Jolanda,
The Liberals always look after their own better than Labor.

This is a serious site for politically minded people, not comedy hour at the zoo.

Pity, I thought Jolanda was talking good sense.

The kind of curriculum Jolanda described has been well-described, investigated and documented in education academic journals (what eet calls 'garbology') for 30 years. It has paraded in various guises as 'student-centred learning', 'mastery learning', 'intrinsic motivation' and so on.

In other words Jolanda, what your kids described is an education system consistent with theories devised decades ago by such eminent scholars as Bandura, Piaget and motivation researchers Deci & Ryan. Aren't your kids smart to think of the same thing so intuitively? They're right, of course.

But Jolanda, there are plenty of people who will tell you that a curriculum along the lines of what you outlined is completely debased, and dumbed-down, and 'not real education'. Actually, that's kind of how they describe our curriculum now.

For these concepts have also been widely incorporated into curriculum documents and education policies in states around Australia. You can find them online - they're public documents from the respective state education departments. Yes, they're the same curriculum docments that so many have been shrieking about as infiltrated by leftists and postmodernists.

Jolanda, you will find what your children described set out almost exactly in the following article of scholarship. Why don't you share with them the fact that they're as smart and insightful as these folks?: Harackiewicz, J., & Barron, K., & Pintrich, P.R., & Elliott, A.J. & Thrash, T.M. (2002), Revision of achievement goal theory: necessary and illuminating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 638-645.

MichaelK,
I do not undersatnd your point about the subjects I teach not making technical progress substantially better. If you are implying that humanities subjects do not help with technical progress, I would have to disagree, because they teach thinking among other things and thinking crosses the borders of subjects.

eet,
I would put your question the other way: why do unionists vote Liberal? But it is not one I can answer.

I think the teacher unions do focus on education. But that is invariably political because most teachers are employed by governments and education is a hot political issue.

After 33 years of listening to people who do not know how schools work or what teachers actually do go on and on and on about education, I have passed boiling point and entered a parallel universe of cold determination to fight back in this and other forums. I do not dispute the problems that exist. They are many, and many of that many are the fault of the same type of person whose relentless criticism dominates the public discussion. The economic rationalists wreaked destruction throughout the Victorian education system - and I will not let that be forgotten.

I share concerns that many others have expressed about academic standards, but there are tens of thousands of teachers striving to meet high standards every day. They teach facts and themes and ideas and so on. They do not deserve the abuse that is heaped upon them. They are not part of some left conspiracy to fluoridate our children's minds into being agents of the UN in order to destroy Western civilisation through a cunning plan to deny them the ability to read. I went to LaTrobe University in the nineteen-seventies. I know what a real Maoist is - and I believe the ones in China itself were even worse.

Mercurius
“federal government has been busy undermining public faith in the quality, standards and values of public education for a decade'”

To some extent I agree. I’m speculating but faced with union intransigence at every turn, I guess the government grew tired and decided to encourage private schooling instead. The unions seem to feel government education reform is somehow illegitimate. The government has won three elections in a row and been in power for ten years, they have a right to implement their agenda.

Mercurius
“The evidence is that 90% of education undergraduates at Sydney university “

Less prestigious universities have less demand for places. They can’t pick the best applicants; they pick what they can to maintain funding.

Mercurius
“As for a 'fall back' profession, you must be referring to the hundreds of highly-qualified professionals from law, finance and the sciences”

There aren’t hundreds but tens of thousands of teachers in Australia. If they were all ex-lawyers, finance workers and scientists who graduated from USyd or UMelb we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

“ according to the OECD (2003), Australia ranks fourth in the world for literacy, seventh for science and ninth for maths..”

OECD reports have a minimal impact on public perception. And rightly or wrongly people form their opinion – and their reality – on perception. A poor perception is undermining confidence in the profession and becoming self-fulfilling as quality applicants shy away. Do you really think teaching is consistently ranked above medicine, law, dentistry, architecture, engineering, computer science or the hard sciences (physics, chemistry, biology)?

At times changes affecting the status of teaching have been unavoidable. Othertimes, teaching is at fault. For example, only 50-60 years ago women were considered genetically less intelligent; boys outperformed girls in every respect. Now the opposite it true. What happened? Has there been some rapid Darwinian degenerative process? Why has boys’ education been sabotaged? Similar debates about outcomes based education and whole language versus phonics have seriously damaged perceptions. The latest fad is ‘child-centred and contructivist’. Put that in any university essay and you’ll pass; omit it at your peril.

Mercurius. It won’t surprise my children if I tell them they are smart. They are always telling me what they feel is wrong at school and why things should change. Often they expect me to do something about it and it doesn’t make me too many friends.

We have 4 children and I have seen the difference in the curriculum and in relation to attitudes from when my eldest started Primary back in the year 1996 and my youngest started primary in 2003. My two girls have been accelerated one year, for one it made no difference at all, she needed radical acceleration. For the other who was already young it worked well, she will be starting high school age 10. It wasn’t and easy path to obtain or take.

The curriculum has improved at Primary level (the most important time) and the understanding of children that are advanced is a little bit better, but still it is not at a level appropriate for students individual needs. The problem is that the curriculum is only challenging and engaging if it is pitched to the student at the right level and pace. You don’t have to be as gifted as mine to be suffering. Even those that struggle are suffering. With such big classes and students placed into grades on the basis of their date of birth it is very difficult to cater for so many different needs.

They need to re-assess the method of providing education and place students into classes and levels, in the different subject’s areas, on the basis of their interest, ability and need taking into consideration their circumstances. Placement should not be based on the basis of their age and NOT on the basis of their test marks.

Equal access to education for all at whatever level and pace suits their needs. When children are all at a similar wave length and level then they are more likely to interact and engage in what they are learning.

Jolanda,
I suggest you lobby your Liberal Federal Govt to provide funding to State Govts to do exactly what you are suggesting.