A bit of background, which sheds some more light on how this might be proposed to happen ...
JOURNALIST: Minister, you've called for a national exam for Year 12 students, claiming the present State tests are too easy. Just going to the Year 12 exam, you are on the record as saying that a national curriculum would lead to mediocrity. How do you have a national exam without a national curriculum?
BRENDAN NELSON: Certainly through the compulsory years of education I'm opposed to the idea of all our kids being taught the same thing on the same day of the week in every part of the country. But I'm Australia's Minister for Education and also a parent. We're living in a country where we’ve got eight different educational jurisdictions within one country and 84,000 school-aged kids who moved interstate last year. Those numbers are growing exponentially. I can't with any confidence tell you the standards across Australia are uniform, that a chemistry exam in Brisbane is of the same standard as it is in Western Australia. Defence families are paying the highest price for this inconsistency. But increasingly, so too are everyday families, particularly those that are in key businesses.
JOURNALIST: But don't our universities work that out? If you get Year 12 in Victoria you can still get into the ANU in Canberra or for example, or Sydney University?
BRENDAN NELSON: Well, they do have a system of trying to equalise as best they’re able across the jurisdictions the standards that are being met and the standard itself is an issue as you know. For the NSW High School Certificate, I mean, I struggle to understand how 99.2% of students can pass the basic literacy exam for Year 12. I'd like to believe it's the case, but as I said to the Daily Telegraph, I stopped believing in the tooth fairy when I was about 8. I announced during the election that we would move towards an Australian certificate for education. This could take a number of forms. It could, if you wanted to, you could drive total consistency amongst the States. And by the way, on Friday last week, there was a meeting amongst the bureaucrats to have a look at that. Secondly, you can build upon the international baccalaureate which is now being undertaken by 20,000 students in Australian schools.
JOURNALIST: But that baccalaureate, that does have a curriculum?
BRENDAN NELSON: Indeed it does and it's rather interesting that Jenny Macklin who's the deputy leader of the Australian Labor Party, whilst she's saying those things to Australians and criticising me in the process, the alternate deputy leader of the Labor Party Julia Gillard has actually written to me, pleading with me to make money available out of the Howard Government's $1 billion investment in our schools program to get the international baccalaureate introduced in Victorian high schools to the opposition of the Victorian Government. What we're trying to do, Paul, is make sure we've got nationally consistent high standards and that parents know they can get the same consistent education.
This is interesting because while the federal government would like the ACE (Australian Certificate in Education) they say they do not want to implement a national curriculum because "it would lead to mediocrity". HOWEVER, upon reading the ACER report (2006), we learn that the federal government would ensure that each state included 'curriculum essentials' in KLAs.
Transcript from http://www.dest.gov.au/Ministers/Media/Nelson/2005/02/tran130205.asp
And you might want to read an interview with John Laws at http://www.dest.gov.au/Ministers/Media/Nelson/2005/02/tran070205.asp
Thursday, 14 December 2006
Wednesday, 13 December 2006
A reaction to the decline of Shakespeare?
I might be cynical, but when the federal government funds something like this, I can't help but think it's linked to its concern over the decline of emphasis on classic texts, and especially Shakespeare, and an increase of emphasis upon popular texts. As we know, Kevin Donnelly also expresses his concern over this.
I've got nothing against what looks like a wonderful initiative for these early career teachers, especially since it is focused on rural and remote Australia (where arguably, attending workshops and other professional learning activities is not quite as easy as it is for teachers in city areas). I just wonder about relationship between the funding of this initiative with the government's views that the high school study of traditional texts is in real peril.
The Minister for Education, Science and Training, the Hon Julie Bishop MP, today announced that students in regional and remote Australia will receive a significant boost to their Shakespearean studies through a pilot teacher scholarships programme.
“The Australian Government has invested $50,000 in an innovative initiative - the 2007 Bell Shakespeare Regional Teacher Scholarships programme,” Minister Bishop said.
“Through studying Shakespeare, students can gain an understanding of the rich diversity of English, explore timeless themes of the human condition, and develop their creativity while enhancing their use of language.
“The Bell Shakespeare Company, Australia's national touring theatre company, will offer 12 English teachers from regional and remote secondary schools, with less than 5 years’ experience, the opportunity to build their confidence and expertise in bringing Shakespeare to life for their students.
“The four-day intensive professional development programme will provide these teachers with access to Bell Shakespeare associate artists and skilled practitioners, a forum for discussion of teaching Shakespeare in the classroom, and the opportunity to spend time with the acting company in rehearsal. “This exciting programme will equip teachers with the expertise to bring the works of Shakespeare into the modern classroom in new ways that are interesting and accessible for students.”
John Bell AM, Bell Shakespeare’s Artistic Director, said “We are here for the long haul, devoted to specialisation, training, education and ongoing exploration in our attempts to reconcile great classic texts with contemporary Australian life. This investment in our teacher scholarship is a tremendous vote of confidence in our dedication to building excellence in Shakespeare in education across Australia.”
Details on how to apply for a scholarship will be distributed to schools early next year. The professional development programme will be held in April 2007.
(From Julie Bishop's media site)
I've got nothing against what looks like a wonderful initiative for these early career teachers, especially since it is focused on rural and remote Australia (where arguably, attending workshops and other professional learning activities is not quite as easy as it is for teachers in city areas). I just wonder about relationship between the funding of this initiative with the government's views that the high school study of traditional texts is in real peril.
The Minister for Education, Science and Training, the Hon Julie Bishop MP, today announced that students in regional and remote Australia will receive a significant boost to their Shakespearean studies through a pilot teacher scholarships programme.
“The Australian Government has invested $50,000 in an innovative initiative - the 2007 Bell Shakespeare Regional Teacher Scholarships programme,” Minister Bishop said.
“Through studying Shakespeare, students can gain an understanding of the rich diversity of English, explore timeless themes of the human condition, and develop their creativity while enhancing their use of language.
“The Bell Shakespeare Company, Australia's national touring theatre company, will offer 12 English teachers from regional and remote secondary schools, with less than 5 years’ experience, the opportunity to build their confidence and expertise in bringing Shakespeare to life for their students.
“The four-day intensive professional development programme will provide these teachers with access to Bell Shakespeare associate artists and skilled practitioners, a forum for discussion of teaching Shakespeare in the classroom, and the opportunity to spend time with the acting company in rehearsal. “This exciting programme will equip teachers with the expertise to bring the works of Shakespeare into the modern classroom in new ways that are interesting and accessible for students.”
John Bell AM, Bell Shakespeare’s Artistic Director, said “We are here for the long haul, devoted to specialisation, training, education and ongoing exploration in our attempts to reconcile great classic texts with contemporary Australian life. This investment in our teacher scholarship is a tremendous vote of confidence in our dedication to building excellence in Shakespeare in education across Australia.”
Details on how to apply for a scholarship will be distributed to schools early next year. The professional development programme will be held in April 2007.
(From Julie Bishop's media site)
Saturday, 9 December 2006
National curriculum
Why is the federal government pushing for this??
According to the federal government commissioned report by ACER "The introduction of an Australian Certificate in Education has the potential to provide greater national consistency in senior secondary arrangements; to set nationally consistent high standards; to improve the comparability of students results across Australia; to advance efforts to ensure that all young Australians develop the knowledge and skills required for life an work beyond school; and to establish a national qualification with international standing" (ACER, March 2006, Forward).
What is interesting about this statement, is that it implies a number of things.
First, it implies that consistency around Australia is a good thing. I don't wish to criticise this point.
Second, it implies that standards will be raised with the introduction of the ACE. This is a most prominent point made by DEST, and indeed one of the major selling points of the idea. This further implies that the standards set by the states are not high enough, and/or that the states cannot be trusted in setting standards.
Third, it implies that being able to compare students across Australia is a good thing. This is another point I don't wish to criticise, as the argument has been made with regards to university entry requirements. I must confess that I always thought universities were able to make comparisons, but perhaps I am wrong/naive ...
Fourth, it implies that the ACE will better ensure that students "develop the knowledge and skills required for life an work beyond school". This point really is like the second in that mistrust/distrust of the states is evident. Further, there is an assumption that whatever knowledge chosen to be include in the curriculum for the ACE would be generally agreed upon to be the 'right' dort of knowledge students require. Deeper philosophical and ideological issues lie here.
Finally, it implies that the ACE will be internationally recognised. I suppose globalisation demands such a thing ...
According to the federal government commissioned report by ACER "The introduction of an Australian Certificate in Education has the potential to provide greater national consistency in senior secondary arrangements; to set nationally consistent high standards; to improve the comparability of students results across Australia; to advance efforts to ensure that all young Australians develop the knowledge and skills required for life an work beyond school; and to establish a national qualification with international standing" (ACER, March 2006, Forward).
What is interesting about this statement, is that it implies a number of things.
First, it implies that consistency around Australia is a good thing. I don't wish to criticise this point.
Second, it implies that standards will be raised with the introduction of the ACE. This is a most prominent point made by DEST, and indeed one of the major selling points of the idea. This further implies that the standards set by the states are not high enough, and/or that the states cannot be trusted in setting standards.
Third, it implies that being able to compare students across Australia is a good thing. This is another point I don't wish to criticise, as the argument has been made with regards to university entry requirements. I must confess that I always thought universities were able to make comparisons, but perhaps I am wrong/naive ...
Fourth, it implies that the ACE will better ensure that students "develop the knowledge and skills required for life an work beyond school". This point really is like the second in that mistrust/distrust of the states is evident. Further, there is an assumption that whatever knowledge chosen to be include in the curriculum for the ACE would be generally agreed upon to be the 'right' dort of knowledge students require. Deeper philosophical and ideological issues lie here.
Finally, it implies that the ACE will be internationally recognised. I suppose globalisation demands such a thing ...
Gender and educational achievement
Boys are disadvantaged in school achievement because the curriculum has become feminised??
Values education
Part of the new funding requirements to state and territory schools is that school provide values education. The values to be taught explcitily to students are care, compassion, doing your best, a fair go, freedom, honesty and trustworthiness, integrity, respect, responsibility, understanding, tolerance and inclusion. Posters are adorning public schools with these values printed upon them, as well as a rudimentary explanation of each, with a watermark of Simpson and his donkey behind.
Here's a link: http://www.valueseducation.edu.au/verve/_resources/9_point_values_with_flag_only.pdf
Here's a link: http://www.valueseducation.edu.au/verve/_resources/9_point_values_with_flag_only.pdf
Left versus right
In the past few years we have witnessed more mention of right wing and left wing in Australian politics, with clear (as far as the terminology goes) disctinction between the two. So how did this become so prominent in discourses of education? Why has it become so important?
Thursday, 7 December 2006
A-E reporting 2
After learning that states and territories have different descriptors for the grades A-E a whole raft of questions came to my mind.
How do we ensure consistency between individual teachers (it is possible that one teacher would award one grade and another one another grade to the same student for the same work)? I know work samples are provided (NSW DET), but what if teachers don't agree? Who decided, anyway?
I note that the NSW DET says in its extended explanations of grade descriptors that they are based upon what the teacher has programmed for the students. What if teachers' expectations vary greatly? What if a teacher has low expectations, writes a relatively 'easy' program, and all the students attain high marks?
How are the grades going to be determined exactly (using mark cut-offs, using a teachers' subjective judgement)? This will vary from school to school, no doubt.
What are the implications for a student who has improved, yet still has not progressed to the next grade? (I guess that's where the comments are meant to come in)
The issue of a C grade being awarded for 'normal' work also raises questions. Obviously there are deeper philosophical and other judgements made about what level of work we should expect from students ... I think my worry here is about the wording between the states which varies between sound, satisfactory, and at, but is this a minimum acceptable standard or good work? In SA and WA, good work is actually better than a C grade! (So if a student is going to get praised for good work, then the work must be better the normal??)
And then there are issues of equity (student and school context) and student self-esteem ... for another day!
How do we ensure consistency between individual teachers (it is possible that one teacher would award one grade and another one another grade to the same student for the same work)? I know work samples are provided (NSW DET), but what if teachers don't agree? Who decided, anyway?
I note that the NSW DET says in its extended explanations of grade descriptors that they are based upon what the teacher has programmed for the students. What if teachers' expectations vary greatly? What if a teacher has low expectations, writes a relatively 'easy' program, and all the students attain high marks?
How are the grades going to be determined exactly (using mark cut-offs, using a teachers' subjective judgement)? This will vary from school to school, no doubt.
What are the implications for a student who has improved, yet still has not progressed to the next grade? (I guess that's where the comments are meant to come in)
The issue of a C grade being awarded for 'normal' work also raises questions. Obviously there are deeper philosophical and other judgements made about what level of work we should expect from students ... I think my worry here is about the wording between the states which varies between sound, satisfactory, and at, but is this a minimum acceptable standard or good work? In SA and WA, good work is actually better than a C grade! (So if a student is going to get praised for good work, then the work must be better the normal??)
And then there are issues of equity (student and school context) and student self-esteem ... for another day!
Tuesday, 5 December 2006
A-E reporting
With a grand plan to carry out a Foucauldian analysis the A-E reporting system, I have done a little research into what is going on out there ... More to come.
Grade A B C D E
NSW Outstanding High Sound Basic Limited
WA Excellent Good Satisfactory Limited Below
NT Well above Above At Below Well below
ACT Outstanding High Sound Limited Very limited
SA Excellent Good Satisfactory Partial Minimal
Other states' descriptors were unable to be found.
Inconsistencies
The states and territories are not at all consistent with one another when it comes to providing descriptors for each of the grades. This is evidenced, for example, in the descriptor for grade E where limited and very limited are used, and below and well below are used. Limited is a descriptor for both grades D and E, as is below. More anomalies are evident when looking at descriptors for grade B, where high, good and above are ostensibly names for the same level of achievement. Interpretation of these words may vary quite widely. Descriptors for the top grade of A seem more aligned with one another, yet still may remain open to interpretation.
The ‘benchmark’ grade is grade C, and the differences in descriptors for this grade have the potential to cause some problems. Satisfactory and sound seem to be quite different things. Sound may imply that a student has a deep understanding of what is required, yet satisfactory may imply a minimum or base level of understanding (‘just good enough’).
Additional explanations of grades used by states/territories
NSW seems to have gone for more positive language, and indeed this state’s extended descriptions go some way to attempt at ensuring parents and students are not upset by a lower result. For the top grades, the NSW DET uses the phrases “Your child is performing at an outstanding level in this area”, “Your child is performing at a high level in this area”, and “Your child is on track in this area. His/Her performance is sound”. However for the lower two grades, the NSW DET seems to choose words much more carefully and in a way that delimits the statement: “Your child is having some difficulty coping with the work in this area at this time”, and “Your child is finding learning very difficult at this time in this area”. For the top three grades, it seems not to matter that time may have played some sort of role in the students’ achievement of this grade, yet, for the bottom two grades, it does matter. A petty point, and the NSW DET should be commended for its obvious attention to the choices of words used when describing student achievement to parents, as well as extended explanations. The matter of time certainly indicates that there is still time for more positive results, and may well work against detrimental effects. Only the NSW DET includes values in grade level descriptors.
Other states have not made such extensive descriptions publicly available (it is unknown whether or not they have produced such explanations). The Northern Territory quite simply lists the grades as meaning (in order of A-E) well above, above, at, below and well below “the expected level for that year” in a manner of a Likert scale. Additional statements explain that a C grade is ‘standard’ for the age group across the Territory, and that D and E grades can be understood as quite normal for students in different subjects and at different times. The latter two grades can also, according to the NT, be masking significant gains. Again, as with the NSW DET, the NT has felt no need to explain upper grades, but has taken care to soften the potential blow for students and their parents when reading a D or E grade.
The same cannot be said for other states and territories. South Australia has quite simply stated that the grades are indicative of excellent, good, satisfactory, partial and minimal achievement of “what is expected at this year level”. No other evidence of explanation of the new reporting system was found. Western Australia merely states on its website, in a sample report, “Your child’s overall achievement for each learning area is reported by a shaded grade. A Excellent; B Good; C Satisfactory; D Limited; E Below the minimal acceptable standard of achievement”. The use of the phrase “minimal acceptable standard” certainly lies in contrast to the obvious effort to mask any sort of sense of failure from students and their parents! The ACT, while not quite as brutal, also takes a simple approach to explaining these new grades by inserting the words outstanding achievement, high achievement, sound achievement, limited achievement and very limited achievement in the sentence “Your child has demonstrated … of the knowledge, skills and understandings expected".
Grade A B C D E
NSW Outstanding High Sound Basic Limited
WA Excellent Good Satisfactory Limited Below
NT Well above Above At Below Well below
ACT Outstanding High Sound Limited Very limited
SA Excellent Good Satisfactory Partial Minimal
Other states' descriptors were unable to be found.
Inconsistencies
The states and territories are not at all consistent with one another when it comes to providing descriptors for each of the grades. This is evidenced, for example, in the descriptor for grade E where limited and very limited are used, and below and well below are used. Limited is a descriptor for both grades D and E, as is below. More anomalies are evident when looking at descriptors for grade B, where high, good and above are ostensibly names for the same level of achievement. Interpretation of these words may vary quite widely. Descriptors for the top grade of A seem more aligned with one another, yet still may remain open to interpretation.
The ‘benchmark’ grade is grade C, and the differences in descriptors for this grade have the potential to cause some problems. Satisfactory and sound seem to be quite different things. Sound may imply that a student has a deep understanding of what is required, yet satisfactory may imply a minimum or base level of understanding (‘just good enough’).
Additional explanations of grades used by states/territories
NSW seems to have gone for more positive language, and indeed this state’s extended descriptions go some way to attempt at ensuring parents and students are not upset by a lower result. For the top grades, the NSW DET uses the phrases “Your child is performing at an outstanding level in this area”, “Your child is performing at a high level in this area”, and “Your child is on track in this area. His/Her performance is sound”. However for the lower two grades, the NSW DET seems to choose words much more carefully and in a way that delimits the statement: “Your child is having some difficulty coping with the work in this area at this time”, and “Your child is finding learning very difficult at this time in this area”. For the top three grades, it seems not to matter that time may have played some sort of role in the students’ achievement of this grade, yet, for the bottom two grades, it does matter. A petty point, and the NSW DET should be commended for its obvious attention to the choices of words used when describing student achievement to parents, as well as extended explanations. The matter of time certainly indicates that there is still time for more positive results, and may well work against detrimental effects. Only the NSW DET includes values in grade level descriptors.
Other states have not made such extensive descriptions publicly available (it is unknown whether or not they have produced such explanations). The Northern Territory quite simply lists the grades as meaning (in order of A-E) well above, above, at, below and well below “the expected level for that year” in a manner of a Likert scale. Additional statements explain that a C grade is ‘standard’ for the age group across the Territory, and that D and E grades can be understood as quite normal for students in different subjects and at different times. The latter two grades can also, according to the NT, be masking significant gains. Again, as with the NSW DET, the NT has felt no need to explain upper grades, but has taken care to soften the potential blow for students and their parents when reading a D or E grade.
The same cannot be said for other states and territories. South Australia has quite simply stated that the grades are indicative of excellent, good, satisfactory, partial and minimal achievement of “what is expected at this year level”. No other evidence of explanation of the new reporting system was found. Western Australia merely states on its website, in a sample report, “Your child’s overall achievement for each learning area is reported by a shaded grade. A Excellent; B Good; C Satisfactory; D Limited; E Below the minimal acceptable standard of achievement”. The use of the phrase “minimal acceptable standard” certainly lies in contrast to the obvious effort to mask any sort of sense of failure from students and their parents! The ACT, while not quite as brutal, also takes a simple approach to explaining these new grades by inserting the words outstanding achievement, high achievement, sound achievement, limited achievement and very limited achievement in the sentence “Your child has demonstrated … of the knowledge, skills and understandings expected".
Monday, 4 December 2006
The influence of student background
Student and school background as influences upon educational achievements of students have almost been relegated to insignificance in the past few years in the public arena.
Empirical data has shown for many years that there are significant trends in the achievements of students from various backgrounds (low SES, non-English-speaking, Indigenous) that are misaligned with those of students from what might be called dominant cultural backgrounds. The National Goals for Schooling in Australia (MCEETYA, 1999) recognise that students from these groups are in need of attention (well, implicitly, through aiming to improve the eductaional outcomes of these students in particular, as well as others). The National Goals recognise that there are inequalities that exist in eductaion.
However, the education-politics nexus is somewhere where this seems to be conveniently ignored. For example, Richard Teese, in 2004, at the annual AARE (Australian Association for Research in Education) gave the Radford Lecture. In this lecture, Professor Teese explained how at the point where education meets with politics and the media, the issue of students' social class, has been ignored, or obviously discounted.
Brendan Nelson, former Minister for Education, published a speech in 2004 in which he quite explicitly uses the work of Ken Rowe to express his adherence to policies which focus on improving teaching quality and NOT paying attention to 'left-wing ideologues' who claim that inequality exists because of student backgrounds. This is a particularly disturbing in light of the myriad of research findings supporting otherwise. Nelson's conclusions support the importance of teacher quality as paramount to student achievement over and above student backgrounds.
I would never discount the importance of teacher quality, but I do discount the simplistic interpretation of this. Student backgrounds do matter. Teacher quality does matter.
But, how teachers deal with students' backgrounds matters more. I would only call someone a good quality teacher if they understood the implications of student backgrounds on their education, and effectively worked towards addressing these.
Empirical data has shown for many years that there are significant trends in the achievements of students from various backgrounds (low SES, non-English-speaking, Indigenous) that are misaligned with those of students from what might be called dominant cultural backgrounds. The National Goals for Schooling in Australia (MCEETYA, 1999) recognise that students from these groups are in need of attention (well, implicitly, through aiming to improve the eductaional outcomes of these students in particular, as well as others). The National Goals recognise that there are inequalities that exist in eductaion.
However, the education-politics nexus is somewhere where this seems to be conveniently ignored. For example, Richard Teese, in 2004, at the annual AARE (Australian Association for Research in Education) gave the Radford Lecture. In this lecture, Professor Teese explained how at the point where education meets with politics and the media, the issue of students' social class, has been ignored, or obviously discounted.
Brendan Nelson, former Minister for Education, published a speech in 2004 in which he quite explicitly uses the work of Ken Rowe to express his adherence to policies which focus on improving teaching quality and NOT paying attention to 'left-wing ideologues' who claim that inequality exists because of student backgrounds. This is a particularly disturbing in light of the myriad of research findings supporting otherwise. Nelson's conclusions support the importance of teacher quality as paramount to student achievement over and above student backgrounds.
I would never discount the importance of teacher quality, but I do discount the simplistic interpretation of this. Student backgrounds do matter. Teacher quality does matter.
But, how teachers deal with students' backgrounds matters more. I would only call someone a good quality teacher if they understood the implications of student backgrounds on their education, and effectively worked towards addressing these.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)