Fear not. The enormous brainpower concentrated at the 2020 will surely sort things out.

Good article - no matter what changes to our education system over the years it always seems to fail on that one size fits all characteristic.

Schools are still too focussed on preparing every student for university while other skills and vocations are under-emphasised.

Governments are always loathe to spend more on education and the last exercise into extra funding was for Chaplaincy which has no place in secular schooling and does nothing to enhance education. Money wasted that could go to better targetted courses and more individualised options.

After Year 9 one hopes that the three Rs are taken care of and that more diverse options like trades education in partnership with on the job training and some continued regular schooling could be offerred.

Someone's hobby-horse here, being ridden hard. Academic, impractical.

>>...the child could find their niche, attract an apprentice (the true idea of a teacher), hone their skills then take their productively skillful place within the community. Do our schools play this role today? Do our communities operate this way? No.<<

Well, duh. Our communities do not work that way, ergo, of course the the education system doesn't play that role. Chicken, egg.

Few people can predict with any confidence what education will be "best" for their children a dozen years into the future.

Educators have attempted to take on this role, but have the double disadvantage of i) not having any greater foresight than the parents and ii) seeing the problem from an educator's perspective, i.e. a supply-side view.

This article is from the same stable. However convincing from an academic viewpoint, it is at base an impossible-to-implement piece of naive idealism.

>>This would not be regular employment though; it would be regulated under very restrictive legislation covering wages, working conditions, occupational health and safety, superannuation, etc...<<

All that regulation is needed to ensure that the employer doesn't turn it into slave labour. Unfortunately, most employers I know are already overburdened with red tape, and would not willingly take on more.

>>No tradesperson or employer would be obligated to take on a student and no student would be guaranteed a placement. Acceptance must be willful by both parties...<<

There goes that idea then.

>>To ensure the employer provides valuable training... employers would be intensely surveyed and monitored with the results tabulated<<

Be still, my beating heart. As an employer, the only thing missing from my business is another truckload of idiots "surveying, monitoring and tabulating the results".

Why would any organization - except a government department, perhaps - have the slightest motivation to participate?

I think the author,ie his ideas, has merit! Having been one of the misfits common of the day, choice denied, we still promote the same lack of choice,in schools.
Literacy was included and most valued in my day, it just went on for too long. We have known for a long long time that not all want an education leading to an academic career, some like to work with their hands has been an expression for as long as I can remember.
I volunteered to attend an outing with a bunch of misfits some years ago and like to think that the contact made was beneficial to all. They were good kids but bored shitless having to wait until the age of reason, determined by a bureaucrat, was reached.
Integrating education with trades was once done in the efucation dept, was "trade school", it was maligned by all but those that participated, as I well remember while talking to friends who went to uni.
To people like me what more torture than to have to sit and listen to endless lecturing on a subject of no interest?
Choice in education exists less today than 50yrs ago!
The poster, employer,complaining of more work, is myopic, and perhaps sees labor as his right to have, cheaper the better and gads of choice, lucky we don't allow slavery any more.
I was an employer and found negotiation with employees no problem if unions stayed out of it. I had apprentices, some indentured and some not, the workplace was a "we" situation, not boss and slave.
Some respect goes a long way.
fluff4

Why reduce schooling? How about extending education until the frontal lobe finishes developing? Say about 25? Throw in some national service (note the word "National" deos not mean "Military" although is not exclusive of it.) A couple of years paid work experience and then Uni.

An interesting article, John. My comments mainly relate to the extent and the cause of the problems you identify.

Schools are outmoded in the sense that they still resemble industrial revolution institutions. But there is far more flexibility within schools than you might give credit for – also keep in mind that the media and parents are powerful influences on schools to remain conservatively structured.

Identical curriculum? To a point (although now it will go national!) – one of the main problems is that the curriculum is very crowded, as each successive wave of politicians presses more subjects to be compulsory. So we have the compulsory basics, Bob Carr’s turgid compulsory history….even at the weekend the summit wants compulsory creative arts and the language lobby is always knocking at the door.
Depth and engagement? Sorry, no room! Again, don’t blame the schools.

All this, of course, is combined with recurring top-down state and national testing regimes which are the best designed straitjacket on innovation ever designed.

You do seriously understate the success of vocational training. In a large number of our schools, especially public schools, it has all the elements of integration, seamlessness etc you seek.

Again don’t blame the school for putting their kids’ results up there in lights. The media feeds a public mania for wanting to compare schools using simplistic and meaningless measures. Schools opt out of this at their peril.

Stream curricula by choice after Year 9? This substantially does happen. Kids do take physics and English and even TAFE linked vocational courses. Your information about schools here is badly dated.

I guess my problem with your article is that once again someone has decided to bash schools (albeit nicely) without having a full grasp on both the current reality inside schools and the powerful forces impacting on them from the outside

A response to bunyip:

I don't see how my 3 years in Australian schools (plus 14 in Canada) makes me "...not know the current reality in schools."

As far as streaming is concerned the system is by no measure streamed into academic levels for any one grade and discipline. I am talking about, for example, a grade 9 English program divided into something like an academic, general, and basic stream catering to different skills and interests - then mirrored in each of the other disciplines. That does not exist except in a few special cases - it is not systemic. Streamed by student choice, no other means.

The situation of technical training does not compare to others; in fact it is far below in terms of funding, support, respect, and availability. My point is the we need to look abroad to see how others do technical training differently and use that as a template for our own here. Why re-invent the wheel when we can improve it or match it to our own system?

I don't see the argument behind increasing any stresses on the curriculum. The argument is to adapt the curriculum in a structured way to meet the needs of students who choose a particular stream - it too (student choice of streams) is done elsewhere with great success, so why not here?

As far as who has hijacked the system - it is all of us. Who ever makes an argument for change, as I have with a detailed and mechanical model, will be called all sorts of names mostly implying a special interest or no qualifications, as both you and Pericles have done. So who then should offer suggestions? Disagree with my argument, but don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.

I respect the offers of counter arguments, I don't respect the accusations of being out of the loop. I'd like to see others offer up concrete, detailed and mechanical solutions, rather than all of us stand behind out internet names accusing each other of being incapable of offering anything.

John Daicopoulos

I was a timetabler in three schools, the last of which had the best teaching conditions in the state (until Victorian teachers foolishly voted for the 2004 EBA and forced us onto the poor deal they have been whinging about for the last three and a half years and which they will soon accept again in order to spend another three and a half years whinging). Schools already provide more choice now than they did even ten years ago, though it is rare to find a school that can integrate the options successfully.

As a former timetabler, I want to challenge the author on this statement, ‘If daily timetables were re-structured to be identical each and every day (Monday’s timetable was the same as Tuesday’s and so on) then a further option could be to attend regular school in the morning then head off to a placement in the afternoon or have the placement in the morning while attending school in the afternoon.” This statement ignores all the factors that go into producing a school timetable. It is not that simple, and it is not a matter of just saying it should be.

I was able to integrate the 7-10 curriculum, VET, VCAL, ESL, VCE, access to VCE by year 10s, literacy, numeracy, enhancement, teaching teams, enrichment, decent teaching conditions, efficient allotting of all staff, quite a few part-time teachers, singles, doubles, blocks, unblocked classes, stability of room usage, a fortnightly timetable in which Wednesday was the only day different from week one to week two, etc at Hampton Park, but there is no way in any universe that I could have made every day the same. The explanation of timetabling is too complex to fit in the word limit here and would probably be boring to anyone not a timetable nerd like me, but I will give two references for those who might risk their eyes glazing over.

Curriculum structure details are at:
http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/3280197123/show/591560
and timetabling policies are at:
http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/3280197123/show/682089

As I said in my previous response, it (identical daily timetables in this case) are done in other jurisdictions, so it is not impossible or any more difficult than not doing it, i.e. it is possible and I don't think "timetablers" are suffering from mental stress any more in those jurisdictions.

Whether someone finds my arguments viable or not, my ultimate point is that other jurisdictions deal with these issues in different ways, and that the anchoring of our solutions to our past ways, and past/current difficulties, is not necessary.

The "it can't be done" attitude does not hold water. It can be done, we just need to decide to do it - even if it's not my idea, but we need new ideas, not old ones held on to.

John Daicopoulos

PS by no means should any of my replies be read as written with malice or anger. None is/was intended.

Deschooling Society, Celebration of Awareness and Tools for Conviviality By Ivan Illich have addressed your concerns.

For some hope in the insane world we live in, Illich's observations are prescriptive.

John Daicopoulos ,

There are schools that have teachers teach subjects that are one period a fortnight. There are schools that group 200 students in the one space for half the week and call it education. There are schools that have little regard for subject expertise in allotting teachers. There are schools that “force” part-time teachers to come in every day of the week. All these things are possible, but the educational cost makes them not worth doing. It has nothing to do with the mental stress of timetablers, but everything to do with the principles of educationally effective and efficient timetabling.

If a school with the standard six-period day has every day the same, then there are only six subjects a week, four (or three) in the morning and two (or three) in the afternoon, and they all have the same number of periods. The year 9s thus do only four (or three) subjects. They may be English, maths, science and PE, with art and history, say, being missed by the non-attending year 9s and no other subjects being available for anyone.

If the year 9 timetable is the same every day, then so is the timetable for blocked subjects elsewhere in the school. This means part-timers cannot take any year 9 subjects or any blocked subjects because they are all on five days, whereas good timetabling will put them on, say, three or four. It also means that all subjects have to be taught in singles – including art, foods, woodwork, etc – not desirable at all. If the year 9 timetable is the same every day and the rest of the school’s is not, then you have overlapping blocks, which means that a teacher’s having a class in one block at one level will shut the teacher out of two blocks at another, replacing the allocation of classes on educational grounds with allocation on “whatever fits” grounds.

If the school has a four-period day (or a three-period day), the number of subjects available to year 9 reduces even further, and the other problems remain.

Etc.

With respect Chris....

If a school has a four period day (roughly 75 minutes per class) with four unique classes being taught, and two semesters with each semester having four different classes taught, then that's eight classes with more time in class than in the current system - but not more time in school.

That is the way other jurisdictions do it - check out Ontario for example. That is more time and more classes than any grade or school I taught in Victoria...and multiply that over four years (9 - 12) that's 30 to 32 unique credits/classes and that too is more classes and credits than in any Australian school.

Once again, you are fixing your answers on the assumption that the Australian model of timetabling is the only way "it can be done." That is narrow and incorrect.

John

John,

I tried to check out Ontario, but I found the website user-unfriendly, which is what I find with most government websites.

In any case, my argument is not that what you suggest cannot be done, but that it should not be done. It’s like all programs that get elevated to priority one. Other things have to give way, until some years later the No. one priority is made to give way to the new No. one priority. Having eight subjects in a year is not more than the current system. At my school, year 9s had English (9 periods a fortnight), maths (9), history (6 for one semester), geography (6 for one semester), PE (6), science (6), integrated studies (6) and six electives (6 each for one semester each). That makes 13 subjects. Anyway, the year 9s under your idea would only be there half a day and thus have only two subjects in any week.

If a school went to your system for VCE, that would mean a reduction in units, as students currently do 22 over a two-year period.

My objection comes from a lot of thought that I have done about timetabling, what it is meant to achieve and how it can do so. Basic timetabling principles are:
‘1.1 To provide students with a range of educationally valid learning experiences which maximise their learning opportunities.
1.2 To distribute workload across staff in an equitable manner.

‘Allotments should support sound learning principles; i.e.,
they should ensure properly qualified teachers teach in their preferred subject areas,
encourage a team feeling and focus in each subject area,
expose students to a limited number of teachers over the year,
ensure that no class is split between different teachers,
support an even spread of classes between the two weeks,
maximise the number of cases in which teachers in the junior school can double up on their classes.

John,

‘Allotments should fairly distribute workload; i.e., they should
be based on a standardised allotment system that fairly allots all staff,
provide the maximum preparation and correction time consistent with covering the required classes,
limit the number of different classes each teacher has,
limit the difference in a teacher’s load between the two weeks,
provide teachers with a minimum number of different classrooms,
implement our local conditions package for all teachers, except when a specific direction to do otherwise is issued.

‘A timetable should support sound learning principles; i.e., it should as far as possible:
ensure classes are evenly spread over the timetable cycle, both between weeks and among the different periods of the day,
provide appropriate doubles and singles,
allocate specialist classes to specialist rooms,
ensure each class has all lessons for a particular subject in the same room.

‘Year 7 and 8 classes should be taught all subjects not requiring specialist rooms in home rooms.
Classes in blocks should, as far as possible given the limitations of resources, be taught in the same room for each period; where this is not possible, they should be taught in the minimum number of rooms possible.
Teachers should, within the above principles, have the minimum number of different rooms possible.’

My school did move to a four-period day. The teachers voted against doing it, were overruled, believed it was a disaster but were prevented from getting rid of it. I have taught in 40-, 48-, 50-, 60- and 72-minute periods, and I believe that 48-50 is the best, with the proviso that some doubles (96-100) can be included too.

In any case, I do not see why the timetable has to be the same each day to allow students to do things outside of school. The timetables I did were not the same each day, but the VET and VCAL programs had many students doing things outside of school with little disruption to their in-school work and no disruption to the rest of the school.

Chris you mistake units for credits.

In Ontario a credit is 110 hours, there are no half credits except two that must be taken successively resulting in another full 110 hours course.

The units you make mention of in VCE do not amount to that. In Ontario students need at least 30 110 hour courses to graduate high school. That is 3 330 minutes of instruction over four years 9 - 12. I've done the math and that is not what a Victorian student will get from 9 - 12, she/he will get much less, even when you total the units. Same holds specifically in VCE (our 12) Ontario students must take at least 6 110 hour courses to graduate and enter university, that is much more than a VCE student - and we don't finish school early for VCE, a full year for every student in every grade.

John

ps I think we've milked this. Thanks for the interest.

Oops, that's 3 300 hours of instruction over four years...bloody typos.

I don’t believe Australia has a skill’s shortage, but a shortage of men currently employed in their trade.

From what I have seen, men so often leave their trade because they can’t proceed any further in their trade without higher formal qualifications. Without higher formal qualifications, they have a minimal career path.

So after about 10-15 years of working with tools, they leave their trade and look for something else, even if it is owning a newsagency or a milk run.

I have known schools to be pushing boys into apprenticeships as early as possible, and I think this is a growing trend amongst schools, particularly schools that have a feminist agenda and want universities for girls only.

I have also known many tradesmen telling their sons to go as far as they can in their studies before they do a trade. I agree with the tradesmen, and not the schools.