Latest Comments
Login Form
Who's Online
We have 9 guests and 1 member online- lirik
| We don't need no education....um, tests |
 |
 |
 |
| Written by joni |
| Tuesday, 19 January 2010 17:44 |
|
It looks like a showdown is looming between teachers and Julia Gillard (of Memorial Halls fame). The Opoosition Oracle is reporting that teachers who boycott the national literacy skills test could be docked wages. Ms Gillard is refusing to rule out taking action against teachers if they go through with their threat to boycott the tests and one option is to get Fair Work Australia to intervene on the grounds that industrial action outside the enterprise bargaining period is unlawful. Gillard said on ABC Radio: "The worst thing in the world is for a child to be at an underperforming school and for no one to know that, and no one to do anything about it." I am not sure where I stand on the tests, and releasing the information to the public. On one hand - yes, parents deserve to know how their school is doing. But is it fair to denigrate schools where students are from disadvantaged backgrounds, where the scores may be low but the teachers are doing amazing things for the students. I think it is best for parents to be more involved in their children's school, and to get more hands-on information than relying on a national test ranking. Hits: 174 Trackback(0)
Comments (12)
 
The Singapore educational system has its own ranking. Access this link to know more about how it works
http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_512_2005-01-03.html 2
Wed 20 Jan 2010 10:22:28 EST
I have no problem with the tests and the results being published, so long as it does not turn into a witch hunt and that the rsults cannot identify actual students or teachers.
I think it would create some accountability and while not being the answer to everything, we have to start somewhere or we go nowhere. Having said that most of you would know what I think has been the main contributor to the dumbing down of our students. 3
Wed 20 Jan 2010 12:45:22 EST
I have known some school principals who were not only excellent leaders and role models but who went out of their way to become part of the wider community. On the other hand I have known some b* awful ones who not only ignored under-performing staff but who would be bordering on the abusive if a parent dared to complain. If a ranking might encourage some of the latter to get off their derriers, then I'm all for it.
4
Wed 20 Jan 2010 13:10:55 EST
I'm all in favour of tests and rankings if they're used as a tool to address poor rankings and the reasons for them and not, as Shane rightly points out, as an excuse for a witch hunt.
As an example, a recent study in Adelaide has shown that pupils from low socio-economic backgrounds score significantly lower in numeracy and literacy. Quelle surprise! I'm afraid that because such schools would perform poorly in ranking tests, they would be subject to finger-wagging and withdrawal of funding rather than flagging a need for uncovering the underlying reasons for poor performance, which may include higher numbers of students with intellectual disabilities, for instance. 5
Thu 21 Jan 2010 13:31:06 EST
Jane, I'm 6 of one 1/2 a dozen of the other on this one. I have taught in schools where kids were mostly from non-English speaking backgrounds and 'latch-key'. Yet they had such incredibly supportive parents who wanted them 'to do well' that it would surprise me if most didn't go on to university (in the days that a uni education was free and based on merit).
This compares with a general lower socio economic group who are not encouraging, who do not want their children to become uppity. Those who have never read a book and so do not read to their children. Jane, I suspect that everyone already knows 'those schools'. The idea is that where there is a history of underachieving that these schools will be 'supervised'. A school principal has only X number of excuses before the buck stops with him/her. If they need extra resources then why haven't they applied for them? I was a disability advocate for 10yrs and my major fights were against school principals who didn't want to go to the bother of filling in the paperwork. 6
Thu 21 Jan 2010 13:46:23 EST
I'm not at all clear on what such tests are supposed to test: Underperforming schools or underperforming kids.
A school in a disadvantaged area (where, say, half the kids are delinquents, whose idea of a good time is tagging everything in sight) will no doubt perform poorly in testing comparative to a school in Double Bay. But what exactly does this tell us: That that the kids are the product of their environment in Shitsville or the that the teachers at Shitsville High can't teach? In order to get reliable data about teacher performance, you'd have to swap-out the teaching staff between the two schools for a couple of years and then run the tests again. This would would probably reveal whether it's the teachers or the area that's at fault, but that's never gonna happen. Until then, it's just a shaming exercise. Ona an ill thought-out one at that. 7
Thu 21 Jan 2010 13:47:29 EST
FWIW Evan, my understanding (as our Julia keeps saying) is to compare like with like. When you have data from a large number of schools from many different socio-economic areas, there is sufficient data to be able to detect anomalies (without having to "swap-out teachers"). So, for example, if the schools from high unemployment areas in each state are compared, you should expect to see similar results. Anomalies point to schools or areas that need further analysis, perhaps resulting in resources being made available to correct the anomaly.
Comparing Brisbane Grammar with Woodridge State High doesn't yield anything meaningful, but comparing Woodridge SHS, with Kingston SHS and Inala SHS and their interstate equivalents may yield useful information. The problem with the data is that the MSM will create "league tables" comparing schools from different areas giving misleading results. Woodridge High could have better teachers than Brisbane State High, but BSHS is always going to outscore Woodridge for obvious reasons (BSHS has a selective entry policy for out of area students). 8
Thu 21 Jan 2010 16:05:50 EST
I must admit, I have done a complete 180 on this issue. I believed at first that this would be good, that more informaton is better. I have read a fair amount about thi, and have come to the conclusion that I have many reservations.
No time to elaborate, but this page (and site, has some good reasoning http://soscanberra.com/league-...d-inequity Too much information can be dangerous, particularly when a hungry media pack get hold of it and decide to craft their own conclusions. There are too many variables too make a simple table. Thats it in a nutshell imho 9
Thu 21 Jan 2010 16:27:03 EST
Hello blokes, Evan, Bacchus and Tom.
I am inclined to go with Bacchus, if only because I've been on all sides, a teacher, a parent and a disability advocate. For most schools (at least in Victoria) one does not have a choice about which school as you are 'zoned'. If one school in the same area performs at a substantially lower level then it is a perfectly reasonable question to ask why. I have seen schools which were given a 'bad rep' because the school principal was good at PR and lots of articles in the local newspapers running down the other school where the kids were zoned. I have seen private schools in action stating 'you wouldn't want to send your children there...'. Yet when the TERs were announced, the local high school kids equalled the private school results. As I said previously, there are teachers in disadvantaged areas who use the excuse of the children's background to be slackers. There are teachers to deliberately want to go into disadvantaged areas because they think that have something to offer, and their enthusiasm is very much appreciated. I guess that we'll have to see how it all pans out but one thing that will not help is some from teachers' unions who don't want anyone to know that there are problems. 10
Thu 21 Jan 2010 17:02:44 EST
Min @6, the trouble is that often it's a very tortuous business to squeeze extra funding or other help out of the Department.
Son #2 is a case in point. Despite a lot of research by the school and the speech therapist before he was enrolled, nobody was aware that there was a unit which had been formed several years previously to deal with language disordered kids. It was well funded, but it seems that the powers that be weren't all that keen for it to be used. We found out about it because the speech therapist spotted a small report buried in the teacher's trade mag inviting parents, caregivers and educators of language disordered kids to a conference in Adelaide. The Department knew the school had a student with a severe language disorder, but not once did they make the information available so that the staff, who had to deal with my son every day, could have access to advice or the abundant materials to enable them either to understand the nature of his disability or the means to effectively help him. 11
Thu 21 Jan 2010 19:11:50 EST
Jane, pleased to learn that your son eventually received the assistance he needed and that he has the support of the school and staff. I know that the education system is somewhat different in SA (sister in law lives in Adelaide), but had it been in Vic or NSW then it would have been the school principal's responsibility to find out what was available and then apply to the Department.
The biggest problem that I have found in NSW is non-supportive school principals. A young lad's parents and I (in my role as disability advocate) went as far as launching a case through both Human Rights (federal) and NSW Anti-Discrimination in order to obtain assistance. And the over-the-top assistance that the parents asked for? 1. to be allowed to wear either a hat or sunglasses in class *Refused (by the school principal): it would be disruptive to classroom discipline. 2. class notes to be printed on blue paper in size 14 font. *Refused: the school hadn't budgeted for the purchase of blue paper. The parents offered to supply the school with blue paper. Again refused: office staff did not have the time to print out class notes for just one child in size 14 font. Parents suggested that all class notes could be printed on blue paper in size 14 font for all children. Failing this then tape recording of class lessons. Most definitely Refused. The child was subsequently provided with a teacher' aide to sit next to their son during class which the school proceeded with without consultation with the parents or the child's specialist. If only the school principal had bothered to consult with the child's specialist (which the specialist offered to do, even offering to come to the school to provide a FOC lecture). The parents eventually gave up and moved to Queensland. Of course one of the worst things that you can do for an Asperger's is to make them stand out as 'different' and what would be worse for a child of above average intelligence but to have some adult nursemaid them in class. This same school now has a new principal and now has a specialist unit to assist children with Asperger's Syndrome. And this is what it was all about..that the Department argued that Asperger's wasn't a 'real' disability. It is now recognised as a genuine disability. 12
Fri 22 Jan 2010 09:49:26 EST
Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
|
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/hide comments
