Quizzing the Quandry

This week I am in a quandary – confused and bemused by the rhetoric and pseudo expertiseism (deliberate coinage) of politicians and journalists – but hey, what’s new?

I don’t claim to be an expert on international diplomacy and the friends who I have that do, advise me that the standard line is: We do not make comment on matters of Australian security hence  the repeated quote by John Frydenberg,  Chris Bowen, and Kurt Campbell on Q&A last night. And it obviously accounts for Tony’s reluctance to explain the actions that have so upset Indonesia.    

If one takes the views expressed by Julian Burnside and Tara Moss (Q&A panellists as well) that the dilemma with Indonesia is about phone hacking, and not spying, then the whole thing takes on a different perspective. 

This is a manners problem: you do not hack people’s phones – especially those of your friends and their families. It’s just impolite and disrespectful, and it deserves an explanation.

Equally I am perplexed by the Productivity Commissioner’s floating of the idea that we should all be working until we are 70.  That’s all well and good provided one remains physically and mentally active and capable of performing one’s duties effectively.

 But more than that it depends on workplaces that see post 45 year olds as valuable contributors – sure there are exceptions, but I hear repeated instances from friends and acquaintances that once it was revealed in the workplace that they were nearing 60 the questions began to be asked about why they were still working, when they were planning to retire, and many were not too subtly levered out. 

 

The last boss I had in my permanent work life actually said out loud: I love bright young things – they are so enthusiastic and I would rather have them around me. Not an affirmation for those who were beyond the first flush of youth.

I’ve had to look up Crispin Hull’s credentials given his opinion piece in Saturday’s Canberra Times regarding the decline of literacy and his championing of Kevin Donnelly and the phonics movement. His bio reveals he was a journalist with the local paper from 1972-2002 when he began to lecture in journalism at the local university. He had a short three months stint in the UK during that time, and completed a law degree in 1977.

So, I ask you, where is his legitimacy as a literacy expert and his credible data to support his claim that teachers are choosing to teach literacy using ‘post modernist claptrap’ ( Donnelly’s description of the  whole language approach) because it makes life easier for them.  What a load of twaddle!

My experience after 33 years as a teacher and education advisor is that in the teaching of literacy, as in all things, different methods work for different students. One of my children learnt to read using the phonics method, one the whole language approach. Both, now adults, are capacious readers, meticulous speller, excellent writers and grammar Nazis. 

Mmm Crispin: data that refutes your argument!

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

Art Work of the Week

Perhaps Tony could work it out over a nice cuppa?