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
