Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Dear Judith Sloan ...

Dear Judith Sloan,

I am one of those that you have deemed a “dim-witted” teacher with a bachelor degree (which actually enables me to work in primary schools, I just made an informed choice to work in the prior to school setting) from a “second rate university”. While I was at my second rate university (which some of you might know as Macquarie University) I learned how to research, think, critically reflect and challenge.

I don’t need to defend my fellow dim-wits. I trust that they can defend themselves well enough. I’m not going to bother to defend the value of early childhood education. It doesn’t need defending. It has been proven time and time again. And I have every faith that it will continue to be proven a valuable venture. I’m not going to stand up for Kate Ellis, because she has well and truly done that for herself. In fact I’m not even really going to waste my time questioning you, because that already happened and you faltered when put on the spot.

Look, I too am a blogger. The difference between you and your obviously superior intellect and education and my inferior second rate one, I suppose is the ability to engage in critical reflection and research. Let’s not mention intelligent articulation. I much prefer my honed dim-witted style of blogging. But, would I know any better? Probably not. 

Actually, while you were appearing on Q&A, I was busy writing an article on “Critical Literacy” in relation to popular culture and the media. I haven’t finished my article. It could be due to my slow mental abilities, or it could be due to the fact that I don’t want to publish something that I don’t think is written well and backed with a solid argument if not quality references and evidence.

So, ironically, here you were mouthing off about the ONE article that you read in the SMH. Your other evidence comes in for form of ONE relative with children in child care. 

You are basing your (un)informed opinion on TWO limited sources: ONE news article and ONE personal account from a relative. While The Sydney Morning Herald is a reasonably reputable media publication, it is not infallible.  It is also still sensationalist. It wants to sell papers and advertisements. The journalists want to make their name. The more attention they get, the more their reputation increases.   They, like you, have agendas. I learned in high school, as well as university that I should use reputable sources (ie an original source not here-say from a secondary source and not my second cousin twice removed) and seek strong evidence. You really have dropped the ball on this one.  

This might be the time to remind you about “Critical Literacy.” It’s about questioning what you are told and what you see. And you clearly didn’t do this when you read the SMH article and spoke to your relative. I actually agree with you about the triangle and orange thing. I don’t think that doing themes isindicative of high quality. But regardless, there are currently parents who want that. And clearly, your relative has not only chosen that particular service for her children, but she actively supports them by continuing to use them. That is her choice. Maybe she likes the triangle and orange? Just because you don’t, doesn’t mean she doesn’t, or shouldn’t.

Look, I can’t honestly waste any more of my time writing an open letter to you. I’ll simply say this final bit .... Yes the NQF is about providing “greater choice, diversity and competition” within high quality services. It’s not about conforming. Its not about making us all fit into the one box. In fact, it’s about throwing out the boxes! It’s about variety within quality, which will give children and families better outcomes.

So in conclusion, your evidence sucked and it makes you look ignorant and stupid. 

But hey, what do I know? I’m merely a dim-wit.

So as a dim-wit who is also a westie bogan, I am merely going to say “fuck you” and walk away. 

(G) @ Teacher’s Ink. 2013

No comments:

Post a Comment