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 > The new curriculum micro-managers > Comments

The new curriculum micro-managers : Comments

By Mercurius Goldstein, published 23/6/2006

You can promote choice in education, or you can micro-manage the syllabus, but you can't do both.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
It is all very well to ask “what facts should be taught” and doubtless one can argue forever in some subjects in the humanities. However, in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, there is a highly applicable body of facts, (such as Newton’s laws of motion) which are unlikely to change over the period of ones career.

They are even necessary to explain why a jet engine works. And always will be.

However, in Qld’s latest Physics syllabus, there is no stipulation that they should be taught, and certainly no guide to what depth they might be taught.

It therefore rests upon the school to choose what will be taught, and choice is a good thing if it is a real choice. However I cannot chose anything but the QLD system because that is where I live. There is no choice associated with the half a dozen state systems teaching different stuff. There is only difference. The choice associated with different schools in my district teaching different stuff is open to me because I live in a city where there are a few schools. However, in many country areas there will only be one school to choose and my kids syllabus is then determined by what a particular teacher feels like. I have no choice. Instead the choice goes to a single person who is likely to have no idea what is important and what is not.

Further, I may be able to choose to which school I send my kids based on what is taught because I have a fair academic grasp of many subjects, and can, if I wish, check out each schools work programmes for all the subjects my child may take. Will all parents be able to do that? Should they have to do that?

Is it really too much to ask that in the hard sciences and mathematics, a basic list of fundamental laws and processes be taught? We mustn’t be too prescriptive, but we seem to have gone from one extreme to another.
Posted by Ridd, Friday, 23 June 2006 1:38:09 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
My kids say that the outcome based curriculum creates an environment where the teacher often expects the kids to already know the outcomes expected for their year and that teachers get irritated and annoyed when kids dont as it mucks things up for them.

It makes it very unfair when competing in a class where many are being coached and tutored outside of school and attend school for the purpose of and to compete.

An outcomes based curriculum would only work if everybody in the class was at the exact same level at the same time and had the same needs that needed to be met.

What we need to do is to stop making our children compete for their education and make it a little bit more engaging, relevant and fair.
Posted by Jolanda, Friday, 23 June 2006 8:08:37 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 writer needs to do a little more study of liberalism and he'll find that liberals have always been in favour of the Enlightenment approach to education. The reason is that without an adequate grasp of the body of a subject area, there is no real choice.

That lack of choice impacts more heavily on poorer people than richer ones, who can always afford tutors or private schools that will do the job of educating properly. Liberals have always been concerned most with the least fortunate in society.

I think Kevin D goes over the top a bit. There's nothing wrong with asking students to interpret Shakespeare from a Marxist point of view, although there is a problem if that is the only thing they are asked to do. But there's a lot more wrong with proposing, as this writer does, that the periodic table is some sort of optional extra. You're left back with the ancient Greeks if you don't understand how atoms are put together, and in a world like that, jet engines aren't possible and his grandfather was right!
Posted by GrahamY, Saturday, 24 June 2006 11:14:29 AM
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
Well said GrahamY! It is clear that, as opposed to Goldstein, you actually know something about education. A central issue, leaving aside Goldsteins palpable ignorance of maths and the physical sciences, is that it is the formal education system - the schools - responsibility to empower children from lower socio-economic backgrounds to take a full part in the world they live, and will live in. A majority of children do not come from a highly educated background. They do not, for example, have a grandfather who was an engineer. Current fashionable syllabi make no attempt whatsoever to ensure that children of all backgrounds receive an education that provides the central knowledge and understandings that are essential for informed decision making. Furthermore by far the biggest determinants of, for example, employment, unemployment and even ENTER outcomes are numeracy and literacy. It is the schools responsibility to provide those. It is the responsibility of the various Boards of Study to ensure that central ideas, content, understandings and skills are clearly stated in the syllabi.

The syllabi and associated assessment structures fail to meet any of the basic requirements: Defined, Reliable and Verifiable.

At present we have the spectacle of some students not having any formal teaching at all - ever. All they get is one assignment after another. Even Goldstein ought to be able to work out that that further disadvantages students from lower socio economic backgrounds.

But that does not worry Goldstein, he's alright Jack.

It appears to be the case that Goldsteins lack of education experience combined with gross ignorance are in inverse proportion to his arrogance.

Phrase such as 'Soviet-style centralisation, pre-fabricated experience, laundry list of facts, fossilised body of prescribed content' and 'politburo' are quite inappropriate from the academy.

Oh, I forgot, he is in a faculty of education
Posted by eyejaw, Sunday, 25 June 2006 3:54:02 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
Most employers do not want critical thinkers.. ESPECIALLY in engineering as here exists much scope for it.

They want people that can do the job and fit in with the rest.

I feel the education system is drifting further and further away from this.
Posted by savoir68, Sunday, 25 June 2006 7:03:39 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
Robots, you mean, Savoir68? Interchangeable tools which do as they're told and aren't able to think on their feet? Is this what the Enlightenment was intended to produce?
Posted by Sancho, Sunday, 25 June 2006 11:36:55 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
Thanks to everyone who commented with anything other than personal abuse. As usual, the comment were more interesting than the article itself!

I'll try to address as many posts as time and post-limits allow.

Ridd is right, there are many useful facts that change little during a person's lifetime. Newton's laws of motion haven't changed in centuries, have been invaluable in many great advances, and have also been known for nearly a century now to be mere approximations of physical space. As we all know, Newton's equations are reliable on the scale of distance and velocities in which we are used to dealing, but quite useless on an infinitesimal or cosmological scale. And even Einstein's theories fail to satisfactorily account for quantum phenomena. And quantum physics continue to raise mystery after mystery.

Yet some people still wish to teach teenagers that there are 'laws' of physics (who is the lawmaker, and why was he/she so inaccurate?). It seems to me that the only 'dumbing down' that is going on the science curriculum is the failure to mention that scientific knowledge is every bit as uncertain and endlessly reviewable as the humanities. That is what science journals are for.

The presentation of scientific knowledge to children as settled, known, certain, undisputed facts belies the crucible-like conditions under which the scientific community tests every single claim and counter-claim ever made.

Ridd's comments concerning 'real choice' were also true, but trivially so. Ridd bemoans the fact that in cities with many schools, there will be choices, and in country areas with one school, there will be no choice. I can only add that whether we have an outcomes-based curriculum or a prescriptive curriculum, this situation will still hold. It may be that a more prescriptive syllabus is one that Ridd happens to prefer, but there will still be no choice for country towns with one school.
Posted by Mercurius, Monday, 26 June 2006 7:00:31 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
The concerns about coaching and tutoring that Jolanda and Graham Y raised are also made worse under a prescriptive syllabus. For if the syllabus sets down exactly all the content that is to be learnt, a coach can simply drill-and-practice the kid to death outside school hours. Coaching colleges are adept at raising kids' marks for known-content areas, albeit it is shallow rote-learning. But the advantage of coaching is largely lost in an outcomes-based environment.

Graham Y also raises a worthwhile point about liberalism. While this goes into political philosophy and quite beyond the original scope of this discussion, I can only add that the 'liberals' to which he refers, who favour an Enlightenment approach to education, come in many more stripes than Graham Y suggests. One Enlightenment view of liberty was additive - some extra assistance to help a person realise their full potential - a 'be all you can be' helping-hand, and a clear precursor to today's welfare states. This view of liberty led to today's well-intentioned "progressive" liberalism, which in its extreme form becomes either paternalistic, bleeding-heart or nanny-state. But another view of liberty also arose during the Enlightenment, and that viewed 'liberty' as subtractive - as an absence-of-constraint. A freedom-from interference. (Also the freedom to starve to death.) That view of liberty gave rise to the 'law of the jungle' approach in which a person's complete independence is to be prized above interference from the state and which, in its extreme form, is indistinguishable from anarchy. It is clear that both views of liberty co-exist in productive tension in modern politics, modern capitalism, and education policy.

The relevance of this to our discussion? Merely to clarify that when I talked about "true liberals" I guess I had in the latter-sort of "rugged individualist" liberal who is very much of a mind to think 'each to their own' and 'do whatever you like, as long as you don't interfere with me'. That sort of liberalism can be surprisingly tolerant, if a little hard-hearted. But at any rate, that is the sort of 'liberal' I had in mind.
Posted by Mercurius, Monday, 26 June 2006 7:04:39 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
Thin skinned Goldstein does not like personal abuse. I agree that my comment was abusive. It was an appropriate response to an article that was itself abusive. He smeared and hence abused all people who disagree with his views with phrases such as Soviet-stle, regurgitate, fossilised body of knowledge etc. I presume that he feels that it is OK to indiscriminately abuse a lot of people, as he did, but not be specific, as I was.

Speaking of abuse, I think that the due to the ideas and near total power held by The Education Establishment what is happening in schools these days is nothing short of child abuse - especially to the children of poorer families.

Now that statement really IS abusive.
Posted by eyejaw, Monday, 26 June 2006 8:16:59 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
Mercurious is right that Newtons Law’s of motion break down when you approach the speed of light and when you are about as big as an atom. They work for the rest of the time and describe just about everything moving that you will ever encounter. Further, any decent physics teacher will tell students about where laws break down. I think it should be prescribed in the syllabus. What do you think Mercurious?

I come from a small town with only one high school that taught senior. I am glad that a learned group of experienced teachers advised by academics and other professional people were in charge of the content of the syllabus. Nowadays, it is the teacher who determines the content in QLD schools, and in country schools the Physics and Maths teacher may not be in the best position, or have the background and experience, to make those choices.

Physics, Maths and Chemistry are no different in Brisbane or Bedourie. There are some basic rules, which seem to work under certain conditions and they work irrespective of your gender, location, culture or socio-economic background. They should be taught to everybody and it is the job of the boards of study to determine this content. In some states such as QLD, they do not.
Posted by Ridd, Monday, 26 June 2006 12:56:31 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
Hi Ridd. I think Newton's laws and the periodic tables are useful references, like a thesaurus or dictionary. I’ve never seen an English course list the dictionary as a prescribed text - it’s taken for granted that you’ll look up a word if you need to. From what you are saying, it sounds like any science student would encounter Newton’s laws or the periodic table in their course, regardless of whether it was prescribed or not, much like an English student is inevitably going to need to use a dictionary or thesaurus. Prescription is therefore redundant.

Teachers who want to use Newton’s laws and the periodic table can do so. And teachers who can design a coherent, educationally sound course that meets the syllabus outcomes without using Newton’s laws, then good luck to them. Teachers who can’t do either should consider a different profession.

The idea, popular with politicians, that students who can recite Newton's laws or the periodic table somehow 'know science' is a betrayal of science. It is anti-science. It calls to my mind a hall full of medieval monks slavishly copying a debased Latin text they can only dimly understand. If we want to dumb-down the curriculum, then give 'em Newton's laws and the periodic table to copy. But if we want to teach science, then teach them to think like scientists.

The periodic table won’t tell us why mercury is liquid at room temperature, why each layer of electron 'shells' have the number of electrons they do, or ‘how atoms are put together’, as Graham Y seemed to suggest. (If Graham Y DOES know how atoms are put together, he should call the Nobel Prize committee immediately!) In fact, I would consider Graham Y to be doing a service to science, and to his students, if he were to ask them to ponder just such questions, for they will yield far more scientific knowledge, and scientific thinking, than studying the periodic table ever will.

Personally, the best use of the periodic table I ever heard was Tom Lehrer's 'Element Song', if anybody recalls it.
Posted by Mercurius, Tuesday, 27 June 2006 7:05:06 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
Meanwhile, aren’t we fortunate to have eyejaw here to provide the calm voice of moderation in balance to my hysterical ranting?

The one thing eyejaw got correct is the irrelevant point that the language I use is not appropriate for an academic paper. That is why it is not published in an academic paper. This is an opinion forum, as the editors have often pointed out. The editors of this forum apparently did not consider my language abusive. Perhaps eyejaw's complaint would be better directed to them.

When it comes to the phrases (Societ-style, politburo, etc.) to which eyejaw took offence, eyejaw may also benefit from a short course in critical literacy, so he could learn to distinguish between a literal descriptive statement, and a rhetorical phrase used in an opinion piece to emphasise a point and get people reading.

Regarding the requirement of syllabi to be defined, reliable and verifiable, I have one such right here: "Recite the periodic table of the elements". That is a defined, reliable and verifiable syllabus. I'm sure many politicians would get votes for implementing it. But as anybody who "knows something" about education could tell you, it is a pathetic excuse for a syllabus.

eyejaw makes the assertion that some students receive no formal teaching ever. Such a hyperbolic claim requires evidence. However, instead of evidence, eyejaw provided a refutation in the very next sentence: Students get assignments.

In what way are assignments not 'formal teaching'? They require considerably more work (and marking for teachers) than memorising and regurgitating a list of facts. Or is drill-and-practice the only thing that counts as 'formal teaching' amongst people who 'know something' about education?

As eyejaw voluntarily confirmed, his contributions to this discussion have thus far been an undifferentiated stream of abuse. Quite what this is intended to achieve remains unclear.
Posted by Mercurius, Tuesday, 27 June 2006 7:06:52 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
Oh, I see. When I use abusive language that is abuse, when Goldstein does it is a 'rhetorical phrase'.

He states that 'Recite the periodic table of the elements' is a 'pathetic excuse for a syllabus'. Well, yes, but I never said/implied any such thing. So Goldstein is playing the old game of setting up a coconut in order to knock it down. What I DID say was that a syllabus should 'ensure that the central ideas, contents, understandings and skills are clearly stated'. I stand by that statement unreservedly.

Then he claims that I said, 'Students get assignments'; however what I actually said was, 'ALL they get is one assignment after another'. Those two statements are not even vaguely the same. It is very naughty to fiddle a quotation in that way. Tut, tut.

A question: does Goldstein think that an assessment system based solely or even mainly on assignments (of unknown provenance) is fair to students from poorer backgrounds? I am certain that it isn't.

An existing allied problem in maths and physical science assessments faced by students from lower socio-economic backgrounds (and disproportionately males) is 'The level of nomenclature and sophisticated verbal reasoning skills that are required - even to understand what the problem is - is on average four times greater than what is required in Australian history and literature'. (Rowe, quoted in Parliamentary inquiry, 'Boys: getting it right. 2002).

That Inquiry recommended 'assessment procedures for maths and science must, as a first requirement, provide information about students' knowledge skills and achievement on the subject, and not be a de facto examination of students' English comprehension and espression'.

That we had, by 2002 reached such a deplorable state was/is entirely the result of ideas that had oozed from The Education Establishment. They should be ashamed, but are not. They continue to make things even worse.

Well, we've both enjoyed the haggle. Goldstein probably thinks I am an unreconstructed, rude Gradgrind. I think he is just another member of the all powerful Education Establishment. Neither of us will change - so I'm off to find other amusements.
Posted by eyejaw, Tuesday, 27 June 2006 4:37:54 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 outcome based curriculum allows 'us teachers' to control what facts are taught, and what facts are not. We are often asked to cover fairly generalised aims, in the primary years, that apply to many different facts. At the high school level there are occasions where you can omit whole topics. When I was at university, it was obvious that they were not teaching us any facts either, but how to write up 'theme based' programs and lesson plans to make our job easier, as the pressure to produce more teachers for the 'big decline 'period was... paramount (sorry for all those 'P's!) You HAVE to know your facts as a teacher, and become a true PROFESSIONAL, committed to your own continual learning.

I have also noticed my colleagues often CONTROL a class by limiting their access to facts, and thus making their own job easier... sort of, ‘dumbing’ down their class. It also makes the teacher look smarter!

THIS IS NOT ALL TEACHERS and the other problem I've noticed is that good, honest, committed teachers get burnt out by all the 'issues' surrounding the job... not the teaching itself, that can be FANTASTIC AND FUN! But time restrictions, school activities - commercialised fundraising! Which are necessary to buy simple supplies in some schools...

TEACHING FACTS? There are lots of elements in a school... every school is different... every teacher, child, family, principal... person is different and has different needs. That was why 'outcomes based' learning was adopted. But from what I understand from studies, and my own experience... it does not GUARANTEE that facts are taught. Not when ONE PERSON is asked to use a GENERALISED CURRICULUM to teach SPECIFICS to UNIQUE INDIVIDUALS at the SAME TIME. It's the same as using an ORANGE to talk about ALL FRUIT to help future BOTANISTS, MECHANICS, TEACHERS and so on, LEARN ABOUT BANANAS! In MY opinion there is no guarantee everyone will understand the references, unless they ALREADY KNOW IT THROUGH PRIOR KNOWLEDGE!
Posted by mummalu, Tuesday, 4 July 2006 4:33:52 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
Yeh Well The have to take the credit for something other than grabbing the money.

They mislead kids to think they need uni.
The kids who dont want to get a job anyway just say Oh I have to go and learn what i want to do.

We now have a country full of little smart arses that wont work dont know how and dont want to.
oh but they have plenty to say on politics because they learnt it at uni.

What chance do these kids have because they have never known any better.
Remember when you took any job or two to save to go to night classes.
Not these kids!
Its not their fault its ours!
Posted by Wendy Lewthwaite, Saturday, 15 July 2006 8:38:23 AM
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
"We now have a country full of little smart arses that wont work dont know how and dont want to.
oh but they have plenty to say on politics because they learnt it at uni."

Typical alarmist uni student bashing

Anyway critical thinking is all well and good but its not much use if you don't know the facts yet. I mean theres no point writing a marxist interpretation of a book if you don't understand marxism. Engineering is taught much better, you're not allowed to have an opinion until 4th year when you have learnt the basics of chemistry, physics and Engineering.

Education is a sucker for the latest theoretical fad. The best way to teach most things, in my humble opinion, is to drill it into your students. Once they know the basics, then they can have an opinion.
Posted by Ace, Tuesday, 18 July 2006 1:52:47 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
ACE

Not That its the Kids fault but the first thing they are taught just before they leave uni is how to apply for the dole.

Not how to look for work mind you.

I Know This Because we actually run a School.

So we made a point of also having a farm to take the kids to learn some practicle stuff as well.

Center link Staff travel Around explaining to them how to apply.

The Best way To learn anything is by practicle experience.

In Case you had not noticed we have very few people actually employing apprentices and training people anymore.

Everybody is off to uni to become educated on to how to apply for the dole.

Being A family that runs a private school we are very pro teaching.

However education must be a mix of practicle and theory.

My point was we worked hard all day paying our fees to attend night school.

I Dont know what typical bashing of uni means but I see plenty who attend uni rather than pick up a shovel and dig rather than drill their way to the top.

Some should try to get a little dirt on their hands and expereince the feeling of earning a honest days pay for an honest days work.

I am not speaking about the council workers leaning on their shovels in the dozens while one bloke picks a little dust away either.

I am talking about putting their backs into it to work hard to get ahead in life and pay night classes if they wish to further their education.

They dont teach that in many universitys now do they.

God Forbid anybody should ask a child of the uni to work as well!

Not Every person was meant to go to uni and its a fact many attend so they dont have to get a job and their mates are attending so lets stick together and hang out.[ Yeh cool Man why should we work]

We are running out of silver spoons to fit mouths.

ACE?
Posted by Wendy Lewthwaite, Tuesday, 18 July 2006 6:16:33 AM
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
oh and Ace
If you look across the creek not far you will see thousands of people lined up begging to come to Australia to do the work thats out there while these kids attend uni becoming educated, so they can work for a bowl of rice one day.

Thats If they are lucky mind you.

How on earth are these kids going to ever pay off their hecks fees?

Most wont ever able to.

Clever isnt it Ace.

Go to uni and learn how to run yourself up into huge debt so you can go onto the dole and never be able to pay it back in most cases.

That means that these poor kids dont even get a chance to have a first home because they owe huge bills before life has even begun for them
There stuck then because they dont even have the basic skills to get a job as a plumber or electrian or a brickie because they were uni kids.

When kids go to uni they are not registerd as unemployed.
You guys have been had by the government to suite their personal polls regarding unemployment.

The figures are down all right because everybody bodys in uni[good one]
Then they chase the kids for the reast of their lives to pay back outragous fees they could not afford in the first place.

The simple fact is not all kids are smart and should leave school and go into jobs and training not uni.

GET SMART
Posted by Wendy Lewthwaite, Tuesday, 18 July 2006 6:33:59 AM
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
Yes I went to uni. No I did not recieve instructions on how to apply for the 'dole' or, more accurately 'new start allowance'. I did however WORK as a teacher, tutor and photographer AT THE SAME TIME whilst 1-7 months pregnant with my first child. (I have two children and went back to casual teaching between their births). Prior to that I WORKED as a waitress DURING UNIVERSITY to PAY FOR MY FEES ETC. I also worked as a babysitter for 10 years, begining as soon as I turned 16 and ending with the birth of my first child... so I'm still looking after children. I have also WORKED as a secretary, check out opperator, piano tutor, professional (paid) artist, and have a TAFE certificate in Office Proceedures and Typing, A TAFE Associate Diploma in Fine Arts and a Degree in Teaching (B.Teach/B.A.(history) double degree). I am now finishing a Diploma in Montessori Education (correspondence) and will start a WEA (community collage) course in Digital Media and Web Page Design in 3 weeks, in order that I may start my own 'at home business' so that I may continue to home school my 5 year old daughter and also stay home for my 2 year old son. I am also a single mum.... would you like to take issue with that too? I know when to pick my fights.... and this issue of 'hippee dole bludging uni students' is NOT A PRIORITY, surely?? ps.... never did attend any social events... exept for the fund raisers at TAFE, which I ran....... pps. I am DEFINATELY not unique! Coincidently, anyone I know who DID act like you claim, DIDN'T GRADUATE!
Posted by mummalu, Tuesday, 18 July 2006 3:44:53 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
Wendy, what are you talking about? MOST Uni students work while studying. I know I certainly did for the five years of my degree, working mainly in retail. As did 100% of my friends. I did not meet a single person at University who was not working in some capacity to at least pay for their books.

I am now working full time, pay a very great deal of tax, and studying again for my Masters at full fees in the evenings! Is my contribution to society somehow the lesser for not having the taste or talent for manual labour?
Posted by Laurie, Tuesday, 18 July 2006 4:03:52 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
Laurie and MMm etc.

Clearly I am not talking about you then am I.

As its clear all of you are not spring chickens that was my point.

I was refering to [now days] and not everybody body just many.

The international students that study here are given special arrangments as well.
Such as PR if they are doing IT of one of the excepted courses along with free health and told how to appy for the dole before they finish their courses.
I know this because my sister and her husband own a school .

The aggressive reply to me which was very unnessary also shows me the smart arse rude uni attitude is still alive and kicking.

Thats not much of an example to our younger students now is it.

No need to be so rude.

I can assure you there are thousands of kids who do fit what i was describing.

I live between four unis and my friends run many accomadtion establishments for uni kids.

May be some hard work does improve ones manners who knows.

You lot are a discrace given i was not refering to you in the first place.

By your example uni kids grow into older examples of rude arrogant ill mannered people who think they are above everybody else.
Thanks for supporting my theory on the post.

Try learning some manners and less aggreshion in life.

Now as I was saying many kids should not be going to uni but into training if anybody else would like to comment.
Before I was so rudely interrupted.
Posted by Wendy Lewthwaite, Wednesday, 19 July 2006 7:10:46 AM
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
"As its clear all of you are not spring chickens that was my point.
I was refering to [now days]"

Clearly you have misinterpreted. I am twenty-three and only graduated two years ago.

I must be one of those Horrid Youths Of Today.

But I agree that University is not the be-all and end-all of education, and kids should not be being convinced that it is. My younger brother went into a building apprenticeship at 16, and is doing very well, much better than if he had stayed in school, as it only would have led to frustration at failure. Instead, he is now a very talented builder, and has found his niche.

Back to the topic of the thread- syllabus management- I think that the author is correct, that there cannot be both the rhetoric of 'parents choice' as well as a constant push towards 'standardisation'.

I attended a very non-standard primary school (full of creative play and self-directed learning) and truly feel that I did better out of discovering learning rather than being 'directed' to learn a set series of facts. But that suited me. My cousin attended the school down the road which was a more traditional primary school, and she flourished just as well in that environment. There needs to be options for people in choosing the learning suited to their child/their selves, not everything cookie-cutter. All the same doesn't mean all better.
Posted by Laurie, Wednesday, 19 July 2006 9:37:08 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 agree Laurie. It is impossible to suggest only one path to all people... and this is the dilemma that the outcomes based curriculum puts teachers in. It seems broad but it lacks depth in areas. It just doesn't teach the reality of life. For instance, it is up to the individual teacher and his or her own experience to teach grace and courtesy. I mean no sarcasm by this comment; you teach people how to treat you. I of course apologise for any offence I may have caused Wendy. I was suggesting that you had 'generalised' uni students and was, perhaps defensively, illustrating an alternative response. I am not too old, 31, and like you personally know someone who runs their own private school. Working in their school and in the state system, I see that EVERY school is different anyway, as it is the people (students, parents, teachers and school community) who make the ‘real rules’. Indeed, there are many alternatives to the sausage factory of 'standardised and sanitary mainstream education' or what ever the dream of the ‘folk who write the program’ is. I have been following Montessori, Steiner, Permaculture and Natural learning methods for years and went to a high school where is was a disappointing fact that you had to return to year 11 or 12 because you didn’t get an apprenticeship. Unfortunately there are some who go to uni who, especially in first year, act like….a bit of a fool, perhaps, BUT they never last… they either fail OR change their attitude. It has more to do with having just finishing the HSC, relief and hormones. For some it is the first time they have felt free. I wish you, and everyone here, success on their ‘life long learning path’… that seems to be the only common thing we have some days.
Posted by mummalu, Wednesday, 19 July 2006 11:10:50 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
Mummula

That was very kind of you thank you.

Your background is very interesting.

I have been frustrated trying to establish training and for regional areas especially.

I am also a animal lover so thought if i put together a programe to co join overseas purchases of meats and vegetable produducts together with tourism that would be a shot in the arm for the bush and Australia.

If you have time see> www.halakindmeats.com

I have written to The minister of Ag The minister of Trade local Governments and The Minister for Aboriginal and regional affairs etc.

I Travelled to Melbourne from the Gold Coast To see Family Firsts Steve Fielding [nothing] not even a cup of tea[grin] Or a glass of water. Mind you I know we are running short these days.
Must be the family training. [ Sorry couldnt resist]


He was busy putting his kids through uni too. That explains a lot!

Maybe I have a warped sense of humour Mummula but that cracks me up.

Kids learn or dont learn from the parents whats important and whats not.

Your schooling tells me you have intelligent parents.

The thing is many dont and this send the kids to uni even if they are not suitable and it has to stop.

I know not all kids are bludgers.

However unless Gold Coast is unique we have a lot of little monsters who think they should be treated as royalty because they go to after school as I call it.

God Help this country as they bring in the skilled and now the unskilled workers.

Not to mention the overseas uni students that really want to get somewhere like yourselves.

They really appreciate an education and most of them have actually rolled up their sleeves and jug a few holes or whatever on the family propertys back home.

Some of Our uni kids are lacking in lifes expereince of earning your own way.

Mummula you might find our farm school stay of interest.

You can click on AICOL through the link I gave you.
Posted by Wendy Lewthwaite, Thursday, 20 July 2006 5:12:30 AM
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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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