Bushbasher

I noted your tone was reasonable rather than aggressive. That's why I sought further comment from you.

I understand a significant number of maths teachers did not study maths at uni. I think there is such a shortage of maths teachers that schools are forced to accept any teacher who will put their hand up to teach the subject. I've never taught maths myself. But I would be prepared to teach maths in middle school. I did well in senior maths myself.

'Secondly, the university mathematics curriculum in most universities is appalling.'

Would that not affect the competency of other professions as well? They do sit in the same lectures after all. It's not like universities segregate education students away from other students and give them their own separate maths course.

It's interesting the comments you have made about university mathematics not instructive of teaching teachers to teach the subject. It could probably be said of all subject areas.

This is where I think people have unreasonable expectations of teachers. I think I was a fairly mediocre teacher in my first year. I began improving in my second year. By my third year I was away.

Just like any other profession. It takes time to learn how to teach competently. It's a bloody hard thing to do.

But I also think the 'system', that we all have inherit, as you so rightly acknowledge, is not supportive of teachers...teaching loads are exhausting. We're just not given enough spares to prepare. And I can't tell you how many spares have been wasted because of having to address discipline problems that are occuring in a classroom close by, or having to chase some kid that's jumped over the school yard fence and down the road.

And of course ... more resources would be helpful.

Liz,
The report was done by Ken Rowland (ACER) on the teaching of literacy and its delivery. From what I can gather it was to be released in December 2006 but I can't be sure. Below is a part of a commentary on the report.

"An argument is also put that the reason many teachers are unable to teach literacy is because of inadequate teacher training and professional development. The report recommends, before being registered to teach, that teachers are tested for literacy skills and their knowledge of the research about successful literacy teaching."

I have not seen the report but I first heard of it when I heard it on the radio about 4 months ago; an item that the Minister was concerned about the report, especially in regard to literacy skills. I googled it following your enquiry - I assume this is the same report. I can't find a ministerial statement to the effect of the one I heard on the radio.

But I would also make the point that most of statement was based on personal experience. As Child Protection Officer in a remote region of WA, I was required to work continually with headmasters at schools. At that time we carried out both child protection and juvenile justice duties. Over 9 years, I got to know at close hand administration of the schools I worked with and a fair sampling of headmasters.

The thing that many Magistrates, Police and Hospitals agreed on was that reports required by school executives; simply didn't meet the standards required for either the judiciary or other departments involved in juvenile justice or child protection. Much of that related to literary comprehension issues / skills and general standards of technical writing.

It may be that I hit a bad patch but it seemed to go for a long time.

Liz, we basically agree. Teachers are the easy whipping-boys of clueless eco-creeps such as Ariel. Anyone who knows anything about schools realises that the overwhelming majority of teachers are incredibly dedicated and work really bloody hard. I don't think, as a group, that teachers are well-qualified, and I don't think they are doing a going job. But I think government bureaucracy/policy (Liberal and Labor) and the starving of funds (Liberal and Liberal and Liberal and Liberal and Liberal) makes it impossible for them to do so.

You make the obvious but critical point that one only really learns to teach by teaching. This is why I think spending large amounts of time in education faculties is meaningless (and why education lecturers largely resort to shovelling pseudo-academic nonsense in an attempt to justify their positions). The time would be much better spent actually teaching, and learning one's disciplines.

Re your comment that you would be comfortable teaching middle school mathematics, I'm sorry but you shouldn't be. Doing well at upper level school mathematics doesn't tell you what mathematics is "about". Nonetheless, you'd probably be better than many of those who are in fact teaching middle school maths.

As for your question of who university mathematics serves if not the trainee teachers: no one. It is meaningless ritual adminstered by third rate priests for students who don't know enough to realise they're being fed half-baked religion.

Netab

Your first post proclaimed that a survey had found “some pretty disturbing results" in basic literacy. When challenged, you told us: “The report was done by Ken Rowland (ACER) on the teaching of literacy and its delivery.” You quoted an “[unsourced] commentary on the report” but admitted you hadn’t read it – just heard about it on the radio. Hardly the basis to inspire confidence in your alarmist claims about teachers and literacy.

Some actual facts might help. The report was commissioned by the Howard government and was chaired by Ken Rowe (not Rowland). The report, released in December 2005, is called ‘Teaching Reading: National Inquiry Into The Teaching Of Literacy’. (You can read it at: www.dest.gov.au/nitl/documents/report_recommendations.pdf)

The report was not universally accepted. A lively debate on its findings was held on the 7.30 Report on 8 December 2005 (www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1527194.htm)

Ken Rowe does work at the ACER and is one-and-the-same researcher who condemned the Howard government’s flagship literacy program, ‘Making Up Lost Time In Literacy’ (MULTIL). He and other literacy experts said the multi-million dollar project was an embarrassing waste of money. (The Australian April 05, 2007).

Debates on literacy are complex and it pays to study the facts before you go public - and do some reading if you're going to debate literacy!

You concede that most of your statement was based on your nine years as Child Protection Officer in a remote region of WA where you got to know "a fair sampling of headmasters", and found their reports sub-standard. While a better standard might have been desirable, your sample is hardly a proper basis to make broad-brush statements about the literacy levels of teachers and principals generally.

Now what about your claim about principals being "on the whole...egotistic, opinionated and...more concerned with using their positions to further their own aspirations"? Was this based on your remote WA experience? Or another radio program?

And these Victorian 'school boards' that Principals stack. Was that on another radio program too?

FrankGol,
The report exist whether you like it or not. My opinion based on experience stands and your slightly shrill reaction to critical comment indicates that where there is smoke, there is fire!

Bushbasher

We agree that:

• teachers’ are treated poorly
• Jonathan is clueless
• Teachers’ work hard
• Political parties undermine teachers’ in their ability to teach

But I profoundly disagree with your comments that teachers’ are not well qualified or doing a good job. In relation to qualifications, personally, I believe there is a good balance between professional knowledge and skills gained at uni, as well as what you refer to as sociology.

Sociology is so incredibly important to professions such as teaching. After all, we have great power over the lives of sometimes fragile young people. It’s so important to have an understanding of what has happened in their lives that have shaped them into who they are as young teenagers (and they’re not always the nicest of people); what factors may potentially undermine their ability to educate themselves; and what we can do as individuals to support them in their learning.

Without that sociology, a lot of these kids would be excluded, and that could set them up on a pathway of failure.

I do believe that by and large I am impressed by teachers’ as professionals: their professional ethics; knowledge; skills.

I do think there’s possibly credibility to your comments on teachers’ spending less time at uni and more time at the chalkface, learning how to teach. (I want to get back to this comment at a later stage).

But I also want further comment from you on how are professionals in other fields going in the workforce? Given teachers’ sit in the same lectures and complete the same subjects as other professionals (e.g. mathematicians, economists, engineers etc…) how are these other professionals performing in the workplace?

It stands to reason that if teachers’ are considered under qualified, then graduates of these other professions must be as well.

Netab

There’s a difference between teaching literacy and not being literate themselves. A big difference actually. The two are separate issues.

And Netab, you can speak for yourself, but you’re not the voice of ‘Magistrates, Police and Hospitals’. That comment makes you look like a Ryan Jordan.