Draft national curriculum
March 1st, 2010 by Robert Merkel | Published in Education, Policy, Politics | 99 Comments
The education revolution rolls on, with the release of the draft national curriculum for public comment (a couple of earlier LP threads were here and here).
The website seems to show the influence of the Web 2.0 taskforce – you get rather slick, multi-dimensional views of the curriculum standards, and it’s dead easy to leave feedback on specific points – after you’ve registered, that is. What it does seem to lack, however, is convenient links to context which explain each element in the proposed curriculum. For instance, in the Year 10 science curriculum, we have the following item:
Evaluating evidence: Critique claims about scientific issues including consideration of methodology and use students’ own findings and secondary evidence to make informed decisions.
In the abstract, that sounds like a great thing for students to be able to do. But what level of sophistication is expected in such critiques?
Given the effort expended in making leaving feedback easy, perhaps some extra effort in providing context to allow that feedback to be informed might go a long way.
In other insta-reactions, the ACT’s Education Union has pointed out that teachers need to be trained in the new curriculum in a hell of a hurry, given that it’s to be rolled out next year, and I’m sure the wingnuts are thrilling over the headlines about grammar and phonics.
Elsewhere: Skepticlawyer has a post that expresses concerns about non-science (of the indigenous culture variety) working its way into the science curriculum, based on a report in the Oz. The concern seems to relate to some of the “science and culture” bits in the early primary school curriculum.
Elsewhere: [by Mark] Annabel Astbury, Executive Director of the History Teachers’ Association of Victoria, in New Matilda.
To put it politely, this is pointless spin.
I’ll bite on the phonics issue. I dislike the prescriptiveness of the English curriculum; it doesn’t seem to leave sufficient room for flexibility of approaches. Most kids do well with phonics, but some do not, either because of some form of dyslexia, or because they are whole language readers. The draft curriculum doesn’t seem to leave room for that.
Skeptic Lawyer has an excellent post on some aspects of the draft Science curriculum.
I don’t think it is just wingnuts (ie Ms Devine) who would be thrilling over headlines on phonics. Support for phonics teaching is great news, and is a move supported by the science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonics#Research_reports
Let see ‘phonics’ – fonix, fonicks – listening to it, I am not quite sure how to spell it correctly.
SCPritch: I’m aware that there’s a fair bit of research that suggests that teaching phonics is important in getting a lot of kids to read. I was referring to what seems to me to be the undue levels of importance placed on it by wingnuts, who seem to have bugger-all interest in evidence-based curriculum design in general.
I think it’s become a totemic issue for a lot of wingnuts because it fits with their belief that education should be repetitive, boring, and feature as much rote learning as possible.
Robert, you’ve inadvertantly inserted an ‘r’ in the first word of the post’s title.
Well, on Aboriginal myth and legend. It part of anthropology, insn’t it? And anthropology is a science, isn’t it? (I always thought it was, sort of.)
“I think it’s become a totemic issue for a lot of wingnuts because it fits with their belief that education should be repetitive, boring, and feature as much rote learning as possible.”
This seems a ridiculous characterisation to me, on par with anti-science right wing moaning that the left side of politics likes the climate change issue only because they are interested in world government and more regulation and control.
Deborah: from my understanding, it is dyslexics and poor readers who might benefit from phonics instruction – good readers can pick up phonics without being explicitly taught.
I see it like learning how to dance. A good dancer doesn’t need to think about the discrete steps so much when performing a practiced dance, everything just flows naturally. But for a novice dancer or poor dancer, focus on practicing individual foot movements and placements is warranted. Learn the basic rules, and once you are good enough, you can forget them to an extent (read quickly without spelling out once you are more familiar with whole words) and break them (correctly navigate the many inconsistencies and exceptions to the rule in English).
I would have thought the inability to use phonics to spell phonics doesn’t work would tell you something about the fundemental flaw in using it as the basis for teaching people to read. Phonics is the answer to the wrong question when you are discussing literacy. Any good teacher will use a suite of skills to help kids learn to read – not just rely on one method – because every child is different. This is a nonsense debate. The real problem is the lack of resources Australia puts into education and training. If we increased our expenditure in this area then we would get better results and wouldn’t have to waste our on standardised tests and phoney leage tables.
Might I just point out that teachers in real life have been using a combination of whole language and phonics, as most professionals would (what works best for your class.) They’re not the caricature obdurate ideologues that the Right love to portray (as usual, they’re projecting.)
Sure, but that’s where the need for a bit of flexibility comes in. Most kids will do very well on phonics, but some don’t. I’ve come across one chap who had, to me, an extraordinary form of dyslexia. He had a PhD in Biology, and could read with speed and expertise, but he simply could not link letters and sounds. Full stop. Phonics is not a panacea for all reading ills. From what I know of early childhood teaching, I think that the place to start with teaching children to read (i.e. formally) is phonics, but being so prescriptive about it leaves little room for teachers to respond to children who can’t do phonics.
I say this as a parent of a child who simply can’t link letters and sounds. And you bet that we have a very rich language and reading environment in our home.
SCPritch: as I’ve noted, I accept that phonics is an important tool for many beginning readers, and its complete neglect (if such a situation ever existed in Australian schools, of which I am somewhat doubtful) would have serious negative consequences for some.
Nor am I arguing that those arguing for more emphasis on phonics in early reading education are all wingnuts – that’s clearly nonsense, given much of the research supporting phonics is coming out of academic psychology which is hardly a hotbed of right-wing populism.
However, the wingnuts have seized on phonics education, and given their complete disdain for evidence-based policy in other areas, assuming that their dedication to phonics is due to passionate belief in this body of research doesn’t meet the laugh test. Hence my rather snarky characterization of what I believe their true motives are.
Because the science curriculum doesn’t prescribe themes from Kindergarden to end of Primary so as “not to overload the curriculum” teachers will teach the same content with same emphasis using the same text books but the lesson plans will use different key words and justifications.
The ABC television news bulletin at 10 am this morning told viewers that the new curriculum, “will improve grammar through phonics-based learning”. Really.
I think it’s a bit sad that Julia Gillard doesn’t seem to be able to think beyond simplistic slogans in education.
I understand the curriculum is going to be trialled, as of now, in 150 schools and the teachers feedback taken on board. But the trial only goes for three months.
When I was in the Dept of Ed I didn’t have anything to do with the detail of curriculum development, but my impression is that the whole thing is being indecently fast-tracked.
In most states the curriculum developers used to become available for support in the implementation phase, even if only in the “train the trainers” mode. It seems to me that having a national curriculum is likely to extend this connection to where it breaks or becomes meaningless.
Paul I think skepticslawyers wrote a good piece about the aboriginal component in the science curriculum.
http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2010/02/27/science-religion-and-how-things-came-to-be-2/
I quote: “Aboriginal myth and legend is not a series of scientific experiments. It is a religious, legal and spiritual explanation of the world which depends upon faith and cultural practice.”
I assume the main reason the wingnuts have seized on phonics is that it’s what used to be the norm, and one knows how wingnuts hate change.
But having spent twenty years teaching students many of whom who grew up at the height of the the anti-phonics and anti-grammar push in schools — and this was English literature at Melbourne U, ie students you’d expect to be skilled in and enthused about reading, writing and language — I have no doubt that phonics instruction produces (allowing for the sorts of exceptions described above) better readers, and grammar instruction produces better writers. The allocation of these things to categories of ‘left’ and ‘right’ is and always has been a complete crock; one can politicise the motivations if one is absolutely determined to do so, but not the techniques themselves.
Grace, whoever wrote that bulletin clearly doesn’t know what either ‘grammar’ or ‘phonics’ actually means. What methods, one wonders, were used to teach that person to read and write?
Phonics forms an important part of the language, so it should be taught to all students and they should all be assessed on their ability. I don’t see any bans against using supplemental teaching methods to help particular children to gain a practical reading ability.
Grammar and phonetics are taught overseas to speakers of other languages, who learn via rote and TPR techniques, interactive procedures, etc spreading the English communication culture and ethnolinguistic vitality, as the world could head closer to a one nation state. I have found using phonetics at least sparingly is useful for pronunciation with sound reinforcement, especially for children with learning difficulties. Back to basics for all is a good idea, perhaps there are some implementation difficulties, while the education sector is improving in the education revolution, things don’t happen overnight. Postmodernism is demanding fairness but is also a dangerous creature. On the other side in NZ there are Maori only schools usually in country areas, where English is the second language in the community, as the Maori language was nearly killed off. Maori culture use to be compulsory during the first year of high school in the seventies and eighties proactively working with identity, values, etc. Australia is a multicultural society, and this is always going to bring challenges to whoever is leading the country. Rudd has only had a term in office, should we give him a fair go? Idiosyncrasies can be refined and ironed out, and he has shown honesty and responsibility in dealing with the Austrlian public, a rare trait amongst politicians. Perhaps stakeholders are more afraid of the institutional changes and loss of power in the long term. After all, power belongs to the people, yet there are so many publics advocating. After all is said and done, English is still power, and politicians need to use it in one way or another to obtain power. But getting back to the kids learning English, I think we need to ask ourselves, what is the goal, the agenda at the end of the day; although the elite are known to control society, and is this in line with what we want, although we are divided over the two most popular parties, (one nation and the greens-joke) will it make a difference? Or do you think I am missing the plot? Why, why not?
Phonics and grammar – yes please (phonics practice also assists with clear enunciation).
My brief glance at the Science and History Curriulum outlines gives me to understand that there will be a global emphasis rather than an ‘Euro-centric’ one. That Mr Pyne and others of this world cling to the necessity of a specific inclusion of British history in particular does not suprise. There is no indication from what I read that British History is excluded – though they do give Elizabeth 1 as a topic example in one part.
The prospect that children (parents and teachers) may one day be able to transfer throughout the nation knowing what to expect curriculum-wise makes sense.
From the draft English curriculum
Kindergarten literacy:
Year 1 Literacy
Year 2 Literacy
These are critical years for learning to read, and the detailed curriculum prescribes phonics, and phonics alone. I think phonics is fantastic, and it works for most kids. I would like to see the curriculum reflect the need to adopt other strategies if phonics is not working for a particular child.
Ho hum. Again we miss the main issues in education that are destroying the school system in this country. A national curriculum is all well and good and I have no issue with the concept. But until the real issues are addressed it will change little.
1. Class size. The idea that children learn in a class of 28 kids is crazy and outdated. Nationalise the curriculum all you want but big, one size fits all classes will change nothing. Cut classes to a maximum of 15.
2. Maintaining bullies and violent children in schools. Until we realise that the decent kids should not have their lives made miserable by bullies and thugs and have the courage to clearly say that thugs are not welcome in schools, regarldeless of background, nothing will change. At the moment we have working class kids condemned to second rate schools because of a philosophy that violent kids should be “understood”. Meanwhile, the decent kids have their time wasted and thugs dictate the rules.
3. More male teachers. Boys need male teachers for at least some of their schooling. Currently many boys go through primary school never having had a male teacher. Learning is seen as a feminised task, of no use to boys. Women are great teachers, but boys need men. Imagine if all girls never had a female teacher.
Until these issues are addressed a national curriculum means little.
Brian said:
Can’t be the case because this government is all talk and no action. Or so it’s argued.
Certainly, there’s a ‘revolution’ underway but that doesn’t mean it’s for the better.
Are you looking for some form of parallel/supplemental/alternate curriculum, or the inclusion of redundant content for all students at the cost of content depth?
Deborah,
whilst it’s nice to say that teachers should use different strategies for teaching kids that phonics doesn’t work well for, I think this leads to a number of other problems. These include (a) it’s surprisingly hard to work out strategies to help kids that don’t benefit from phonics that arn’t exceedingly time consuming; ( b) without proper testing, it would be very hard for teachers to identify kids who are poor-average readers (and hence don’t get picked up as having a serious problem, especially if they’re girls and arn’t a nuisance), but can only learn with some atypical method; and (c ) even if it was possible to identify kids that only learn via the use of atypical methods, it’s hard to see how many teachers would ever have the time (or the ability) to them help.
It’s not clear to me what the solution to any of these problems is.
RM: “as I’ve noted, I accept that phonics is an important tool for many beginning readers, and its complete neglect (if such a situation ever existed in Australian schools, of which I am somewhat doubtful) would have serious negative consequences for some.”
You’d be surprised Robert. If you work in schools a bit, you’ll find many classes like this. Part of the problem is that you have a generation of teachers that have learnt via a whole-word method themselves, and can’t actually teach a phonics program well (especially synthetic phonics where you start with the sounds of the language — Krudd’s & Gillard’s explanation shows that neither of them know what they’re talking about on the issue either incidentally, as well as the wingnuts you refer to) — The idea that you just break words down into phonemes without learning how to do it is incorrect, as only onsets and rhymes come for free.
Sorry for all the posts, but if people are interested in what a real phonics program looks like (versus the stereotype that Gillard & Krudd offer as their description), the Uk framework for mathemaics and literacy is worth a look.
Steve1: You can use phonics to sound out “phonics”, since phonics instruction would teach that PH is pronounced as “f” (as well as teaching many other multi-letter-to-sound correspondences), and the rest of the letters in the word are pronounced as they typically sound. Its a cute example, but doesn’t demonstrate the flaw you think it does.
In any case, nobody advocates phonics as “the basis” for teaching people to read. Learning the typical letter (or group of letters) to sound correspondences is an important but not sufficient skill for fluent reading. Kids need to learn the joy of reading, be exposed to lots of books, be read stories, learn comprehension etc, and skilled adult readers no longer need to sound out words at all.
The noise about phonics is because there has been a protracted debate about whether it should be taught at all, despite the evidence for it – if it seems that people push phonics too hard, that should be understood in the context of robust resistance to any phonics instruction from whole language advocates who are just as dogmatic. I reacted to Robert’s characterisation because it seemed like whole language advocate dogma, that phonics instruction is unfun and gets in the way or the learning offered by reading in context.
One aspect of the new curriculum mentioned by a few people on news items is that the curriculum is intended to be a minimum and not intended to cover everything taught. So it would appear that teachers would for example still have the flexibility to try techniques in addition to phonics to teach reading.
I’m one of those who missed out on pretty much any formal english grammar except for some very basic definitions. I learnt more about grammar in french lessons than I did in english ones. In retrospect a bit more of the boring rote learning would have been useful later in life.
Elsewhere: [by Mark] Annabel Astbury, Executive Director of the History Teachers’ Association of Victoria, in New Matilda.
Exactly. There’s more than one person on this thread who doesn’t seem to know that phonics and phonetics are not the same thing.
Wikipedia is our friend.
It’s a draft.
So if you don’t like something that’s in it, and have a sound argument against it, comment!
Conversely, if you like something, say so.
I’m pleased to see that evolution – usually taught as part of Year 11 Biol and therefore not compulsory – has dropped down to Year 10.
As for the Dreamtime bizzo – I haven’t been able to find a direct reference to it in my admittedly quick scan of the Science curriculum. However, there are some bits where it looks at culture and belief systems and it may fit in here. I think the idea is to show that science has evolved out of humanity’s quest to explain what’s going on in the world (but I could be wrong!! need to read more of it…)
if it seems that people push phonics too hard, that should be understood in the context of robust resistance to any phonics instruction from whole language advocates who are just as dogmatic
Just so. Whole language reading seems to work very well for some children, especially children who come from reading and language rich environments. But not all children from those environments will do well with whole language reading, and many children from environments where there are few books, and where there hasn’t been much attention to reading, for all sorts of reasons, will struggle with whole language reading.
I haven’t had a chance to look at any of it yet, but I certainly would have thought embedding science in its social and cultural context shouldn’t be controversial. Science is a human endeavour, and you don’t have to take a social constructionist position, to suggest that its understanding can only be enhanced by viewing it within broad contexts – and I don’t think it should be separated from the values and agency which create it.
I’d also say that in my experience as a tertiary teacher, teaching a ‘fact’ within a context always seems to make it more interesting, and I think, better recalled and understood.
Mr. Pyne,
I would have thought the ‘Glorious Revolution of 1688′ was more relevant to today’s Westminster system than the Magna Carta. But, if you’d said that, given its total lack of connection with Wicked King John and (in the public mind) Robin Hood, most people probably would’ve gone “eh!?” Can’t appear too bright, can we, Christopher? Just sayin’.
As a former teacher, re phonics – a whole range of methods are used, including phonics. I have never seen a classroom or a teacher where phonics was not part of the methods used, and I have not seen one classroom where it wasn’t used to a significant degree. Does anyone anywhere have any evidnece to contradict this? Even in remote indigenous communities, where all kinds of wacky stuff has been tried, all teachers come back to phonics as a substantial part of literacy instruction. Can right-wingers and assorted hangers-on please find something more accurate to bang on about.
Spana
Please provide evidence that the school system is being destroyed in this country.
I’ll just out myself as a dyslexic who required phonics in order to learn to read, and also to second Conrad’s recommendation of the UK ‘Framework for Mathematics and Literacy’ link, which is actually informative.
I’ve always felt the worse thing you could do with young human primates, brimming over with energy and growing physically and intellectually in hormone-driven leaps and spurts, is to force them to sit still for several hours a day as dry data is drummed into their brains.
Dunno about the rest of you but I remember one tenth of fuckall about my school’s official curriculum. The only major takeaway I got, and which I think should be the core duty of any school, was improving my understanding of the rules and subtleties of the mother tongue, discovering the formal and quite interdisciplinary basics of logic/comprehension/reasoning/theory and informally improving socialisation skills.
Of course maths, other languages, history, science, geography etc should be part of the curriculum – but not so much for what the students might learn then as more letting ‘em find out if such subjects light a spark in ‘em. Then you start the streaming through late secondary and tertiary courses, not so much by marks but by real student interest.
“Are you trying to be clever Nabakov senior?”
“Well that’s what I’m here for isn’t it Sir?”
I speak as someone who wrote a Form 5 book report on “The Naked Lunch”, captained the school tennis team until a hangover made me throw up during a key match, was introduced to pot by my biology teacher and pioneered some great infrastructure-hacking pranks that apparently still go on today in my old school. Looking back now, I reckon my poor teachers got paid nowhere enough.
This dribble of remembrance is somewhat inspired by the fact I’ll be attending a major old school anniversary later this year. After a good 25 years of no contact with most of ‘em.
“Gee sir, I remembered you as taller and smarter.”
“Well I remembered all of you as not fat and old.”
RM, my impression is that Miranda Devine’s enthusiasm for phonics is from her time in the USA, where the phonics-whole-word dispute became entrenched (and nasty) in a way that never occurred in Australia. I would not be surprised at all to discover that American RWDBs think phonics=reading. In fact, I met a person online who thought that adult readers used phonics methods, which is wrong — advanced readers use a range of strategies to decode unfamiliar words, and phonics is not usually one of them (I can elaborate if anyone’s interested, but it’s been a while since I did psycholinguistics).
My elder son taught himself to read before school age. His teacher used a tool called THRASS, which distinguishes phonemes and graphemes (yes, those words were in use in the Kindy classroom, along with digraph and trigraph!). THRASS helped my son break down words into their constituents, but was simultaneously helping other children in the class learn to read, many with a first language other than English. Note that THRASS is a tool rather than an ideology — the teacher used a range of methods. I share Deborah’s concern that a prescriptive NC will prevent teachers teaching to need.
Back to the topic: I am very interested in how the NC deals with gifted children, and in general with adjustment of curriculum to the individual child. NSW has this year brought in the Best Start Assessment, which aims to ‘place’ children precisely at the start of K so that needs can be met from Day 1 of school. The idea is to carry this type of assessment through later years.
I’m also concerned with the late introduction of the periodic table. You really need to know your way around the periodic table well before you start reduction & oxidation and atomic physics.
Must join and start reading now…
Dingbat: “Does anyone anywhere have any evidnece to contradict this?”
I used to help with reading in my sons’ primary school (state school in NSW)and when the kids struggled over a word we were NOT allowed to get them to sound out the word. It was incredibly frustrating. It was only at the very end of last year that NSW Dep Education. changed its position.
I was not taught grammar after year 4 and I am very glad to see that children will no longer be hamstrung in this way.
I remember almost no grammar apart from verbs being ‘do-ing’ words but I know how to write because I read. When teaching first years at uni the distinction in quality of written work is clear between those who read and those who don’t.
Yeah sure that helps but kids who both do a lot of reading and are able to absorb grammatical rules by osmosis are likely to be at the higher end of the spectrum of ability. Why should the middling students be left with no way of understanding how to construct a sentence that communicates clearly. My grammar is pretty average but I’ve read professional reports that are virtually incomprehensible, with verbless sentences and a structure so confusing as to make the meaning either ambiguous or completely obscure.
Following up on the points made at 42 and 43 learning a foreign language is a great way to learn grammar.
Is there any provision in the new national curriculum for encouraging more interest in learning langauges other than english?
The National Curriculum must get into schools as soon as possible before we lose another generation of Australian children to poor educational standards.
I heard somewhere on the radio in the past couple of days, that some schools think that they might not be ready to implement at the beginning of next year, and that the Feds are powerless to insist on a common start date, so that schools will be able to implement somewhere between 2011 and 2013.
There will be a lot of very angry parents across this wide brown land if any foot-dragging is allowed to take hold in some schools and not others, particularly those parents with kids half-way through their schooling who will already be behind the eight ball.
I am already fed up with the media coverage of this great leap into the future for our children, with the ABC leading every news bulletin with dire warnings about the resurgence of the bloody boring “history wars”, and interviews with the usual dessicated suspects from the do-nothing Howard years, mouthing their apocalyptic warnings of doom.
School teachers now have a lead-time of nearly a year to re-train for the implementation of the new curriculum. Its there on the website for everyone to see and get started on, and according to Gillard the development and training facilities and programs are already in place to be used by those who want to get ahead of the curve. School principals should get cracking.
Some teachers will fail to make the grade in time no doubt. That is the penalty we all pay for years of neglect. But it is no reason to wither in fear before even trying to make the deadline.
I dearly hope, for the sake of all parents and children, that the implementation of this National Curriculum will not be buggered and de-railed by self-interested professional associations and unions, a rabid and antagonistic media, and an irresponsible and greedy opposition, working in tandem to whip up a storm of anxiety and dissention in the lead-up to the federal election.
Small hope I suppose, given what we have seen in the past few weeks.
Students should ideally be able to do both; intuitively form sentences and understand grammar, but also need to be able to critically analyse the writings of others and communicate that analysis through reference to the grammatical constructs.
I went through the same thing as Chris, learning more about English in French class than I did in English class. As an otherwise gifted student, it was frustrating in English to just be expected to understand the language without being taught the concepts that go into it.
It amuses me that we hear all about how teachers are a profession and how they should be respected, but when it comes to self learning and development there’s plenty of whining. Most other professions would be expected to be able to get up to speed on a new standard within weeks; teachers have a year.
“The National Curriculum must get into schools as soon as possible before we lose another generation of Australian children to poor educational standards”
Actually, the standards of literacy in NSW and Victoria are already excellent, as is mathematics in NSW, so it’s quite conceivable the national curriculum will make them worse. Why people assume it must make them better beats me.
I think the desire of some to make it into a winner-takes-all us-versus-them fight makes one suspicious of any serious pedagogical focus.
Phonics skills may be (in general) necessary, but they aren’t sufficient. As mentioned in 28 above, there are are a whole lot of aspects to literacy more broadly than just reading skills, especially motivation, comprehension and writing (which signficantly is learned in quite a different way to reading). The best ideas of Whole Language theory address these issues, and so the challenge is to implement sytematic phonics instruction within a broad literacy context that takes on these ideas.
(And of course the challenge for classroom teachers is to do this consitsently, repeatably, in a time-limited context with diverse student populations…)
Desipis: textbooks don’t get written overnight.
I caught the very beginning of an interesting discussion about this on RN this morning (with a couple of the people who designed the thing). They were talking around the idea of how learning a foreign language with lots of grammar (particularly Latin and French) helped develop an understanding of English grammar, and they’re spot on.
Although, like most people my age, I had had basic grammar thrashed into me by the time I was 10, I got a much greater insight from studying Latin (failed) and German (passed) at high school.
“Indigenous understandings of the natural environment” in science class?
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/less-will-mean-more-in-national-curriculum-20100301-pdgp.html
I want to look into this more. I think history of science should cover early pre-science attempts at comprehending the natural world, but there should be a limit on how far they go with this…for the same reason that Intellgent Design doesn’t belong in science class.
I haven’t looked at these curriculum drafts yet but…
Mark @ 34
I too think learning about science should include putting it in a context. However i would guess that there would be some risk in teaching the context too early; the risk being that students wouldn’t understand exactly what science is and what science isn’t. I think that’s essentially the kind of issue that Legal Eagle has explored in her post.
To try a metaphor, it would be like teaching children Latin and English in primary school when it’s probably best to teach them English first, and then, once they have a reasonable ability to comprehend and function in English, teach the history and context of the language to give the students that added level of understanding.
@Pavlov’s Cat: “and grammar instruction produces better writers. ”
Amen to that, and to Su @43.
As a professional editor working in a business environment, I have to edit complete dross. An understanding of grammar would improve things greatly – in fact, the worst examples of written English come from our local offices, and the US and the UK, and the best examples of written English I see come from our French office. Which should tell you something about the quality of people’s writing when they’ve not been taught grammar.
I also agree that reading helps, but without an understanding of the basics you’ll never be a really good writer.
Good to know they’ll be reading Treasure Island in school again.
Robert,
To be honest I would expect a national curriculum to be developed to the level that it includes lesson plans, worksheets, to completely cover the entire curriculum. It seems quite redundant to do re-do all that work at each school. Such material should be developed to a level that it replaces the need for a text book.
If the government doesn’t provide it, perhaps the teachers should coordinate to produce such documentation themselves in the way other professionals produce industry standards, etc.
DI(nr) @51: “I got a much greater insight from studying Latin (failed) and German (passed) at high school.”
Totally agree. I never really learnt grammar at all. Possibly because we kept moving around, and the syllabus was different in each state. Where I had just started learning one aspect, we moved and that aspect had already been finished, or they had just finished another aspect, which I consequently never learnt…
Same problem with maths, science, history, you name it. Altogether a total of 7 primary schools and 3 high schools, with 4 different state systems. Never learnt anything properly – massive effort to get through the exams to go to uni. Maybe we could blame the mining industry of that era, and the way it treated an employee’s family as excess baggage? Maybe Dad should have worried about his kids a bit more than his job? The oil industry is not much better, even today.
Anyway, totally support the idea of a national syllabus. Especially since people move around a lot more these days, in their modern “portfolio careers” (read serial jobs).
Nobody has a job for life until the retirement function and the gold watch, these days, and people have to go where the work is. Even FIFO will be a passing phase for the resources sector – a product of cheap flight, based on cheap fuel. You will need to take the kids and the super with you, in our brave new world. Somehow those kids will need some stability and sense of continuity. A national syllabus would help reduce the sense of disruption.
Anyway, I first got an inkling of grammer with learning languages in high school (French and German). At the time, learning a couple of European languages in Australia seemed a total waste of vital CPU capacity. I thought it would be barely useful in a whistle stop, couple of month, Euro-tour after uni. Tuesday, must be Brussels…?
However, I REALLY got the point of grammar (especially tenses for foreign verbs) as an adult living in Europe for 12 years and trying to use foreign languages at work. Who woulda thunk it – this little black duck..! Just goes to show, you never can tell – a good foundation may never be wasted, even though it seemed pointless at the time.
In the mobile international world of today and the future, I reckon Aussie kids WILL need a decent grounding in language fundamentals, so that they can travel and pick up other languages if necessary. Even though grammar seems a bit fuddy-duddy, old lace, wingnut approved, etc, etc.
Ideally, language foundations are best laid at an early age while that part of the brain is still evolving rapidly (best ages 0 – 12 years, I believe). Speaking from experience, it is damn hard to pick up language skills as an adult.
It is just me or do 3 year terms seem to pressure the system in to being next-to-rushed-beyond-usablity!
I learned a bit of Enindilyagwa When I lived on Groote Eylandt as well as doing five years of German at school. Like Elise I learned more about English grammar by doing German than I did in English. However, the Enindilyagwa would have been even better than German for making someone think about English grammar and the way language, culture and the practicalities of life interact. Huge numbers of words for specific relations because behavior and obligation are driven by this. Same word for mother and mothers sisters because having all these people as “mother” was important if your natural mother died. More varied pronouns for dogs because the with dogs was closer to the relationship with other humans than other animals. Over 100 hundred personal pronouns because mistakes re who you were talking about could lead to a spearing.
Helps if the person teaching the language is happy to be diverted to issues of culture, language and grammar instead of being concerned about how much we learned. Helps too to be doing the course with a language wonk who helped with the diversion.
Robert, I accept that a degree of ideological tribalism is compulsory for posters round here, but you are going a bit far in lashing out at the “wingnuts” on this issue, particularly when you generalize it to their “complete disdain for evidence-based policy” across the board. Your post is about a national curriculum put forward by a Federal Labor Government. How you then proceed to blame a bit of it you don’t like on right wing nuts, let alone then proceed to draw conclusions about their general evidence-phobia, is beyond me.
No doubt there is far less evidence-based policy-making by Australian Governments, Commonwealth and State, than either you or I would like. Most of it by ALP Governments. Try identifying the evidence-base for $42 billion worth of NBN for example.
Or, closer to the point of the post, science is or should be the ultimate in evidence-based disciplines. But this draft proposes to insert indigenous myth and legend into it. Yes you have (when it was drawn to your attention) acknowledged that, but I don’t see any railing against “wingnuts” of the left variety for an attack on science. It seems to remain an article of faith round here that it is the right that is waging a war on science.
Gotta love “but getting back to the kids learning English, I think we need to ask ourselves, what is the goal, the agenda at the end of the day” @19 too. We need an “agenda” before we conclude that teaching children English is a good thing to do? And the wingnuts are on the right?
I had a visitor yesterday who was relieved to hear that phonics was returning..not that I think it ever really left a well rounded teaching portfolio. Like me, she also remembered the expectation that in the classroom, and at home, one should speak clearly. The phonic drills in our early learning concentrated our minds on clear enunciation for lasting benefit.
Wozza, as far as I can tell the “insert indigenous myths and legends” into the science curriculum is mostly beatup.
Have a look for yourself at the actual curriculum, rather than the story in the Oz.
JohnD @59: “Helps if the person teaching the language is happy to be diverted to issues of culture, language and grammar…”
Absolutely agree, John!!!
I reckon that language is the window to another culture, and learning it is MUCH more enjoyable and meaningful if you can see the wider connections to the other culture.
It is this connection to a greater meaning that motivates you to get through the grind of learning the intricacies of grammar and irregular verbs.
Perhaps in the same way that connection to the world of music gets students through the grind of learning musical scales?
I think it’s pretty clear that there’s a sensible debate to be had on the role of phonics instruction in literacy education and also that it has been latched onto as a totemic educational crusade by a section of the conservative commentariat – including much of the lunar right.
I gather it’s not just phonics and whole language, there’s also “look and say”. In Qld phonics, I understand, never went away. Grammar, we heard the other day, was re-introduced in the early 90s, during an earlier ‘back to basics’ push.
If you want to hear from a passionate whole language advocate, try Mem Fox. It’s a fascinating piece and valuable for what she sees as more important than methodology used in teaching to read. If it’s literacy we want, we’d do well to look at the language richness of the early childhood environment before institutional learning, and that might lead us into consideration of parenting style and the quality of interaction between parents and children.
There was an interesting session on Life matters a few days ago. I had the impression the NC job was done pretty professionally with lots of interaction with the relevant specialist teacher bodies, but not the teacher unions.
Grace @ 45, about teachers getting ready for implementation now. In a school near here you are unlikely to know for certain which year level you will be teaching next year before the beginning of the Christmas holidays, and even then it’s subject to change up until a few days before school starts. It’s fun if you’ve never taught that year level before!
I haven’t had decent look at the curriculum yet, but there was an outline in the CM which my own more or less captive expert had a look at. She has long taught Preschool and Prep and this year is having a shot at Year 1.
First up, in Prep play is certain to be crowded out, whereas here it is supposed to be play-based.
Secondly, there is clear evidence that they are trying to stick in stuff early on that a lot of kids will find difficult. In the interests of ‘rigour’ and a ‘world class’ education, no doubt.
This is a major issue, because the Finns and Scandinavians generally delay the formal learning until age 7. It would seem to the ultimate benefit of the kids. learning how to cope with failure when as soon as you hit compulsory institutional learning is something the policy makers ought to think about. Because that is the experience they are putting many children through.
The link Mark gave on history earlier gave us an opinion from someone who would know that the whole history curriculum was hopelessly over-crowded.
Third, the comment was that the NC people and the pollies won’t realise how little difference what they are doing will make.
I think she’s onto something there. To give something with as much inertia as the school system a kick in any direction probably just leads to broken toes. Unless you really do know something about innovation and renewal at that level, and I don’t expect they do, although McGaw didn’t come down in the last shower. But his background is in evaluation, educational measurement, looking at the output end rather than R&D as it were.
Gillard tends to slip into a ‘blame the teachers’ mode that will do nothing good in itself.
But I’ve been out of all this for a while and please don’t tell my soul-mate I’ve quoted her or I’ll be in strife.
Brian @65: “This is a major issue, because the Finns and Scandinavians generally delay the formal learning until age 7.”
Yep, they do. “Formal learning” is delayed to age 7, or I think now 6.
However, the kids do attend some form of organised, collective activities from about 3, as I understood it. Possibly no formal testing, but nonetheless some kind of learning of useful concepts.
Incidentally, the Swedish and Norwegian kids I saw (including the neighbours’ kids) weren’t running wild like some kind of unschooled 60′s dropout kids, or any such. By age 7 they have picked up more than a smattering of english (second language of choice), along with quite a few other social skills, and a really striking amount of quiet self-confidence.
Further on language, the Nordic countries (Finland, Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark) seem to all start the second language straight away in primary school. They often add a third language in high school. I seem to recall that the Benelux countries (Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg) also start their second language early.
There seemed to be a lot of literature floating around, about speed of absorption of language skills versus age of exposure. It all pointed towards a motto of “the earlier, the better…”
Testing and “formal learning” may not happen before age 6/7, but lots of other stuff does seem to be attended to at the earlier stages.
If it is any consolation to Aussie teachers, who may wonder if we do anything better in Australia, I would argue that our system teaches more independence of thought and analysis.
There is a potentially greater level of creativity with this path (independent thought), although it is not consistently encouraged by our system, post high school. We have a very feeble support of postgraduate R&D and general research activities in Australia, unlike European countries. Research is almost scorned, rather than valued by Aussie society and businesses, as is higher education generally. Seems like an underdog mentality, which is well past its expiry date.
I would imagine that independence of thought and analysis can only be helpful in a fast-changing world, where people have to decide amongst many alternative ways of doing things. Old-fashioned, rote-learning styles will not equip the kids well for this brave new world.
Good luck with how the government works the metrics on things like “independence of thought” or “analysis skills”. How long is a piece of string? However, I would suggest that many Aussie teachers already have a fair idea about how to encourage it! :)
Elise, two comments.
First I noticed in one of those comparative country assessment things that Australian students were near the top of the tree in problem solving. Can’t remember how this related to subject areas, but Maths, I think.
I wonder whether this could come from the culture as much as from the school system.
Secondly, the Scandinavian approach has interested me since we had a Norwegian visitor here in 1974. At that stage they were keeping kids at home until age 7, but were looking to institute provisions that enriched their lives before then but not with formal learning which was seen as unnecessary and even undesirable.
About 5 years ago I came across a study of early education provisions in England, Denmark and Finland done by HM Inspectorate. Denmark because they held back on formal education too, but performance at early adolescence was lower than the in UK.
What I took out of it was that Denmark perhaps failed because the didn’t educate early childhood educators, but used a certificate type helping profession qualification and learning on the job.
Finland was simply outstanding with physical space, resources and staffing roughly double what was provided in the UK. Teachers were qualified to masters level and were given complete curriculum and operational autonomy. It was noted that Finland was a reading society, with a magnificent public library system.
The only negative was that they had a strong commitment to equality and social justice. This seemed to lead them to neglect the possibility of providing the brighter kids in the preschool with more challenging academic-type challenges, because they didn’t want to send a message of inadequacy to the rest.
The English (and I think it was English rather than UK) provisions were clearly too cramped with inadequate provision of “wet” and “dry” areas, inadequate flexible space for child-based imaginative play, and teachers complaining that the formal curriculum crowded out the important informal elements.
I don’t know, but I suspect that they didn’t move significantly towards the Finnish model because it costs money, and was against the political trend.
Brian @67: “First I noticed in one of those comparative country assessment things that Australian students were near the top of the tree in problem solving.”
It certainly struck me in dealing with new graduates at work, and also when I was supervising Masters students in Holland and Norway. Not a statistically valid sample, to be sure. However, my observation was that compared with Australian graduates, they were less independent and less original in their problem solving, even compared with final year undergrads in Australia.
They really wanted to be spoon fed how to do things, and were quite dismayed when I gave them the concepts and suggested that they should find their own answers. I asked for guidance from their uni lecturers (no point in imposing Aussie style in Europe), and was told that it was normal practice to show them what to do; i.e. reference material, methodology, equipment design, data gathering, analysis methods, necessary equations, presentation style, virtually the lot, bar writing the thesis for them. Unreal. Most Aussie graduates in my experience just want to be shown the starting blocks, and they are off and racing…
“It was noted that Finland was a reading society, with a magnificent public library system.”
And stunningly well-stocked book stores, especially considering the size of the population. Every topic you could imagine, and then some…
Robert Merkel if as the Australian reports it is true that:
“School students will learn about Aboriginal Dreamtime stories, Chinese medicine and natural therapies but not meet the periodic table of elements until Year 10 under the new national science curriculum.”
Then that is not a beat up, that is an utter disgrace for two reasons – first of all to neglect something as basic yet important as the periodic table until year 10, and secondly to bother teaching something in its place that amounts to nothing more than indigenous creationism.
Conversely, if it is untrue then it is a beatup.
Hence we triangulate with a source other than the Australian to determine if it is true or not.
Part of the problem is the “educational correctness” that wants to prescribe teaching methods according to the fad de jour. I remember well my wife’s indignation when phonics was prohibited.
It is time teachers were treated like professionals, i.e., taught a variety of teaching methods and then left to use their professional judgment re how they meet curriculum objective.
In any case, Bruce, on what basis do you believe that the periodic table is somehow fundamental knowledge and the concept of , say, statistical significance isn’t?
In my opinion the second concept is far more fundamental to understanding science than the first.
Martin:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/04/2836863.htm?section=justin
“The study of Aboriginal Dreamtime stories will be removed from the science component of the new national curriculum.”
That was a recent article by the ABC.
At least a bit of common sense has prevailed and the government has realized how bloody stupid it is to include aboriginal creationism in the scientific component of the curriculum. I am not a christian but I can imagine how crazy this website and crikey would have gone if instead of aboriginal creationism it had been a proposal to include christian conservatism in the scientific component of any curriculum. But I guess we’ve got to be PC and less critical about indigenous myths.
What kind of PC idiots could construct a national curriculum that not only teaches myths but neglects to inform students about something as important as the periodic table until year 10? I am studying science at university at the moment and this absolutely disgusts me. Were there any science teachers helping write the curriculum who were not brain dead? If they can forget something this simple for so long in a students education what else have they left out?
Robert Merkel if they found the space to include indigenous creationism in the science component of the curriculum (which they just removed) I’m pretty damn sure they can find room for the periodic table.
Are you telling me you do not think it is important for students to have at the very least a basic understanding of the periodic table before year 10? I was introduced to the periodic table in year 8 (at the start of high school) which is a far more realistic introduction.
If they delay teaching one of the most fundamental principles of chemistry before year 10 then it is the students who are going to suffer when all of a sudden they get told “by the way there’s a periodic table, this is how atoms work, this is how the periodic table tells you the masses of the elements, how many electrons etc etc”
bruce, I’d suggest that your discussion of all this might be better informed if you actually read the curriculum. You can do so by following the link in the post. Newspaper articles about its content tend to be very partial, and to cherry pick some aspects for sensationalising.
It’s also helpful to understand what a curriculum is and how it is used.
The Science Curriculum in moves from Substances and their properties in Year 8 to Atomic theory in Year 9 to Year 10 where you have “The periodic table as an organiser based on the electronic structure of elements”.
That doesn’t mean that reference to atoms in year 8 or the periodic table in year 9 is forbidden. Indeed once you introduce atoms and the different types of atom you are going to have to go out of your way to avoid the periodic table.
But the periodic table only really makes sense in terms of electronic configuration of atoms, and that seems to be at a operfectly appropriate age level to me.
In this article from the australin they directly quote the chairman of the authority creating the curriculum:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/dreamtime-spiritual-so-off-science-courses/story-e6frg6nf-1225836724718
Professor McGaw, chairman of the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, said he had not realised the Dreamtime had been included in the science course until it was reported by The Weekend Australian last Saturday.
“I’m a science graduate and a former science teacher,” he said.
“I think Dreamtime is a religious or spiritual interpretation of the beginnings of life.
“For the same reason, we wouldn’t let intelligent design or creationism be included.
“It shouldn’t be in the science curriculum, and we’re going to take it out.”
So when it was published there was aboriginal creationism in it.
If it is also true that the periodic table has been virtually forgotten until year 10 then i suggest they hire the idiots who wrote the science component and get someone who knows what they’re doing.
I’d be more interested in all this if you’d actually take the time to read the curriculum itself.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to teach the periodic table when you’re teaching atomic theory? They should be part of the same unit. If it says you’re going to be talking about atoms and electrons then its common sense to link it in with the perioidic table. Everything about how the table is arranged is linked to atomic theory.
Which means that the PT won’t really make sense until the fundamentals of atomic theory are understood – just like the draft curriculum has it.
bruce seems to have some monomania about the Periodic Table.
Aside: I vaguely recall learning it (or at least Groups I – VII) by rote in what is now Year 9 (when we started proper chemistry instead of general science), but it didn’t really fall into place until we’d learnt a fair bit about valences and electron shells a year or two later. (The astute among you will already have realised I havent’t done any chemistry since 1967.) OTOH, I think I remember having seen it on a wall at my mum’s place of employment. (She was a biochemist.)
I’m still unsure what his point is.
No, you teach them at the same time so that students are able to have a visual way of seeing the differences between elements. When you were taught in school did you never see a periodic table under you had finished studying atomic theory?
A proper science curriculum would have introductory lessons on atomic theory teaching students about the mass of elements, the different types, their electrons, but then it would also teach them the NAMES of the elements and relate that information to the periodic table.
Damn! I misspelt VIII. (Bloody Romans.)
David you didn’t do electron shells before year 11? Year 11 should be when they start teaching you that the concept of the shells going 2,8 etc etc is very simplistic and actually teaching you how the shells really work, even going into the probability of an electron being in a certain area at a certain time. The concept of electrons should have been taught back in year 8 or 9. Most people I know who are still at schools follow this kind of curriculum if they’re going to a good school that is actually doing an adequate job of preparing them for uni.
bruce, it was over 40 years ago, and those years haven’t been kind to my memory. It seems to me, though, that instead of reading the proposed curriculum (as suggested already by a number of other people), you’re making a huge fuss about something that isn’t nearly as important as you think it is.
Monomania is unattractive, especially in the young.
It isn’t nearly as important as I think it is? Go and speak to anyone studying chemistry at univeristy, talk to any lecturer and ask them “Do you think it is important that children have a good understanding of the periodic table.” I very much doubt you will find a person who says no.
For fuck sake Bruce, its in the curriculum isn’t it?
Stop splitting hairs about the extent to which it is or isn’t covered, or its timing; if you feel so strongly about it, you have the opportunity to provide feedback until May this year.
Thanks, Rob.
It occurs to me I could fulminate in at least as ill-informed a fashion as bruce about the proposed mathematics curriculum (a subject I know a bit about) but, not having read the curriculum yet, I chosse not to.
Oh I see, so long as its in the curriculum who gives a fuck when they teach it? What kind of idiotic statement is that? So by that logic who cares if we start teaching reading until a year later, or maths. The hypocrisy here is mind boggling. If this was a liberal government that had put in christian creationism in the scientific component of the curriculum you’d be screaming for their blood and then you’d be making comments like “They don’t even teach something as basic as the periodic table.”
But I have heard barely a peep about aboriginal creationism being taught in its place. I thought this was supposed to be a discussion about the curriculum and everyone seems to like to go into every minute detail regarding phonics, but as soon as I question why students are being left ignorant in regards to one of the most fundamental principles of chemistry its “For fuck sake Bruce, its in the curriculum isn’t it?”
I think we can all do without the scientific bigotry, thanks Bruce.
I suggest you re-read my post at 88: I never expressed a view as to when they should or shouldn’t teach periodic tables; not least because I’m not an expert in the topic, nor do I profess to be.
Though it has clearly struck a chord with you: we have gathered that. But as I said, if you feel so strongly about, I suggest you vent your opinion through the appropriate channels established by the federal Department.
No, you didn’t say they shouldn’t be taught, you said you didn’t care when they were taught. So you really don’t care when a child is taught one of the most basic foundations of chemistry? Yes, it is a disgrace that it takes that long, but apparently you can’t complain about the idiots writing the science program, only about early education on this post
I do care about that; I care that information be taught at a time when it is going to be able to be properly understood.
The Periodic Table as a list of different types of atoms is cute. However to understand the basis of the periodic table, why it is organised the way it is and what it allows us to predict about elemental properties depends on a good understanding of the atomic structure. This is how it is organised in the Draft currifculum and it seems sensible to me.
I have already mentioned how it will be almost impossible to avoid referring to the PT as a list of elements in year 9 anyway, and I draw bruce’s attention to :
“Q: Does the draft Australian Curriculum represent the whole curriculum that is to be taught to students?
A: The term ‘curriculum’ is typically used to refer to the sum total of intended learning experiences. The Australian Curriculum will not be the whole curriculum in that sense. The Australian Curriculum will define, for all students, a broad scope and sequence of core learning.”
Probably because that is not the case.
bruce,
The period table is reference material not a teaching aid. It’s quite a poor tool in actually understanding chemistry behind it’s structure. I mean you don’t teach English out of a dictionary do you?
Or history from a chronology, desipis. Useful to have a list of dates and facts, certainly, but not until you know how to read old things.
Or mathematics from a book of logarithmic tables, come to that.
…or art from a colour palette…
Back in the real old days when I went to school the periodic table came in the final yr after we had learned a lot about chemistry. The impact was a lot greater then because I could understand how useful it was. The scientific process is about collecting data and then looking for patterns and hypothesis to explain it.
Agree with Robert that statistics is far more important in terms of doing a whole range of jobs as well as understanding the uncertainties associated with science.
You don’t have to be able to do statistics but it is important to understand the key concepts and to know when statistical analysis is necessary.
From what I’ve seen so far of the Science curriculum for Years 7 to 10, it looks like a walk down memory lane eg. who remembers teaching simple machines to Year 8?
I am in favour of loading more content into the primary school stages, however, I wonder if the teachers will be adequately trained in time. Also, I feel for the Years 7 and 8 students who’ll have missed out on this preparation and face learning topics now presently taught in Years 9 and 10. As for Year 10 students learning about the evidence for wave-particle duality of light, that is, the photo-electric effect, hey, while we’re at it, why not also throw in Maxwell’s equations and relativity! Someone had to be tripping when they tossed in this syllabus gem!