1 Volume Eight, Edition 1 (March 2021) Education in Queensland has produced memorable catch-cries such as: “excellence”, “design thinking”, “visible learning”, “success criteria”, “learning intentions”, “a right to access the curriculum”, “inclusiveness” and “intellectual rigour”. These aims are laudable, but the tools of educational improvement need to be closely studied. What, in essence, are we faced with? We have a teaching body with the more experienced teachers about to retire and the other teachers being somewhat wearied and confused and frustrated by changing curricula, increasing problems in classroom discipline and the current belief that teachers and schools are there to solve the ills of society. A good number of their students come from disadvantaged backgrounds and unstable family relationships. A culture weakened by increasing drug usage is stretched financially as unemployment rises (especially youth unemployment) and our children are staying longer and longer in school or just staying home with us. What can we as parents and concerned citizens do? Firstly, and most importantly, BE INFORMED. Not a simple task when the appropriate language is constantly changing and becoming more and more obscure. Secondly, BE INVOLVED. Read, join a community discussion group or a Political Party and speak up at school events (bring along some other parents for moral support). Welcome to our March 2021 edition of “Education Uptake”. In this edition, alongside our popular ‘current issues’ and ‘letters to the editor’ sections, our investigative reporter, Elizabeth Clarke, looks at numeracy and literacy topics, our politically savvy Lee Nightingale presents a well-constructed argument for the need to treasure and respect Australia’s Westminster System of Government and, last but not least, our always entertaining writer, Bruce Nickel, gives us a good belly laugh with his humorous article entitled: “Is work the curse of the drinking class?”. Please enjoy reading over our newsletter and feel free to pass it on to family and friends whom you feel might be interested in its content. FROM THE EDITOR Patricia Monsour
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
Volume Eight, Edition 1 (March 2021)
Education in Queensland has produced memorable catch-cries such as: “excellence”,
“design thinking”, “visible learning”, “success criteria”, “learning intentions”, “a right to
access the curriculum”, “inclusiveness” and “intellectual rigour”. These aims are laudable,
but the tools of educational improvement need to be closely studied. What, in essence, are
we faced with?
We have a teaching body with the more experienced teachers about to retire and the
other teachers being somewhat wearied and confused and frustrated by changing curricula,
increasing problems in classroom discipline and the current belief that teachers and schools
are there to solve the ills of society. A good number of their students come from
disadvantaged backgrounds and unstable family relationships. A culture weakened by
increasing drug usage is stretched financially as unemployment rises (especially youth
unemployment) and our children are staying longer and longer in school or just staying
home with us.
What can we as parents and concerned citizens do?
Firstly, and most importantly, BE INFORMED.
Not a simple task when the appropriate language is constantly changing
and becoming more and more obscure.
Secondly, BE INVOLVED.
Read, join a community discussion group or a Political Party and speak
up at school events (bring along some other parents for moral support).
Welcome to our March 2021 edition of “Education Uptake”. In this edition, alongside
our popular ‘current issues’ and ‘letters to the editor’ sections, our investigative reporter,
Elizabeth Clarke, looks at numeracy and literacy topics, our politically savvy Lee
Nightingale presents a well-constructed argument for the need to treasure and respect
Australia’s Westminster System of Government and, last but not least, our always
entertaining writer, Bruce Nickel, gives us a good belly laugh with his humorous article
entitled: “Is work the curse of the drinking class?”.
Please enjoy reading over our newsletter and feel free to pass it on to family and
friends whom you feel might be interested in its content.
FROM THE EDITOR
Patricia Monsour
2
NUMERACY AND LITERACY:
It is my opinion that the various Education Departments of Australia are overloaded
with experts who have high degrees in various areas of study, but very little experience.
In a previous article I wrote that when I was at Teacher’s College in Queensland, we
spent two whole days a week at a school, learning from (hopefully) the class teacher to
assist any children who were having difficulty with or were slow in completing any set
tasks. They were valuable ‘hands-on’ days.
Years later a good teacher friend of mine, Joyce Milligan, phoned a university in
Brisbane and was told that those studying to become teachers spent 75 hours per year in a
classroom. I might add here that I personally sense a difference between studying teaching
at a university and training at a college.
So - back to the experts. When I was working as a teacher at Primary Correspondence
School, we Year One teachers were working with papers set by an expert with a Masters
Degree in Mathematics. In the third week of school, the word ‘fewer’ was to be taught. The
instructions to be given to the pupils were:
• Put out a set of one matchbox. Touch and count
• Put out another matchbox. Touch and count your
set of two matchboxes
• Put out another matchbox. Touch and count your
set of three matchboxes
Now the teacher was told to ask the pupils, “Have I more or fewer matchboxes in my set of
three matchboxes than I had in my set of two matchboxes?”
Talk about hiding a simple question in a confusion of words. Answer the question yourself.
The answer is MORE.
The word FEWER needs to be given to the pupil in a taking-away situation (e.g. teacher
and student each picking up a few smarties and putting them out, matching one-to-one to
find out who has more.
Then say, “You (or I) have fewer smarties”. Just as we teach an infant “This is your ball”
the word ‘fewer’ needs to be supplied to the learner. Words cannot simply be plucked out of
the air.
OVERLOADED
WITH EXPERTS
By Elizabeth Clarke
3
The same papers taught ‘above’ and ‘below’ with these steps:
• Go to the door
• Put your hand on the knob
• Now put your hand ABOVE the door knob
• Now put your hand BELOW the door knob
There you are. Simply give a command and the child will comply as if those words are
programmed into the brain at birth and a command is all that is needed to bring them forth.
On another topic – the disorder ‘dyslexia’ that somehow became an accepted reading
problem only after we discarded phonics-based reading in Queensland around 1960 and
changed to whole-word recognition primers. I remember an expert (a professor) in the
1980’s wrote about the emerging problem. He wrote two very good books on the topic. But
one book I recently read on dyslexia actually had an
example placed on its cover of a child’s writing
seemingly to demonstrate that child’s many letter
and word confusions.
Remember, dyslexics:
1. confuse d/b. p/q
2. confuse on/no, saw/was
3. will truncate words like rember for remember
I wonder who chose the child’s writing for the cover of the book for if you go back and
actually study that writing looking for the three examples of dyslexia stated above you will
A question arose out of the side effects of the industrial revolution in England: Is it
true that drinking is the curse of the working classes? As far as I know, it has never been
properly answered.
The industrial revolution began in Britain in about 1770. Cottage industries could not
compete with steam powered factories, so workers who lost their jobs in the cottage
industries found work in the new factories. New cities sprang up around the new factories.
For example, the town of Birmingham, known as Brum to the locals, had a population of
30,806 in 1770. One hundred years later it was 343,787. By 1951 it was 1,112,340.1
Unsafe work conditions and cramped, insanitary housing soon led to the need for a
good anaesthetic to take people’s minds off their troubles. That anaesthetic was, of course,
alcohol.
The reduction of duty on spirits by 75% in 1828 gave a big
boost to the hotels but did little for other businesses. In 1850, a
leader article in a major Scottish newspaper said, “That Scotland
is, pretty near at least, the most drunken nation on the face of the
earth is a fact never quite capable of denial”. It was a polite way
of saying that the Scots were a drunken lot.
The English were not far behind the Scots. The monopoly on gin distilling was ended
in 1690. New distillers set up shop in London and elsewhere. By 1740 there were 7,000 gin
shops in London alone. Whisky, brandy and strong beer were taxed but gin was not taxed.
An advertisement of the time said in relation to gin “Drunk for a penny. Dead drunk for
tuppence.” The average Londoner was consuming 63 litres of gin per year. There was a
revival of gin consumption in the 19th century. One must conclude that the drinking classes
were numerous in England at this time.
The early days in Sydney saw a substantial drinking class. For example, in 1792 the
Governor was forced to buy 34,000 litres of whisky from an American ship because the
captain wouldn’t sell the colony any food until the whisky was sold. Convicts were not
allowed any alcohol, so it had to be consumed by the few hundred free settlers and military
1 Chambers’ Encyclopaedia, Vol 2, p.334
IS IT TRUE THAT WORK
IS THE CURSE
OF THE DRINKING CLASSES?
By Bruce Nickel
9
officials. The latter also had their own private supply of alcoholic beverages so they didn’t
need another 34,000 litres of whisky. This ship load works out at over 100 litres per head of
eligible consumers. I think we can conclude that Australia had its own drinking classes
from earliest colonial days.
It was a terrible burden to inflict on the colony. The fact that the colony survived
shows that the drinking classes did their patriotic duty at this critical time. Normally one
would say they rose to the occasion, but in this case they sat down to the occasion. Indeed,
it may be the only case where the drinking classes saved a colony from starvation.
Owners of businesses other than hotels, such as John Dunlop (of tyre fame) and
William Collins (of publishing fame) complained of the demon drink. Some were now
beginning to say, “Drink is the curse of the working classes”.
Some fought against this demon. For example, an Irish priest named Theobald
Mathew established the Teetotal Abstinence Society in 1838. In 1842, he addressed a crowd
of 50,000 in Glasgow and later induced 40,000 Irish immigrants to take the pledge.
Whether they kept it is not recorded. Others took an opposite view. For example, one Clan
Chieftain, who was probably a distillery owner, had two house rules:
1. Always help yourself to a drink
and
2. Never put that drink down on a book.
Oscar Wilde simply transposed “drink” and “working” to
come up with the statement that “Work is the curse of the
drinking classes”. Wilde knew a thing or two about drinking
alcoholic beverages, so on this point he was clearly speaking
from personal experience.
The question I have asked gives rise to three questions, viz.
1. Who are the members of the drinking classes?
2. Is work always a curse for these members?
3. If there is a class of persons that can be identified as the drinking class, it follows, by
definition, that there must also be a non-drinking class. If work is the curse of the drinking
class, the obvious implication is that it is not a curse for the non-drinking class. The
question is - Is that correct?
10
I think you will agree with me that these are very important questions that need
answers such as: Am I a member of the drinking class? Are you members of the drinking
class? Is there a way of working out who are and who are not members of the drinking
classes? These are difficult questions to
answer. I think the first two questions
(i.e. whether you or I are members of
the drinking class) can be answered by
looking at the amount of alcohol we
consume. Obviously one beer or wine at
Christmas or some special occasion
would not sweep you or me into the
drinking classes. Even the odd drink at
other times wouldn’t sweep us in.
We have a celebrated case from Victoria where counsel in a divorce case had
laboriously proved that the husband had committed perjury by claiming he was a teetotaller
but admitted drinking up to six beers per night. That famous Victorian judge Sir Charles
Lowe said “I suppose that makes the condition of being teetotal a little more bearable.”2 On
this basis, six beers per night are clearly consistent with teetotalism and would therefore not
be enough to make one a member of the drinking classes. An interesting question which I
would rather not answer is whether one becomes a member of the drinking classes on the
seventh beer.
It follows then, that to be in the drinking classes, one must consume alcoholic
beverages with serious intent. What that intent must be is obviously up to the individual.
As for the third question, viz. working out who is or is not a member, there is no test
that one can apply. That leaves only instinct. If you are a member, you know instinctively
that you are a member. It also follows that if you have to ask the question you are not a
member.
In previous times one could rely on the clergy, mostly Presbyterian or Anglican, to
discourage their flock from becoming members of the drinking classes. It is recorded that
one Daniel Burgess had his pulpit equipped with an hour glass. He would speak for an hour
and if the subject was the demon drink, he would say “Therefore, my friends and brethren,
we will have another glass before we go” and then turn the hour glass over.3 It is recorded
that some preachers turned the hour glass three times in one sermon. If nothing else this
would have kept the parishioners away from the public houses for some considerable time.
2 See the biography of Sir Charles Lowe (1880 – 1969) by J.R.Poynter at anu.ed.au/biography/lowe-sir-charles-john-10865 3 Simon Goodenough, The Country Parson, David & Charles, London, 1983, p.90
11
Today the clergy tend not to speak about the demon drink. I am not sure why. Perhaps the
Temperence Societies and bodies like Alcoholics Anonymous have captured the field.
Perhaps it is a case that sermons on alcohol and its dangers simply do not work. One can
readily sympathise with the poor unfortunate parishioners who had to endure three-hour
sermons. It is difficult to see how they could be of benefit to anyone. The French have a
lovely word for this. It is ennui.
I now move on to my second question – Is work always a curse for members of the
drinking classes? I have given this a lot of thought and have come to the conclusion that the
answer is no. Work is not always a curse. I remember a case
some years ago where a man was employed by a country hotel
as a cleaner. His only real job was to mop out the bar every day.
This did not take very long and involved nothing more arduous
that holding a mop. He was finished for the day well before the
hotel opened for trading. He was not paid wages but was given
free beer for himself and his spouse. You might say they both
shared an interest in ‘dipsomania’ and they would have
instinctively known that they were members of the drinking
classes. In a case such as this, how could one argue that work
got in the way of his drinking? The only way it could be seen as a curse would be if the man
and his spouse started serious drinking at 6.00am in the morning. However, drinking at this
time would soon land the drinker in a rehabilitation clinic where he or she would be forced
to leave the drinking classes, thus leaving my proposition sound. The fact that I have found
one case where work was not a curse for the drinking classes does not mean that there are
no cases where it is a curse.
There are many epicureans in our society who believe with all their hearts that lunch
should take at least four hours accompanied by at least three bottles of wine per head. A
famous epicurean, viz. one Henry Aldrich, the Dean of Christ Church, Oxford from 1689 to
1710, put the case for the epicurean most beautifully when he said –
“There are five good reasons we should drink
Good wine – a friend – or being dry –
Or lest we should be by and by –
Or any other reason why.”4
The comedian, W. C. Fields, had a rare fondness for Scotch whisky and gave what
might be considered a sixth reason. He said that he always kept a supply of the stimulant
handy in case he saw a snake, which he also kept handy. Clearly, for the true epicurean,
work is a curse for these people because it cuts into their drinking time.
4 Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, 6th ed, 2004, 10:13
12
I think you will now agree with me that work is not always a curse for the drinking
classes, but it may be for some members of the drinking classes, particularly for its most
enthusiastic members. I will therefore move on to the problem of work and the non-
drinking class.
All of you will have encountered the problem of what to do when work has interfered
with other aspects of your lives. Being virtually forced to work overtime from time to time,
missing out on public holidays, attending training courses are all good examples of this
interference. Of course, work in this context should not be limited to paid work. Painting
the spare room or cleaning out the garden shed or shampooing the carpet are other examples
of work which interferes with the enjoyment of life. For the moment, I will confine myself
to paid work.
Occasionally, you may have planned a fishing weekend at Stradbroke Island. On such
a weekend, consumption of alcohol is a necessity
when the fish are not biting. I know that for
some, fish are not biting when they don’t leap out
of the water and lie in the bottom of the dinghy.
Be that as it may, sunburn, biting midges and the
sea air all combine to produce a dreadful thirst
which can only be slaked by consumption of
whatever beverages are to hand. If there are only
a few cartons of beer to hand, one would have no
choice but to become a temporary member of the drinking classes. An order by a mean-
spirited employer that you be somewhere else is a serious interference with your need to
join the drinking classes for a very brief period. In these circumstances, I would suggest that
the term “drinking classes” includes those wishing to enter these classes. On that basis,
work would, in some cases, be a curse for the non-drinking classes.
Whether work is a curse for the non-drinking classes where other activities are
involved would depend on the activity concerned. One can easily imagine activities where
work (in the sense of normal paid employment) would not be a curse. Attending a funeral of
a much-disliked colleague, going to a fancy-dress ball, bungee jumping for a bet and joining
a working bee at the school to level a new playing field are all good examples of cases
where work is the perfect excuse for not doing something one dislikes. However, there are
others where work would be a curse. The real problem is that in so many cases, whether
work is a curse cannot be answered objectively. All that one can say is that the more one
enjoys life, the greater the possibility that work is a curse. Whether it is a curse for the
drinking classes depends on the definition of drinking classes and the nature of the work
involved.
13
You can see, or at least I hope you can see, that a simple answer to the question that I
have put before you is not possible. I have really only given you a tentative answer to the
question. I am sure that you will agree with me that breaking it up into sub-questions didn’t
help all that much. What is really needed is for those who are interested in finding an
answer to the question to form a study group. By combining their talents and knowledge,
this group would establish a working party or, indeed, several working parties, whose
members would volunteer their time so as to help find the answer.
Of course, the working party or parties would need the right surroundings. It would
be thirsty work, so the members would need large amounts of food and drink to keep them
going. The choice of surroundings is obvious – it needs to be a good hotel.
As the answer is not likely to come quickly, the working party or parties must consist
of members who will persevere to the end, regardless of the amount of alcohol consumed.
Indeed, the answer may not come in one session. It may take many years or several
lifetimes. I suspect that most will die before an answer is found. In time, most will see the
aphorism of Robert Louis Stevenson that “It is better to travel hopefully than to arrive” in a
new light. You may hear members of the working party or parties say it is better to study
the problem than to find an answer. At that point it is time to start a new study group and
start all over again.
We have now created the ultimate think tank – one with perpetual existence.
‘Education Uptake’ is an educational newsletter published by the Queensland Democratic Labour Party Education Committee for the general public and is authorized for distribution by Terri Bell, Secretary of the Queensland DLP.