Julie Bishop's Vision for Education in Australia (Merged) (1 Viewer)

[wuddie]

Re: Julie Bishop's vision for education in Australia

My personal problem with the Syllabus as it stands is the demand it places on the students. This year I have to study 4 Coleridge poems, 2 related Journey texts, Hamlet, a Stoppard Play, 12 Speeches, Nineteen Eighty-Four and 2 related Powerplay texts. That's 23. And we're told English is 'too easy'.

Another agreement with you, my fine sir. I think instances of students "parroting what they're taught" is when the HSC Exam itself asks questions such as 'How was your perception of "Transformations" been illuminated by..." - I doubt, for most students, it has at all. And yet we're expected to say it has?!

oh poor you, 23 texts, so do 30,000 of us who will be sitting the same exam as you, my friend. if that's not enough, people doing ext 1 have another 5 (?) texts to worry about, so don't even whinge. learn to cope with it - alternatively, you can drop to standard english.

the syllabus itself is suppose to make you look at the world from another angle, and learn from it. if you haven't been 'illuminated' by the course, here's one of two scenarios:

1. you're not a competent advance student, and should not be doing it (no offense) and you've probably bludged throughout the course, and have no idea what the text is. because it should 'illuminate' your perceptions, as it has done for me.

2. your teacher hasn't taught you the right things, ie. your teacher's standards are not up to scratch, which brings back to my point that public schools are not very well funded - shown through your teacher (let me know if you're from priv school, but i doubt it).

i don't want to comment on the syllabus, but i think if the best of the teachers in nsw wrote that stuff, i doubt any of us have the intellectual right to deem it to be unfit for our learning - afterall, it has taught you to think for yourself and compose a well structured piece of argument. wouldn't you agree?

 

[MikiRei]

Re: Julie Bishop's vision for education in Australia

Personally, I find the HSC syllabus more adequate than the TERTIARY education. Time and time again have I been failed by the incompetence of lecturers and/or tutors being either

1. Cbf to teach
2. Can't communicate at all
3. Don't even know what they're talking about

Someone was talking about the integration of uni subjects into high school subjects. I whole heartedly agree though SOME of the HSC courses cruise you nice and easily into SOME uni courses. eg. 4U maths into Maths1A at UNSW
However, there should be more of that integration. What's more, high schools should be more flexibile in offering the vast variety of courses you can do in HSC rather than sticking to the standard courses eg. Physics, Maths, Chemistry etc.etc.

That is, universities should probably open up more special high school courses (and alert schools about them) over the holidays or something to let high schoolers get an early insight as to the different possibilities they are offered at uni rather than picking some courses out of a hat and walk in to get a rude shock. Well, yes, they are some courses out there already but I don't think most students KNOW about them unless some teacher actually bothered to research about them and opt their students to sign up.

she argued that students in schools are taught useless content, for example: analysing the "trashy" show Big Brother and reinforced the return to the study of traditional literature.

Yes, BB is trashy but I think there's nothing wrong in studying it. At least, studying the NATURE of it and why in the world it's even there in the first place is quite significant. It reflects what the current society have come to and what impact it has.

Should political content be included in history? Ofcourse it should. Politics and political figures have played a major role in changing our lives, especially in the last century.

I quite agree here. I don't see why political contents should be cut out from history. I mean, human only had history 'cause of politics so taking them out is like telling us to learn the dates, location and people involved of certain significant events and don't even bother why it ever happened in the first place.

she is playing with the idea to introduce bonus pay to teachers who perform well

She probably needs to define what she means by "perform well". If just getting students good mark means perform well, then we're gonna have a lot of problems with teachers making students rote learn answers and do a lot of exams just so they can get exam marks. That would ruin our next generation. The reason why Australian education is better than most other countries (at least in my opinion) is that it trains us to be critical thinkers rather than sheeps being fed papers and just follow wherever the whistle blows or whether the dogs lead us.

Anyways, I think I'm losing my point here (if I had one to begin with)

Personally, I think there SHOULD be a standard but that's not for Julie Bishop to decide. They should intialise a project where they hold many conferences with EVERYONE that are involved with the education system to come to an agreement as to what shoudl be taught for each subject. Tertiary education personnels should be involved too so that the transition from high school to uni isn't a roller coaster ride to the unknown. (at least it was for me ><)

I'd personally think, alike the medicine course, there should be a UMAT equivalent exam for future teaching candidates, examining their ability to communicate to students.

I agree with that. They should do that to lecturers and tutors as well at uni. I'm so sick of going to lectures with boring lecturers and tutors who're just there to gain a few extra bucks and couldn't care less whether you understand your stuff or not. Some of the tutors can't even speak English properly for crying out loud and they're only there SIMPLY b/c they've managed to get 85 and above. That's just insane! No use with a perfect score if you can't convey the ideas you learnt from it to others.

English has been devalued simply because the focus is more on ideology and rhetoric than actual knowledge. When you have kids who can waffle on about a Marxist interpretation of Shakespeare with only a superficial understanding of a) Shakespeare and b) Marx, and furthermore without even knowing the correct means of writing, you know you have a problem. I think the syllabus has a lot of 'style over substance' issues. It's not sophistication, it's an illusion of sophistication. There is a difference.

Correct means of writing as in, grammar? 'cause I only remember being taught grammar back in yr 6 and never again. I have my cousin who just came from overseas asking me grammatical question and all I can say is, "I don't know," or "That's just the way it is." Bring back the grammar. It's killing us all. ><

Quote:
Originally Posted by wuddie
the syllabus itself is suppose to make you look at the world from another angle

ie. a left-wing one, mostly

I kinda agree there but it does open a few screws whilst doing so. There's no helping for things to tilt over to one pendulum over the other but that doesn't mean students themselves don't have the intellectual capacity to realise what the syllabus is more biased towards. Afterall, we are all here talking about it.

 

[rtsk]

Re: Julie Bishop's vision for education in Australia

Personally, I find the HSC syllabus more adequate than the TERTIARY education. Time and time again have I been failed by the incompetence of lecturers and/or tutors being either

1. Cbf to teach
2. Can't communicate at all
3. Don't even know what they're talking about

That's because they're not going to guide you with baby-steps. And all the university lecturers I have heard speak seem to know what they're talking about - but they still pale before Korner.

edit: Perhaps I've just been lucky. I'll see next year at UNSW.

Someone was talking about the integration of uni subjects into high school subjects. I whole heartedly agree though SOME of the HSC courses cruise you nice and easily into SOME uni courses. eg. 4U maths into Maths1A at UNSW
However, there should be more of that integration. What's more, high schools should be more flexibile in offering the vast variety of courses you can do in HSC rather than sticking to the standard courses eg. Physics, Maths, Chemistry etc.etc.

I agree - but not so much integration as more putting the spirit back into the subject. Physics for instance. Physics is incredibly limp compared to what it was 20 years ago - it is essentially applied maths after all. But the BOS wouldn't like that, too many subject availiable that are too similar to maths. All this whilst I could comprise my HSC entirely of humanities which are all quite similar.

And high schools do have lots of subjects availiable, they just don't have the student numbers (or the trained staff to teach them).

 

[wuddie]

Re: Julie Bishop's vision for education in Australia

sorry to interupt, but this has all of a sudden changed to uni courses, which frankly, i couldn't care less about at this point (maybe i'll change my mind in 5 months).

someone was saying integration of uni courses into high school subjects. it is definitely beneficial for those who plan to move on to tertiary studey - but what about those who decide to have a job after high school? don't you think it'd be a waste of time for them to learn what they won't need?

i honestly think as long as students taught by the current syllabus don't turn out to be suicide bombers or anti society, it doesn't need changing. it's like the saying, if it isn't broken, don't fix it.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Re: Julie Bishop's vision for education in Australia

Why would anyone who wanted to work full time after school even go to year 12? The HSC is worth less than the paper it is printed on (which is actually really nice paper) and just puts you 2 years behind everyone else who goes to work after year 10.

The HSC is a uni entry ticket and nothing else. Plus if people don't know enough not to be ant-society by the end of year 10 they're going to be anti-society anyway.

 

[banco55]

Re: Julie Bishop's vision for education in Australia

sorry to interupt, but this has all of a sudden changed to uni courses, which frankly, i couldn't care less about at this point (maybe i'll change my mind in 5 months).

someone was saying integration of uni courses into high school subjects. it is definitely beneficial for those who plan to move on to tertiary studey - but what about those who decide to have a job after high school? don't you think it'd be a waste of time for them to learn what they won't need?

i honestly think as long as students taught by the current syllabus don't turn out to be suicide bombers or anti society, it doesn't need changing. it's like the saying, if it isn't broken, don't fix it.

This is a different argument but I think we have too many people going to year 11 and 12 anyway. The americans have a program called AP which are first year level college courses that you can do in high school. Th AP exams are marked centrally. As for your comments about the current syllabus I'm glad to see you favour such higher standards

 

[The Brucemaster]

Re: Julie Bishop's vision for education in Australia

I'm all for the re-introduction of technical high schools, or more emphasis of TAFE/trades as options. Blue collar doesn't mean uneducated, particularly if you've specialised in a trade and/or done an apprenticeship - and hell, a lot of tradespeople earn way more than those who go to university.

I believe that Mr Howard recently announced that 25 technical colleges would be opened sometime in the near future.
Possibly one of the few actions worthy of my praise but then again I'm one of those lefties 'threatening our (the conservative) way of life'

 

[kami]

Re: Julie Bishop's vision for education in Australia

How difficult do you think that would be to implement this in an Australian context?

We've got that in NSW as well at the moment, it just seems there is zero interest on the behalf of the student body to get into it. It could probably be implemented better, however I don't think there is much incentive for the BOS and the universities to fix that when very few are interested.

And I have to admit I'm confused as to why students must go on to something other than the HSC? Would it not be better to promote the vocational HSC?

 

[kami]

Re: Julie Bishop's vision for education in Australia

Where, and how? I must admit I've never heard of it before. That would have been something I would have loved to have done back in high school.

You can do a 5th unit of maths through UNCLE, as well as cultural studies 1 and 2u. You can study at the NAS for visual arts 1u extension. The distinction subjects which are uni subjects from CSU and UNE in philosophy, cosmology and comparative literature. The HSC subjects offered by university of sydney in science communications, philosophy, archaeology and the access they give to their summer school units for HSC students of higher aptitude, I've also heard of them running a psychology subject with one of the highschools. There is a Nursing 2u subject done through ACU, as well as an Education unit you can do via ACU or SCU. There are also about three subjects that UOW runs for gifted HSC students, though these often change in topic. There's also a few more, though thats all I can remember off the top of my head.

The vocational HSC? I'm a little confused.

It is what TAFE NSW and BOS term someone who only does the basic minimum of BOS subjects, and take 8 units+ from TAFE NSW (or an equivalent vocational college). This allows students to still do a subject that ascertains their ability in english, while getting a Cert IV at the same time (which incidentally could still get you into university as well as give alot of credit toward a Diploma).

An example of this program would be a friend of mine who did: Adv English, Gen Maths, Music 1, and Cert IV in Music as part of his HSC. An alternative for someone who liked computing would be to do Engl Adv, IPT, SDD & Cert IV in IT and examples exist for journalism and electronics and agriculture and so on. As the normal HSC subjects credit toward TAFE study as well as the Cert, you could legitimately finish a Diploma in less than a year afterward. Considering this program ascertains a certain level of literacy (in ideal conditions) in conjunction with study and work experience as well as leaving university as an option at a later date then it combines the best of everything you've mentioned for someone not going to uni. What's even better is that it doesn't increase the burden on the BOS to create new subjects nor does it require a new qualification to be created and taught at technical schools (similar to the VCAL) which would then be lessened in value.


I suppose this is sort of what frustrates me about today's education, most of the things are already there set up - the STAT, university subjects for the HSC, vocational alternatives for students etc. but they're not being properly exploited.

 

[walrusbear]

Re: Julie Bishop's vision for education in Australia

Walrus Bear, the difficulty is that postmodernism is taught *instead* of grammar, spelling, and punctuation.

I also resist your assertion that postmodernism is sophisticated. In my view it is boorish, intellectually dishonest, and a fruitless method for teaching English. It belongs in University social courses, not courses designed to improve (and in some unfortunate cases, establish) the communicative skills of students.

Students who can't write clearly can't think clearly.

Furthermore, I believe that Schroedinger may have been referring to postmodernist interpretations of language, some of which question the ability of an individual to transmit meaning through language as we all interpret meaning based on our own experience. The logical conclusion (and I will accept 'conservative' oversimplification) of this theory is that meaning is impossible. If this thesis is accepted, then the message is invalid as the meaning of the thesis was translated through language - an illogical conclusion and therefore erroneous.

Forgive me for being rusty on post-modernism, I have not consulted the key texts in a significant amount of time and the coverage of these topics at University is severely lacking in intellectual depth (I have, of course, not taken courses where postmodernism predominates such as Cultural or Literary Theory).

i was under the impression that the 'pomo' elements of high school english were in senior classes. by this stage you'd hope the grammar, spelling and punctuation skills were strong enough to teach critical interpretation to students. if 14 yr olds are being taught theory without grounding that's different. to my knowledge that isn't the case (wasn't when i went through high school).

how is 'postmodernism' (we mention it as though it were a unitary set of ideas) dishonest and fruitless? it's far more dishonest to ignore the 'problematic nature of representation'.
your assertion that 'language is meaningless' under postmodernism is inaccurate. meaning is personal, social, political, contingent, plural (ie 'problematic'), but not 'impossible'. students, by late high school, should be aware of the limitations of language and the complexity of meaning to be made from their surroundings.

the inconsistency you mentioned is brought up all the time. the paradox is that while postmodernism encourages a decentred source for meaning, this tenet becomes central (ie. universal), which belies its own intention. whilst it is a paradox, i don't think it really 'defies' the primary call for self-conscious appraisal of our modes of communication.

 

[The Brucemaster]

Re: Julie Bishop's vision for education in Australia

You're a leftie? Really? Based on your posts in this and the other thread, I never would have picked it!

Just goes to show, appearances can be deceiving. It really depends on what you ask me about though. Politically I'm generally left but sometimes i can be right wing in a social sense (i tend to be a bit nationalistic for example).

 

[ur_inner_child]

Re: Julie Bishop's vision for education in Australia

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/...1160246259638.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

A broad view is the key to the best education

(Written by Carmel Tebbutt, NSW Education Minister

THE latest comments from the federal Education Minister, Julie Bishop, signal that the public debate over school curriculums has descended to a farcical level with McCarthyist overtones. For the record: I was not a guest speaker at a "Marxist centenary conference".

The fact the Howard Government resorts to making such fictitious claims underscores the lack of substance in the agenda it is trying to impose on NSW as well as the other states and territories.

John Howard and Bishop apparently believe that they, and only they, should decide what children learn in NSW schools. They display a disturbing ignorance about the history of educational reform in NSW.

Clearly this element of history is not Bishop's strong suit. What is more alarming is that the Howard Government's attempt to implement its own version of political correctness under the guise of national consistency could see NSW lose more than it gains.

Until the NSW Labor Government reformed the high school curriculum, a student could finish school without encountering Shakespeare.

In NSW, our syllabuses are content-based, grounded in traditional knowledge. The history syllabus requires an understanding of facts and of linear history. The English syllabus has works by the world's great writers and poets.

Any concern that school syllabus documents have been "infected" by postmodernism does not apply in NSW.

At the same time it is dangerous to do as recent conservative critics have and use the label postmodernism as a catchphrase to criticise what are in fact very valid aspects of a well-rounded education. Canonical literature doesn't just sit on an altar. In studying works of literature it is important that students have a deep appreciation of the text as a work of art. But it is also important that students learn about the background and perspective of the author, the historical context in which the work was constructed and the audience for whom the work was intended.

Modern curriculums cannot be stuck in a time warp. It is relevant to ask whose voices are being heard in a text, and to ask which voices are excluded. Jane Austen's social status is relevant. Shakespeare's position as an Elizabethan courtier with aristocratic patrons clearly shaped some of his work. The role of women in most 19th-century novels is a point of interest and discussion for most students. Not only are these perspectives inescapable, they make literature come alive for the student.

Equally, while history is best taught through a sequenced progression, students also need to understand a range of differing views on the impact of agreed events.

Students learn about the great historical events through the perspectives of different people. How can you understand the Industrial Revolution without understanding the impact on the masses of people who left behind their rural life to work in factories? Equally, you need to understand the role of industrialists and how they were fundamental to opening up the world through technological innovations.

In an Australian context, how can any account of the arrival of the First Fleet ignore the effect of this event on the Aboriginal inhabitants, and lay any claim to historical accuracy?

Delving deep into the effects of historical events on the lives of ordinary people is part of a modern understanding of history. But in order to do this effectively, students must first be taught the chronologies, the facts and the important events.

We are right to reject faddism in our syllabuses. Education is simply too important.

In a modern democracy, the curriculum must be accessible to all. To have it otherwise will disadvantage students who rely on a quality education as their only pathway to a better future.

However, we should not reject the need for students to critically analyse works and understand the great conflicts behind many historical events. Those commentators and politicians who try to limit history to one "approved" version or English to the "great works" are doing students a disservice. We need to be careful not to replace one fad with a simplistic version of truth. To do so makes the study of literature and history boring and devoid of meaning and risks alienating a generation of students.

The Commonwealth does not run a single school, employ one teacher or teach any school students. It is all care and no responsibility. In NSW we have managed to retain traditional content and carefully modernise our syllabuses.

The federal Education Minister's recent forays into curriculum and teaching have not been productive. Her comments belittle teachers and undermine students and their parents' confidence in schools.

Carmel Tebbutt is the NSW Education Minister

 

[Silver Persian]

Re: Julie Bishop's vision for education in Australia

I think that the right-wing nature of the economics and business studies courses is just as bad as the left-wingness of English.

 

[Silver Persian]

Re: Julie Bishop's vision for education in Australia

^My point wasn't so much to argue that neoclassical economics is worse than any other way of teaching economics, but rather that if the people creating syllabuses were left wing ideologues, there wouldn't be a course espousing the benefits of a free market system. So, I would say that each course in the HSC reflects the direction of the broader academic field - in some instances leftish (historyenglish) and in some instances rightish (eco/bus).

But thankyou for being a condescending prick

 

[Silver Persian]

Re: Julie Bishop's vision for education in Australia

Yes...but the stance is that the market should be left to do as much as possible, and then the government should come in to 'fix' any irregularities in the system. Ive read many articles that take a much more intercentionist approach where the government actively influences market behaviour, rather than just 'adding in' some aggregate deman.

My sense of rght/left wing may be a little skewed from doing political economy - but I would call the neoclassical synthesis heading towards right wing, and the institutionalist/Marxist approach leftish

 

[Silver Persian]

Re: Julie Bishop's vision for education in Australia

sigh...you're such a bourgeois scum who has been duped by the capitalist systems ideology into accepting the hegemony of the ruling class and actively perpetuating your own subjection.


for the record, I don;'t think many in pe take the Marxist approach that seriously - institutionalism is more influential.

 

[P_Dilemma]

Article by Carmel Tebbut (NSW edu minister)

THE latest comments from the federal Education Minister, Julie Bishop, signal that the public debate over school curriculums has descended to a farcical level with McCarthyist overtones. For the record: I was not a guest speaker at a "Marxist centenary conference".

The fact the Howard Government resorts to making such fictitious claims underscores the lack of substance in the agenda it is trying to impose on NSW as well as the other states and territories.

John Howard and Bishop apparently believe that they, and only they, should decide what children learn in NSW schools. They display a disturbing ignorance about the history of educational reform in NSW.

Clearly this element of history is not Bishop's strong suit. What is more alarming is that the Howard Government's attempt to implement its own version of political correctness under the guise of national consistency could see NSW lose more than it gains.

Until the NSW Labor Government reformed the high school curriculum, a student could finish school without encountering Shakespeare.

In NSW, our syllabuses are content-based, grounded in traditional knowledge. The history syllabus requires an understanding of facts and of linear history. The English syllabus has works by the world's great writers and poets.

Any concern that school syllabus documents have been "infected" by postmodernism does not apply in NSW.

At the same time it is dangerous to do as recent conservative critics have and use the label postmodernism as a catchphrase to criticise what are in fact very valid aspects of a well-rounded education. Canonical literature doesn't just sit on an altar. In studying works of literature it is important that students have a deep appreciation of the text as a work of art. But it is also important that students learn about the background and perspective of the author, the historical context in which the work was constructed and the audience for whom the work was intended.

Modern curriculums cannot be stuck in a time warp. It is relevant to ask whose voices are being heard in a text, and to ask which voices are excluded. Jane Austen's social status is relevant. Shakespeare's position as an Elizabethan courtier with aristocratic patrons clearly shaped some of his work. The role of women in most 19th-century novels is a point of interest and discussion for most students. Not only are these perspectives inescapable, they make literature come alive for the student.

Equally, while history is best taught through a sequenced progression, students also need to understand a range of differing views on the impact of agreed events.

Students learn about the great historical events through the perspectives of different people. How can you understand the Industrial Revolution without understanding the impact on the masses of people who left behind their rural life to work in factories? Equally, you need to understand the role of industrialists and how they were fundamental to opening up the world through technological innovations.

In an Australian context, how can any account of the arrival of the First Fleet ignore the effect of this event on the Aboriginal inhabitants, and lay any claim to historical accuracy?

Delving deep into the effects of historical events on the lives of ordinary people is part of a modern understanding of history. But in order to do this effectively, students must first be taught the chronologies, the facts and the important events.

We are right to reject faddism in our syllabuses. Education is simply too important.

In a modern democracy, the curriculum must be accessible to all. To have it otherwise will disadvantage students who rely on a quality education as their only pathway to a better future.

However, we should not reject the need for students to critically analyse works and understand the great conflicts behind many historical events. Those commentators and politicians who try to limit history to one "approved" version or English to the "great works" are doing students a disservice. We need to be careful not to replace one fad with a simplistic version of truth. To do so makes the study of literature and history boring and devoid of meaning and risks alienating a generation of students.

The Commonwealth does not run a single school, employ one teacher or teach any school students. It is all care and no responsibility. In NSW we have managed to retain traditional content and carefully modernise our syllabuses.

The federal Education Minister's recent forays into curriculum and teaching have not been productive. Her comments belittle teachers and undermine students and their parents' confidence in schools.

Carmel Tebbutt is the NSW Education Minister.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/...1160246259638.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Any concern that school syllabus documents have been "infected" by postmodernism does not apply in NSW.

Bullcrap... They're all full of BS. It's either the devil or the deep blue sea (Carmel TEbbut or Julie Bishop). Either way, education is Australia is dead boring, dead, or both.

-P_D

 

[The Brucemaster]

Re: Article by Carmel Tebbut (NSW edu minister)

linear history, as opposed to .....

Post-modern history, cyclical history, thematic history. The list goes on...

 

[banco55]

Re: Article by Carmel Tebbut (NSW edu minister)

"In a modern democracy, the curriculum must be accessible to all. To have it otherwise will disadvantage students who rely on a quality education as their only pathway to a better future."

What does "accessible" mean?

 

[wheredanton]

Re: Article by Carmel Tebbut (NSW edu minister)

John Howard and Bishop trying to impose their own form of 'political correctness'.

The Liberal government have got it all wrong. I got a UAI in the high 90s and entered one of Australia's most prestigious law schools but, in first year, I wasn't able to properly structure an essay in a logical and well thought out way. I learnt through trial and error. Essentially by second year I was able to get top marks for essays.

The question is where does the blame lay? Why, as a person who supposedly is at the top of my state cohort, get into university with levels of written expression which only result in pass grades at university?

First things first. Basic literacy and grammar is to be taught in primary school and up. The suggestion that the HSC should be examining students on where to place full stops and commas completely misses the point. Year 12 is not for basic grammar, basic grammar should be learnt before the student gets to year 12.

The other issues are the teachers. I combined Arts with my law degree so I had the pleasure of coming across a number of future teachers. The standard is not that high. If the teachers don't know grammar then how are they going to teach grammar to their students? Currently all you need to be a secondary teacher in NSW is a BA and usually a Dip. Ed. The teaching profession needs to be re-valued. Incentives need to be issued.