Rudd's "Education Revolution" (1 Viewer)

[badquinton304]

They should both help more talented and hard working students and help struggling students meet the standard. Talented hard working students should never be limited. I think the change has to first happen on a societal level. I don't think australians in general care about education beyond a simple pass mark. Education needs to be taken more seriously, I also find that in some other countries intellectual topics are discussed at the table or by the water cooler more often than in australia. People should have an intrest in academic pursuits. The government will generally try to give people what they want in education but unfortunately people don't know what they want from an education system. Alot of people here are more concerned with sport or socialising to even care about education. Im not saying that we should have a robotic south korean system, but if people gave priority to education (which it should have as the future of humanity is dependant on things like science and engineering) then we would be heading in the right direction.

 

[SpoonSamba]

I think its good, there are way too many students in yr 11 who still get confused between verb/noun adjective/adverb etc etc... its ridiculous! The only students at my school with sufficient grammatical skills were those who had studied languages because to learn a language you have to learn the components of language.

 

[ilikebeeef]

I think its good, there are way too many students in yr 11 who still get confused between verb/noun adjective/adverb etc etc... its ridiculous! The only students at my school with sufficient grammatical skills were those who had studied languages because to learn a language you have to learn the components of language.

If implemented, selective kids will hate it.

 

[Malfoy-Sama]

malfoy-sama, I know loads of preservice teachers who would encourage debate. If you look at the english syllabus, there's a big ole focus on critical literacy. So yeah, show a Michael Moore doco but then discuss it. How does he try to convince us? What other viewpoints are there? What evidence has he left out and why?

We learned quite early on in our course that you can't just tell students what to think. Teaching doesn't work that way, students will gain a better grasp of the topic if they've been able to suss it out for themselves, which means looking at lots of different points of view and finding out where they stand.

I suppose I'm talking about what a good teacher should do (and certainly what my uni teaches us to do), and you're talking about what a bad teachers do.


and re Australian history... well it was pretty shit for the Aborigines. Sorry Day was an important day in modern history, I did Indigenous Education as a unit that year and all the Indigenous tutors were so positive and excited about the future. I didn't think it meant that much, but to them it was so important. So I can see why they included it. But again, discuss it. Who opposed the apology and why?

my problem is the amount of attention they will give certain issues.

eg hours on global warming, "sorry day", aboriginal history at the expense of many other important things

and yes, i have talked to a number of teachers too who say its absolute rubbish and will of course do nothing but dumb down the curriculum (same thing happens almost every time a change is made....)

this "critical literacy" stuff they do these days... ask any of the older teachers.. who can actually remember when we had to learn, analyse etc 10 shakespeare plays a year, and would study canons of the most important english language literature

they certainly dont look on the shift to "critical literacy" as favourable. just more dumbing down

 

[Phoenix Fury]

I think its good, there are way too many students in yr 11 who still get confused between verb/noun adjective/adverb etc etc... its ridiculous! The only students at my school with sufficient grammatical skills were those who had studied languages because to learn a language you have to learn the components of language.

Who gives a fuck what a noun, verb and adjective are, knowing that isn't anything remotely of an important life skill.

 

[FutureSight01]

Could it be possible for selective schools to have the present system taught as a way of keeping them intellectually stimulated, but also learning the new stuff eg sorry day, grammar? So don't get rid of the current system just teach it as well as the new system. That'd make things tougher in some subs, though I'm sure maths'd be screwy. Just means the selective kids'd ace every exam cause they learned well beyond the syllabus.

EDIT: By selective I include pretty much any school with pressure from parents/students to have a better education so pretty much the high ranking schools.

 

[scarybunny]

Where is the 'dumbing down' coming from? I understand that there's more 'basics' in the syllabus, but it's up to the teacher how long they spend on it so if the class doesn't need to spend a lot of time on it, they won't.

I don't see how critical literacy is dumbing down the curriculum. It requires higher order thinking, rather than simple rote-learning and regurgitation. It IS analysing texts, looking not just at the techniques used but also the social context of the writer. It gives you a much better understanding of a text than just analysing the techniques that Shakespeare used.

And the new english syllabus includes a "literature" strand, which is new. It gets teachers to choose texts that are culturally important. Surely that's a positive step, to point students in the direction of well-written and significant texts. Not just Shakespeare and old English canons, but important texts from a range of cultures. The 'back to basics' is a return to a style of english teaching that older teachers would have experienced, so I would have thought that they'd be more supportive of the new curriculum.

 

[FutureSight01]

Oh I'm thinking about maths, and I assume science would be dumbed down a bit too. I'm more saying that they should choose the mix promoting the most intellectual engagement and interest.

 

[scarybunny]

Who gives a fuck what a noun, verb and adjective are, knowing that isn't anything remotely of an important life skill.

That sort of thing is the ground work for understanding how the grammatical structure of a text supports its purpose. Different types of text have different grammatical conventions, and if you don't recognise them you cannot write an effective text. I assume that the new syllabus would just make students aware of the conventions that many of them already use but don't know why.

It's only stuff I've learned at uni, so that I know how to mark students' work correctly, and understand what makes their texts effective (rather than just saying "It sounds good").

 

[Phoenix Fury]

That sort of thing is the ground work for understanding how the grammatical structure of a text supports its purpose. Different types of text have different grammatical conventions, and if you don't recognise them you cannot write an effective text. I assume that the new syllabus would just make students aware of the conventions that many of them already use but don't know why.



It's only stuff I've learned at uni, so that I know how to mark students' work correctly, and understand what makes their texts effective (rather than just saying "It sounds good").

Hmm, hopefully I will learn and understand this too sometime soonish.

 

[SpoonSamba]

That sort of thing is the ground work for understanding how the grammatical structure of a text supports its purpose. Different types of text have different grammatical conventions, and if you don't recognise them you cannot write an effective text. I assume that the new syllabus would just make students aware of the conventions that many of them already use but don't know why.

It's only stuff I've learned at uni, so that I know how to mark students' work correctly, and understand what makes their texts effective (rather than just saying "It sounds good").

Agreed. Also, on a less profound note you have to understand what a noun and verb is in order to complete HSC english. And for the selective students? They are gonna be a lot happier when a teacher spends a week when they're 13 explaining grammar then doing HSC advanced english when a dumbass in their class puts their hand up asking what an adverb is and then wasting THAT time because they were never taught.

 

[scarybunny]

Yeah it should improve how people express themselves in the HSC. I had friends who went all the way through school in Australia (parents from overseas), got to the HSC and had appalling spelling and grammar and then got excellent UAIs. Something's not right there.

 

[ilikebeeef]

Could it be possible for selective schools to have the present system taught as a way of keeping them intellectually stimulated, but also learning the new stuff eg sorry day, grammar? So don't get rid of the current system just teach it as well as the new system. That'd make things tougher in some subs, though I'm sure maths'd be screwy. Just means the selective kids'd ace every exam cause they learned well beyond the syllabus.

EDIT: By selective I include pretty much any school with pressure from parents/students to have a better education so pretty much the high ranking schools.

Agreed. Also, on a less profound note you have to understand what a noun and verb is in order to complete HSC english. And for the selective students? They are gonna be a lot happier when a teacher spends a week when they're 13 explaining grammar then doing HSC advanced english when a dumbass in their class puts their hand up asking what an adverb is and then wasting THAT time because they were never taught.

I take that you guys didn't go to a selective school? Because if someone doesn't know what an adverb is, they shouldn't be in selective school.

 

[Phoenix Fury]

Agreed. Also, on a less profound note you have to understand what a noun and verb is in order to complete HSC english. And for the selective students? They are gonna be a lot happier when a teacher spends a week when they're 13 explaining grammar then doing HSC advanced english when a dumbass in their class puts their hand up asking what an adverb is and then wasting THAT time because they were never taught.

Haw yeh.
We didn't have anything to do with adverbs and nouns and stuff after year 6, might have been different for you but mm.

 

[scarybunny]

I went to a selective school haha. Asian kids whose parents don't speak english so their grammar isn't as good as a native speaker. But fuck they test well.

 

[FutureSight01]

Actually I did go to a selective school. I also think that people shouldn't be able to pass subjects if they cannot spell etc properly. Things like phenolphthalein I understand, but they should know how to spell definitely without relying on spellcheck. Dead set too many people just click on synonyms and pick a smart sounding word for an assignment. You have some people who have some problems using correct grammar and getting 90+ in the hsc. :S At a selective school. Admittedly he did well in 4u maths and came in the bottom 1/5 or so for english. They SHOULD know this stuff, but they don't.

 

[ilikebeeef]

Actually I did go to a selective school. I also think that people shouldn't be able to pass subjects if they cannot spell etc properly. Things like phenolphthalein I understand, but they should know how to spell definitely without relying on spellcheck. Dead set too many people just click on synonyms and pick a smart sounding word for an assignment. You have some people who have some problems using correct grammar and getting 90+ in the hsc. :S At a selective school. Admittedly he did well in 4u maths and came in the bottom 1/5 or so for english. They SHOULD know this stuff, but they don't.

Ok I don't understand how he got into Selective then lol. I thought Year 6 selective applicants have to do a writing section to the exam?

Or maybe it's just your school. Cos teaching grammar to students at my school would probably be perceived as unnecessary not to mention an insult to their intelligence.

 

[FutureSight01]

Think fobby asian complete with dr du. But yeah he should know how to structure sentences without being tutored up like that by the time he's in y9, let alone higher. Others just couldn't be bothered caring about spelling.

 

[ilikebeeef]

Think fobby asian complete with dr du. But yeah he should know how to structure sentences without being tutored up like that by the time he's in y9, let alone higher. Others just couldn't be bothered caring about spelling.

I find that hard to believe, but if what you're saying is true, he's in a very small minority of selective school students. Therefore, it's still a poor idea to teach grammar in selective schools, especially in Years 9 and up.

If this grammar thing is going to be implemented, it should not be compulsory. It should be in ESL form. But then, we already have ESL in the HSC.

 

[FutureSight01]

Yeah true that. In any case they shouldn't screw with science or maths. They were fine. Don't dumb down nsw to allow qld peeps to do "better". Either that or they can have 2 separate things? One for the excelling students like the current nsw hsc, and a simpler one for the others. But no, that means complexity and problems :S The nsw hsc is mostly fine the way it is. The less intelligent peeps can do the less strenuous subs like general maths rather than devaluing subjects, or making them subject to inflation lol.

EDIT: I'm fluey, if I'm making silly suggestions and so on that is why.