Recently I ran a year 10 Sciene class teaching acceleration. Whilst some student struggled to understand the concept, others had already completed a workbook of example problems.

Knowing up front that this class had diverse levels of scientific and mathematical understanding, I relied heavily on IT resources. For those struggling I used models and films ( on computer) to help visualise and test the concepts. For those advanced, I prepared “self diredted” tasks.
Lots of prep work ( up till eleven the night before) lots of logistics, lots of one-on-one time to diagnose where students were at and direct them to the right resources…. and I am sure a number of students still felt they did as get much of my time or attention as they needed…. and in this example there were no students with serious behavioural issues.

Now I am only a student teacher- but I think we are asking too much of teachers, and if we are to keep the single classroom approach, I look forward to seeing a model that looks at how we would support teachers through this. Otherwise we have to expect mediocre results & burnt out teachers.

Another interesting idea in the national curriculum is the move away from different classes for students with different rates of development. Whilst clearly we could all support the aim of giving all students an equal quality of education, there is no doubt there will be increased burden on teachers who are trying to accommodate both kids who struggle with the basics and those who are advanced learners.

I’m unconvinced of the idea that putting “students with different rates of development” is necessarily the best, or even a good, way to achieve “giving all students an equal quality of education”.

I’ll come at this from two perspectives. The first was as a schoolkid myself, which pretty much coincided with the Cain-Kirner government in Victoria. Joan Kirner was, if I recall correctly, Education Minister before she became Premier. In any case, maybe it’s entirely coincidental that Kirner, somebody who went to University High and went to university at 16, presided over an era of “mixed ability classes” where any kind of streaming was effectively squashed.

I don’t think it served anyone well – the more academically-gifted students who were bored witless and in some cases spent a fair bit of their time as de facto assistant teachers, the ones who struggled who were also bored and frustrated (though I recall there being much more done for that group than the “gifted” ones), and finally that large group in the middle who got neglected.

I understand that there are many problems with streaming. But trying to cater for students with vastly different levels of ability in a particular area in the one classroom, without compromising the education of some of those students, is going to be very hard to achieve.

I’m off to volunteer in Bradfield for Ms Gemell today, but I’ll probably post some observations of my own on this later.

I’m for national testing- but I think we have to re-design the testing so that it truly reflects the outcomes we are trying to achieve. Literacy and Maths skills – yes, but also let’s test how well our students are learning to anayse, their understanding of scientific ideas, their understanding of the world around them.

There is no doubt national testing has an impact. It has the impact of focusing the teaching toward what is being tested. So if you are testing only 2 areas, it is highly likely these areas will be preferentially treated – especially if linked to a league table which is percieved to have consequences for schools reputation.

When testing ( and therefore Schools) are focused on numeracy & literacy, time for measured debate and self-directed activities (Say in Science or History) which are required to foster critical thinking skills could be constrained.
2 Factors which help to overcome this is the un-cluttering of the curriculum and provisions for greater teacher control.

On the issue of Teacher qualification, many teachers these days arrive at teaching like I have- as a second career/after a general Undergrad Degree. They do a Grad Dip Education( 1 year) which provides both content on the principles of learning and education, and content related to teaching their chosen specialist areas.
Personally, before I started my Grad Dip, I put far too much emphasis on content knowledge. Now, I truly understand that education is a complex field in itself, and has a great body of evidence based research about how students learn, and how educational organisations function.

I believe that the current qualification system is not the key issue – but that iprovements could be made in providing ongoing support, training and resources to teachers. For example- I know teachers that have fabulous deep content knowledge and great teaching skills, but no idea when it comes to technology- so they can’t “switch on” to the things that get today’s generation of kids engaged and it seems not enough time is spent helping them get from fear to competence… not to mention that for most schools IT resources are not any where near what they need to be to keep up with the way we use technology in our everyday world.

I hope we get the chance to discuss some of the other important areas of the Education Revolution soon ( if there is the will and the interest)

PS Craig, enlighten me – I love a little irony.

A master’s in the subject being taught, or a master’s from a School of Education?

…”or equivalent”…I think, is the phrase you’re looking for there..?

In crude terms, an American Masters, or an Australian/British Master’s, Japerz?

Serious question, ‘cos we all know that degrees ain’t degrees…I’ve seen plenty of people in Australia with 4-year undergraduate degrees that look to me equivalent or even moreso than a ‘Masters’ from many U.S. State universities…not being parochial, just sayin’ that these degrees aren’t so neatly internationalised as many like to believe.

BTW, what other profession requires a Master’s degree for entry-level positions? And how’s their starting salaries compare?

Lemme put it this way: if you’re serious about the Master’s idea, you’re effectively arguing for:

a) No teachers under (about) age 25 in any high school
b) Teachers have had about 20 years of institutionalised, formalised education before they then go back into an institutionalised, formalised environment to institutionalise and formalise the next generation…
c) Paying teachers like Masters-qualified professionals, or saying it’s OK to pay teachers far less for an equivalent qualification than accounting, law and other professional and semi-professional settings.
d) Massive shortages in most if not all teaching subjects, mass-cancellation of many subjects, or otherwise mass-rorting and short-cutting of the system when schools find there aren’t enough Masters-qualified staff to go around.

Just checkin’ – those are some of the general parameters you’re invoking, yes?

If you are interested in fostering a generation of kids who have the life skills to be the next leaders, academics and good citizens, then this type of testing is not going to cut it.

Honestly, kids are not going to be able to be leaders if they don't know the core areas of mathematics and language – which these tests appear to me to be designed to assess across whole school systems. I hope that kids do learn the basics – many kids don't currently.

In relation to the numeracy part of NAPLAN, I’m not sure how teachers would be incentivised to teach “to the test”, as the subject areas of the test questions were pretty core material. I didn’t see anything which might be considered unusual. There were “calculator” and “non-calculator” elements to the test for later years (yr 9 and maybe yr 7?) but that’s hardly a stretch if it isn’t already part of the curriculum.

Most importantly, different state curriculums may have taught different things in different years, and this may change. I don’t see why this should necessarily be a negative thing.

Personally, I like the idea of schools being able to choose whatever curriculum they wish subject to certain minimum standards.