Teachers' views have been dismissed in the federal government's attacks on school curriculum. We asked two principals and a teacher for their opinions.

Marcelle Watts, Principal, Clarence High School, Tasmania

I'm always concerned when people point educators to the gaps that exist in what they are teaching to students. In fact, it's impossible to draw up an exhaustive inventory of everything students should know: the list of things students should be taught is infinite. The federal government's approach harks back to the 1950s; yet there is little point in giving students a basket of facts if they don't have the critical thinking skills to understand and analyse them. The heart of our work is teaching students how to learn.

The problem is that people making the criticisms rarely have any experience of what's currently happening in schools. While teachers don't always agree with each other, if their views were taken into account at least you would be getting perspectives informed by the reality of day-to-day school life. In our school, as in many others, students and teachers are excited about learning, meeting challenges and surpassing expectations. Unfortunately, these positive examples are often overlooked in the rush to tell teachers and schools what they should be doing.

While the federal government dictates the values we should be instilling in students, it is apparent that politicians and other community leaders often do not live by these principles themselves. Teachers and schools are at the forefront of leading social change and have a wonderful opportunity to influence the next generation for good. It's an enormous, complex challenge for schools, and yet the solutions given are so simplistic that it's laughable. We are told, for example, that if we put a flagpole in our schools we will foster more national pride. Politicians should be leading by example. Students will ask their teachers: "If you are saying that we have to treat people with respect, then how can our country treat refugees or Aborigines in custody so poorly?" All too often the attitudes displayed by role models in our society are the complete opposite of what they are expecting of schools.

Duncan Macphail, Senior teacher, economics, Willetton Senior High School, WA

While the Prime Minister has referred to history, as currently taught in schools, as a "fragmented stew", this phrase is more aptly applied to the almost arbitrary curriculum changes dictated by the two most recent federal education ministers. Brendan Nelson, for example, wanted creationism-'intelligent design'-incorporated into the science curriculum. We witnessed his push for flagpoles, new grading schemes and compulsory physical activity for three hours per week. Now, a month or two after the history summit, which Education Minister Julie Bishop said would not prescribe content, we are told that there should be greater emphasis on the study of religion in history classes.

Most of these proposals come with the threat that non-compliant states will lose federal education funding. The latest outburst by the current Minister suggested that recalcitrant teachers would be deregistered.

I think this is the most interventionist government since federation. It's one thing to say: "introduce this or you'll lose funding", but none of the changes are backed up with any specific curriculum support. It's all a vague mish-mash. I can only assume that their agenda is to push certain ideological positions. Meanwhile, teachers, the "boots on the ground", are all but ignored. Few were invited to the recent history summit. If these moves were really about changing things in the classroom, then surely teachers would be consulted, because they are the ones who have studied education and work with classes every day.

There is considerable hypocrisy in some of the government's criticisms. Ostensibly, it wants history to be a stand-alone subject in Years 9 and 10. But, for decades, history has been taught as part of social studies with its four pillars: history, geography, economics and civics. And ironically, in WA, it was the conservative Court government that introduced the outcomes-based education that Brendan Nelson referred to as a "cancer". In fact, if you are going to teach history as a series of dates, you can do that in two lessons. It's called a time-line. A much more beneficial approach is to encourage students to develop research skills, to critically analyse material and detect bias.

Jo Padgham, Principal, Ainslie School, ACT

For decades now, governments have been increasing their level of control over education. This is understandable given the greater accountability demanded of them, but it's frustrating when their responses seem knee-jerk rather than being based on sound education principles.

I believe that those who create education policies from beyond schools, governments included, have a responsibility to make it easier, not more difficult, for teachers. That's not the case at the moment. Instead, it's as if someone has an idea or opinion, or there's a lobby group with the ear of the Minister or Prime Minister, there's an inquiry, and suddenly there's a new policy we have to implement in schools. The media buys into it, and all too easily opinions become facts. This has the effect of isolating teachers and, despite their vast knowledge about successful teaching, making them feel powerless to contribute to debates. Meanwhile the states are given no-or precious little-extra funding to help facilitate the changes.

A to E reporting is one example that's causing great anxiety for teachers. It's so incredibly narrow and provides virtually no information to parents. Teachers, with all our professional knowledge, have to implement this reporting system knowing full well the dangers associated with it. A child with learning difficulties may get hundreds of D-gradings over the course of their schooling. Whatever impact that will have, it certainly won't provide constructive feedback to support further learning, which is the purpose of assessment.

I believe that public education is for the common good, but the new approaches seem to be dividing students and schools into haves and have-nots. It's tragic to see government policy causing greater segmentation in our society.

On a positive note, I do think the government is celebrating teachers through initiatives like the Quality Teacher Awards and the National Literacy and Numeracy Awards. But the next step is to look at what those outstanding teachers and schools are doing. They are addressing the learning needs of students through leading practice; they are not believers in A to E reporting, they are not ranking students and they are certainly not 'dumbing down' the English curriculum.