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