Yes Garum, most of this stuff does nothing more than provide “work” for a few academics, so absolutely nothing useful. The best thing for the kids would be the removal of the academic speed bumps being put in their way.

40 years ago a kid aged 15 would leave school after 3 years high school, with an intermediate certificate. This armed them with all the math & writing they needed to go off to TAFE equivalent, & become a tradesman. Today we have kids with a “higher achiever” rating in math & physics at the HSC, who cannot do that same math. I know a couple of people who make a good living coaching tradesman math to these year 12 graduates, trying to get through carpentry & plumbing.

One of the problems with our current system is the terrible shock it is for kids, when they actually have to pass an exam, for the first time.

The P&C at our local high school, [1700 kids, 25 Km from Brisbane suburbs] took over the "in-school" apprenticeship scheme. This was an extension of the work experience program, but the school staff weren't too interested. The kids spent one day a week working in "real" employment, with some trade training.

After a couple of years we had lots of kids, & enthusiastic employers, our main problem was transport, with most work in the city, & the TAFE 50Km away.

Despite missing a day each week of school, most of these kids improved their school work. When asked why, the kids didn't know of course, but many said that school work was just easier, now they were "working".

Some of these kids were the disruptive element, who did not want to be at school. As one teacher put it, these troublesome kids now just disappeared, & were no longer noticeable. May I suggest Katrina, try making these kids work for something, it tends to stop them feeling sorry for themselves.

I've also thought the goal-setting by government was actually arse-up: we should first get the students engaged through adopting the right curricula and methodologies; then it might be much easier to keep them learning so that 90% retention to Year 12 is not only feasible but productive.

Apart from that though, I agree that different learning styles should be equally accepted and teaching adapted to suit them. But I would go much further than other posters have so far hinted at. While there are differences between the learning styles of the "average" boy and the "average" girl, there are even greater variations irrespective of the sex of the student.

Looking at sensory modalities, for instance, we find that learners (and teachers) tend to have leanings towards either visual, auditory or tactile-kinaesthetic learning. This has been known for a long time but programming and methodology in most schools still does not reflect it.

Pelican's idea of varying uni-sex and co-ed settings is very pertinent. It can make a real difference to the participation and attainment levels.

One startling bit of personal experience is worth mentioning. After 25 years of teaching in co-ed schools I despaired of ever attracting more than five or six boys to join a choir of 50 voices, and even then half or more of them would drop out after a few months. Then I began teaching in an all-boys school and found I had to audition about ninety boys to get a choir of about 30! They all wanted to participate, whereas the presence of girls in the co-ed setting made them too self-conscious. I and other teachers have found examples like this to be widespread -- and not only in music.

I understand perfectly what Pelican is saying about "integration" of children with special learning or behaviour disorders. Special support teachers (who stay with the individual child in whole-class settings)are often at least a partial solution. But if integration is going to be mandatory, then so should be expenditure on provision of support teachers.

Setting ambitious education goals is great – but what do they mean?

COntinued from earlier post.

So sadly we lost our wonderful true "Community" School with its education bonuses , one example was "The Production" a truely amazing effort where extensive stage sets of incredible complexity all built in school usually only seen in capital cities plus their own Full Orchestra ! the hall was packed out as was the parking outside , this was REAL COMMUNITY WORKING not any more , didn't suit the Crazie Educrats, tragic but true .
Time has moved on we have had an Education Revolution so what have we got 3 sad years on we have two Sunbury Industrial Area sheds 1960 style cost I don't know probably Millions plus , see back pages of the Weekly Times for examples of Galvanised ripple Iron (tin fence galv. iron that nobody uses ...to ugly) Sheds and note the prices , I think the bare shed would cost a farmer outside the City boundries building regulations about $20.000
for costs and examples of Galvanised Iron Sheds - weekly Times.

vanna
I understand your points but I don't believe schools should be "speaking" out for or against marriage. These sit in the personal issues IMO (like religion) and not the place of teachers to push any particular agenda in those areas.

Regarding sociologists I wasn't advocating them for the education system but to make more expert comments than I can on how to reduce disadvantage in the home which has roll-on effects at school.

With 2 children achieving high grades at university and still not in well paying jobs while my one who isn't tertiary trained earning close to $100,000 per year at the age of 21 it raises many questions either about the usefulness of uni education or the need for it.

Pelican,
Education is connected to wealth and family income. In our feminist country, it is difficult to get adequate statistics, but here are some of the statistics regards child poverty from the UK, US and Canada.

Poverty rates are highest for families headed by single women, particularly if they are black or Hispanic. In 2009, 29.9 percent of households headed by single women were poor, while 16.9 percent of households headed by single men and 5.8 percent of married-couple households lived in poverty.

http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/

A half of all people in lone parent families are in low income. This is more than twice the rate for couples with children.

http://www.poverty.org.uk/05/index.shtml

Although the low income rate of female lone-parent families with one earner was about four times the average for all families (32% versus 8.4%), they were much better off than lone mothers without earnings; 86% of the latter experienced low income in 2003.

On the other hand, the low income rate for lone-parent families headed by men halved since 1996, when it stood at 25%. By 2003, it went down to 12.6%.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-202-x/2003000/4071474-eng.htm

While teachers keep asking for more and more taxpayer funding (find a teacher who doesn’t), they will also say that the socio-economic background of the child affects their education.

What they don’t mention is the main reason why so many children have a socio-economic background that negatively affects their education.

The number one reason is children coming from single parent families and broken homes, but this cannot be mentioned for fear of upsetting the numerous feminists now spread throughout the education system.

So instead of getting to the core of the problem, we just have articles like this one asking for more and more taxpayer funding.