NSW introduces new standards for student teachers (1 Viewer)

[Triangulum]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/26/1961998.htm

New South Wales student teachers will soon have to meet mandatory skill standards in six areas, including basic grammar and spelling.

The standards include managing classroom behaviour and computer skills.

The NSW Government says they will be introduced in the 2009 academic year.

The Education Minister, John Della Bosca, says the changes will ensure teaching graduates meet the expectations of schools, parents and the wider community.

"It's essential that when a new teacher gets a new job, from their own job satisfaction point of view, and from the point of view of their colleagues in a school, that they're capable of hitting the ground running," he said.

"Universities have a duty to ensure students are properly prepared and this mandatory content will help them produce excellent graduates."

"There's been some variability in what's been taught [at university], but this [the mandatory skills requirement] ensures that all institutions will cover the basics with their trainee teachers."

"These are basics that the community expects and will better prepare the teacher for their career."

...

The Opposition says some of the new teaching standards smack of political correctness.

The opposition education spokesman, Andrew Stoner, says it is obvious standards are needed in core disciplines, but he has questioned some of the areas included.

"There is some concern that what the New South Wales Labor Government is proposing is over-weighted with politically correct themes including multiculturalism, racism and aboriginal history," he said.

"These themes ought to apply in certain schools, but whether they ought to apply in standards being taught in universities is a moot point."

Gasp! Political correctness! And ... how is anti-racism (which I assume is what Stoner means by 'racism' in that context) too politically correct to be taught in schools?

Interesting that grammar and spelling will be tested. You'd hope that after completing three years or more of tertiary education that your spelling would be reasonable.

 

[banco55]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/26/1961998.htm



Gasp! Political correctness! And ... how is anti-racism (which I assume is what Stoner means by 'racism' in that context) too politically correct to be taught in schools?

Interesting that grammar and spelling will be tested. You'd hope that after completing three years or more of tertiary education that your spelling would be reasonable.

Have you ever read a batch of commerce students' essays (and I'm talking about students whose first language is English)?

 

[Triangulum]

Have you ever read a batch of commerce students' essays (and I'm talking about students whose first language is English)?

I haven't, but good point.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

I don't see much of a problem with the new guidelines, so long as they don't stuff up peoples degrees, so that they're stuck in uni for an extra semester picking up, as Exphate says, "Political Correctness 101"

 

[Sparcod]

You'd hope that after completing three years or more of tertiary education that your spelling would be reasonable.

Teachers to go back to basics in English!

It says that teachers need good class-management skills and computer skills. Hear! Hear?

 

[Serius]

I dont really see how spelling and grammar is all that important. If they are in uni they all ready have a decent grasp of it. Education today isnt about spelling and grammar, maybe in the 1920's when most people where illiterate but not anymore. I am sick of this "back to basics" shit. Do you want your school graduates to be simpletons who can spell perfectly but have no idea how to write an essay? HSC english is about how to communicate, how to write essays, how to analyze and think logically, its not about simpleton shit like how to spell properly.

The other thing i hate is aboriginal history. What the fuck? since when should people be told what history is good for them to learn about? Personally i absolutely hated australian history, its boring as all fuck and it stinks of political agendas. Forcing people to learn about boring shit like the wheat harvester breakdown of 1872 is just going to make them hate history. Let them learn whatever they want, like Roman history, stuff about Athens, Egypt, whatever.

High schools are a place of higher learning first and foremost. If they want to introduce some basic primary school shit as optional like spelling101, thats fine. Just dont incorporate it into the subject English. Same goes for any sort of political agenda history231. Make it optional for those who might want to learn it, but dont force it on the kids. That will just make them hate it and have the opposite effect.

Also this multicultural learning shit sounds pretty poltical, like waste-of-time poltical. If its handled right it could be good, but i can also see it being a total fuckup.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

:care:

The low entry conditions for teaching degrees means there's some genuine idiots doing the degree, so I'm all for grammar and spelling tests. They won't affect me. I'd like to know what all 6 areas are and how they're going to be assessed, though.

 

[Triangulum]

It's not a matter of incorporating spelling and grammar into the courses - what it does, essentially, is ensures that all teachers are proficient in it. Coming from someone who is actually undertaking teacher training, I can assure you that many teachers in training do not have a firm grasp of English grammar. As a student, I could relay a number of examples where teachers I have had, or my brother has had, cannot express themselves either orally or in written form in correct English. I am sure that many people in university have complaints about lecturers who do the same - I know, because I've actually read them.

HSC English, Serius, is as overly politicised as the history courses you deride. I am no fan of the history courses, mind you, and I hope that when I graduate I don't have to teach many Australian history classes. I wish, like you said, that HSC English was about how to communicate and how to write good essays. Unfortunately, too often that slips into being about how to waffle as much as you can and how to regurgitate the political opinions the teacher wants to hear. I loved English until I hit year 11, and I hope when I graduate I don't have to take many senior English classes.

I agree with you on your points about history. A lot of the history I really wanted to learn about wasn't taught in schools or was taught briefly in the earlier high school years. I'm talking about things like late antiquity, medieval history, church history (though there's no chance things like that would pass in the overly-PC public school climate), political history etc. I was sick of Aboriginal studies being forced on us in just about every subject, and although I find that certain aspects of Australian history are important, the Australian history course as it stands was basically taught as mateship, women, migrants and Aboriginals (oh, and Gough Whitlam!). Of course it was dull - it was politically correct history, not exciting history.

I think that senior English could be made more basic, but I'd disagree that it should be all about the English canon and essay-writing. I think elements of the current syllabus - particularly encouraging people to think about how techniques are used to create meaning in all types of texts, not just Austen/Dickens/Shakespeare/Bronte - are really good for teaching students to think critically about things like advertising that they encounter in everyday life. It could be presented much more clearly and engagingly, though.

I don't really see how senior English is political. Unless you subscribe to postmodernism = left-wing, which I don't.

I agree that there are significant periods of history that get left out at senior level. Stage 4 History has a bit on Medieval/Renaissance history, but unfortunately it's not available at Stage 6. I'd support senior history being rejigged to make available some content between the fall of Rome and the industrial revolution. However, I think that the reason that you don't find much church history in the syllabus is less because of relativists under the beds and more because there would be riots in the classrooms if you tried to teach 14-year-olds about popes and bishops. (And this coming from someone who likes learning about popes and bishops.)

 

[banco55]

I dont really see how spelling and grammar is all that important. If they are in uni they all ready have a decent grasp of it. Education today isnt about spelling and grammar, maybe in the 1920's when most people where illiterate but not anymore. I am sick of this "back to basics" shit. Do you want your school graduates to be simpletons who can spell perfectly but have no idea how to write an essay? HSC english is about how to communicate, how to write essays, how to analyze and think logically, its not about simpleton shit like how to spell properly.
.

Students weren't illiterate in the 1920's in Australia. The reason high schools (the better ones at least) end up playing catch up on grammar and spelling is that it wasn't taught in primary school. Remember primary school used to be referred to as grammar school in many parts of the english speaking world. One reason they used to teach latin in lots of schools back in the day is that it forced you to learn English grammar.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

On History: Australian history is great, it tells us a lot. I think the main complaint would be that we might like to know, generally speaking, what was actually happening in the country and abroad between settlement and today, rather than what particular minority groups felt about what was happening.

On grammar: We never study grammar as such beyond identifying words as nouns/verbs/whatever, and criticism of poor grammar in assignments. The question is whether studying grammar beyond an intuitive level would actually translate into improved grammar in students' writing. I think it would be beneficial to include more of it in years 7-10 and possibly a senior course on it that could include a bit of lingustics type stuff, as a separate course to the existing 'cultural studies' based HSC English courses.

 

[_dhj_]

I doubt that the main issue here is the incorporation of 'political correctness'. It seems to me that any move to increase the standard of the teaching profession is a move in the right direction.

 

[_dhj_]

But does improvement = addition of a lot of waffle?

Just because teachers know about multiculturalism and anti-racism doesn't make them better teachers.

Computer skills, classroom management, proficiency in the English language, yes - but any move to tie perceived performance to conformity with values is wrong as the individual should be free to hold their own set of values.

What's wrong with anti-racism? It's extremely important imo, particular given the influence teachers have on shaping the attitudes of our kids.

 

[_dhj_]

Because I find that teaching that kind of thing specifically is a parent's job. By all means punish a kid for overt racist behaviour but you shouldn't preach about it.

I don't think you can just draw lines here and there to separate what parents and teachers ought to teach. Parents are concerned about things like literacy and numeracy aswell. Anyway something like anti-racism should be universally taught just as law is universally enforced, it shouldn't be left to parents (I don't think many parents care about anti-racism - they mainly care about advancing their child's interests, not that of society). And you'd be surprised at how racist many kids today are - particularly kids at monocultural private schools.

 

[jb_nc]

I don't think you can just draw lines here and there to separate what parents and teachers ought to teach. Parents are concerned about things like literacy and numeracy aswell. Anyway something like anti-racism should be universally taught just as law is universally enforced, it shouldn't be left to parents (I don't think many parents care about anti-racism - they mainly care about advancing their child's interests, not that of society). And you'd be surprised at how racist many kids today are - particularly kids at monocultural private schools.

yes, let's indoctrinate children with anti-racism propaganda instead of letting them make up their own minds. it's for society so it's fucking a-ok.

 

[Triangulum]

Brainwashing children into tolerating and accepting difference? Disgusting!

 

[banco55]

I certainly think teachers should be doing their best to strongly discourage racism but I'm very dubious that an anti-racism instruction has much effect one way or the other (apart from wasting people's time). I'm sure some wanker at the Department of Education had to write a paper on how to reduce racism, promote tolerance etc. and recommended anti-racism be taught to teachers. Never mind if the instruction is anything more then a waste of time at least when they are asked what they are doing to combat racism they can say they include useless anti-racism instruction for teachers.

 

[jb_nc]

Brainwashing children into tolerating and accepting difference? Disgusting!

children are too stupid to come to their own conclusions

 

[Triangulum]

I wasn't supporting 'brainwashing' there, btw, just pointing out that it's a needlessly emotive term for this discussion. Tolerance and acceptance are values common to all society. Hence, in my opinion, teaching them is parallel to civics education, which teaches the principles of liberal democracy. No one's going about saying 'We should let children make up their own minds about liberal democracy, we shouldn't be brainwashing them into appreciating what it means to live in a free society'.

 

[KFunk]

Food for thought: if there isn't an objective foundation for morality then we can't acquire our sense of morality from personal reflection on truths (since there wouldn't be any) --> it's going to come from somewhere else (most likely parents/society). In this sense some form of indoctrination may be inevitable.

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

Exactly! I don't understand why teachers have to take on so much of a parent's role these days. Are parents today so incompetent that they have to rely on teachers to do what they can't? Because that's really sad - though I guess it's true to an extent, kids these days are really, really ill-disciplined.

completely agree.

also, if you haven't got a decent grasp on spelling and grammar by the time you hit uni then GTFO. Okay? University is not the place to be learning shit that you should have had a handle on by 8th grade. It worries me that there are people out there who are training to be teachers, who don't have those simple skills...but I also don't think that this back to basics thing is a good idea especially not in a university context - you should already know this shit and if you don't then you are not ready for uni let alone ready to become a teacher. Perhaps if you were teaching maths, sub-par spelling and grammar might not be such a problem considering that your expertise would be lying primarily with mathematics (duh). But it does worry me when I ask someone what they're planning to teach and they say "English" and then in the next breath ask me how to spell curriculum or something...sure, critical thinking might be the main focus for some English subjects but being proficient in the actual language is also important.