Your inability to comprehend basic English is rapidly turning this into a humour site.

“Tolerance and understanding, social justice and respect” sound like exactly the sort of vague, valueless PC values [sic] the Prime Minister is complaining about. This report doesn’t contradict him; it supports him.

There is nothing even remotely critical of the report in the above TB quote. The gratuitous sic – I assume you cut and pasted the quote, so what are the chances that it would be unfaithful to the original? – was typical. Is it intentional that every time you whip out your monstrous analytical dick to show off to everybody you end up tripping over it?

My compliments on a very thoughtful post.

Just a couple of quick comments before I turn in. I’ve had classes of 34 that were no problem at all. On the other hand, I’ve had classes of year 10 “spuds” with only six kids – there were more on the roll but mostly they didn’t bother to show up – where I regularly got a real workout. The problem isn’t that the kids give me crap; mostly they don’t. The problem is that they do no work and amuse themselves by being silly, loud and destructive. Also, they refuse to accept responsibility for their actions, which can be really annoying.

Detention is one of the few discipline options available but as it’s a reactive measure its efficacy is questionable.

I still have ideals but realistically it’s not possible to see past my goal of surviving each day with my sanity intact.

I’m going to give the whole public education package a bit more thought with a view to sending a piece to Wendy James at troppoarmadillo.

People are looking increasingly to send their kids to independent schools for a combination of reasons. For some of them, it’s to do with the values-driven thing; they feel that government schools have become too politically correct and too values-neutral.

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines “politically correct” as: “conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated”. Based on this definition it seems to me that “politically correct” and “values-neutral” have the same meaning, or at least should within the public education context.

You then criticise Tim Blair for “criticising a government-commissioned report that found state school values were not as bad as Howard would like us to think”. Mr Blair does not criticise the report, he simply observes that, based on some of the language contained in the report, it seems that the report confirms that “valueless PC values” are being taught in public schools. You then attempt to nail Mr Blair — you do realise that I’m speaking figuratively here, don’t you? — by referring to the report.

The Values Education Study, is not a study of the values being taught in schools. This is clearly established in the report’s introduction which states, “The study was designed to: enable schools to develop and demonstrate current practice in values education; provide an informed basis for promoting improved values education in Australian schools; and make recommendations on a set of Principles and a Framework for improved values education in Australian schools”. Thus, the report has no relevance, none, to the ongoing values discussion.

The study reports on only 50 values education case studies undertaken at a total of 69 schools. These case studies were funded by the study as action research. In other words, funding was provided to the participating schools which then developed values education programs that became part of the study. There is no discussion in the report — at least not in the executive summary — of the values education programs, if any, existing in the schools outside of the study.

The study also examined the available values education literature and conducted research “via focus groups and a password-protected online survey to determine parent, teacher and student views on the values the community expects Australian schools to foster”. It should be obvious — you did actually read the report, didn’t you? — that the report does not look at existing values education programs: examining the literature and canvassing community expectations gives no insight into what is actually being taught in public schools.

The report even cautions: “While the research undertaken as part of this overall Values Education Study can only claim to provide a snapshot of practices and approaches, the results are instructive. The results from 50 case studies in 69 schools, the literature review and the online survey inform the preliminary Principles and Framework for improved values education outlined in this report”. The report is seen as nothing more than possibly helpful in the development of future values education programs.

In castigating Tim Blair for not reading the report you state that, had he read the report, “he would know that the values espoused by both state and private schools go far beyond tolerance”. Since the study does not look at the values currently being taught in school it is impossible to draw this conclusion. The 10 values you indicate as espoused by schools are actually values that the report recommends “be considered as a ‘discussion starter’ in Australian schools, when working with their school communities on values education”.

These 10 shared values were determined through a survey of only 129 parents, 431 students and 135 staff from 20 schools. The report states that, “The survey therefore represents a limited but instructive snapshot of school community opinions”. The survey offered a list of 28 values from which those surveyed were to pick 10 values that they felt schools should foster. It is hardly surprising that responders provided similar responses given that responders valued the survey enough to respond to it. (I would argue that almost any group of reasonably responsible persons, if given the list of 28 prospective values would pick the same top 10 values. What are the chances that values like “empathy”, “economic values” and “competitiveness” are going to make the top 10? Also, there appears to be no breakdown of how many students from which schools responded to the survey. For all I know the vast majority of students, teachers and parents responding to the survey were from private schools.) Also, did problem students and uncaring parents bother to respond? Did functionally illiterate students and their likely literacy challenged parents respond? This is a very iffy survey indeed.

It is instructive to note that the report provides only six student responses (page 217) to an open ended question regarding how values education is presented at their schools. Student responses like, “Teachers share values with kids” and “There is no set values education in our school. There are some rules followed that could relate to values but no high standard of values are put in place and practiced” and “Well for one thing, we have a virtue week that kinda [sic] teaches us about values and my two teachers are always talking about how goals and values are important” seem to me to be supportive of Mr Howard’s observations regarding values education.

Mr Corr, it seems that you didn’t put much effort into your research. Or, were you deliberately trying to mislead your readers?

I linked to Teese’s article, in which he argues (based on other research) that there is little difference between the sectors:

Just as in a family, so in a school, it is the quality of human relationships that is the real source of moral education. Unless each child is respected, he or she will not respect anyone else. Unless care is shown to each and every child, none will care for the other or even for themselves. Unless the capacity to learn is recognised and fostered in every child, they will not exercise that capacity. Unless each child is shown that the whole world is theirs, good and bad, they will not see their place in it, nor ever know that it is theirs to make.

No school sector has a monopoly on these qualities. Nor do schools across private and public sectors greatly differ in the extent to which they realise these qualities. Though there are very large differences in academic and social profiles, differences in the quality of human relationships are negligible.

We know this is the case because there is little to distinguish between schools in the attitudes of students to their teachers. In both sectors, students display a very high regard for their teachers as well as having strong bonds of friendship with their peers. These commonalities are extremely important. Again public and private schools do not differ in terms of their perceived moral impact. Students generally agree in their perceptions of the influence of their schools on a wide range of moral outcomes – taking pride in achievement, self-esteem, valuing of knowledge and ideas, taking personal responsibility, consideration for others, care for the environment, working well with others, and respecting those from different backgrounds. In each sector, students are equally positive about the success of their schools.

I understand that these are just academics talking about schools, but the government hasn’t provided any contrary evidence. (Neither, for that matter, have you.) Where is the study that argues the opposite?

When Howard was asked what values he thought were lacking in public schools, he declined to comment. When Abbott was asked what intolerable things public schools were tolerating, he declined to comment. Why do they refuse to back up their assertions?