Did anybody edit this stream-of-consciousness grab-bag of tendentious and unsubstantiated claims?

This piece seems to be the product of a three-hour session of automatic writing.

The article was pointless, but at least it was long.

One of my favourite teachers at a university level proclaims that he strives to teach his students to think like him. What else can a teacher do? The idea that students must be left to make up their own minds when they have no minds to make up is nonsense. After the teacher teaches students to think like him/herself then they are in a position to strike out on their own and become independent thinkers and learners.

Peter Sellick

It is certainly a revolutionary proposal which may well surprise many conformists passing off as teachers.
Individual personality is a key to keeping students interested.

As an example, consider television as an education medium.
Consider whether one would learn as much of natural science by being educated by one of a number of suitably "trained" and "qualified" "facilitators" as one would by the inherent authority couched in every expression and nuance of a personality such as David Attenborough.

Personality is certainly a "must".

I well remember an inspired Latin teacher who had his students motivated to enjoy understanding what could have been a daunting subject, being one of several mandatory language choices.
Not only did he demand Latin-only conversational content in class for one period a month, many students voluntarily researched and read deeply anything they could find concerning Roman history.
It was his enthusiastic personality which inspired us (coupled with challenges such as how to translate phrases such as "how are you going, mate?")

Our armed sevices, which have roles demanding application of high levels of cognitive and practical skills, use a vertical structure in instruction.
It works

This piece is self-refuting. Whether or not a verticalist society would be desirable, we don't have one, yet the author's recommendations for education presume we do.

Please tell me the author does not teach English. This piece reads like a series of disconnected dot points with the dots removed.

If you're going to put forward a plausible argument on education, shouldn't you at least attempt some kind of coherence?

It's so easy to set up false dichotomies like this. There are two possibilities:
1. The author did not learn to think for himself.
2. The author's purpose is to reduce the issue to a simplistic argument that gets us nowhere.

Fancy falling for the "sage on a stage" vs. "guide on the side" tripe.
It's neither/or; it's both/and.

The use of the phrase, “in hock to the teacher unions” places the author firmly in the camp of those who do not respect teachers as the unions are all that teachers have to protect them from poorly resourced and poorly led education employers.

The claim that “smaller class sizes and more money [are] the most notoriously useless” “fixes” for the problem is false.

Professor John Hattie, of New Zealand, has done a comprehensive study (EARLI Presentation by John Hattie for Web.ppt) of all the factors that lead to improved student achievement. He concludes that smaller class sizes are not the most significant, but nonetheless he rates them as giving a nine-month improvement in student achievement.

The Tennessee STAR study (available at http://www.heros-inc.org/) also shows smaller classes result in improved student learning.

My own experience over 33 years backs both these expert studies. I taught in Victoria from 1974 to 2007, and I never had a class with more than 29 students in it, not for even one day. In only two years did I have any classes of more than 25 students. Apart from these, every class I ever had for a full year was limited to 25 students. There were a few classes in all those years which had more than 25 students for short periods while things were sorted out. In 2005, my year 7 English classes were 14 and 16 students each.

Smaller classes and decent teaching loads obviously cost more money, as would restoring teachers’ pay to the level necessary to attract and retain bright people. A much poorer Victoria could easily afford these 25 and 35 years ago.

Dr Ken Rowe of ACER states that there are 500,000 studies that show students learn more when they are actually taught, so I agree with the author that the “guide on the side” jargon is damaging to education. However, the “greatest stumbling block to this educational revolution” is that so many who claim to want it seem unable to resist the temptation to include a bit of teacher-bashing (sometimes disguised as union-bashing) in their comments.

I wish to add a few comments to the education discussion that has been ongoing in the local (Melbourne) media of late. One is the perennual subject of finding teachers who have a good subject knowledge of the area they are required to teach. It is difficult to find maths graduates who wish to teach, because they can earn more in other fields without the appalling working conditions many teachers endure in poorly built schools; not to mention trying to arouse interest in an esoteric subject, as many studets see maths. But,instead of paying more to attract such graduates, the education departments of our states prefer to browbeat young teachers to "teach" subjects in which they are not qualified and are not interested in teaching.

Many years ago one of our rural universities in Victoria devised a new subject for its students, particularly for the interest of off-campus students, which tried to cover the effects of war on modern industrial society; concentrating on both world wars. The subject covered economics, politics, and history. With the most comprehensive set of notes I had seen up to then. What was the reaction of the students? All they wanted to know was what did they need to use to pass the subject. Not what they could learn,but how would this help them to gain another qualification.

Mutliply these examples tenfold and you have some idea of why bright students do not wish to teach. Here in Victoria we have had ex-teachers as Ministers of Education who from their behaviour seemed to e trying to revenge themselves on the teachers they hated. Unless governments develop a more humane attitude the shortage of teachers will only worsen.

The writer of this paper must be commended for excavating the core issue of a good creative educational system. The educational quality and positively authoritarian personality of a teacher is pivotal to the real learning of students.

In this lies the real "education revolution", and not in a gratuitous largesse of laptops.And unless one overthrows by the "cannons" of reason the COUNTERREVOLUTIONARY regime of the teachers unions and their apparatchics in the universities, one cannot transform the educational system.

http://kotzabasis1.blogspot.com

One of the biggest problems if a child learns to read before they start school is that the system is set up to teach children certain information if they are between certain ages. Which would be fine if our children were all the same - but they are not! I have intellectually gifted children and my children started school reading novels. So what did the school do? They taught them the alphabet. One teacher in Kindergarten used to give my daughter novels to read at home but at school she would teach her the alphabet. The kids became very disillusioned and depressed. There was no differentiation for those who obviously didn’t fit the system. Then every year when they started the next year, if they were lucky enough to have a teacher in which they were allowed to progress somewhat, they would be dragged back to the beginning of the year for the next grade and had to start at ground level again so as to ensure that everybody got it. There is no flow on. Every year not only didn’t the system allow children progress in a forward fashion, many actively went backwards.

This whole age and outcome based system is stifling our children. Smart kids being held back and struggling kids are being allowed to progress to the next level regardless of whether they have mastered the skills necessary to succeed at the next level. All kids expected to be at the same level in every subject if they are within a certain age cut off without consideration being given to the fact that all children are different and many have strengths and they could excel in certain subjects whilst struggling in others.

There needs to be more flexibility in education and a child’s ability, personality and need should be the determining factor with regard to which grade they are placed in the different subject areas. It is ridiculous to grade them according to age.

Education - Keeping them Honest
http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/
Our children deserve better

Verticalist sounds very Confucian. Maybe a Mandarin-speaking PM will like the idea?

Hi Chris C, any teacher in Queensland would dream of class sizes as small as 14-16. I regularly taught class sizes over 30 and in one case I had a grade 9 class over 45+. The kids had to sit on the floor - it was a nightmare. Thankfully, in the end after much vehement discussion from myself and the kids to our head of department, the class was split into two.

My dream as a former high school teacher would be to inherit children from Primary School who are functionally literate. That is they understand and COMPREHEND the text they are reading, let alone even write about what they have read. I would love to see the day the students even know about basic concepts of science, maths, geography, geometry etc etc etc.

The only way this can be resolved is: yes! go back to the basics, reading, writing and arithmetic. Have a set curriculum for each and every grade in primary school, one that specifies exactly what the children will achieve in skills in each subject area at the end of each year, just like it is in Secondary School. Hopefully, this way the primary school students will be able to read and write and have knowledge and a age appropriate understanding of history, geography, science etc.

But this can only be achieved with a rethink from the Universities. The Unis need to teach their students how to teach their charges to write, about the mechanics of English, mechanics of Maths and science etc. Unless the student teachers know how to teach their charges how to read, comprehend, add up, multiply, do long and short division etc etc - how on earth will the primary schoolers know.

The situation is that bad in one of our secondary schools that they have abandoned the grade 8 curriculum altogether for 1st semester, just to focus on the basic skills of reading, writing and arithmetic. That says it all for the state of affairs of education.

OK, 34000 people with high qualifications & flamboyant personalities wanted. I can think of one I met once. Any other ideas?

OK, there are some points here that hit home.

But the article is founded in an adversarial, ideological approach that is not going to help us improve the system. What matters is not whether the 'progressives' are right or the 'conservatives' are right, but what works, which should be based on a dispassionate examination of the research, as others have pointed out.

Sure there is a case for giving teachers more authority, and certainly status,as they have in Eastern cultures. But many of those countries are desperately trying to break away from their vertical heritage in order to equip their future generations to prosper in the new economy and the creative industries.

It is a matter of balance, surely, not just going for teacher-as-god again, the sage who cannot be questioned.

All teachers without exception should be able to talk in as interesting, clear and audible way as a television presenter, without yelling or shouting.
I would even say that the most useful thing that a teachers' college can do is to ensure that all who need it have competent training in public speaking.

This training is possible. In Scotland there was a famous teacher who could train anyone to speak well and be listened to. I wish I had had lessons.

The main reason for rejecting 'chalk and talk' lessons is teachers who bore because they speak poorly. It is also a reason why classes can misbehave.