The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Testing times for literacy and numeracy > Comments

Testing times for literacy and numeracy : Comments

By Kirsten Storry, published 24/9/2007

What is worse: that children can’t read or write at grade level, or that other people know?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
I dont think that withdrawing funding from non-performing schools is much of an answer. Surely even governments and the teachers union are smart enough to realise that. Results should be made public, but only after further analysis about the why. Reasons for low performance are normally multi-faceted, and can include low attendance rates, poor homework assistance, poor teacher quality, high teacher turnover and school and community attitudes towards long-term usefullnes of what is being taught. Instead of coercing new graduate teachers into rural and remote areas straight out of uni, why not utilise a training system whereby they are allowed to teach at the top performing schools for 2 years, then as part of the agreement they then have to teach at less desirable schools for say 4-5 years. Give them a chance to get some experience working with teachers that are performing and give them some contacts to help mentor them in their quest to improve the performances of less well-off schools during their years there. If you are wondering how this might be done, how about linking private school funding with those same schools providing the training grounds for these teachers destined for our poorer schools. The public might have less resistance against public funds for private schools if the public schools were getting something in return.

Reducing teacher turnover at these low performing schools is another battle in itself, which can probably only be affected by overall investment in rural Australia. Target infrastructure development to attract businesses, and reform the tax system to create financial incentives for individuals who are prepared to live and work in these areas. By building the size, facilities and job opportunities within these communities we will mke them a more attractive place to live and work for all people, including teachers.
Posted by Country Gal, Monday, 24 September 2007 10:38:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is not true of Victoria to say that, “Our Departments of Education allow their concern about the stigma that might be attached to schools and students labelled as failing to override parents’ right to know how their child’s school is performing.” Each school annual report contains detailed results on student achievement.

It is not more testing that will improve schools, but the rebuilding of teaching as a profession. In particular, school systems need to undo the huge pay cuts of the last three decades, reward the best teachers (not through so-called performance pay), reverse the staffing cuts of the last 25 years, remove short-term contracts as the major method of employing new teachers, restore permanent promotion positions, restore professional teaching conditions and re-instate the professional judgement of teachers to the centre of each school’s decision-making. In essence, our school systems need to reverse the measures taken over the last 30 years at the behest of the economic rationalists for it seems that the claimed fall in standards has followed the adoption of the sort of proposals that they wish us to endure more of.
Posted by Chris C, Monday, 24 September 2007 11:11:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Can I make my usual plea for these kinds of discussions to take into account the ways in which education is distributed inter-generationally in families and communities, including by parents as volunteers?

I live in the ACT, which is supposed to have the country's best public school system. The system is apparently not good enough, however, for the children of the territory's relatively well-educated population - ACT residents migrate in larger numbers every year to the private system. Not only does this migration deprive remaining students of the opportunity to grow up in the company of people with wealth whose parents value education (which we know are strong predictors of their future 'success'), but it also deprives the school of the energy and initiative of wealthier and better-educated parents.

Our local primary school relies on parent volunteers to help teach kids who might otherwise have Cape York-level literacy standards to read. These kids exist everywhere - they're just less visible in the cities. School-based volunteers are often remedying a deficit caused by a lack of time, commitment or education sufficient to help kids learn to read at home - the same kind of problem that you find in many remote 'communities'. Because of the long neglect of education in Cape York, and the area's relatively small population, there probably aren't enough well-educated adults to do this important volunteer work. If volunteers are needed to make the public school system work in one of Australia's most affluent cities, it seems unlikely that it can be made to work without them in these disadvantaged enclaves.
Posted by Jennifer Clarke, Monday, 24 September 2007 11:23:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps the time wasted in religious indoctrination should be re-allocated into literacy and numeracy classes. It seems to me that many educational expectations are logically inconsistent. How can anyone expect that children who are fed illogical rubbish as truth on the one hand via the various 'churches' competing for their 'souls' (and their eventual earnings in the secular world) be expected to momentarily 'unlearn' illogicality and apply logical thinking elsewhere? By allowing religious indoctrination in the schools we are helping to defeat the very purpose of education itself.
As to publishing performance statistics - forget it. There is no way that church schools will allow it to happen, and regretfully, they have the political numbers. Such a move would invite far too much scrutiny of what actually goes on. For example, how many more Marist priests would be caught out in the crime of child molestation? Our education system is (shameful as it may be) to a large extent aimed more towards psychological exploitation of children than towards creating a love of learning.
Posted by GYM-FISH, Monday, 24 September 2007 11:43:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why does the education minister and the Centre for Independent Studies want to test all students for literacy and numeracy and publish the results? Is it to apply additional funding for remedial reading and writing or is it to punish poor performing schools and ultimately the communities which they serve.

I can see why the NSW Education Department doesn't want to publish results like Mt Druitt's 1996 HSC results where no student got a TER over 50%.
Why does the Federal government want to bludgeon the NSW Education department over that result?
The NSW Education department has kept the kids occupied at school and off the unemployment numbers.
TER is a Tertiary Entrance Rank, it doesn't say a student failed to attain a pass standard it says that the student was ranked below the median performance for that age cohort.

If I was a Mt Druitt parent I would try to find an apprenticeship for my hands on kids and shift the academically inclined kids to another school.
Posted by billie, Monday, 24 September 2007 11:52:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You cannot control what you do not measure. The major difference between public and private schools is accountability of teachers, students, and management. This is the main reason why even low fee independant schools achieve much better results than equivalent public schools and why there is an exodus to, and huge waiting lists at private schools.

Corruption and incompetence florish in the dark and is the only result of keeping these figures confidential.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 24 September 2007 12:07:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A NSW HSC English examiner told his family and friends that he ranked the performance of schools as

- scholarship high schools
- $20,000 per annum private schools
- government high schools
- P12 outer subarban $5000 per year school
- poor parish parochial/Catholic high schools
Posted by billie, Monday, 24 September 2007 12:34:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is regrettable that the author has slandered school systems which she accuses of refusing to share information about student performance, allowing our "worst achieving schools...to continue to post low achievement rates year after year", and overriding "parents' right to know how their child's school is performing".

In SA each public school must compile an annual report, and that report must be made available to the school community either as a hard copy or online. The reports detail attendance, retention, achievement and other matters (see example: http://www.decs.sa.gov.au/accountability/files/links/Aberfoyle_ParkHS_060706.doc ). How could any parent be "information-starved"?

Making such information available on a school-by-school basis is a far cry from the conservative voyuerism of page three league tables that certain publishers believe would boost sales of the print media.

There are more important issues in education - just look at the OECD's most recent report.
Posted by mike-servethepeople, Monday, 24 September 2007 12:53:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is an interesting situation in Finland regards its education system.

“First results from the PISA study of 40 countries put it [Finland] top overall in the maths, reading and science tests.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4073753.stm

So they are basically top in the world, but as well as this, they only have a 4% difference between all schools in academic results, no matter what is the socio-economic background of the students in each school. There are almost no disciplinary problems with students in any school.

They teach the children a number of languages, and about 90% of children 15 -19 are still studying full time or part time.

They also don’t start the children in grade 1 until age 7 (and then it is only for ½ a normal school day). They also have longer school holidays than most other countries.

Makes one think about the teaching methods being used in our schools.
Posted by HRS, Monday, 24 September 2007 2:24:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The teaching methods and testing methods used in schools is creating problems for our youth, there is no doubt about that. Alot of students from disadvantaged backgrounds think that there is no point in even trying as they have no hope to compete.

This outcomes based approach pretty much means that students go to school to be tested to see if they have achieved certain outcomes by a certain age/grade. The quality of the teacher and the school impacts on the outcomes as does the quality of the home life of the child. The children who perform the best are usually coached and tutored outside of school and/or are in the better schools, yet test marks are then used to provide educational and career opportunities.

It just seems so wrong. It seems that those who are in the beter learning environment get the advantages.

I believe that all external tests should be returned to the students with their results so as to keep the Education system honest and to show and teach the students what they don't know and what they should have been taught. Then there needs to be a method of identifying and punishing those who fail in their duty of care and breach their code of conduct in Education.

Education - Keeping them Honest
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/
Our children deserve better
Posted by Jolanda, Monday, 24 September 2007 3:28:17 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So that's what my mother was talking about!

“First results from the PISA study of 40 countries put it [Finland] top overall in the maths, reading and science tests... [s]o they are basically top in the world<<

"Finnish school" she kept on telling me, "Finnish school, if you want to get ahead in the world."

The question of whether our kids are getting a decent education won't go away until we can all agree, kinda sorta, on what "decent" means, as well as what "education" means.

I strongly suspect, for example, that the PISA study measured a whole raft of achievements that are decidedly old-fashioned, like "can the student read", "can they understand what they are reading" and "can they do sums".

If this is what we want from education, then the Finns have it down pat.

From the outside, the system looks extraordinarily simple.

"...compulsory education is provided in primary schools... comprises years 1-9 and is intended for the whole age group (7-16 years old). During the first six years the education is provided by the class teacher, who teaches all or most subjects... The guardian of a child of compulsory education age is responsible for ensuring that the pupil’s compulsory education is completed... Generally, local authorities are responsible for providing basic education... there are also some private schools... The government participates in the costs of schools by paying the so-called statutory government transfer to the education provider... Education and teaching aids are provided to children free of charge. In addition, students receive a free meal at school every day... Private schools also receive a statutory government transfer, and they very rarely charge for tuition.<<

http://www.edu.fi/english/SubPage.asp?path=500;4699

Simple system, simple responsibilities. Local authorities provide the schools, government pays them to educate to a standard, and the parents are responsible for the kids' attendance.

If we do decide that a uniform education system is a good thing, then we would have to cast off the desire to be innovative and trendy, and embrace the old-fashioned stuff. Oh, and add in the vouchers.

But somehow I can't see that happening.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 24 September 2007 3:33:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We will get better results in schools when teachers actually teach and children are expected to learn. Schools spend far too much time on social issues, computing, sports, community activities, excursions etc etc.
Children are not expected to spell correctly for fear it inhibits their 'creativity'. There have been experiments with the teaching of reading (and the kids still need phonics and word attack skills) and with fancy maths (and they still need basic number facts). School is, I am told, supposed to be fun or they will not engage the attention of the child.
Perhaps what we really need is to ban computers and 'work sheets' and rooms where the kids sit in groups so that they need to swivel around to listen to the teacher. We need to teach them (and expect them to learn) basic spelling and arithmetic.
And yes, what's wrong with testing them to see they have the skills - and informing their parents and keeping them back if they fail to perform. Their self-esteem will take a far greater battering later in life if they suddenly discover that they are 'failures'. Let's invest in differences and stop asking every child to aim for university entrance. (Believe me the universities would breathe a sigh of relief.)
Posted by Communicat, Monday, 24 September 2007 4:23:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles
In some ways the Finnish education system is quite simple, and in other ways it is quite sophisticated.

For example:- Each teacher is required to have a Masters degree in education.

A major difference is in the starting age of the students. They realised some time ago that the best learning environment for a child is play, which is the natural learning environment of a young child. So they leave them at home to play until they are 7, and then gradually ease them into the school environment.

This is quite different to our highly Marxist/feminist education system, where families are destroyed and the children are institutionalised into pre-school and primary school at the youngest of ages.

Their education systems in colleges and universities are almost a one on one type learning environment, with courses customised to suit the individual. This appears to be producing better results, as compared to our Universities where a student is lucky if they can even see the lecturer in the lecture theatre. And of course the students have to fit in their studies with their job, which is necessary to pay for their HECS fees.

If there is to be testing and results published, then the results have to be compared to something else. The Finnish results seem to suit their society, their industry, and also their students.
Posted by HRS, Monday, 24 September 2007 5:04:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The biggest problem with education today is the way it is served and administered.

School should be a place where children go to learn. If they are not learning then they are wasting their time.

Children learn at different stages and ages and more importantly speed. This process the Education system has of grouping kids according to their age as opposed to their ability, interest and need is causing many of the problems school face today.

Then, every year when the student progresses into the year above they have to review the end of the previous year (for the sake of those who didn't get it) and then start at the begining of the new Year. Many of the students do not need to revise the curriculum over and over again. They got it the first time. Children are being held back from progressing in a forward fashion by the manner that children are graded and the level and speed of the curriculum presented to them as they progress up the years.

It doesn't seem fair to me. Children should be permitted to progress through education at a pace and level that is appropriate to them in the different subject areas. So that every child has their needs met.

Education - Keeping them Honest
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/
Our children deserve better
Posted by Jolanda, Monday, 24 September 2007 7:33:52 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The South Australian Advertiser's lead story this morning is about the changes to the SACE - a further downgrade of maths and science requirements in the political interest of being able to say that more kids are completing high school and getting a certificate.
Is this what we want? Is this fair to those provide any form of post-secondary education (particularly the universities who must now provide bridging courses to get the students up to standard)? Is it fair to employers?
There are university level science courses in Australia that do not meet the standards of GCSE "A" level in the UK - and in the UK there are complaints that standards have dropped to unacceptable levels. What sort of standards have we got?
Of course it is not true everywhere. There are excellent students, excellent schools and excellent standards - but they are being pulled down by politicised marking systems because of demands for 'social equality' which then flow on into the post-secondary area and further reduce standards leaving employers wondering what, if anything, is being taught in schools.
The AEU has a lot to answer for. In their quest for social equality they have lost sight of their real role - educating the children in their care. With their demand that all children be allowed (read required) to aim for university we have thrown out technical education. The end result is that they have achieved the opposite of what they set out to achieve and some kids will always be branded as 'failures' when they might have been success stories in technical areas.
Posted by Communicat, Tuesday, 25 September 2007 8:48:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HRS, I'm not at all sure the two are mutually exclusive.

>>In some ways the Finnish education system is quite simple, and in other ways it is quite sophisticated. For example:- Each teacher is required to have a Masters degree in education.<<

One of the highest forms of sophistication, surely, is effective simplicity. And to require teachers to have this level of qualification is a masterpiece of that art. At a stroke, you give the profession the dignity and respect it deserves, and (I'm guessing here) in all probability the financial rewards that go with it.

The concept of a single teacher for six years is also simple but deeply thoughtful, and addresses any number of issues created by the pot-luck system we have of "how good is your teacher this year?" Continuity of contact cuts a considerable amount of waste in the challenge of continuous assessment, I would imagine.

The reason I don't see it catching on here is that it is too simple, and too sophisticated. It would take an entire generation, I suspect, to wean the present participants from their addiction to the present system, even if there were the political will to do so.

People hate change, and change of this magnitude would terrify all but ten percent of folks I have so far met in the teaching profession.

>>The Finnish results seem to suit their society, their industry, and also their students.<<

The sad reality may well be that our system suits our society, the members of our teaching profession, our students and our politicians.

After all, you don't actually have to think, in order to do absolutely nothing. And we are really good at that.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 25 September 2007 9:00:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I confess to being appalled at the piteous state of literacy in this country. The reading, writing and spelling standard is deplorable.
To lay blame solely upon the shoulders of our teaching staff is self-deluding and more than a little insulting.
Children learn most of their habits from their parents. If the parents are not pro-active readers and exponents of the written word then it's a fair bet that their children will model that behaviour. After all, parents exhort their offspring to follow their (the parents)lead, both directly and indirectly and if there is no encouragement to become proficient in matters grammatical and numerical, then the child will not see it as necessary.
I am forever thankful to my parents for giving me basic readers as a child and continuing to encourage further reading throughout my early years. It made it easy for me to comprehend situations and events and allowed my teachers to be more productive. I believe that a thorough grasp of reading and writing is more than half the battle in the getting of further knowledge in any endeavour.
Before anyone says,"Not everyone has the same opportunity,blah blah blah...", know that my partner came to this country at age 18 from Iran with no knowledge of English. She learnt English out of necessity, fueled by a desire to get ahead in her new home. Her comprehension and verbal ability now far outstrip those of a lot of native born Aussies.
Message: Parents be more accountable to yourselves and your children. Don't absolve yourself from responsibility and whinge when you don't like the outcome.
Posted by tRAKKA, Tuesday, 25 September 2007 10:59:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HRS: This is quite different to our highly Marxist/feminist education system, where families are destroyed and the children are institutionalised into pre-school and primary school at the youngest of ages.

How can sending kids to school at any age between 4.5 - 6 years be seen to be connected with a 'Marxist/feminist education system'? Some kids want/need to be at school earlier, some kids later. Parents make their choice based on the needs of their child and family. It seems to me (having a child in the system and watching other parents grapple with when to send their child to kindy) that it's a product of our *capitalist* system that determines when a child goes to school. After all, if parents need both incomes to afford a monstrous mortgage on the McMansion, 2x plasma TVs, overlarge 4WD and regular skiing holidays, then the kids go to school so both parents can work!
Posted by Retro Pastiche, Tuesday, 25 September 2007 11:24:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Retro Pastiche,
I constantly hear of the term “early childhood development”, but this is a recent term that was rarely used years ago.

“Early childhood development” is just a glorified term for removing the child from its parents and institutionalizing them at a very early age. That is Marzist/feminism, and if anything is to be tested and placed under close scrutiny in the education system, then I’m inclined to think that it should be the “early childhood development” side of the education system.

Finland’s education system does not pay much attention to educating young children, and the children are only enrolled in grade 1 when they are 7, and then they only go to school for ½ a day.

Within a few years the children are ahead of most other children in Europe (and in Australia for that matter). So the proof is in the pudding.
Posted by HRS, Tuesday, 25 September 2007 2:39:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HRS you fail to respond to the issue, but I have noticed that is your practice. Again, how is placing children in child care Marxist (correct spelling please) or feminist? Finland is noted for its social democratic leanings, and it appears that its government provides for its children to remain in the family home until they are aged 7. According to you this is a good thing “Within a few years the children are ahead of most other children in Europe (and in Australia for that matter).”

Australia however, that bastion of Western capitalist democracy in the South Pacific, is intent on destroying our childrens’ futures by placing them in a hotbed of Marxist/feminist thinking (ie school) from 4 or 5 years old?

I suspect that parents in Finland may have more choice over their lifestyle and which family member works and which stays home to look after the kids than we have in Australia, having been sucked into the ideology of choice over the past decade. I fear that you may have been sucked in too.
Posted by Retro Pastiche, Tuesday, 25 September 2007 3:10:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I read it three times, but I still couldn't work out what you mean, Retro Pastiche.

>>I suspect that parents in Finland may have more choice over their lifestyle and which family member works and which stays home to look after the kids than we have in Australia, having been sucked into the ideology of choice over the past decade. I fear that you may have been sucked in too.<<

Is it the Finns who have been "sucked into the ideology of choice"? That would seem to be the case from the sentence construction.

Perhaps you could also take a few moments to explain your take on the concept of "the ideology of choice", and why you appear to think that it is a bad thing - "sucked into" being somewhat pejorative in this context.

Backing up just a little, what prompted the idea that parents in Finland "may have more choice over their lifestyle". Are there studies that show this? And is it a consequence of, or in spite of, their "social democratic leanings"?

This thread has the potential for quite an interesting discussion, and I'd like to understand your point a little better.

As you are presumably by now inside the teaching profession, or just about to join it, you are going to need to keep an open mind for a while, and avoid knee-jerk reactions to observations that don't sound right.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 25 September 2007 5:13:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Retro's comment was quite clear to me. I took it that he/she was saying that perhaps Finnish parents have a better work-life balance than we do here, meaning more choice about the hours they wish to work in order to sustain their lifestyle, thus leaving them with more time with young children. We've been sucked into an "ideology of choice" - a different thing - by those who advocate that governments divest themselves of social responsibility.Instead of ensuring that all in society have equal access to quality, free public education within their own community, governments are encouraging "good parents" to choose, and pay for, "good schools" for their kids - and those parents are getting sucked into paying for what shoud be a social right.
Drive a '75 Datsun or a new imported Lamborghini, and the government will still put a road to your door. The rich aren't yet demanding a choice of roads ("with government funding - we're taxpayers, too!") but I bet they'd sooner not have rustbuckets scraping past their luxury cars. We're doing it with schools - why not with roads?
Posted by mike-servethepeople, Tuesday, 25 September 2007 5:48:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Retro Pastiche
One of the reasons the Finnish went to their current education system was to create industry that was more technologically based, as they realised that this was the way to increase living standards (and allow people more choice).

This is definitely the way Australia should go also, but we seem to be going in the opposite direction and are giving up on science and technology, and are now becoming a giant quarry for the rest of the world. There is almost nothing made in Australia any more.

Our education system is actually declining also if you look at figures from student bench mark tests undertaken over the last 20 – 30 years.

There will probably be more day-care centers in future years, and I have also heard talk of making pre-school compulsory. However the Finnish experiment proves that institutionalised education of very young children is not conducive to their development, and can actually be the opposite.

Marxists have rarely been in support of families and feminism is closely aligned with Marxism, with many feminists describing themselves as being Marxist. I see the day care centers and the pre-schools and the institutionalisation of 5 or 6 year olds into primary schools as being a part of a system of removing children away from their parents and their families as early as possible.

It is unlikely to improve their education, unlikely to improve our technology base in industry, and it is unlikely to provide people with more choice in the longer term
Posted by HRS, Tuesday, 25 September 2007 6:36:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HRS writes:

>>...our highly Marxist/feminist education system, where families are destroyed and the children are institutionalised into pre-school and primary school at the youngest of ages.<<

>>Finland’s education system does not pay much attention to educating young children,<<

The Marxist/feminist Finnish welfare state guarantees the availability of subsidised childcare (higher-income parents pay more) for pre-school children:

"Roughly 25 per cent of children under 3 years old, and 64 per cent of children 3–6 years old were in municipal day-care. Of the children receiving municipal day-care, 64 per cent had a place in a day-care centre [staffed by degree-level pre-school educators] and 36 per cent had a place with a [trained] family day-care provider ... For children whose parents do shift work, municipalities also provide round-the-clock day-care."

http://pre20031103.stm.fi/english/pao/publicat/welfare/welfare5.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/05/AR2005080502015.html

Educational and social outcomes don't seem very much differentiated between kids who do and don't go to daycare before they start school.

Finnish children mostly don't "stay at home to play" before school age but go out and play with other kids, mostly in an institutionalised setting. For as long as a parent chooses to stay at home with a child under three, she or he is *paid* the going rate to do so, irrespective of other family income or level of training. Quite a few of the stay-at-home parents receive some of their income by taking other peoples' kids while they're out at work. This "family day-care", unlike the Australian equivalent, requires a childcare qualification.

And while compulsory school attendance is only half a working day (ours is three quarters), all schools offer after-school care (again, institutional and supervised by qualified workers) until the parents are able to collect their children. Australian schools rarely do this (or provide minimal supervision for hot, tired kids) and many parents are severely restricted in their "work choices" by the obligation to supervise their children after school.

Don't try contrasting Scandinavia's all-inclusive welfare states with the haphazard "Marxism/feminism" of Australian state governments. Someone might laugh!
Posted by xoddam, Tuesday, 25 September 2007 6:55:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trakka, you are quite right. Responsibility for literacy and numeracy lies at least as heavily on the shoulders of parents as it does on those of teachers.

I have found reading the discussion on Finland v Australia quite interesting. I had rather a different start to education, due to isolation as a child. My mother taught all three of her children to read well before we started school (I was assessed as reading at a 15 year old level, at age 7). Even my dyslexic sister was reading and writing well when starting kindergarten (in the school system she later regressed badly to the point she had to be admitted to a remedial reading program). On top of this pre-school reading, we were home schooled via correspondence for a few years. Being the eldest I had the longest time in home school and probably benefited the most as a result. Our school days would normally run from around 10am - 1pm. It was a system in which once you got your work done, you were free to go outside and play the rest of the day (nothing like some incentive to work hard!!). Despite short days, both my sister and I managed to get 1 year ahead of the standard system quite quickly, although once starting "normal" school, we were held back to our appropriate age levels. My youngest sister also got some benefit, but only got to be home-schooled in kindergarten before starting "normal" school at the age of four (turning 5 within 2 months).

Being a parent now myself, I'd love to be able to ask my mother what techniques she used, in order to give my own kids the same sort of headstart. Instead I can simply try to instill an enjoyment of books and stories, and focusing on counting things as much as possible (the steps to and from the house get a good workout!).
Posted by Country Gal, Wednesday, 26 September 2007 9:32:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Country gal, my earliest recollections sre of the proverbial "Dick and Jane" Ladybird series of books(with guest stars Mummy, Daddy and Spot the dog("Run, Spot, Run!")).
In addition, I recall numbers being made fun with such things as cuisenaire(?) rods, you know, those coloured bits of wood.
In any case, I think the early start does more good than harm and the simpler the process, the better.
As I may have implied, both my parents were avid readers and sharers and would consider it of sufficient importance to spend time reading with me, helping where needed but otherwise just being around and interested. Family games of "Scrabble" got played a lot, as well as simple card games.
Naming and blaming won't necessarily solve the current problem. If a problem is known to exist, then deal with it, I say. If someone, or a group, can't properly read and/or write, find the reason why and then work with them until they can. If it means holding them back, for their own good, then so be it.
Allowing someone to remain functionally illiterate does no-one any good.
Enough of the problem, we know what it is. Make with the solution!
Posted by tRAKKA, Wednesday, 26 September 2007 12:57:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, Spot featured highly, as well as one book of poems that I cant place the name of, but the final page was a poem called "Who Killed Cock Robin" (going through the list of suspect birds until the sparrow admitted that it was him). The coloured rods are ones that I remember well too.

Maybe better use of music in teaching young children would assist. Few kids dislike music, and songs can be used to teach all sorts of concepts and ideas. Surely stretching little imaginations would go a long way towards priming their minds for other forms of learning. We used to gather around the piano and act out the songs that mum was playing (before we could talk). We had a few records as well, but mostly it was home-created music. Someone told me once that playing music rather than listening to it had wonderous effects on expanding creativity and openness to ideas. Not sure how true it is.
Posted by Country Gal, Wednesday, 26 September 2007 2:17:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Xoddam
"Educational and social outcomes don't seem very much differentiated between kids who do and don't go to daycare before they start school."

I certainly think that has to be qualified. Poorly run day care centres can have a very detrimental affect on young children, and a number of childhood experts now believe that there is far too much structured and adult organized play occurring with young children.

A belief that any daycare center or any kindergarten or any pre-school is good for children would be a very erroneous belief.

I have noticed university staff blaming secondary schools for poor student outcomes in universities, while there are secondary school staff blaming primary schools for poor student outcomes in secondary schools, and some primary school staff have been suggesting that there should be more pre-school education because of poor student outcomes in primary schools.

But very young children are basically voiceless, so if any testing or intensive type scrutiny is to be made of our education system, then the first priority should be in the area of daycare centres, pre-schools, kindergartens and in the first few years of primary school.
Posted by HRS, Friday, 28 September 2007 9:26:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh, i couldn't agree more about getting back to literacy, numeracy, sciences, geography, history and with a bit of art, music and sport on a Friday. Likewise, i agree, get rid of these ridiculous worksheets, they accomplish absolutely nothing. As youngster we wrote pages of sums at varying levels of difficulty and we constantly learnt the techniques required for our maths. Spelling, Reading, COMPREHENSION, Sentence structure and dare I say it even Latin comprised our English lessons. We had fun though. Does anybody remember the SRA cards, these were brilliant cards that developed comprehension, you read a story and answered questions that caused you to think about what you had read. The challenge was to go higher and higher up the ladder of the cards. Even dear old Latin was thrown in so we would understand where our language came from. YOu know I still use it today when deciphering unfamiliar words, such a handy subject.

We really do need to go back to the very foundations of education and that includes leaving OUT the calculator and computer until at least Grade 10, the student will survive! By taking away the calculator and computer the students will begin to learn to think about their answers and be able to understand how they got there. Honestly, how is a computer going to help a student to learn their maths effectively. Good grief! Whilst we are discussing maths, can teachers please commence teaching their charges the times tables so that they can at least learn how to do long and short division and give change at a counter.
Posted by zahira, Tuesday, 23 October 2007 12:42:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy