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

[HotShot]

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.

in other countries after yr10 u would select a 'path'. so for eg if u wanted to do engineering u would do engineering, physics, maths, english and i thats it. if wanted to do sciences or soemting u would do only the sciences etc. or socials scnieces, history econ etc. so basically at the end of yr10 u would select pretty much your career since unis would have prerequisites and the wouldnt accpet an application for engineering if u chose arts in 11 and 12.

in this way its a from of specialisation - you would better teachers more focused learning. But this is bad in its own way it doesnt give flexibility to students - but the teachers would be better.

but i think in similar fashion there should be specialisation in high schools. so if you wanted to do commerce you would do subjects related to that and you would do more of that in high school rather spreading it out in other unrelated subjects. for 2 years you would econ not just basica hsc level but instead of doing 2 units of it you might do 4units of econ, 3 units of maths, 2 units english, 2 units of history or legal studies. in this way students will be better of when they get to uni - either the degress is made shorter or it remains the same but studnets will have better understanding.

the same applied to sciences, arts, health, etc. In this way the teacher of 11 and 12 would have pretty specialised and highly educated at 1st year uni level. admission to uni would be based rankings within the path rather than rankings of the all students that are 11 and 12. so if u do engineering, you will be ranked against only the people who also chose engineering to get indo B eng at uni.

the only problem is a decision has to be made at the end of yr10 or ur career pretty much - but personally the earlier you make decisions the better of you will be.

 

[goldendawn]

Re: Article by Carmel Tebbut (NSW edu minister)

Bear in mind that the NSW HSC teaches kids to question and analyse assumptions, and to think about the composers purpose, and their selection and emphasis of information. It also teaches 'traditional skills', but encourages kids to apply them to question and to 'deconstruct' old ways of thinking about the world, implicit in traditional texts.

John Howard is a Liberal conservative - and he probably sees this form of education as a threat to accepted Liberal and Christian values. To control education is to control the direction of a nations intellectual and creative energies, and Howard probably wants to make this direction a little closer to conservative. He could also simply be pandering to his conservative base.

I don't think that the HSC is by any means perfect, but nor do I like the smell of the Liberal's criticisms.

 

[katie_tully]

Re: Julie Bishop's vision for education in Australia

Are you kidding me? I couldn't be stuffed reading that whole first post essay.

Instead I will summarise the entire argument into less than a paragraph.

Julie Bishop has tall poppy syndrome. She doesn't want anybody else to be smarter than her. That is why she is attempting to 'dumb' down the country. In a sense it is working. It's why children today say HACHE instead of ACHE (h), and why kids spell with fonetics. It's why our children ball their piss weak eyes out when we repremand them for drawing a person with 13 fingers. No, that is not anatomically correct, DO IT AGAIN.

 

[AlleyCat]

Re: Julie Bishop's vision for education in Australia

Are you kidding me? I couldn't be stuffed reading that whole first post essay.

Instead I will summarise the entire argument into less than a paragraph.

Julie Bishop has tall poppy syndrome. She doesn't want anybody else to be smarter than her. That is why she is attempting to 'dumb' down the country. In a sense it is working. It's why children today say HACHE instead of ACHE (h), and why kids spell with fonetics. It's why our children ball their piss weak eyes out when we repremand them for drawing a person with 13 fingers. No, that is not anatomically correct, DO IT AGAIN.

QED.

Oh my god it's my favourite boser Katie_Tully! How's the gestation?

I totally agree, and the thing that gets me is that i STILL can't use a semicolon properly, know what adverb, adjective etc means, write in cursive or do long division because quite simply I have never been taught (and some of my shortcomings are clearer and more shocking to me since I began a journalism degree.)

 

[katie_tully]

Re: Julie Bishop's vision for education in Australia

SEE?!
BALL INSTEAD OF BAWL.

Oh god, I am a product of the NSW Government Education.

 

[ur_inner_child]

Re: Julie Bishop's vision for education in Australia

A little old but it will be new here... no one has posted in a while

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...cleared-of-bias/2006/10/18/1160850998254.html

No hint of Mao: HSC English cleared of bias

THE education research authority commissioned by the Federal Government to help shape a new national curriculum has found no evidence of political bias in the NSW Higher School Certificate.

A consultation paper, which provides a snapshot of English curriculums around the country, does not support the Federal Government's accusations of left-wing bias.

A copy of the Australian Council for Educational Research's paper obtained by the Herald identifies all common areas of study in the English syllabus.

The federal Minister for Education, Julie Bishop, has accused state curriculum boards of harbouring Maoists and left-wing ideologues, citing a Marxist critical reading of Othello at one private school in NSW as evidence.

The head of the Australian Council for Educational Research, Geoff Masters, said concerns about critical readings and postmodernist interpretations of literature, such as those at SCEGGS, had been overstated. "I wouldn't share a concern there is any deep problem," he said.

The Federal Government has asked Professor Masters to identify common parts of the curriculum in maths, physics, chemistry and Australian history across all states and territories.

He said the NSW HSC was not in any danger of being diluted.

"The HSC is not under siege," he said. "You may find all essential elements are completely covered in the NSW HSC."

Professor George Cooney, from the School of Education at the Australian Centre for Educational Studies, said he had no concerns that political bias was present in the NSW HSC.

"The criticisms about state and territory curricula made by the federal minister do not apply to NSW," he said.

Mark Howie, who heads the NSW English Teachers Association, said the Australian Council for Educational Research data showed that no syllabus had mandated the use of specific critical theories. "Tellingly, the … research found no requirement for Australian students to study left-wing ideology in English," he said.

The associate dean of education at the University of Technology, Sydney, Geoff Riordan, a strong advocate for a national curriculum, said he doubted the Federal Government was serious about addressing the issue.

"If they were serious about introducing a national curriculum, they would want to invite serious constructive conversation with the stakeholders to determine a way forward," he said.

Paul Kiem, the past president of the NSW History Teachers Association, said Ms Bishop had failed to offer any vision for a secondary Australian history course.

Professor Andrew Gonczi, of the University of Sydney's faculty of education and social work, said the NSW Board of Studies was well run and the Federal Government had no credible evidence of any problem with the curriculum.

The president of the NSW Secondary Principals Council, Jim McAlpine, said the Federal Government's intention to control the curriculum was backed by "dubious data".

"It's all about politics and very little about what's good for children," he said.

Ms Bishop said she had received complaints from parents about their dissatisfaction with elements of the curriculum, including left-wing bias in NSW.

"My comments about political bias referred to education authorities across Australia," she said. "The goal is to identify the highest standards this nation can produce and then roll that out nationally, so that every child has access to a high-quality education.

"There has been little progress towards greater national consistency, without Commonwealth funding and leadership. It has largely been an exercise in frustration and obstruction."

 

[jchloe]

Re: Julie Bishop's vision for education in Australia

Get over yourself guys! The HSC is just one year in a lifetime. The reason so many people struggle with it is simply because they do not have the analytical skills to pull multiple threads of discussion together. It doesn't make any difference what the quality of a teacher is if you do the work yourself - I sound like my mother!!!!! And as for that tosser damon yabbering in about how good his (and I am presuming here) grammar has become since he started law - read your first sentence - the way you used government is singular, yet you continue the sentence as though it is plural. Grammar gets better the more you use it - don't bag people who are having a go.

 

[ur_inner_child]

Julie Bishop: "Perfomance-Based Pay" for Teachers

Teachers might be worse off

April 15, 2007 - 10:18AM

Education Minister Julie Bishop today admitted some teachers would be paid less than they could earn on current pay structures under her plan to introduce performance-based pay.

Ms Bishop said no teacher would face a salary cut. But they would no longer be entitled to automatic pay rises, leaving new teachers potentially worse off than their counterparts on the existing system which rewards them based on years of experience.

Despite this, a performance pay scheme would help attract people to the profession, she said, and could be introduced without any new funding.

"If you have a performance pay system and teachers reach, say, year three in their career, not all would be paid the same," Ms Bishop told ABC television.

"If people aren't being paid just on the basis of years in the job, the increments would not automatically increase (each year).

"Those who are assessed as being more skilled - their performance is better than others - would have a salary increase. Those who would not be so assessed would be paid less."

But she denied this amounted to cutting teachers' wages.

"I'm not talking about pay cuts. I'm talking about a differential in salaries," she said.

Ms Bishop last week failed to win the states' agreement to implement the controversial pay proposal, which has drawn the ire of unions.

State governments have branded the plan unworkable, and a study last week warned performance pay schemes were vulnerable to cronyism.

Ms Bishop has proposed offering some teachers pay bonuses based on their achievements, student performance, and principal and parent feedback, taking into account any levels of disadvantage.

Ms Bishop said today many teachers were disillusioned because they reached the top salary level within nine years of graduating and there was no incentive to earn more.

"It doesn't matter whether you have increased your skills or your competencies or your performance, you don't get paid any more," she said.

She wanted a performance pay scheme that was consistent, fair and equitable, based on trials of different models of performance pay.

She insisted a workable performance pay system could be developed for teachers, just as similar schemes existed for other professionals.

Thoughts?

 

[xXeMoxXxCoRexX]

Re: Julie Bishop Introduces "Perfomance-Based Pay" for Teachers

*repeats everything Exphate said, being in the same place as he is*

I'd like to know what the actual teachers think though (as distinct from the union).

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Re: Julie Bishop Introduces "Perfomance-Based Pay" for Teachers

Agreed entirely with Exphate, though I can't say I've had a prac experience yet. The entire idea is a fucking joke, and it's going to lead to an absolute mess if it's ever implemented.

Edit: This isn't really light news fodder either. It's a pretty big issue.

 

[Omnidragon]

Re: Julie Bishop Introduces "Perfomance-Based Pay" for Teachers

I think it's a good idea. CBF explaining. But it also depends on how performance is measured. It'll be pretty arbitrary to base it on grades alone, because an unlucky teacher could end up with students who are naturally dumber. Sucks to be that teacher.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Re: Julie Bishop Introduces "Perfomance-Based Pay" for Teachers

Hence why it's not a good idea.

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

Re: Julie Bishop Introduces "Perfomance-Based Pay" for Teachers

no, i totally agree with exphate. i'm not going to bother reiterating what he said except to sum up that it is a craptastic idea in every sense. and i'd still say that even if i wasn't studying to be a teacher. it's not fair - you can't be held accountable in that way just because you might have a class that doesn't want to work or some students who fail an exam. and yes, bla bla bla. we're supposed to employ effective teaching strategies to make sure that doesn't happen...but it DOES happen. we're teachers, not gods. cutting teachers' pay because of student performance is hardly going to be an incentive for them to put in more effort when it could possibly have the same end result.

 

[walrusbear]

Re: Julie Bishop Introduces "Perfomance-Based Pay" for Teachers

i can't believe this idea is treated seriously by everyone
it's clearly fucked and unworkable

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Re: Julie Bishop Introduces "Perfomance-Based Pay" for Teachers

Interesting to note, I guess, that this is a pretty common occurance in countries the world over. I was reading through a few EDUF1018 notes the other day, and this exact thing seems to be a sort of pattern emerging all around the globe. A few interesting and relevant quotes:

Some argue that increased beuraucratic control and intensification over the last 20 years have reduced individual teachers areas of discretion in decision marking, have led to 'chronic and persisting' overload and have effectively resulted in deskilling (Harris, 1996)

Guess it's not hard to see the parallels between that, and what Bishop seeks to implement. Discretion involved with teaching, whether it be for disadvantaged students, or to implement a strategy which is succesful yet takes a while to show results, would be thrown out of the window to meet quotas, and to provide immideate results to the parents and umpires who oversee pay rises and such.

From this perspective, teachers are on the way to becoming 'technicians' whose job is to meet prespecified acheivement targets and whose room to manoveure, to exerisize discretion - a hallmark of autonomous professional - is thus increasingly restricted.

'Burned out' teachers give significantly less information and less praise to pupils, and interact less frequently with them (Mancini et al, 1984)

and in relation to meeting quotas etc

66.4 percent had actively considered leaving the profession over the last five years, 28 percent said they were actively seeking alternative employment, and 13.3 percent were currently seeking premature retirement

All interesting things to consider. All of those quotes were taken from an extract out of the EDUF1018 course notes at USyd. Those particular quotes came out of the extract entitled "Being a teacher, developing as a professional"

 

[S1M0]

Re: Julie Bishop Introduces "Perfomance-Based Pay" for Teachers

Not good. It'll be based on popularity rather than "performance". Teachers that are disliked by students and parents will get less, while those who are liked more, but are in reality fairly bad teachers will get more. Its open to corruption.

For example, i've got a fairly good english teacher, problem is that no-one likes him. He's good based on performance, but he's disliked. He'll get less if this "Perfomance-Based Pay" for Teachers policy is used, despite the fact that he's actually alright.

Other teachers, who are popular with both students and teachers, but in actual fact aren't very good teachers, will get more..

Bad model.

 

[topdeck]

Re: Julie Bishop Introduces "Perfomance-Based Pay" for Teachers

Personally, i don't think that peformance bay pay is necessarily the way to go: as everyone has already pointed out, you can't always hold a teacher accountable for the results of their class. That being said, i think that we have to work out SOME way to reward teachers who work hard, and to provide incentive to those who don't.

As i'm sure most people on the thread wouldn agree, there are plenty of teachers in the system who give very little to the job, either because they no longer enjoy their profession, or perhaps because they have been in their job for so long, that they no longer feel the need to put in effort to ensure their job tenure. Obviously performance based pay isn't the best option, but surely SOMETHING is needed.

 

[banco55]

Re: Julie Bishop Introduces "Perfomance-Based Pay" for Teachers

I'd support this if the money came out of an extra pot of money. They have this in singapore where the performance pay is based on the improvement (if any) in a classes median mark during the period that the teacher has them. Incidentally Singapore is consistently 1 or 2 on those international science and math tests.

Of course you are never going to have a perfect system of performance pay/bonuses but heaps of jobs have a system of performance pay/bonuses that aren't 100% perfect ie people who work in the share market can get screwed if the economy is going bad. People in the resource sector will get smaller bonuses if china stops importing so much. The teachers union main aim seems to be to shield teachers from any of the more unpleasant aspects of work that people in the private sector have to deal with.

 

[volition]

Re: Julie Bishop Introduces "Perfomance-Based Pay" for Teachers

I don't have a problem with performance based pay, I consider it like most other professions where people who are judged to be better by their bosses get paid more.

 

[karoooh]

Re: Julie Bishop Introduces "Perfomance-Based Pay" for Teachers

But the only thing stopping those in other professions from getting a pay rise is themselves. According to 'performance-based pay', students will have a big influence... Blah, blah, blah; I agree 100% with Exphate. This is bullshit.