long-term education policy.

That line is a complete lie.  It wasn't rushed.  It wasn't partisan.  It wasn't about getting the govt over the line at an election. It was about developing a good, long-term education policy.   

He and Abbott, before the election did say they were on a unity ticket with the govt re education.   To say they weren't now makes him the disingenuous one.  Labor did employ a panel, which included people from all sides of politics and many educators. Why does he think his 2 partisan appointments can do better in a fraction of the time?  And how can he then say it was Labor who acted in haste?

[freakiness]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

Every line he writes is hypocritcal. He is either really stupid or he thinks we are really stupid.

---

or both

[boris1gary]

Do you think its this

The Howard Coalition government introduced a new funding model in 2001 purporting to be based on the socio-economic status of students in a school. The SES model funded schools according to the postcode of each of its students, as if all students from a low socio-economic region or suburb are disadvantaged. In reality, wealth not postcode determines whether parents can afford $15,000 or $25,000 a year in fees for each child.

The SES score of a school determined the level of funding from the federal government. It ignored the actual socio-economic status of students whose parents could afford the top private schools. As a result, the wealthiest private primary schools enjoyed a boost of 80 percent or more in funding between 2001 and 2010 and elite private high schools by as much as 50 percent.

Pyne has made it clear that he wants the Howard SES model, and not the Gonski/Labor funding formula which attaches a set amount per student, reduced for private schools according to the school’s ability to raise funding and an extra amount for disadvantaged students.

Howard’s SES model has made a major contribution to the two-tier, two-class education system and the widening gap. So too has the diversion of millions of dollars from the public education system to private schools.

[spotweldersfriend]

Howards government was the worst in my lifetime.This one might end up pipping it for top spot.

[boris1gary]

Think you could be right about that Tone's fan club must be busy at the church fete 

[*crikey*mate*]

Martini, by the time the effects of any new curriculum are realized, our children will be out of school. This sort of stuff takes years to roll out, then a few more to put it into practise and then a few more to tweak after which they will decide it doesn't work afterall.

So really, what's the point of getting so worked up about it?

From memory, you've accepted that the education your children receive is not in line with your expectations, so have taken responsibility to provide your kids with the access to the kind of education that you desire for them.

In their quest to improve their PISA rankings, they're trying to match an ineffective, irrelevant, agriculturally antiquated education system to the dynamic systems of the education leaders. The entire structure is ineffective. It worked well when we were preparing for an agricultural society, but times have changed.

It doesn't matter what any of them do, until they bite the bullet and start again, nothing is going to change.

It's sort of like when your car has 4 bald tires but you only have the money to replace one. So you replace the worst one, just to keep things plodding along and make do with the other three.

On top of all that this curriculum is formed around NAPLAN, with a view to seeing a positive reflection in those scores. Have a read around about NAPLAN, and surely even a politican wiould realize this system is designed to fail.