The Queensland government is pondering the introduction of the ‘Teach for Australia‘ model into state schools. The idea, trialled in Victoria and inspired by an American programme, is to fast track graduates with Bachelor’s degrees in any discipline into classrooms after six weeks’ training, with subsequent training delivered while they’re in the workforce.
I’ve been teaching at tertiary level for over a decade, I’ve taught Education students, and I’ve got family and friends who are or have been teachers. I don’t think I’d feel at all confident about going into a classroom after six weeks with a PhD as well as a few other degrees! – I’d be very well aware that I know little about child psychology and development, or classroom and behaviour management, let alone bearing the very weighty responsibilities for students’ well being and health and safety. I doubt all that could be taught in six weeks, and I doubt that you can learn it effectively through some sort of apprenticeship model, no matter how many ‘guides’ and ‘mentors’ you have.
University faculties, to my certain knowledge, already have great difficulty placing students on prac because of the additional workload on their classroom teachers, and stories about the difficulties involved are legion from teachers, academic supervisors and education students.
I believe there’s been no evaluation of the Victorian programme yet, and it’s not hard to see this as a simplistic twist on the movie fantasy of idealistic teacher saves poor kids’ lives script. The reality is that, no matter how idealistic, beginning graduate teachers have a high propensity to leave the profession in their initial years, because they’re already not adequately supported. Similarly, what disadvantaged schools need is stability, experience and professional skills in the workforce, and the fact that’s hard to secure is probably the real justification for Anna Bligh’s consideration of this policy.
How this all meshes in with Bligh’s overall goal of more rigorous teacher registration and qualifications is also a question still to be answered.
As well as insulting the professionalism of teachers, this also cynically cheapens the idealism of those who might be attracted to the programme in the cause of saving Bligh’s electoral skin. It’s particularly depressing because her earlier contribution to school education in Queensland, though susceptible to a range of legitimate criticisms, was the outstanding contribution she’d made as a Minister.
The results of studies of America’s programs suggest it is not very successful there, and they imply that enthusiasm on the part of entrants is a key factor in any positive results, rather than any inherent skill or intelligence. Then there is the tendency for the imported teachers to leave after their service period.
That said, part of the claimed benefit lies in the fact that TfA teachers are given some leeway in methods of teaching, and that they are often well-educated in the relevant fields. Those commenters who have some connection with non-tertiary education will be aware of maths teachers who have no maths qualifications, for example, staying one lesson ahead of the students.
What really needs to happen is a wide-ranging cultural change in Australia’s attitudes towards teaching and teachers. Increasing their pay is a pre-requisite, IMHO, because then it will become a more popular choice of career, driving up university entry rankings, which increases ‘status desirability’, and so on in a virtuous circle. Merit pay is a probable positive too.
Most of the Education students I’ve taught are very enthusiastic about becoming teachers. I haven’t come across any who were doing it for the fantastic pay! But even if it were the case that enthusiasm might bring short term benefits (and I’d like to see the evidence), teaching in disadvantaged schools can be a very difficult environment indeed, and many graduates leave (or try to transfer) because they lack the skills and adequate support structures – enthusiasm clashing with a disappointing reality can be a disillusioning brew in any situation.
I’m not convinced about merit pay, but this seems to me to be pure soundbite politics from Bligh, and designed cynically to feed into the cycle of perception that ‘it’s all teachers’ fault’ and to play to the abnegation of both social and parental responsibility which is a most unfortunate part of our current culture.
I’m all for serious discussion of improvements in schooling and teaching, but this doesn’t seem to me to be anything of the sort.
Mark, since the studies (sorry, no link, I’m writing from my wife’s computer because my own is kaput and so have nothing saved locally) were comparing these new teachers to established ones, partly because the schools targeted were difficult ones that were avoided by novice teachers normally, that’s why they found a difference. IIRC.
“I’m all for serious discussion of improvements in schooling and teaching, but this doesn’t seem to me to be anything of the sort.”
I agree. It’s groping for a quick fix, based – as you say – on a romanticised view of the ‘outsider’ teacher exemplified by films like To Sir, with Love et al. Yes, better teachers are a key component in improving our educational systems, but this program is timid, fiddling at the edges rather than anything like the promised “education revolution”.
Merit pay, to my mind, seems a natural way to increase teacher incomes. We want them paid more, but teachers are not created (or made) equal, and should not be paid equally. Keep current levels as minima, and go from there. Of course, I don’t think governments should have any say in how the merit and pay is assessed, but that’s my libertarian prejudice showing through. However, it enables me to sidestep all the problems that MySchool.edu.au personifies, and which are the first objection to measuring teachers’ contribution.
In Queensland, at least, Jarrah, from my knowledge (and it’s anecdotal, but everyone I know who’s been involved in teaching tells much the same story), the disadvantaged schools are precisely the ones novice teachers are likely to get assigned to, because they’re hard to staff. There’s probably a good case for novice teachers to work in less difficult environments, because the first few years in any profession are hard enough in the best of circumstances, I’d have thought, but there are endless problems in the allocation of staff to schools stemming from all sorts of factors. What worries me about this programme (among many other things) is that those participating in it will be in far less of a position than those who’ve been through an education degree or a Dip.Ed. to know what’s ahead of them.
The other point I’d make, aside from the whole pay issue, is that resourcing and workload are vital. Class sizes, for instance, are normally discussed in terms of attention to individual students, but there a lot of other ramifications of larger classes – more marking and grading, reporting, moderation, meeting with parents, dealing with behavioural/personal/developmental problems, consultation with colleagues and supervisors etc. There appears to have been a decline in support staff such as aides, specialist teachers of various types, all of which impacts on the ability of an individual classroom teacher to do their job. Schools, like many other workforces, have also proliferated the art of the endless meeting.
How about we adopt the “Teach for Finland” model, where all teachers are required to have a postgraduate qualification in teaching.
You certainly shouldn’t feel confident. Indeed, it isn’t just a silly idea that will do nothing but waste a bit of money, because there is a very decent chance it will in fact have negative consequences.
But who cares about data when the idea sounds catchy? More de-revolution.
hi mark,
i agree that teach for australia is not a long-term ‘fix’ in any sense but i’m not sure your analysis focuses on that. firstly they are not going to ‘primary’ schools but upper secondary so the points on child pyschology etc. appear to have less merit. my understanding is that with a bachelor degree you can get a grad dip in education in one year with 6 months prac anyway. i’d be interested to see the actual difference in contact hours between that grad-dip and the TFA intensive programme before they go into schools. it seems to me that the virtue of TFA is to attract different people into teaching – and anecdotally (I have three friends in the programme) it has worked against that criteria. but still to my mind that doesn’t answer the questions:
will they be bad teachers?
will they stay in system (and is that an important metric)?
will this undermine broader reform of education?
these are questions i would have expected you to ask in your post and to answer with reference to the british and american experiences of a similar programme rather than you stating your personal opinions (although it’s your blog so of course you are most welcome to! it’s just i read you often and like it when you have facts and stuff)
Teach for Australia is being taught through Melbourne University’s Education Faculty. Now if I remember correctly this is the faculty that wanted 2 year teacher training, with students spending a full year in a school unpaid. This was only kyboshed when it was pointed out that unpaid teachers could be personally sued for injuries that occurred in their classroom. A pay cheque indicates that the employer approves of your presence.
Teach for Australia is 6 weeks in a classroom then 2 years on somewhat reduced hours earning $40,000 instead of $58,000. Avoiding a HECS debt of ????? and have a guaranteed job. As a student teacher Teach For Australia is a good deal.
Melbourne Uni has churned out TAFE Dip Ed’s who attend 6 hours a week for 2 years, so its possible to get through the material in 6 weeks. Many a good teacher has said that a Dip Ed was a licence to teach rather than an opportunity to learn skills that translated into a classroom.
On balance Teach or Australia cheapens all the qualified teachers out there and reduces their bargaining power
@7 and @8 – Indeed. The thrust of thinking on all this a few years ago (including from the Queensland government) was that a one year Dip Ed was insufficient, and that two years would be much more desirable.
alexinbangkok, thanks for pointing out that the graduates aren’t destined for primary schools as well. I’ve clarified that by amending the post. That wasn’t clear to me from the report I saw last night. But I don’t accept the point that an adequate knowledge of child psychology, behaviour management, etc, is less necessary for teaching in secondary rather than primary schools.
Forgot to say that at this stage Teach for Australia got additional funding, its more expensive than a Dip Ed. source The Age Mon 15th Feb
Re Alex in Bangkok – the peer reviewed education research says that children taught by Teach For America teachers do not learn as much as traditionally trained teachers
As I recall, a ‘six week wonder’ program was trialled in Queensland in about 1968. It didn’t work then (there was only one intake) and there’s no reason why it would work now.
And they say ‘history’ is important.
It’s my undertsanding that the 6 weeks is very full-on and is more like a term equivalent. You could argue that a term is still too short. After talking with some of the TFA students I would be happy for them to teach my children. I taught for 20 years and saw a lot of very ineffective teachers and don’t think that the TFA students will necessarily be worse than the average.
The money the govt have pumped into the scheme is massive and much more than for a normal uni course. The other universities obviously hate the scheme, especially those that bid for it and missed out!
The students will be supported with a reduced teaching load so that they can continue with their studies and the schools will also be supported through extra funds to ensure the mentoring occurs.
I expect the TFA pilot will be successful but won’t be able to be replicated because of the cost.
@5, for what it’s worth, Teach for Australia Associates graduate from the program with a Postgraduate Diploma in Teaching.
This is really very simple. Anyone thinking that this is even approaching a good idea may like to consider if they’d be happy to go to a doctor who had 6 weeeks training, consult a lawyer who had six weeks training, or get an architect to design their house who had six weeks training.
If the answer is no, why would you be happy to send your children to be taught by a teacher who had only six weeks training?
What really needs to happen is a wide-ranging cultural change in Australia’s attitudes towards teaching and teachers.
That’s exactly right. The idea of miracle cures – “we can change the curriculum!”, “we can pay everyone differently!”, “We can do X to students!” – is naive foolishness, pathetically attempting to mask the fact that teaching as a profession is continually being devalued (both financially and culturally) by governments and citizens.
Until we start valuing education and teaching, we should not expect the sector to turn around (whilst also recognising that Australia currently has one of the best education systems and outcomes globally).
The cut off is so low, education BAs and Dip Eds are not viewed as a vocation, so much as what you do when you can’t get into the coursejob you want. And that view is hurting intake; my father’s partner is an education lecturer at a QLD uni, and the stories she tells of some students…
I studied the sociology of education whilst doing my BA, and my father has been a primary school teacher for about forty years. I have great (albeit clear-eyed) respect for the profession of teaching and the institutions of education, and many, many times thought about leaving the private sector and completing a dip ed.
However, I currently earn about 85k a year (I’m 28), with plenty of room for improvement. I could do any number of post grad qualifications that would allow me to take a part time loading and continue my full time job, additionally without having to take over a month off at a time for ‘prac’. Degrees, also, that will increase my earning capacity, rather than decrease it.
I’m not trying to paint myself as god’s gift to pedagogy, however I do a lot of ‘enablement’ in my current job, and I’m told that I good at it. But people like myself, with specific undergrad training in a subject field, will never enter education because:
a)Pathetic salary for qualification
b)No stability of location/school
c)Terrible treatment when new to the vocation
d)Qualification options demand an “all-or-nothing” approach.
e)Lots of bureacracy
f)No respect in the wider community, and nothing to compensate for it
And I think there’s a lot of people like me, and I think it’s a damn shame.
If they want to get teachers to stay, they have to pay them decent wages. I finished my teaching degree in 1998 and did casual teaching for 12 months. During the school holidays I found a job in a govt department. Within 12 months I was earning more than I had as a 1st year casual with 4 years training (which put me a couple of levels up the pay scale). Today despite moving States, changing jobs and starting at the bottom in admin again, and having time off with two children I am once again in a position in the public service which pays more than I would be getting if I had stayed as a teacher for the past 12 years and I’ve only been in this particular job for 18 months. It’s just too easy for well trained people with the skills you get from a teaching degree to find better paying jobs elsewhere. The ones who stay are the ones with a real passion for teaching. I enjoyed teaching, but as a casual 6 weeks is a long time without income.
A question from someone that doesn’t know the situation outside of Adelaide: you don’t have enough teachers in Queensland? Specifically, what subjects?
My partner has just returned from 18 months teaching English and SOSE overseas, and found the situation here in Adelaide unbelievably tight, with the only deficit in teaching stocks are specialist senior maths and science. All other fields there’s a surplus, and we’ve been told by someone who used to be in DECS that “they” (whether this is up to the government or the uni, I’m not sure) need to simply stop training teachers here.
It’s that bad here that she’s decided to try to move into others fields.
Patrickg and Mindy both sum up what I’ve found as well.
I have utmost respect for the people who do teach effectively at a pay rate that’s roughly half mine.
In some ways the enthusiasts who make learning a pleasure make up for the many who are time-filling until another job. Making it a respected profession isn’t just about pay, it is also about ensuring teachers are allowed to do their job and as Mark says – being given the tools.
It’ll be interesting how these experiments pan out – FWIW I predict another generation of disappointed trainee teachers who will be put off entirely after being thrown in at the deep end.
Graduates from the Teach for Australia program at Melbourne University will be employed as teachers because they are Melbourne Uni graduates ie the best Victorian school leavers in their cohort. Victorian principals have been hiring who they wanted for the past 2 decades and they prefer Melbourne or Monash graduates. Pity help the teaching graduates from Bendigo & Wodonga & Ballarat & Footscray.
It would be interesting to hear about any mature age graduate entrants to the Queensland or Victorian scheme who were looking for a change of career. I’d suggest a six week intensive versus the alternative would have particular appeal to someone who wasn’t daunted by confronting 30 year nine’s.
Well, Pablo, I find it very appealing – but I’m not sure how it would help me in a classroom, or more importantly; help the kids, and I think that’s more important.
My feeling is the Melbourne University scheme won’t churn out any mature age graduate entrants any time soon, there is a long queue of 22 year olds.
What do you mean by mature age graduate entrants? Personal observation is that principals are reluctant to hire newly trained people approaching 55 because that cohort of teachers can retire. Experienced classroom teachers in their 50s can get 3, 6 or 12 month contracts because they need no supervision.
As someone who works in industry but with skills with and some experience in teaching maths/science content, there’s no way I would consider giving up my career for a vocation as a teacher. The points patrickg raises cover many of the major reasons, but I think the lifestyle impact (e.g. weekend sporting events, being a role model, etc) is also a major one.
What would be of interest would be part time involvement specifically focused in one subject at senior level. e.g. 1 day a week to come in and teach a senior physics class, possibly with a supervisory teacher. I think both the students and the teachers would benefit from a closer relationship with ‘industry’, while professionals could get a sense of fulfillment/break from the monotony of the office without involving dramatic lifestyle changes and avoiding many of patrickg’s points.
adrian @ 14 – well you wouldn’t go see a foot doctor for a throat problem either but the system at the moment has to resort to english teachers teaching mathematics so the present situation isn’t exactly great either.
I think its a reasonably high risk program, but with sufficient backup (in case it all goes pear shaped) its worth piloting. Perhaps having an experienced teacher with no expertise in the subject matter paired up with the trainee who has both knowledge and passion in the subject area for the first few months would benefit both.
If the stories of some teachers who are forced to teach in areas outside their training only being a week or two ahead of what they are teaching in the classroom are true then they are probably significantly behind some of their students.
Teacher pay is definitely an issue, though perhaps these programs are aimed at professionals who are looking for a career change and are no longer concerned as much about pay. Also perhaps we should considerably increasing the pay of teachers who are teach in fields there is a shortage and have the qualifications to do so. Might encourage existing teachers to retrain in other fields as well as pull people in from industry.
All standard engineering degrees take four full time years no matter which engineering discipline is being taught. It was exactly the same when I started my degree fifty years ago. The length of time has done nothing to do with “what xxx engineers really need to to be able to do before they start work. It is all to do with the need to give your engineering discipline the same status as the other disciplines.
As a result the key question in setting the curriculum was “how the hell to we fill up 4 years?” There was a lot of padding in my course and no allowance for people who could learn faster than others.
It is not just engineering. I remember well my wife and her friends complaining about the time wasted on trivia in her dip Ed course. The problem is made worse by unions and professional associations fighting anything that might justify lower wages or loss of jobs to more appropriately trained people. (Think of the fuss about nurse practitioners.) To add to the problem tertiary institutes have become a business that grows by increasing course length or convincing employers that additional qualifications are necessary.
Asking whether graduates need 6 weeks, one year or even two years before they start working as teachers is the wrong question. The real question is “what do teachers have to be able to do before they start?” It might be useful to ask teachers in the early stages of their career:
1. What parts of their course have found to be really useful?
2. What would they havce liked to have known before they started teaching?
3. What, if anything, would they leave out if it meant they could enter the paid workforce sooner?
Only once this information is available can you start talking meaningfully about what the most effective way of teaching this would be, how long it needs to take and what the best way of easing new teachers into the workforce might be. We might also talk about how competency will be measured. If we are trying to do something about the education business padding out courses and wasting student time (to grow the business) it might be smart to do the measuring externally.
We will continue to have problems attracting maths and science teachers while we insist that they spend another year running up their HECCs dept instead of joining the properly paid workforce.
“well you wouldn’t go see a foot doctor for a throat problem either but the system at the moment has to resort to english teachers teaching mathematics so the present situation isn’t exactly great either.”
Not exactly an argument in favour of putting undertrained teachers in front of a class. Perhaps you would feel OK in letting your children be taught by a 6 week trained teacher.
Saying the present system ‘isn’t great’ is hardly argument in favour of a proposal that undoubtedly would make it even worse.
Interesting. Need to learn child psychology? Yeah good idea. The fact that most of the psychologists I’ve encountered have a snake’s empathy combined with the emotional insight of a brick is irrelevant.
.
And of course we need these credentials to weed out all the non-hackers. Let’s see, Mark Twain, he never even graduated from high school what the Hell does he know about literature? And Eric Hobsbawm, well PhD okay. But I don ‘t feel right about letting him teach a high school history class until he’s attained Cert IV level in Teen Angst Bullshit 101. Eric Blair? To teach politics. Mmmph he didn’t even get into Uni.
.
Who let all these losers in for consideration? Ah Dr Phil, now there’s a winner.
‘mature age graduate entrants’… meaning people coming from other careers who qualify. Sorry to not make this clear but it seems most posts were about first time graduates entering teaching via these ‘crash’ courses. Also interested in views about the mentoring that supposedly accompanies the Queensland course.
No, for say a year 11 maths class I’d much prefer a trained mathematics teacher but apparently we don’t have enough of those.
But I don’t think that a teacher trained in a totally different discipline with no interest and little knowledge of maths would necessarily be better than someone trained in mathematics who wanted to teach, had a 6 week training course and had ongoing support and training. I would be more optimistic that the latter in the long term would be a better maths teacher (assuming the 6 week course did some filtering of people who are simply not good at being teachers). Whether in practice they stick around long enough for this to happen is another matter and something a pilot program would find out.
Importantly someone coming into maths teaching bringing in practical experience of using maths would be I think more likely to be capable of inspiring students about maths than someone whose interests lie in a totally different direction.
Until someone is prepared to say that they would consult a six week trained doctor etc etc, their arguments boil down to ‘well just about anyone can teach unlike other occupations that we regard as professions’
And Adrien’s peurile anti-credentialism is fine in theory, but I’m sure if he got sick or needed legal advice it would soon go out the window.
Well actually it doesn’t even sound fine in theory, but you know what I mean.
They tried this in Queensland the 1960s, when there was a shortage of science teachers. They were called “six week wonders”. They were a disaster.
I think you’re assuming there is nothing in common between teaching and what people entering the program would have learnt through the degree they already have as well as from the jobs they previously have had. I for example got my computer science degree in one year from a major university because of credit for subjects I had already done for another degree (engineering).
Not that in practice many programmer employers really care about a degree in computer science after you’ve had some experience. One of the smarter guys in the group I work with never finished his degree but is an expert in his field. Requiring a degree is a pretty good filter for candidates in practice, but there are exceptions.
Where its a serious life or death situation – eg doctors, nurses, engineers then obviously the bar is higher. But in other situations where the status quo isn’t that great and you can monitor the situation closely and intervene if necessary then I don’t see why programs like this should not be trialled.
“This is really very simple. Anyone thinking that this is even approaching a good idea may like to consider if they’d be happy to go to a doctor who had 6 weeeks training, consult a lawyer who had six weeks training, or get an architect to design their house who had six weeks training.”
Ho ho ho. How risible. As if school teaching requires anywhere near the intellect and ability as these real professions.
DipEd = 12 months, Bachelor of Surgery = 5 or 6 years.
Enough said.
And Adrien’s peurile anti-credentialism is fine in theory, but I’m sure if he got sick or needed legal advice it would soon go out the window.
.
I also think the idea that grammar and spelling is fine in theory but puerile in practice. What vowels go where who cares?
.
Yes! People should be qualified. But that qualification should be strictly that which requires skills and expertise and not piled on to create jobs for people who make red tape for a living. To teach a subject one needs knowledge of it and the ability to communicate it. I’ve had teachers with solid DipHead qualifications who knew neither the subject nor possessed the capacity to communicate anything. If I know history I can teach it if I can communicate it – that’s it. If I can’t communicate it then no certification will help me.
Mark – RE: “(Bligh’s) earlier contribution to school education in Queensland, though susceptible to a range of legitimate criticisms, was the outstanding contribution she’d made as a Minister.” …
As a ‘client’ of Qld’s state education systems, (and I’m pretty sure at pretty much the best standard it had to offer, what with them being the schools in her electorate, the one’s her kids went to) through those years I don’t have any trouble coming up with a “range of legitimate criticisms”, but the “outstanding contribution” bit has me stumped.
Unless you being arch, and referring to the long haul it took to get the state’s schools’ population to score bottom, or next to bottom, across the board, of the national literacies testing (mis?)adventure, in grades 3, 5, 7 and 9. You don’t get that comprehensive a result overnight: it takes, as you may be alluding to, years. Is that what you mean by ‘outstanding contribution’.
Over to you – Anna Bligh’s greatest education minister hits:
Adrien,
You’d make a horrible teacher. Teachers need to both understand (not just know) the material as well as understand how people learn the material.
That, however, is a good point.
On the related topic of training – I know my customer has understood my training and the instrument when they are in turn able to teach their colleagues how to effectively use both the gear and the software. My own methods of training/teaching vary a hell of a lot on a site-to-site basis due in part to the very point Desipis emphasised – how people learn! What we do with an academic customer is vastly different to a low-end manufacturer.
I’m lucky in that I usually train small groups who are generally interested/willing participants. This is by no means the case for a high-school class of 35 trying to struggle through Physics. I wouldn’t even dream of teaching such a class unless I’d spent a considerable amount of time learning a whole variety of techniques and practical tricks. I just don’t think such a short course will work – and worse, I think it will just dis-hearten those who do try it (who might otherwise make good teachers).
You’d make a horrible teacher.
.
Those I’ve taught gimme full marks. Sorry.
.
Teachers need to both understand (not just know) the material
.
A pedantic distinction that’s immaterial. If you don’t understand something, you don’t really know it.
.
as well as understand how people learn the material.
.
As in communicate it? Real communication requires that one understands what has been said. Yes?
.
There’s a point at which credentialism becomes a mode by which a guild protects its members exclusive hold on something. This country is credential wild.
Now you’re justing making up the meaning of “know“. Indicating the comprehensiveness of knowledge & understanding needed by a teacher (when compared to that required by students) to effectively teach a topic is hardly pedantic when attempting to identify and implement a minimum standard expected of teachers.
There’s a big difference between understanding what someone has said and learning it.
Now you’re justing making up the meaning of “know“.
.
Am I? You link to a definition of a word that’s s’posed to be different from ‘understand’ and the first synonym explaining said word’s meaning is … understand.
.
There’s a big difference between understanding what someone has said and learning it.
.
Well I didn’t conflate those definitions if you read my sentence carefully. But I’m curious, wherein lies this difference of which you speak?
.
I still fail how courses in psychobabble do anything to promote knowledge or understanding. They seem more dispensaries for jargon. What did Nietzsche say about jargon? That was the language of ignorance masquerading as understanding.
The money spent on this program would go a long way towards giving existing teachers higher pay and better conditions. The lack thereof – in relation to other tertiary trained professions – are the REAL cause of declining teacher numbers.
Educational psychobabblers would tell you that not all students learn through the same mode Adrien, you can be the best oral communicator in the world but if a student learns primarily through the visual sense or by doing then your teaching will not have an impact.
@Adrien
Then Nietzsche, at least in this instance, was a putz. Jargons are shorthand expressions of complex concepts that save communication time for people in the same field, and carpenters, engineers and seamstresses have their own jargons just as often as academics do. Jargons are extremely useful.
Sure, jargon can also be used as an ingroup/outgroup marker and as a method of obfuscation in the service of obstruction (see Sir Humphrey in Yes, Minister for ultimate example), and pretenders can bandy about jargon words in an attempt to appear to be part of the ingroup – but this can happen with any slang, dialect or creole. Nietzsche was being a snob.
Educational psychobabblers would tell you that not all students learn through the same mode Adrien
.
Did I suggest otherwise?
.
Jargons are shorthand expressions of complex concepts that save communication time for people in the same field, and carpenters, engineers and seamstresses have their own jargons just as often as academics do. Jargons are extremely useful.
.
Indeed I realize this. That is true but your points viz obfuscation are equally true. Which truism applies depends on the situation. I don’t know how many times I’ve encountered a jargonmeister who is unable to explain what they mean in other terms.
.
I think this and unnecessary credentialism are related. It’s a mode by which technocrats conceal what they don’t know and appear to solve problems without actually solving them.
.
Iorarua’s comment above viz better pay is telling. Paying good teachers what they deserve is probably not feasable. But it seems to me that we could bring in the tax exemptions available to defense force personelle to compensate. That said we need good teachers. And some understanding of what that entails.
.
I have a couple friends with postgrad degrees frustrated that they can’t teach because of the lack of a diploma. They also complain that the curricula for attaining said certificate is ridiculous. These aren’t Tory culture warriors. Both of ‘em are Committed Lefty Ratbags.
.
But never mind.
Synonym doesn’t mean exactly the same or replaceable in all contexts. Indicating a differentiation between two synonyms would imply I’m using a meaning not common between the two words. Such as:
Understand: 4. You say that you understand something when you know why or how it happens.
This meaning is not part of the word “know”. However it is an important part of teaching the “something”.
Jargon can be used to disguise ignorance, however it is also incredible useful for communicating subtle but important differences between related concepts. Of course one must be able to perceive such nuances in order to understand the role jargon plays in effective communication.
thanks billie – would love to read it – link? titles? name of authors?
Fascinating thread. Reminds me of the ennui exhibited by new academics when they are told they have to attend a 2 day workshop in teaching. Like, what does someone with a PhD in Marine Biology need to know about something as pathetically unchallenging as teaching?
Then of course in the workshops they make total asses of themselves and can’t even prepare a simple lesson plan.
Teaching at school must be several orders of magnitude more difficult, because most of the students are there against their will thanks to changes to our income support rules that make schools compulsory childcare centres for anyone under 25. Learn how to teach high school kids in 6 weeks? Only a politician could propose such a ridiculous idea with a straight face.
Indeed, Ken. Communication and teaching are not the same thing.
Things like the level that a particular topic needs to be pitched at, what will illustrate it, the diversity of backgrounds and interests in a class, the coherence and flow of material, what is an essential basis for later understanding, the relationship between content, analytical skills and assessment, etc… There’s a lot more stuff academics have to think about.
The fact that many just assume that they can teach because of their subject area expertise is undoubtedly related to the other fact that we all know that a lot are shockers when it comes to teaching.
What Ken Lovell said. In particular:
But I suggest:
Might be a an unnecessary distraction from the central point that most of the kids are there against their will. After all, you have to ‘experience’ education before you appreciate it. Something about it being a ‘merit good’.
I have an issue with slogans (eech) but not necessarily the idea per se.
Why cant potential teachers be fast tracked through intensive courses? In fact they all should be – why waste a year on a Grad Dip – get the teachers out there. Is the uiversity cycle the a ONLY way someone cleans knowledge? This is a nonsense.
There are an enormous number of persons who could contribute through such programs and continue esp. our older workers in employment.
Frankly (with due diligence), I think we can afford to be innovative and less precious.
Just another example of anti-intellectualism in Australia.
We’d never let someone with six weeks training loose on the bodies of our children, but their minds…well that’s OK, let’s not get precious about this..
Yes Fascinated, it would be so much cheaper and quicker if we gave each student a good book. And perhaps a ‘hotline’ for those can’t read or simply don’t want to.
Let’s keep it very, very simple. Happy now?
I hope it’s non-spin cycle, though I doubt it these days.
Guys, whoa there. Why do university courses need to take three to four years – believe you me #51 Adrian, I not anti towards intellectism but lets actually use our intellects. Our children deserve lots of strategies, not just ‘the norm’.
#52 Wpd – Please don’t patronise me – I dont take kindly to put downs – no one is remotely suggesting that “it would be so much cheaper and quicker if we gave each student a good book. And perhaps a ‘hotline’ for those can’t read or simply don’t want to”. Different ideas for teacher training delivery, for the desired outcomes are essential (unless you want to preserve mediocrity of intellectual discourse).
Fascinated when it comes to ‘mediocrity of intellectual discourse’ you seem to take the cake. Tis why I patronise you, at least in your terms.
As for ‘teacher training’ as opposed to ‘teacher education’ you seem locked in the past. Please try to keep up.
btw this is the plan that Labor in SA have released for more maths/science teachers – offering incentives for existing teachers to retrain in maths/science areas. I think this is also a pretty good idea to trial.
Ken @ 47 – good to hear the academics are now being required to take short teaching courses before lecturing. Had some shockers when I was at uni who did not even know the basics or pretty clearly had no interest nor aptitude to teach but must have been forced to. Though others were brilliant at it with little formal training.
Mark @ 48 said:
We should not also make the mistake that just because someone has great teaching skills that it means you can teach well outside of your subject area expertise. If someone had difficulty with maths/science concepts in year 11/12 can we really expect them to be able to teach it well? Or without having university level maths/science how good will their understanding of what they are teaching in a wider context be?
Most people wpd want our teachers trained, educated, exposed to rigour and so on etc etc.. Im of course gratefull for being reminded of my shortcomings and will endeavour “to keep up” – I have no intention of being locked into anyone’s terms.
Actually, chris @ 56, one of the best Maths lecturers I had at uni (40 years ago) had previously taught in high schools. He was brilliant. I think his name was John Noyce.
Fantastic! Clearly you are a ‘free spirit’. A creator of reality rather than an inheritor of same. Good for you. But what makes you think that the average student is so different from you – just ‘waiting’, presumably with baited breath, to be locked into another’s ‘reality’? You know just waiting to accept everything the ‘expert’ wants to say.
A ‘black box’ theory of what teaching is all about. But not to worry, it will all be resolved through a six week course. FGS.
WPD – it’s not all resolved through any one thing, just a combination of many. Please, its late, Im not hanging out for a sh*t fight, just find myself reflecting that we need teachers on the deck now and one size does not fit all.
No one reasonably wants to take risks with our children’s education (or that of our teachers) but we need some flexibility so we can deliver, whether you need to call it education or training – truly that was a low hit – I dont think anyone online deserves being dished for having an opinion.
Sorry Fascinated, I thought you wanted to have a serious discussion. And I agree that:
Who could disagree with that? Tis a bit like ‘motherhood and apple pie’?
As for:
I agree, we need to lower our standards. I’ll tell the teachers tomorrow that we need to be … whatever.
Sure, Chris. If subject area knowledge and the skills to teach are two separate things, then that follows, just as much as the proposition that a PhD doesn’t make someone a teacher.
(And incidentally, that’s why some universities – laudably, in my view – encourage or require PhD students to complete a concomitant Graduate Certificate in higher ed teaching.)
But, if we accept the proposition and both implications, it also follows that the remedy to a putative shortage of maths/science subject knowledge is not an abbreviated and mostly on the job form of teacher training.
I’d also note that, as far as I’m aware, the Queensland government hasn’t claimed that this initiative is a response to shortages of specialist subject area skills, but is rather an initiative to respond to the needs of disadvantaged schools.
It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to realise that the reality of this scheme is that most of the ‘training’ that these individuals undertake will be provided by their already overworked colleagues.
WPD and Adrian
I dont think we should lower our teaching standards or overwork other colleagues. Far from it. I apologise – I was being too sensitive yesterday.
Despis #45 – Can we please let go of the defintions? After all you keep linking to definitions supposedly to demonstrate the difference between ‘know’ and ‘understand’ and yet these same defintions you link to use those very words essentially interchangeably. Perhaps if you yourself in your own words articulate the significance of the difference it might be a point.
.
Otherwise it’s just semantic gymnastics. I’m simply making the point that credentialism does not necessarilly sort the good teachers from the bad. Ask me and the problem isn’t the lack of a certificate, the problem is a lack of incentives.
.
I also think you’ll find that I understand the function of jargon. It’s essentially a shorthand so that one does not have to go into excursions of term defintion in order to discuss some sepcialist field. For example, you say to the ceinematographer that we want an extreme close-up so that you don’t haveto arse around with lenses before setting up a shot. On the other hand you can use phrases like ‘craft service’ to exclude some talented outsider who doesn’t know the jargon. That happens all the time.
.
Again the point is simple and salient.
Mark – the level that a particular topic needs to be pitched at, what will illustrate it, the diversity of backgrounds and interests in a class, the coherence and flow of material, what is an essential basis for later understanding, the relationship between content, analytical skills and assessment
.
I communicate for a living essentially. What you list here is communication. I have to consider all of these things.
.
I’m not disagreeing the point that University lecturers et al may know their stuff but can’t teach it. I’ve known many teachers at all levels who can’t get what they know across. But when I think of ‘em I can’t imagine a course will help ‘em. Maybe it will.
.
Thing is I can also think of people who don’t need the course and are put off by the requirement to enrol in yet another class. Likewise there’s also the rigid structure of the whole thing. One advantage that private school students have is that those schools will import all sorts of people to share their knowledge as guests. This doesn’t happen in public schools so much. Isn’t that depriving these kids?
Mark @ 62 – I’d be much less supportive of the idea if the intent was just to recruit more teachers rather than recruit more of them in specific areas.
It’s hard. I’m never clear on whether there’s a problem with a shortage of teachers or not, when I read something like there being snobbery in place in favour of the old blue ribbon universities, I think ‘really, so there’s such a chronic oversupply of grads that they can afford such pissyness?’
The biggest advantage of attracting people mid career is that they are likely, firstly, to have had more time to contemplate their own skills and suitabilities. I feel this way about lawyers, engineers, the works. I like hte Melbourne model (if they executed it properly). Also, having worked around, they will know that most workplaces are crappy, overloaded with lousy internal paperwork and red tape, surrounded by petty bitching and inane politics, and brilliant at rewarding playaz and holding back enthusiastic and talented people.
I can’t see the salaries ever going up astronomically. What teaching could provide, because the teaching year follows the school calendar, is far better work life balance, especially for professionals with their own kids who want to spend more time with them. What mitigates against this is the constant stories we hear about teachers spending all their holidays on administration and extras.
Don’t get me wrong, I do think they should get a bit more pay, I just don’t think that’s the end of it. Bear in mind their salaries are not all that paltry compared with legal aid lawyers or prosecutors, who also perform essential jobs in areas where not enough good people can be attracted, and who must have a minimum of 4 years (or 3 year graduate degree) plus around 2-3 years experience to go for them. Nurses, child protection workers, and others also sit in a similar band.
On the comparison with other professions- this all depends on the utility of generic skills. Drs and Lawyers may train for years, but managers, policy analysts, project officers, bid directors and other private and public jobs that are senior and demanding often accept people with more generic skills who have proven their intellectual capacity through study and work.
I don’t know. Again, what really is the problem, supply, or other factors such as an inability (due to the very nature of teaching) to easily weed out and reward/remove based on quality..
The biggest advantage of attracting people mid career is that they are likely, firstly, to have had more time to contemplate their own skills and suitabilities. I feel this way about lawyers, engineers, the works.
.
Indeed. The best teacher I ever had was ex-British Army. Sounds fuddy-duddy. But he was able to command a class’s attention without ever raising his voice or resorting to putdowns. I didn;t realize for ages of course but he was obviously Jewish. The Jews and the Chinese have always been great teachers. Why is that? Perhaps if Ms Gillard put a little thought into that instead of conjuring great works and invisible laptops we might actually have an Education Revolution.
.
He didn’t regail us with anecdotes but you could tell he had life experience. And he taught weird stuff too: I learned about the Theatre of the Absurd thru him. He loved theatre and he knew what those guys were getting at. He’d lived thru it. And he’d seen the plays too.
.
My beef with the way teaching is set up is that it attracts conventionally-minded, imagination impaired types who’re merely seeking an easy life. I contrast this with the anecdotes from the British private system where various wandering, highly educated misfits, lots of spies, are brought in on a casual basis. There’s plenty of the Mr Mc’Choakumchild typeas too and they’re necessary, but I think it’s essential to have the oddballs as well.
.
Whatever happened to that British tradition whereby socialists didn’t want to wipe out elite culture but share it around. C’arn?!
“My beef with the way teaching is set up is that it attracts conventionally-minded, imagination impaired types who’re merely seeking an easy life.”
Indeed. My ‘beef’, pork or chicken stir-fried of course is with professional communicator blog commentators who make ridiculously broad generalisations based on nothing but ignorance, because if they had even the slightest understanding of the topic they’d realise that such a statement reveals this ignorance for all to see.
As someone who says they ‘essentially’ communicate for a living, I would have expected better.
“It’s hard.”
No it’s not, it’s very simple, very easy. As a society we either value teachers in the same way that we value other professions, or we don’t.
This proposal, despite the apparent need by some to complicate it, is simply a further devaluing of teachers and teaching.
If you are OK with that, fine, but let’s not pretend it is anything else.
Adrian would you please cut it out? I realize that you dislike me resultant of a cutting barb I made well over a year ago. But I have tried and for some time succeeded in pulling my head in. Will you please just put that away somewhere?
.
If you can demonstrate that my generalization, well established in the history of literature, well known to provoke countless anecdotes of Mc’Choakumchilde memories when the wines flows and the mood’s right and, perhaps later, amongst a certain generation a chorus of an old song from a precious work. This generalization is part of the common sense. Disprove it with some facts sir.
.
I don’t get paid to comment on blogs btw. So I’ll take ‘professional’ as a compliment.
What other professions? Prosecutors? Exactly how are teachers not valued in comparison to prosecutors? Nurses? Child protection managers?
Or bankers, bond traders, or tax advisers?
Which bit is simple- picking the particular professions along a scale that can pay anything from $50k (experienced prosecution lawyer, nurse) to 2 million (bond trader et al)? Or making the entire of society (and I’m sure we actually see eye to eye on the problem here, if not the simplicity of its resolution) start valuing public interest professions more than private business?
It’s hard. Doesn’t mean things can’t be improved.
I’m sorry that you take my criticism of such a ridiculous statement personally, Adrien, and I will most certainly not ‘cut it out’. And I have no idea what you are talking about re your ‘cutting barb’ for FS.
Anybody who thinks that it’s OK to denigrate an entire profession on the basis of ‘common sense’ (whatever that is) and then expects me to counter this baseless assertion with ‘facts’ is either joking or one step removed from the reality that most of us inhabit.
I am not a teacher BTW!
armagny, this is getting mighty tedious, but I’ll repeat my earlier question that nobody has answered. Why would you be prepared to have your children taught by someone with 6 weeks training, but not their medical needs dealt with by a doctor with 6 weeks training?
Adrian, calling something ridiculous doesn’t make it so, especially if it’s not. I’m sorry that you mislike peace and constructive discussion so much that you have, and with such grace and wit, declined the olive branch. I lay it on the table you make take it up at any time.
.
I have the right to denigrate, lampoon, write off as useless, generelaize as anything short of slander – any profession, trade, McJob, state of destition or idle wealth I so choose. You can’t stop and will earn the right to do so only about my corpse. Putting italics about a phrase does not in any way refute what is axiomatic. And I do not denigrate every teacher but contrawise cite something that is the cross-to-bear of every good teacher I’ve known.
.
If you had facts, you’d use them. They would be handy because you remembered them having some basis for your own generalisations. But no. The war must go on. Methinks ye need a l’il John Lennon tune a’ two, laddie.
Geez Adrien this is getting rather tedious – of course you have the right to denigrate anything you like, and by the same token, I have the right to call you on what I consider egregious bullshit.
And it’s the call of most bullshitters to their critics to counter their generalisations with ‘facts’, as though their assertions are somehow chock full of facts or as you say self-evident. Again it’s bullshit pure and simple.
Maybe you would like to provide some facts to prove that teaching ‘attracts conventionally-minded, imagination impaired types who’re merely seeking an easy life.’ Saying it’s axiomatic or common sense doesn’t prove anything.
“Why would you be prepared to have your children taught by someone with 6 weeks training, but not their medical needs dealt with by a doctor with 6 weeks training?”
you’ve avoided my response slightly. The answer is that as far as I know generic skills can’t ably be transferred into medicine. However, if you put it in relation to a less narrow profession, such as policy officer- “Would you accept a person with 2 degrees and several years written and verbal communication experience preparing a policy document for you”, my answer would be- potentially, yes.
I actually think people with teaching degrees but not other degrees are a problem. How’s this question- Would you accept someone with no degree qualifications in History teaching your child history?
As I’ve said, it’s complex. And I know you and Adrien are in the process of a bit of a flaming match, but please moderate your tone with me (and others). I respect the arguments you are putting up, they are interesting and valid, and I don’t profess to know the answers…
I suspect we’d both agree that:
- more money should go into supporting teaching as a profession
- teachers should be more highly valued…
Maybe you would like to provide some facts to prove that teaching ‘attracts conventionally-minded, imagination impaired types who’re merely seeking an easy life.’ Saying it’s axiomatic or common sense doesn’t prove anything.
.
Fair point Adrian. I’m simply talking for my experiences which are not conclusive. I am sincere however. But perhaps I’m mistaken. Perhaps the education system does indeed attract cream from the life of the mind who set the youth aflame with a thirst for knowledge.
.
This must be stopped as the real purpose of education is to prepare people for work. And the main way of doing this is to get them used to spending the bulk of the day somewhere they’d rather not be, dressed in a way they don’t like, listening to someone who bores them.
.
Considering that reality I reckon the education system is in excellent order.
I wonder why Adrien the magnificent teacher is blogging on a school day.
Teachers defend the culture, so often they are conventional. In fact I would prefer my children taught by an earnest committed teacher who plods through the requisite curriculum than have some popular chappie enthrall the kids and teach them something that is not quite right or downright wrong!
Re the teacher shortage, I know of former engineers who are now qualified maths science teachers in hard to staff country areas who are not employed as principals keep looking for young city graduates.
There is no teacher shortage.
billie @ 80 – do you know why principals prefer young city graduates?
Which State billie? Public or private schools?
Victorian state secondary schools whose principals had complained about the shortage of teachers in The Education Age
Principals in Victoria can hire and fire their own staff? Maybe your maths teacher friends should check out NSW?
I wonder why Adrien the magnificent teacher is blogging on a school day.
.
Because I don’t go to school?
.
There is no teacher shortage.
.
No?
Principals in Victoria have hired their own staff since 1994 or thereabouts. In fact one of the gripes is that principals hire teachers on contract so they don’t have to pay them holiday pay, they also prefer graduate teachers because the school gets a $5000 bonus. Principals get paid a commission or bonus based on salary savings on the pay roll, thus you see the principal of a 3000 pupil school buying a new Porsche. Love this enterpreneurial spirit gouged off the back of workers who are on worse pay and conditions so the Porsche can be bought.
[I am not bitter, I am not bitter, I am not bitter, I am not bitter, .......]
“There is a teacher shortage.”
To use the jargon of the Education faculties let us unpack that statement.
Who is saying there is a teacher shortage?
- Education faculties who want to entice people to study at their faculty
- Principals who want to hire teachers, they want to chose 25 year old graduates from Melbourne University (yep they actually say that but not to The Age)
- VIT – too busy
being comfortablechecking every one’s accreditation- Education Union – I think they don’t count because they are frightened that there will be a shortage of teachers when the baby boomers retire so they are talking up the shortage now
- central staffing? No – its the individual schools problem
Is there a shortage of primary teachers? I know graduates looking for work
Is there a shortage of music teachers? Anecdotally – No
Is there a shortage of maths science teachers – I know graduates looking for work
Is there a shortage of generalists – I know qualified teachers looking for work
There was talk of a looming teacher shortage before the GFC hit, then when those thinking of retiring saw their Super slump I think most of them decided to wait it out a bit longer.
In Victoria and NSW teachers who are eligible to retire at age 55 are usually on the old super scheme where their pension is indexed. They retire on 5/8 of their last wage, every time that teaching band gets a pay rise their pension increases.
Wonder what happens if teachers get a 10% pay drop as occurred in California in 2009
Principals get paid a commission or bonus based on salary savings on the pay roll
.
Amazing. What a dumb-arse’d policy.
No wonder they’ve got no principles.
Adrien/Adrian, see, isn’t it nice to find common ground? I agree, it seems to be a pungently wrongheaded policy. I’m up for paying bonuses when they improve student results, they can have a porsche then as far as I’m concerned.
Adrien/Adrian, see, isn’t it nice to find common ground?
.
Well yes. We both think employers who enrich themselves at the dire expense of their employees suck.
I’d agree but (without wanting to excessively prolong the thread) it does sound like it’s an issue of creating perverse incentives- that is, of policy and management structure.
creating perverse incentives
.
There’s a lot of that about. Usually the result of the assumption of virtue.
as interesting as this thread is – having everybody reason it out from ‘first principles’- first year debaters who may end up in the teach for australia programme could do better than you mob. does anyone have a link to any evaluation/study/anything that actually assess how this has worked in other places and what lessons there are to learn?
No alex, we’re all waiting for a world class intellect like yourself to come up with some relevant data.
Adrian I don’t think the decaf does the job.
Hey, no decaf here – soy latte every time.
Yes, yes, soy latte indeed.
A little too much integration happening here. Stop it. How much do you think you both can take?
More to point:What about considering your readers who are cast into cool hypnotic states simply by staring at the Adrien/adrian/Adrien/adrian/Adrien/adrian/Adrien/adrian/Adrien/adrian/Adrien/adrien/Adrian/adrien…. thing all the way down the LP page.
Would you have them snap out of their reverie, simply because you want to consolidate and be nice?
No I say. And WTF I say. And like, omg. If you start being nice that thing down the page will stop. You can only agree once. You can disagree forever.
Further, it’s only one small vowel that stands between you, Adrian, and you, Adrien, and the whole incredible Adria/en truth of it.
So stop being nice. You don’t know what you are playing with.
And don’t wreck it for the rest of us.
So stop being nice. You don’t know what you are playing with. And don’t wreck it for the rest of us.
.
Okay. Time for the Long Blacks to go to war with the Soy Lattes. Take that. You pooey man.
Jeckyll n’ Hyde ‘ey? Who’s who? Or do we take turns?
Just look at the Gravatars old man.
Speaking of Gravatas. Anyone whose image reminds me of Samantha will automatically be obeyed.
Just look at the Gravatars old man.
.
You’re a little birdie and I’m… me. Alright. That explains everything.
Exactly.
I’m only doing this for you, Samantha.
Or if you prefer.
My confirmation name is Adrian.
Information on St Adrian is here:
http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=253
Ouch. Thanks Mark!
For some reason it reminds me of these wonderful lines from Joni Mitchell:
Out of the fire like Catholic saints
Comes Scarlett and her deep complaint
Mimicking tenderness she sees
In sentimental movies…
…Beauty and madness to be praised
‘Cause it is not easy to be brave
To walk around in so much need
To carry the weight of all that greed
Dressed in stolen clothes she stands
Cast iron and frail
With her impossibly gentle hands
And her blood-red fingernails
Out of the fire and still smoldering
She says “A woman must have everything”
Shades of Scarlett Conquering
She says “A woman must have everything”
I must listen to some more Joni!
Yes you must! I would recommend Hissing of Summer Lawns and Hejira.
It’s true I have some kind of gravatas going, thank you Adrian.
And yet, inexplicably, it seems I have blown this good.
First, Adrian, I would not be so sure about who is who anymore. Adrien is displaying an irritating tendency to be completely reasonable, which seems to have had the effect of turning you completely bad ass. This makes your gravatars utterly confusing. Second, there is a third now. This completely blows my Manichean scenario. We do dualities in perpetual struggle here, not trinities in perfect balance. What do you think this is? Assigning you all to a mast in the godhead does not bear thinking about, so – any other Adrie/an/nne alters about? You know, to bring this back to equal no’s?
Honestly.
In my wildest dreams, never did I imagine that one day I’d be advertising for another Adrie/an/nne to take up residence in this joint.
Un Macchiato forever dudes.
Re: the Adrie/an/nne Gig. I’ve just read Mark’s link and severed hands need not apply. I will take good looking butchers however.
My confirmation name is Adrian.
.
And mine is… Oh that’s right I said not doing it. Caused a bit of a fuss what. ‘S nothing. They should see my blasphemous graffitti.