Brough to push for no school, no welfare
RHIANNA KING and PETER KERR
26 May 2007
The West Australian
(c) 2007, West Australian Newspapers Limited
The Federal Government is set to introduce a controversial "no school, no welfare" policy as part of a new push to boost education in indigenous communities, which includes making English compulsory for all Aboriginal students.
Indigenous Affairs Minister Mal Brough was accused by the State Government yesterday of spreading populist nonsense "straight from the Pauline Hanson handbook", for suggesting Aboriginal children would have no chance of escaping a cycle of poverty if they spoke only their traditional language, which a handful of people could understand.
He was supported by Prime Minister John Howard, who said Aboriginal children should learn English just like children who migrated to Australia had to.
State Indigenous Affairs Minister Michelle Roberts said the idea was populist, unnecessary and the sign of a desperate Government.
"Its out of the Pauline Hanson handbook. I think theyre desperate and behind in the polls," she said.
"This whole focus on making sure they speak English is somewhat exaggerated. I would suggest that in most of the remote communities where Ive been, Ive yet to meet a child who doesnt speak English."
The Howard Governments renewed focus on the issue, which comes before the 40th anniversary of the referendum giving Parliament the power to make laws for Aboriginals, could see welfare payments withheld from the parents of truant children.
"I will look at anything at all, both incentives as well as things such as welfare quarantining, to assist the circumstances," Mr Brough said.
A similar program at Halls Creek District High School last year boosted school attendance from 54 per cent to 80 per cent in the two months it operated.
Chairman of Australian Indigenous Studies at Murdoch University Len Collard agreed with the push to keep Aboriginals at school, but said the move needed to involve improved teacher education.
Mr Collard said Mr Broughs plan for all Aboriginal students to learn English was insulting and could see indigenous languages eroded.
Shadow Federal indigenous affairs minister Jenny Macklin said the Government had ignored the issue for years.
Wednesday, 30 May 2007
Merit or performance
Until now, I have been referring to teacher 'merit' pay and teacher 'performance' pay as the same thing. I have simply used the words of the articles or comments I have referred to. But I think I should be focusing upon the semantics here as part of the ideological struggle.
Jim McAlpine, head of the NSW Secondary Principals Council , said that teachers' merit not performance should be considered (see Maralyn Parker's Blog http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/maralynparker/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/expect_a_performance_over_teacher_pay_issue/). Here, attention to semantics is needed.
The issue of merit versus performance MUST be considered. Until now, these words have been bandied around as if they meant the same thing, but really, the idea is vastly different. The former focuses on teachers’ good teaching and on teachers bettering themselves to achieve that. The latter focuses upon student output and not rewarding those whose students don’t achieve. Of course there are links, and to many they both mean the same thing. However, the lens through which we look can alter the perspective from simply rewarding for production of students with good marks to pushing for teacher improvement. (I haven't lifted that - it's mine)
Jim McAlpine, head of the NSW Secondary Principals Council , said that teachers' merit not performance should be considered (see Maralyn Parker's Blog http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/maralynparker/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/expect_a_performance_over_teacher_pay_issue/). Here, attention to semantics is needed.
The issue of merit versus performance MUST be considered. Until now, these words have been bandied around as if they meant the same thing, but really, the idea is vastly different. The former focuses on teachers’ good teaching and on teachers bettering themselves to achieve that. The latter focuses upon student output and not rewarding those whose students don’t achieve. Of course there are links, and to many they both mean the same thing. However, the lens through which we look can alter the perspective from simply rewarding for production of students with good marks to pushing for teacher improvement. (I haven't lifted that - it's mine)
How the Leigh article was reported by Justine Ferrari
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21765738-13881,00.html
I have this article, and have read it deeply. Justine Ferrari's reporting of this publication is incorrect. In it she says: "The study examined the literacy and numeracy test results of more than 90,000 students with more than 10,000 teachers in Years 3, 5 and 7 between 2001 and 2004, tracking the same group as it advanced through the school system".
Actually, the study examined literacy and numeracy test results for that many students and that many teachers, but not tracking the same group between Years 3 to 7 as she suggests. There were three cohorts' results in the study. The results of the first were from Year 3 (2001) and Year 5 (2003), the second from Year 3 (2002) and Year 5 (2004), and the third from Year 5 (2001) and Year 7 (2003). For each cohort, two test result were examined, two years apart.
Further, Ferrari says, "The study, to be released today by the Australian National University, debunks claims by teacher unions that teacher performance cannot be confidently measured by looking at the results their students achieve in universal tests.". This is actually not true. The study shows that teacher 'performance' can be measured with many limitations. If Ferrari read more deeply she would realise that there are data missing, and that there are many other factors that affect students' achivements missing, too. The author does mention these limitations, and does not use the word 'confidently', 'confident' or 'confidence'.
AND we must be careful about saying that the teachers of students who score well in these standardised tests are 'better'. The students did better, suggesting that the teachers were better. Don't ignore that this analysis was based on 'fixed effects' where there is an assumption that things have not changed with students, teachers, the schools, etc. between the years of the first and second tests.
"Education Minister Julie Bishop said the results made a mockery of claims by the Australian Education Union and Labor that a teacher's performance could not be measured. " She would, of course: she is not unbiased! We must remember that this type of measurement is NOT considered to be the correct or most accurate measurement of teacher performance. It is ONE attempt at figuring out a way to do so. Leigh makes that quite clear, even though he obviously has an agenda."The study, by economist Andrew Leigh, also finds that demographic differences between teachers account for less than one-hundredth of the variation in their student scores, suggesting other factors such as a teacher's IQ or classroom skills are much more important." Er, no, he didn't say the latter at all!!
Come on, Justine. This is a paper about statistical measurement, and the possibilities of using it for assessing teacher 'performance'. Although Leigh uses it to back the government's push for differential pay, the content is far from convincing as a model to be adopted even if the stats are excellently executed. Education writers with no idea should perhaps be more careful in what they write and what they convey to the public. They should also not make stuff up. It might be your job, darling, but this subject is far too important for mucking with.
Thursday, 24 May 2007
Summer school for teachers
I just can't let this one go! I am perplexed by the logic behind the federal government's proposal to 'reward' good teachers with more professional development and $5000. These summer schools should be intended for teachers who need more professional learning in order to improve their teaching. Surely the emphasis should be on improvement, and it would be worth spending significant amounts of money on this.
How are teachers selected? I believe (could be wrong) that they are to be identified by principals. A few questions ... Are all principals actually able to identify good teaching? How will they identify good teaching (what measures will be used)? Is it possible that principals will identify teachers that they like / are friends with / have drinks at the pub with? Are principals allowed to recommend teachers that actually need more professional learning or who identify themselves as wanting / needing professional learning? How will early career teachers fare under such a system?
I believe the rewards for good teaching argument should be turned into an improvement of not-so-good teaching argument.
How are teachers selected? I believe (could be wrong) that they are to be identified by principals. A few questions ... Are all principals actually able to identify good teaching? How will they identify good teaching (what measures will be used)? Is it possible that principals will identify teachers that they like / are friends with / have drinks at the pub with? Are principals allowed to recommend teachers that actually need more professional learning or who identify themselves as wanting / needing professional learning? How will early career teachers fare under such a system?
I believe the rewards for good teaching argument should be turned into an improvement of not-so-good teaching argument.
Tuesday, 22 May 2007
Andrew Leigh's study on measuring good teaching
Study finds teacher performance judging feasible
AM - Monday, 21 May , 2007 08:13:00
Reporter: Gavin Fang
TONY EASTLEY: A new study has found that the test scores of schoolchildren can be directly linked to the performance of their teachers.
Australian National University economist, Andrew Leigh, has looked at the results of students over three years and found that the best teachers are twice as effective as the worst. He says it shows that teachers can be judged on their performance.
Dr Leigh spoke to our reporter Gavin Fang.
ANDREW LEIGH: So the study is looking at the differences between the best and the worst teachers, trying to look at whether teachers are basically all the same, or whether there's quite a large degree of dispersion.
It does this by looking at how the same child performs with two different teachers, or even three different teachers, and that way you can take out the effect of the child's family background, and all you're left with is the impact of the teacher.
GAVIN FANG: And what did you find?
ANDREW LEIGH: There's pretty substantial differences. A child working with a teacher in the top 10 per cent learns about twice as fast as a child learning with a teacher in the bottom 10 per cent.
GAVIN FANG: What role do demographics play in determining these results?
ANDREW LEIGH: Student demographics are huge and that's why doing the study in this way teaches you a lot more than if you look at a simple snapshot of a classroom. Looking at a snapshot of a classroom doesn't in fact tell you anything about teacher quality, but looking at how a child's test scores change over time really does tell you a lot more about teacher quality.
The demographic characteristics that I have, or the demographic characteristics of the teachers, it turns out that more experienced teachers do in fact do a little bit better. And surprisingly female teachers do slightly better in teaching literacy than do male teachers.
I don't find any impact of teachers having a master's degree on, any suggestion that those teachers do better on raising students' score. But all of those characteristics really explain very little of the differences.
What the study says is there's big differences between the best and the worst teachers, but it's difficult to explain those differences based just on age and experience.
GAVIN FANG: Have you got any idea where these better teachers are placed? Are they in the public or private school systems?
ANDREW LEIGH: Look, I'd love to be able to look at that, but again the confidential nature of the data prevents me from doing it. But it's a really important question. I mean, if we're currently assigning the best performing teachers to the most advantaged students, that's the opposite of a policy, of a way in which you'd do things if you believed in equality of opportunity.
GAVIN FANG: Why is a study like this important to do, do you think?
ANDREW LEIGH: Well, I think it's important for two reasons. First of all, it indicates that we can measure output rather than just focusing on inputs as a lot of education policies have tended to do.
Secondly, it indicates that the factors that we currently take into account in paying teachers are essentially just experience and also potentially qualifications, really explain very little of the variation between teachers.
There's hugs gaps between the best and the worst teachers. But currently, many of those high performers and low performers are being treated the same way by the system.
TONY EASTLEY: Economist Dr Andrew Leigh from the Australian National University, speaking to Gavin Fang.
AM - Monday, 21 May , 2007 08:13:00
Reporter: Gavin Fang
TONY EASTLEY: A new study has found that the test scores of schoolchildren can be directly linked to the performance of their teachers.
Australian National University economist, Andrew Leigh, has looked at the results of students over three years and found that the best teachers are twice as effective as the worst. He says it shows that teachers can be judged on their performance.
Dr Leigh spoke to our reporter Gavin Fang.
ANDREW LEIGH: So the study is looking at the differences between the best and the worst teachers, trying to look at whether teachers are basically all the same, or whether there's quite a large degree of dispersion.
It does this by looking at how the same child performs with two different teachers, or even three different teachers, and that way you can take out the effect of the child's family background, and all you're left with is the impact of the teacher.
GAVIN FANG: And what did you find?
ANDREW LEIGH: There's pretty substantial differences. A child working with a teacher in the top 10 per cent learns about twice as fast as a child learning with a teacher in the bottom 10 per cent.
GAVIN FANG: What role do demographics play in determining these results?
ANDREW LEIGH: Student demographics are huge and that's why doing the study in this way teaches you a lot more than if you look at a simple snapshot of a classroom. Looking at a snapshot of a classroom doesn't in fact tell you anything about teacher quality, but looking at how a child's test scores change over time really does tell you a lot more about teacher quality.
The demographic characteristics that I have, or the demographic characteristics of the teachers, it turns out that more experienced teachers do in fact do a little bit better. And surprisingly female teachers do slightly better in teaching literacy than do male teachers.
I don't find any impact of teachers having a master's degree on, any suggestion that those teachers do better on raising students' score. But all of those characteristics really explain very little of the differences.
What the study says is there's big differences between the best and the worst teachers, but it's difficult to explain those differences based just on age and experience.
GAVIN FANG: Have you got any idea where these better teachers are placed? Are they in the public or private school systems?
ANDREW LEIGH: Look, I'd love to be able to look at that, but again the confidential nature of the data prevents me from doing it. But it's a really important question. I mean, if we're currently assigning the best performing teachers to the most advantaged students, that's the opposite of a policy, of a way in which you'd do things if you believed in equality of opportunity.
GAVIN FANG: Why is a study like this important to do, do you think?
ANDREW LEIGH: Well, I think it's important for two reasons. First of all, it indicates that we can measure output rather than just focusing on inputs as a lot of education policies have tended to do.
Secondly, it indicates that the factors that we currently take into account in paying teachers are essentially just experience and also potentially qualifications, really explain very little of the variation between teachers.
There's hugs gaps between the best and the worst teachers. But currently, many of those high performers and low performers are being treated the same way by the system.
TONY EASTLEY: Economist Dr Andrew Leigh from the Australian National University, speaking to Gavin Fang.
Monday, 21 May 2007
More on merit pay for teachers
School principals rethink merit pay
Anna Patty Education Editor
May 21, 2007
NSW school principals are designing their own plan to reward quality teaching in defiance of the Federal Government's push to link performance pay to student results.
The body representing 460 high school heads has rejected the Government's "ideologically driven" model. They are wary of Labor's alternative, saying it is still too thin on detail.
The president of the NSW Secondary Principals Council, Jim McAlpine, said the council's plan would be "based on merit rather than performance".
"[The federal Minister for Education] Julie Bishop's performance pay is going to be based on results of students in tests and that is a very narrow performance measure," he said.
"But teachers who take on additional responsibilities, who undertake additional professional learning, who contribute to the further development of other teachers, merit extra pay."
From January 2008, first-year teachers in NSW Government schools will earn an annual salary of $50,250 and receive an increase each year for the following nine years up to $75,000. They will then receive no further increase unless they take up a position as a head teacher, deputy principal or principal.
Top principals earn $119,000. In all there are 21 pay points in teaching, based on merit, years of experience and school size.
The principals suggest creating extra salary steps for teachers who, for example, complete master's degrees and use them to help their colleagues. This would recognise the collegiality of the profession, where a number of teachers may contribute to a pupil's development.
The state Minister for Education, John Della Bosca, has also said he is open to a system of merit pay not based on student results.
Mr Della Bosca and his state and territory colleagues last month rejected Ms Bishop's proposal to pilot performance pay in schools from next year, saying they would develop their own plans. Since then, Ms Bishop has said schools will be rewarded with up to $50,000 for outstanding results in numeracy and literacy. Schools could divide the money among their best teachers.
Federal Labor has said it would reward quality teaching using a merit-based system that took into account extra qualifications, professional development and working in rural and remote areas.
The Prime Minister, John Howard, has said that from 2009 he would tie Commonwealth funding to the states and territories to the introduction of performance pay for teachers, giving principals more autonomy to hire and fire and providing parents with more detailed information on school performance. That information should also include cases of bullying and violence.
The principals' plan is separate to another being devised by the national teacher union, the Australian Education Union.
Anna Patty Education Editor
May 21, 2007
NSW school principals are designing their own plan to reward quality teaching in defiance of the Federal Government's push to link performance pay to student results.
The body representing 460 high school heads has rejected the Government's "ideologically driven" model. They are wary of Labor's alternative, saying it is still too thin on detail.
The president of the NSW Secondary Principals Council, Jim McAlpine, said the council's plan would be "based on merit rather than performance".
"[The federal Minister for Education] Julie Bishop's performance pay is going to be based on results of students in tests and that is a very narrow performance measure," he said.
"But teachers who take on additional responsibilities, who undertake additional professional learning, who contribute to the further development of other teachers, merit extra pay."
From January 2008, first-year teachers in NSW Government schools will earn an annual salary of $50,250 and receive an increase each year for the following nine years up to $75,000. They will then receive no further increase unless they take up a position as a head teacher, deputy principal or principal.
Top principals earn $119,000. In all there are 21 pay points in teaching, based on merit, years of experience and school size.
The principals suggest creating extra salary steps for teachers who, for example, complete master's degrees and use them to help their colleagues. This would recognise the collegiality of the profession, where a number of teachers may contribute to a pupil's development.
The state Minister for Education, John Della Bosca, has also said he is open to a system of merit pay not based on student results.
Mr Della Bosca and his state and territory colleagues last month rejected Ms Bishop's proposal to pilot performance pay in schools from next year, saying they would develop their own plans. Since then, Ms Bishop has said schools will be rewarded with up to $50,000 for outstanding results in numeracy and literacy. Schools could divide the money among their best teachers.
Federal Labor has said it would reward quality teaching using a merit-based system that took into account extra qualifications, professional development and working in rural and remote areas.
The Prime Minister, John Howard, has said that from 2009 he would tie Commonwealth funding to the states and territories to the introduction of performance pay for teachers, giving principals more autonomy to hire and fire and providing parents with more detailed information on school performance. That information should also include cases of bullying and violence.
The principals' plan is separate to another being devised by the national teacher union, the Australian Education Union.
Funding and disadvantage
School funding comes under fire
Anna Patty Education Editor
May 17, 2007
THE national system of funding schools is helping entrench social disadvantage in rural and suburban Australia, a report has found.
Australia is the only OECD country to funnel a disproportionate level of public funding into non-government schools, it says.
As an increasing proportion of students move into private schools, the report, to be released today, says the tool used to fund schools was established to favour disadvantaged Catholic schools, but it now advantages the richest private schools.
The report's author, Lyndsay Connors, a public school advocate who chaired the former NSW Public Education Council, said it was no longer appropriate to link funding for private schools to state government school funding.
Commonwealth funding to schools is indexed on increases to the average amount states spend on public schools per student.
This method was used when the bulk of non-government schools had fewer resources than government schools.
But according to the report, Making Federalism Work for Schools, commissioned by the NSW Teachers Federation, the method is now being used to increase the resource gap between public and private schools.
Ms Connors said indexation was a financial tool that was being used as a policy device to increase grants to private schools, which receive two-thirds of their public funding from the Commonwealth. Public schools receive less than 10 per cent of their funding from the Federal Government.
"The formula has an insidious effect," Ms Connors said. "When students leave a public school, the cost to the state government of running that school stays the same. But the cost per student of running that school rises. It is this increase that gets passed on through Commonwealth indexation, where it flows disproportionately to private schools."
The complexity of the language of indexation was also used to mask real cuts to university funding, Ms Connors said.
Despite Australia's strong economic growth, pockets of concentrated social disadvantage had become entrenched across rural, remote and suburban Australia.
"The differences in the social background of students are sufficient to register on OECD indicators of inequality and reflect no credit on such an affluent country," she said.
The federal Minister for Education, Julie Bishop, yesterday disputed the State Government's claims that the Commonwealth had pegged recurrent funding for public schools to state indexation, with no real increases above this level.
Ms Bishop said that the Federal Government had also provided $3 billion in grants to public schools for capital works and literacy programs.
■ Six out of 10 people in marginal federal seats perceive John Howard as "the private school Prime Minister" and two-thirds believe he has underfunded public schools for the past 11 years, according to a survey conducted by the Australian Education Union.
(with Harriet Alexander)
Anna Patty Education Editor
May 17, 2007
THE national system of funding schools is helping entrench social disadvantage in rural and suburban Australia, a report has found.
Australia is the only OECD country to funnel a disproportionate level of public funding into non-government schools, it says.
As an increasing proportion of students move into private schools, the report, to be released today, says the tool used to fund schools was established to favour disadvantaged Catholic schools, but it now advantages the richest private schools.
The report's author, Lyndsay Connors, a public school advocate who chaired the former NSW Public Education Council, said it was no longer appropriate to link funding for private schools to state government school funding.
Commonwealth funding to schools is indexed on increases to the average amount states spend on public schools per student.
This method was used when the bulk of non-government schools had fewer resources than government schools.
But according to the report, Making Federalism Work for Schools, commissioned by the NSW Teachers Federation, the method is now being used to increase the resource gap between public and private schools.
Ms Connors said indexation was a financial tool that was being used as a policy device to increase grants to private schools, which receive two-thirds of their public funding from the Commonwealth. Public schools receive less than 10 per cent of their funding from the Federal Government.
"The formula has an insidious effect," Ms Connors said. "When students leave a public school, the cost to the state government of running that school stays the same. But the cost per student of running that school rises. It is this increase that gets passed on through Commonwealth indexation, where it flows disproportionately to private schools."
The complexity of the language of indexation was also used to mask real cuts to university funding, Ms Connors said.
Despite Australia's strong economic growth, pockets of concentrated social disadvantage had become entrenched across rural, remote and suburban Australia.
"The differences in the social background of students are sufficient to register on OECD indicators of inequality and reflect no credit on such an affluent country," she said.
The federal Minister for Education, Julie Bishop, yesterday disputed the State Government's claims that the Commonwealth had pegged recurrent funding for public schools to state indexation, with no real increases above this level.
Ms Bishop said that the Federal Government had also provided $3 billion in grants to public schools for capital works and literacy programs.
■ Six out of 10 people in marginal federal seats perceive John Howard as "the private school Prime Minister" and two-thirds believe he has underfunded public schools for the past 11 years, according to a survey conducted by the Australian Education Union.
(with Harriet Alexander)
Friday, 18 May 2007
Julie Bishop on the 7:30 Report
Bishop talks up boost for education funding
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Broadcast: 09/05/2007
Reporter: Kerry O'Brien
Kerry O’Brien discusses the implications of new education funding with federal Education Minister Julie Bishop. She sheds some light on details of the endowment fund outlined in the Budget and explains how she thinks the Coalition policy allows Australian universities to achieve a world-class standard.
Transcript
KERRY O'BRIEN: I think we understand the situation. It is clear from your comments that you intend to use this fund to push universities to embrace your policy agendas for diversity and specialisation, in other words if they run the universities the way you want them to, you'll reward them with money from the fund.
JULIE BISHOP: Essentially, what we want to achieve is world class institutions. We want our students to be able to attend universities that can hold their own on the world stage. Currently, our universities over a number of decades have been pushed into a one size fits all comprehensive university model where all universities are offering the same courses to essentially the same students. We want our universities to compete on the world stage and they are recognising this.
Already we are seeing universities move to much more diverse mixes of courses and specialisation. If our universities want to focus on particular areas, whether it be Engineering or Medicine or online delivery, to be a diverse, vibrant, dynamic sector, then we will support that.
KERRY O'BRIEN: But, essentially, you are saying to them "if you go our way on this, if you meet us on this, our response will be that you are more likely to get money from the endowment fund".
JULIE BISHOP: Well, the endowment fund will be a competitive process. How it will work is the $5 billion that the Treasurer announced last night will be invested. The guardians of the Future Fund will make the strategic decisions to hopefully enhance the earnings from that fund. Then each year the earnings will be distributed to universities and I will seek advice from an advisory panel, a committee, of people who have vast experience in higher education and universities will submit proposals for funding for capital works and for research facilities. We want them to be diverse. We want them to specialise. We want them to focus on excellence. That's what students are looking for. That's what the academics and researchers and the universities themselves are seeking to pursue. We have now given them the means to be able to pursue those goals and those ambitions.
KERRY O'BRIEN: And you'll have the last word on who gets the grants? On who gets the money?
JULIE BISHOP: Yes, I will with advice from a panel of experts on higher education.
KERRY O'BRIEN: OK. On your plan to provide $700 vouchers totalling hundreds of millions of dollars to privately tutor children who fail literacy or numeracy bench marks, doesn't that amount to a huge vote of mistrust by you in the vote of public schools to resolve those problems?
JULIE BISHOP: What we are essentially saying to parents is that the Australian Government will provide a safety net for your child if your child does not meet the minimum standards required in literacy and numeracy in reading and writing and mathematics in years 3, 5 and 7 and 9. Now, states currently conduct their own testing. Next year for the first time there will be national assessments, the same test across the country for students in years 3, 5, 7 and 9 in literacy and numeracy. While many Australian students do very well in literacy and numeracy tests, there are a worrying number of students who are not meeting minimum standards. We are saying to parents, "if your child is in that category or eligible, we will provide you with a $700 voucher so your child can receive one on one tuition".
KERRY O'BRIEN: Privately?
JULIE BISHOP: Well it will be done on the basis of accredited tutors that can include teachers from schools, it can include retired teachers and professional educators.
KERRY O'BRIEN: But surely if you have some trust in the public education system it would be more efficient for you to direct those hundreds of millions of dollars per year to the education system which, arguably, would more efficiently provide the teachers within the system to bring those extra services direct to the students who need them?
JULIE BISHOP: Kerry, this funding is available for government and non-government school students. So I'm not making any distinction. What we are saying is if there are students that fail the national literacy and numeracy testing, if they fail to meet the minimum standards - we are talking about minimum standards - then we will provide funding for a voucher so they can receive tuition.
We are not going to ignore these children or let them fall through the cracks. We are going to provide a safety net, if you like, to ensure they are equipped with these fundamental skills that they need to go on to further education, training, to find a job. I mean these are the fundamental skills children need for the 21st century. Already we know from international testing of Australian students there are an unacceptable number of students who are not meeting minimum literacy and numeracy levels and we will support them.
KERRY O'BRIEN: Julie Bishop, thanks for talking with us.
JULIE BISHOP: Thank you.
The thing about this interview I found fascinating was Kerry O'Brien's obviously logical question about putting the money into the schools for better teaching support for literacy and numeracy rather than the tutorial system, and her response to that. My personal question about the whole thing is whether or not there is an income test involved. Should this not be, if it were to be, focused upon families who cannot afford tutoring? Would this be money 'wasted' if wealthy families sending their kids to wealthy schools were to access it, and how many low-income families in need would miss out if this were the case? Another question: would parents then be even more likely to rely upon the education system and the tutorial funding to teach their kids literacy and numeracy rather than take the responsibility for that themsleves (like 'our friend' whose daugther couldn't read)?
Howard at the Centre for Independent Studies
Mmmm ...
I watched Stateline tonight and saw excerpts from Howard's speech the Centre for Independent Studies. So I sought it out ... A real corker (not).
http://www.pm.gov.au/media/speech/2007/speech24321.cfm
Here is an example of the importance of taking into account the space in which a message is delivered. This speech was at the CIS, arguably, a right-wing think-tank, and Howard exhibited an arrogance he would only reserve for such a place (never if this was to be broadcast on populist commercial television, for example). Although broadcast in parts, perhaps, the milieu is so important, as the CIS is addressed as a sympathetic friend, a co-opponent of unions, academics, and leftists.
"Last Tuesday, the Government announced $457 million in assistance for students who are not meeting the literacy benchmarks at years three, five, seven and nine and parents will receive $700 vouchers to enable those children to receive extra, personalised tuition. We are also providing financial rewards to schools that achieve the greatest improvements in literacy and numeracy. As if on cue, the Australian Education Union is now arguing that literacy and numeracy tests are invalid because they cannot assess a child's sense of wonder. No, I'm not making this up. In 2007, the Australian Education Union believes that testing if a child can read, write and add up is wrong. I await the howls of protest from those on the so-called progressive side of politics who supposedly care about social mobility. I look forward to reading the co-authored letters and full-page advertisements attacking the AEU's outdated ideology from those human rights lawyers, academics and welfare groups who regularly criticise the Government for not doing enough for the underprivileged. This thinking is not simply a recipe for a failing schools system. It's a script for national decline. "
Somehow, I don't get the foreshadowed attack on the AEU by people who are often associated with it (am I missing something?), but what I do get is a message that no matter what anyone else says, it will be laughed at. What arrogance!
But why would I think he was doing anything for the underpriveleged, when there is no mention of means testing for the distribution of these tuition funds? Is Kevin Donnelly's daughter eligible for a $700 voucher even though her father is an 'education expert' earning very well, and an English teacher for 18 years? It would seem so.
I watched Stateline tonight and saw excerpts from Howard's speech the Centre for Independent Studies. So I sought it out ... A real corker (not).
http://www.pm.gov.au/media/speech/2007/speech24321.cfm
Here is an example of the importance of taking into account the space in which a message is delivered. This speech was at the CIS, arguably, a right-wing think-tank, and Howard exhibited an arrogance he would only reserve for such a place (never if this was to be broadcast on populist commercial television, for example). Although broadcast in parts, perhaps, the milieu is so important, as the CIS is addressed as a sympathetic friend, a co-opponent of unions, academics, and leftists.
"Last Tuesday, the Government announced $457 million in assistance for students who are not meeting the literacy benchmarks at years three, five, seven and nine and parents will receive $700 vouchers to enable those children to receive extra, personalised tuition. We are also providing financial rewards to schools that achieve the greatest improvements in literacy and numeracy. As if on cue, the Australian Education Union is now arguing that literacy and numeracy tests are invalid because they cannot assess a child's sense of wonder. No, I'm not making this up. In 2007, the Australian Education Union believes that testing if a child can read, write and add up is wrong. I await the howls of protest from those on the so-called progressive side of politics who supposedly care about social mobility. I look forward to reading the co-authored letters and full-page advertisements attacking the AEU's outdated ideology from those human rights lawyers, academics and welfare groups who regularly criticise the Government for not doing enough for the underprivileged. This thinking is not simply a recipe for a failing schools system. It's a script for national decline. "
Somehow, I don't get the foreshadowed attack on the AEU by people who are often associated with it (am I missing something?), but what I do get is a message that no matter what anyone else says, it will be laughed at. What arrogance!
But why would I think he was doing anything for the underpriveleged, when there is no mention of means testing for the distribution of these tuition funds? Is Kevin Donnelly's daughter eligible for a $700 voucher even though her father is an 'education expert' earning very well, and an English teacher for 18 years? It would seem so.
Friday, 11 May 2007
And again with the performance pay issue...
Bishop spends $53m on apples for teachers
John Garnaut and Anna Patty
May 11, 2007
PRINCIPALS at more than 1000 schools will receive a reward fund of up to $50,000 to divide among their best teachers as part of a program to introduce performance pay next year.
The $53 million "reward" program would fund outstanding teachers who improved the academic results of their students, the Minister for Education, Julie Bishop, told the Herald.
"It will go to the principal of a school to use in ways to enhance literacy and numeracy in the school and that will include rewarding teachers who are responsible for that."
Principals will decide how the $50,000 will be spent, but performance pay is an option. The program will also include a $5000 bonus - plus travel and accommodation expenses - for teachers who are selected to attend a 10-day summer school.
"I've been signposting [performance pay] for quite some time. If people wanted to join the dots it's all there," she said.
The rewards will be delivered through state and private schools, with or without the co-operation of state governments.
The program puts pressure on the Labor leader, Kevin Rudd, to reveal his hand, since the party accepts the principle of rewarding good teachers but has rejected specific proposals.
It faces a hostile reception from unions, teachers and principals. The head of the NSW Secondary Principals Council, Jim McAlpine, said "offering bribes to teachers" would place principals in an impossible position: "It would be very difficult to ascertain which teacher out of a group of teachers deserved a bonus payment for improving student performance."
The $53 million will be split among 1200 schools over four years, beginning after next year's literacy and numeracy assessments. Schools and teachers will be chosen on the academic improvement - rather than the level - of their students. The scheme is designed to favour disadvantaged schools where students have the most room to improve.
Separately, Ms Bishop said "leading teachers" would be chosen to attend short courses in core subjects and rewarded with $5000 "bonuses", plus expenses. The $100 million program will apply to 1000 teachers a year who are recommended by schools and accepted by the Government.
Parents of students performing badly will receive $700 tutorial vouchers, at a cost of $460 million.
State and territory education ministers oppose any model of performance pay linked to student results. "It will be very divisive within schools and isn't a serious attempt to improve either student results or teaching standards," said the NSW Minister for Education, John Della Bosca.
The president of the NSW Teachers Federation, Maree O'Halloran, said performance pay "fundamentally misunderstands" what motivates teachers to work with their students.
Critics of the summer school program say that with only 1000 allocated places a year it will take more than 200 years for all teachers in Australia to attend.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/bishop-spends-53m-on-apples-for-teachers/2007/05/10/1178390470983.html#
________________________________________________________________________________________________
The collegiality issue is another problem. Pitting teacher against teacher in a competitive environment will do nothing to maintain and expand the co-operative nature of teaching. Pity the poor beginning teacher whose mentor is fighting for that five grand and summer school training. That teacher could quite possibly be more concerned about getting access to those funds and training than assisting a new teacher become more proficient.
On a related note, I heard a television interview (out of the room but the telly turned up loud) with the CEO of a public school support group. I have emailed the CEO to ask for detail on his plan, that teachers who are prepared to go out of their way to improve their qualifications and provide staff development to other teachers would be eligible for increased pay. I've asked him for more info and will post it if and when it arrives.
Thursday, 3 May 2007
The old gay and lesbian parents in books debate comes back
Yet again, this one raises its head ...
Schools are too left wing, says Stoner
from Anna Patty (SMH, May 2, 2007)
TEACHING materials in primary schools have become too politically correct in depicting single sex couples and a black armband view of Australian history, according to the NSW Opposition.
The Opposition's new spokesman on education, Andrew Stoner, accused the Labor Government of using schools as "a vehicle for left-wing indoctrination", saying it needed to "rein in the PC culture" within the Department of Education and NSW Board of Studies.
"Under Labor, up to half the curriculum in some subjects focuses on a purely indigenous perspective, including emotive terms such as 'British invasion', as well as 'Survival Day' instead of 'Australia Day'," Mr Stoner, the National Party leader, said.
"No one doubts the integral role indigenous people play in Australian history, but any teaching of our past must be balanced.
"Labor's political correctness in education also extends to gay causes, including the funding of reading material for children as young as five, regarding gay and lesbian parents.
"[The Premier] Morris Iemma should keep his promise and teach kids respect and responsibility, leaving controversial issues like same sex marriage and adoption to parents."
He said books about same-sex parents, used in some primary schools include My House, Going to Fair Day, Koalas on Parade and The Rainbow Cubby House, produced by the Learn to Include project, were funded by the Crime Division of the NSW Attorney General's Department.
The books tell the story of a young girl with two lesbian mothers and include a visit to the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras.
A spokesman for the Attorney-General, John Hatzistergos, confirmed the department had funded the project in 2004 when the books were produced as a teaching resource to help combat bullying in schools.
The Minister for Education, John Della Bosca, said Mr Stoner had been highly selective in his use of examples from the curriculum. His strong views about Aboriginal history and sexuality "should be a case study on why you don't let a National Party politician desperate for votes write the primary school syllabus".
"This syllabus was designed in consultation with parents, teachers and many professional and community experts and has been successfully taught for nearly a decade. Historical events can be seen differently depending on your view and the syllabus requires teachers to always present a range of perspectives."
The president of the NSW Primary Principals Association, Geoff Scott, said principals and teachers had the final veto on which books were used in schools.
Books that simply reflected the gay lifestyle, as opposed to espousing it, would generally be considered acceptable for children.
However, each school would exercise discretion in consultation with parents to decide whether a book was appropriate.
"There would be a number of occasions when award winning books that are well written but have inappropriate content are not put on the shelves in schools," Mr Scott said.
"The principal and teachers would be up to speed with what community expected. The books in primary school libraries are not espousing a particular point of view or pushing values on to children. If a story written about people in same sex relationships, that's real life and provided it is at an appropriate standard, then it can be available for children."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/schools-are-too-left-wing-says-stoner/2007/05/01/1177788142434.html
Schools are too left wing, says Stoner
from Anna Patty (SMH, May 2, 2007)
TEACHING materials in primary schools have become too politically correct in depicting single sex couples and a black armband view of Australian history, according to the NSW Opposition.
The Opposition's new spokesman on education, Andrew Stoner, accused the Labor Government of using schools as "a vehicle for left-wing indoctrination", saying it needed to "rein in the PC culture" within the Department of Education and NSW Board of Studies.
"Under Labor, up to half the curriculum in some subjects focuses on a purely indigenous perspective, including emotive terms such as 'British invasion', as well as 'Survival Day' instead of 'Australia Day'," Mr Stoner, the National Party leader, said.
"No one doubts the integral role indigenous people play in Australian history, but any teaching of our past must be balanced.
"Labor's political correctness in education also extends to gay causes, including the funding of reading material for children as young as five, regarding gay and lesbian parents.
"[The Premier] Morris Iemma should keep his promise and teach kids respect and responsibility, leaving controversial issues like same sex marriage and adoption to parents."
He said books about same-sex parents, used in some primary schools include My House, Going to Fair Day, Koalas on Parade and The Rainbow Cubby House, produced by the Learn to Include project, were funded by the Crime Division of the NSW Attorney General's Department.
The books tell the story of a young girl with two lesbian mothers and include a visit to the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras.
A spokesman for the Attorney-General, John Hatzistergos, confirmed the department had funded the project in 2004 when the books were produced as a teaching resource to help combat bullying in schools.
The Minister for Education, John Della Bosca, said Mr Stoner had been highly selective in his use of examples from the curriculum. His strong views about Aboriginal history and sexuality "should be a case study on why you don't let a National Party politician desperate for votes write the primary school syllabus".
"This syllabus was designed in consultation with parents, teachers and many professional and community experts and has been successfully taught for nearly a decade. Historical events can be seen differently depending on your view and the syllabus requires teachers to always present a range of perspectives."
The president of the NSW Primary Principals Association, Geoff Scott, said principals and teachers had the final veto on which books were used in schools.
Books that simply reflected the gay lifestyle, as opposed to espousing it, would generally be considered acceptable for children.
However, each school would exercise discretion in consultation with parents to decide whether a book was appropriate.
"There would be a number of occasions when award winning books that are well written but have inappropriate content are not put on the shelves in schools," Mr Scott said.
"The principal and teachers would be up to speed with what community expected. The books in primary school libraries are not espousing a particular point of view or pushing values on to children. If a story written about people in same sex relationships, that's real life and provided it is at an appropriate standard, then it can be available for children."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/schools-are-too-left-wing-says-stoner/2007/05/01/1177788142434.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)