Question for Dr. Alf Andrews.

[CJH]

Originally posted by Dr. Alf Andrews



But I wouldn't just stop at "higher" education ...

The whole education system is a crock of crap ... right down to bloody kindergarten. It's more about propaganda than "education". And institutionalised mediocrity. Anathema to the soul of any free-thinking person.

I'm a qualified high school teacher, too ... (Don't ask me why. It was a mistake, OK) ... More like a bloody baby sitter ... or a prison guard. Kids don't need that crap. No wonder they rebel.

Alf,

Came across this comment in another thread. As It would have put the previous thread on a different tangent, I thought this would be better suited out on it's own.

What are the problems you see with the education system? What would you do to change it? How can we encourage "free thought" without also marginalising the rest of the student population?

I have 3 kids - 10, 8 and 2 - of which 2 are in school. I have my own misgivings about their schooling but also have obseverved many positives.

This naturally is a topic that has great interest for me.

 

[Santos L Helper]

CJH, if you don't mind, I thought I'd have a go at this one too. I will soon be out in the school system teaching primary school kids and one of the things that worries me is that I won't be able to take the 'teaching methods' I'm learning at Uni into the classroom. If you've read any of my posts you may have gathered that my leanings are left of centre, and the 'constructivist theory' of teaching that I'm learning takes in a 'free thinking' ideology that suits me just fine. The 'constuctivist classroom' is one where critical thinking/pedagogy is promoted by the students, the teacher acts more as a facillitator rather than just as a person who pours information into the kids and where the students are encouraged to ask questions and discover/experience learning new information for themselves. The idea is to encourage the students to become 'active' learners. Of course some parents see this as a way to make pleasant little socialists of their kids, but one of the things continually stressed to us is that our opinions are not to become the students opinions, rather we let the students know where we stand, but then it's up to them to find out where they stand.
As I said, the thing that worries me is actually getting to teach this way in the schools. I truly believe in this method, but it is still finding its way into the system and if I get placed in a school where the method of teaching has been entrenched for years will I be welcome with these 'new' ideas? The answer is probably not. Some parents also still believe that kids should be spoon fed information so they can repeat it ad nauseum in tests and that this method installs discipline into the kids rather than allowing their kids the chance to learn new things. I also have problems with the way many students from low socio-economic areas and of different ethnic/cultural backgrounds are left behind by the traditional teaching methods.
To answer your question, I feel the education system (currently) is geared towards functioning for the middle classes (upwards) and those of a European background. I would hope that an equalisation occurs soon and all students begin to have the chance of a beneficial education because I'm gonna fight like hell to give all my students one.

 

[Roylion]

I was a secondary teacher of English, History, Politics and Environmental Studies for a number of years at a number of schools in Melbourne, so I hope you don't mind me commenting. I should also add that I am no longer a teacher.

Firstly I must say I disagree vehemently with the Doctor on his comments. From what I can gather, Alf's experience of the education system is limited to a very, very short experience. I found teaching to be a very rewarding experience. However it's also probably the hardest of the three careers I have had.

Originally posted by Santos L Helper
CJH, if you don't mind, I thought I'd have a go at this one too. I will soon be out in the school system teaching primary school kids and one of the things that worries me is that I won't be able to take the 'teaching methods' I'm learning at Uni into the classroom. If you've read any of my posts you may have gathered that my leanings are left of centre, and the 'constructivist theory' of teaching that I'm learning takes in a 'free thinking' ideology that suits me just fine. The 'constuctivist classroom' is one where critical thinking/pedagogy is promoted by the students, the teacher acts more as a facillitator rather than just as a person who pours information into the kids and where the students are encouraged to ask questions and discover/experience learning new information for themselves. The idea is to encourage the students to become 'active' learners. Of course some parents see this as a way to make pleasant little socialists of their kids, but one of the things continually stressed to us is that our opinions are not to become the students opinions, rather we let the students know where we stand, but then it's up to them to find out where they stand.

From my experience both primary and secondary schools tend to encourage a variety of teaching methods. In subjects such as English and History for example 'critical thinking' is vital. However it is only one method of teaching. You also get kids who aren't interested in asking questions and discovering learning new information for themselves. Some have learning disabilities, behavioral problems or have external reasons why they're not interested.

I found that some kids actually like or respond to fairly traditional methods of teaching and like to be led along. Trying to cater to mixed ability classes requires a variety of teaching methods in my experience.

Originally posted by Santos L Helper

As I said, the thing that worries me is actually getting to teach this way in the schools. I truly believe in this method, but it is still finding its way into the system and if I get placed in a school where the method of teaching has been entrenched for years will I be welcome with these 'new' ideas? The answer is probably not. Some parents also still believe that kids should be spoon fed information so they can repeat it ad nauseum in tests and that this method installs discipline into the kids rather than allowing their kids the chance to learn new things. I also have problems with the way many students from low socio-economic areas and of different ethnic/cultural backgrounds are left behind by the traditional teaching methods.

There are many schools, certainly in Melbourne, that attempt to bridge the divide between students of different ethnic backgrounds by adopting different methods of engaging students and are leaving 'traditional' teaching methods behind.

Originally posted by Santos L Helper

To answer your question, I feel the education system (currently) is geared towards functioning for the middle classes (upwards) and those of a European background. I would hope that an equalisation occurs soon and all students begin to have the chance of a beneficial education because I'm gonna fight like hell to give all my students one.

I have to disagree. Many schools (not all) have many programs and initatives to cater for students of low socio-economic background. For example, the teaching of indigenous history has become a very important part of the curriculum, in Victoria, anyway.

 

[M29]

This'll be rivetting sh it. Wonder what Dr Marx suggests.

 

[Santos L Helper]

Originally posted by Roylion


I have to disagree. Many schools (not all) have many programs and initatives to cater for students of low socio-economic background. For example, the teaching of indigenous history has become a very important part of the curriculum, in Victoria, anyway.

Roylion, I agree with a lot of what you said in your post, but I have one thing to say about this one.
I find it encouraging that initiatives are being put in place to cater for these students, but the teaching of 'indigenous history' is not really addressing the problems faced by indigenous people in the education system. It seems to me the ones who benefit most would be non-Indigenous people as they become aware of Indigenous history.
My point was that 'race, class and gender' need to be addressed more by the curriculum rather than by specific subjects. I have not written this as a criticism of your ideas, just raised another point.

 

[SydneyBomber]

Originally posted by Roylion
I was a secondary teacher of English, History, Politics and Environmental Studies for a number of years at a number of schools in Melbourne, so I hope you don't mind me commenting. I should also add that I am no longer a teacher.

Firstly I must say I disagree vehemently with the Doctor on his comments. From what I can gather, Alf's experience of the education system is limited to a very, very short experience. I found teaching to be a very rewarding experience. However it's also probably the hardest of the three careers I have had.

From my experience both primary and secondary schools tend to encourage a variety of teaching methods. In subjects such as English and History for example 'critical thinking' is vital. However it is only one method of teaching. You also get kids who aren't interested in asking questions and discovering learning new information for themselves. Some have learning disabilities, behavioral problems or have external reasons why they're not interested.

I found that some kids actually like or respond to fairly traditional methods of teaching and like to be led along. Trying to cater to mixed ability classes requires a variety of teaching methods in my experience.

There are many schools, certainly in Melbourne, that attempt to bridge the divide between students of different ethnic backgrounds by adopting different methods of engaging students and are leaving 'traditional' teaching methods behind.

I have to disagree. Many schools (not all) have many programs and initatives to cater for students of low socio-economic background. For example, the teaching of indigenous history has become a very important part of the curriculum, in Victoria, anyway.

As another ex-HS teacher - good post. You hit the nail on the head.

Santos - I admire your passion and motives for teaching, but bear in mind that teaching in that style is NOT always appropriate, and part of being a good teacher is the ability to 'go with flow' in order to both maximise the development of the kids, AND their education.

You will need to master many different methods, most of which you won't learn in uni/college, you'll only pickup first hand at the chalkface.

Good luck!

 

[CJH]

My own views, moreso coming from the role of parent ....

I see education, especially at a primary school level, as existing at two distinct levels – (1) teaching literacy and numeracy and (2) giving them the ability to think for themselves.

At a minimum, I expect education to produce people who are achieved acceptable standards in literacy and numeracy. The test of this should not be the ability to merely read a passage of text or the ability to recite times tables from memory (though learning the 6 times table is handy when you’re at the footy!) but the demonstration of comprehension for literacy and problem solving in numeracy.

As a heuristic, this I would expect this component to take up about possibly 30% of the educational load.

For the balance of their education, I would like to see something along the lines of what you call your ‘constuctivist theory’. I do think it is much more important for people to have the ability to think for themselves than to just merely know lots of stuff.

We have employed people who have earnt really tough degrees with great marks from esteemed institutions such as Melbourne University and yet when we employ them, sit them down and give them a problem that exists even ever so slightly outside the strict parameters of their knowledge then they are stuffed. Have no idea on what to do. Cannot even think for themselves.

This is so very disappointing. 15 – 18 years of education to become nothing more than a glorified parrot.

I believe in the reality that not every person is equal (which I guess goes against socialist theory) so we therefore must attain the means to enable each individual to develop according to what their interests and strengths are. If someone shows a leaning to art, then make art available to them; drama, engineering, science, computing. Whatever.

Some of the good things I have observed are the techniques used for teaching kids how to read. Each individual kid is tested to see what level they are at (this kind of testing is a bit different to having them sit an exam) and then are given a program according to their level. Makes much more sense treating them individually rather than as a group.

Another aspect I like is composite classes – usually Grades 1 – 2 , 3 – 4 and 5 – 6. This kind of provides a ‘smoothing’ of education that otherwise didn’t exist. As I’ve said, not everyone is the same –some may take longer to get to the standard of reading, maths etc than some of the others. But instead of holding them back a year (and destroying their self-esteem) they are moved up a grade but still remain in the same classroom. This way they have the opportunity to catch up with no loss of face.

The biggest drawback really comes from economic means - there is only so much money available for school funding which means that there are fewer teachers and larger classroom. This so goes against my philosophy of growing the individual. In short, the load on the teachers is too great and they are spread too thin. It is all too easy for individual kids to get left behind as they don’t get the attention they deserve.

I am a Catholic, and by choice we send our kids to a Catholic primary school. It is my observation that the school is a bit better at managing resources than a State one but only by a matter of degrees. Up until the end of term 1, the kids have gone to the local Catholic school in Carrum Downs – a new area about 45kms SE of Melbourne. The school itself has a policy of accepting Catholics without question, regardless of numbers. As can be expected in a new area, this school is bursting at the seams and I feel the quality is slipping as a result.

As fate has it, we’ve sold up and are moving to Belgrave in the Melbourne Hills district. We will be starting the kids at the local Catholic primary there at the start of term 2. The difference it that this school has about a third the student population and has much better student / teacher ratios.

 

[CJH]

Originally posted by Santos L Helper


Roylion, I agree with a lot of what you said in your post, but I have one thing to say about this one.
I find it encouraging that initiatives are being put in place to cater for these students, but the teaching of 'indigenous history' is not really addressing the problems faced by indigenous people in the education system. It seems to me the ones who benefit most would be non-Indigenous people as they become aware of Indigenous history.
My point was that 'race, class and gender' need to be addressed more by the curriculum rather than by specific subjects. I have not written this as a criticism of your ideas, just raised another point.

Disagree with this in a big way Santos!

It is my reading of the current situation between Indigenous and European people that reconciliation is the key issue.

Not reconciliation in the shallow 'Sorry' vs 'Admitting liability' scenarios we see between Howard and the Aboriginal leaders, but true reconciliation between the two bodies of people.

I think the biggest obstacle to achieving this is the institutionalised ignorance we have of the Aboriginal people. I believe that this comes about in a big way through the lack of education.

I had this discussion with a Kiwi friend of mine a few years back. He was astonished at how backward we are in this regard. He highlighted to me that in New Zealand, it is a mandatory part of the curriculum from Years 1 - 9 to study Maori history. He pointed out that, while the Maoris weren't exactly on easy street, they were nonetheless reconciled with their European compatriots.

I was ashamed that we didn't have any such similar programs here.

How much knowledge would the average Australian over 20 years of age have of Indigenous people? I am tipping that most would know not much more than Abo's getting pissed my midday coupled with the 'Stolen Generation' propoganda that has recently dominated newspace.

The biggest issue the Aboriginal people have is ignorance from White Australia and education is the best solution for this.


(Note - I don't dispute that the 'Stolen Generation' existed, just realise that there is a lot of misinformation on it flying around from both sides.)

 

[Voice of Reason]

Originally posted by CJH
I see education, especially at a primary school level, as existing at two distinct levels – (1) teaching literacy and numeracy and (2) giving them the ability to think for themselves.

At a minimum, I expect education to produce people who are achieved acceptable standards in literacy and numeracy. The test of this should not be the ability to merely read a passage of text or the ability to recite times tables from memory (though learning the 6 times table is handy when you’re at the footy!) but the demonstration of comprehension for literacy and problem solving in numeracy.

As a heuristic, this I would expect this component to take up about possibly 30% of the educational load.

For the balance of their education, I would like to see something along the lines of what you call your ‘constuctivist theory’. I do think it is much more important for people to have the ability to think for themselves than to just merely know lots of stuff.

We have employed people who have earnt really tough degrees with great marks from esteemed institutions such as Melbourne University and yet when we employ them, sit them down and give them a problem that exists even ever so slightly outside the strict parameters of their knowledge then they are stuffed. Have no idea on what to do. Cannot even think for themselves.

This is so very disappointing. 15 – 18 years of education to become nothing more than a glorified parrot.

I believe in the reality that not every person is equal (which I guess goes against socialist theory) so we therefore must attain the means to enable each individual to develop according to what their interests and strengths are. If someone shows a leaning to art, then make art available to them; drama, engineering, science, computing. Whatever.

As a parent I strongly agree with everything you've said above.

I would have liked to have been a teacher - and am told that I would have been good at it - but the reality is that I did not have enough passion about it at a younger age to justify earning so much less money than I can earn in other fields. That'll always be a problem.

Although it's easy to have a shot at "the education system", a lot of the peopple who do this are just whingers who always want more. My ten year old's primary school teacher in WA is doing a fantastic job and I have a lot of respect for her approach, the school as a whole and the new curriculum.

 

[Santos L Helper]

CJH, I think you've missed my point . I was highlighting that Aboriginal people are disadvantaged by the current education system and that teaching Aboriginal history does benefit non-Indigenous people and, I agree with you, the relations between the two. My main point is that teaching this history does not address the problems faced by Aboriginal, or other ethnic groups, in the education system where people from 'non-white', low socio-economic backgrounds are still lagging behind in real terms. Although this is beginning to be addressed.

These 'glorified parrots' you speak of have probably come from a 'behaviourist theory' type education where the information is poured in and no real effort is made to encourage free thinking individuals.

 

[CJH]

Originally posted by Santos L Helper
CJH, I think you've missed my point .

...

I think we are both doing a bit of missing! I think we probably are both so close to agreeing that it isn't worth arguing about!

I do see and take you point that teaching whites about indigenous history doesn't actually do anything to directly help them, not in the immediate term anyway!

I think you do see my point that education for the whites will have a long term benefit in terms of reconciliation between the two groups.

 

[Stocka]

The thing that ****s me the most about the education system, is the way that politics (and political correctness) thinks it can substitute for educational theory within the system.

For example from the University of Melbourne (B.Ed - Primary):

Indigenous Studies - half semester subject. Although the subject sounds like a good idea in theory, in actually the entire semester's 'work' revolves around listening to a number of 'enlightened' individuals gabble on with political arguments as to why and how Indigenous people in Australia have been discriminated against, and all the political reasons as to why Indigenous perspectives should be included in the curriculum. Now, why is that a problem, may you ask? After all, the topic itself is reasonably stimulating, in terms of its historical content, which could be useful as a background to many future teachers. Well, fair enough, but considering the subject consists almost ENTIRELY of this matter, I suggest that the unit is there mainly for the benefit of the course appearing to be politically correct.

Perhaps if the unit was a whole year course, consisting of the historical, political and social background and arguments, as well as direct examples of HOW to incorporate Indigenous perspectives into the curriculum, then perhaps this approach could be incorporated.

However, as far as was noted, whenever asked as to HOW to incorporate Indigenous perspectives into the curriculum and to cater for the needs of Indigenous students, the regular answer given was "go and ask the local Indigenous elder".

Well, what bloody use is that? A pretty slack attitude on their behalf, I say! Why not, for example then get an Indigenous elder in to hold a lecture/seminar/tutorial and DEMONSTRATE some of the principals in practice! In almost every other serious subject in the degree, students are required to show a PRACTICAL knowledge of how to apply what they've learnt in studies, into the classroom. It's a shame that this subject didn't take itself seriously enough to incorporate this aspect. What, it's only head knowledge, is it? Pfft!

The attitude of trying to indoctrinate people with political arguments (many of which were fairly dubious, might I add), whilst failing to give direct examples of how to cater for, and incorporate Indigenous perspectives in the curriculum is a joke! One minute, it's as if they can't stop themselves from spoon-feeding you, yet the next minute when the REAL/PRACTICAL task is at hand, the attitude is "go and find out/work that out for yourselves".

Likewise, the use of Indigenous tutors was a joke (another example of face-saving political correctness gone mad), as none of them had teaching degrees, or were involved in teaching. In fact, what was the purpose of having these people along at all, considering all they did was gabble on about their own PERSONAL views on any particular gripe which happened to be on their minds, rather than as how to incorporate Indigenous perspectives into the broader curriculum and cater for the needs of Indigenous students.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the role of a university course in education to education and apprentice students as to become good teachers in PRACTICE, rather than merely indoctrinating them with political agendas, which are most likely to change at the drop of a Supreme Court's jurisdiction, or at the next election?

Don't get me wrong, the Education course at the University of Melbourne IS a great course, and will produce many very good teachers. However, this (and one or two other subjects), are pure examples of how political correctness and politics seems to think it can provide a substantial base for educational theory (as opposed to social/political theory). How wrong they are.

 

[The Hitman.]

I would be much better equipped to provide an informed response to this topic if I didn't go to Lyndhurst.

 

[vanders]

well, as a recent high school finisher, i think there is not too many big problems with the Education system.

The only problem i really had with it was with some of the subject matter.

For instance, i hated how throughout high school i learnt more about the history of countries such as the USA and Great Britain than i did about my own country.

If you walked up to a bunch of high school students today, i would bet that more of them would know who the first president of the USA was than who the first Australian Prime Minister was.

Also, i finished VCE just over 1 year ago, and its safe to say that i know absolutely jack **** about Aboriginies and their cultures/history. Its not that i dont want to know about it, its just that i didnt learn anything about it in high school, and i wouldve loved to. I know i could go down to the library and get some books about it, but im not that kind of person. I like to be told about stuff, not read it for myself (as stupid as it may sound)

Anywayz, other than that, i cant think of any other big quarms i have with the system, although im sure i'll think of something else once ive posted.

 

[Bee]

Originally posted by Santos L Helper
CJH, if you don't mind, I thought I'd have a go at this one too. I will soon be out in the school system teaching primary school kids and one of the things that worries me is that I won't be able to take the 'teaching methods' I'm learning at Uni into the classroom. If you've read any of my posts you may have gathered that my leanings are left of centre, and the 'constructivist theory' of teaching that I'm learning takes in a 'free thinking' ideology that suits me just fine. The 'constuctivist classroom' is one where critical thinking/pedagogy is promoted by the students, the teacher acts more as a facillitator rather than just as a person who pours information into the kids and where the students are encouraged to ask questions and discover/experience learning new information for themselves. The idea is to encourage the students to become 'active' learners. Of course some parents see this as a way to make pleasant little socialists of their kids, but one of the things continually stressed to us is that our opinions are not to become the students opinions, rather we let the students know where we stand, but then it's up to them to find out where they stand.
As I said, the thing that worries me is actually getting to teach this way in the schools. I truly believe in this method, but it is still finding its way into the system and if I get placed in a school where the method of teaching has been entrenched for years will I be welcome with these 'new' ideas? The answer is probably not. Some parents also still believe that kids should be spoon fed information so they can repeat it ad nauseum in tests and that this method installs discipline into the kids rather than allowing their kids the chance to learn new things. I also have problems with the way many students from low socio-economic areas and of different ethnic/cultural backgrounds are left behind by the traditional teaching methods.
To answer your question, I feel the education system (currently) is geared towards functioning for the middle classes (upwards) and those of a European background. I would hope that an equalisation occurs soon and all students begin to have the chance of a beneficial education because I'm gonna fight like hell to give all my students one.

Santos, I couldn't agree with you more. I am an ex-teacher. All my life I wanted to teach. But unfortunately I stuck at it for only two years because I was unable to take my teaching methods into the classroom with me.
I was teaching English to years 8 and 9, but to 14 and 15 year olds what the Education Department had construed as compulsive learning, was to them simply boring.
Most of them were not interested and did not want to learn, they turned up for classes because they knew they had to be there, not because they wanted to be there.
To me it became completely frustrating, until one day I did something about it. I decided to throw out what the Ed Dept had set down for their so called learning and took into class with me the lyrics of Bob Dylan and Leonard Cohen.( I might add this was not an ingenious invention on my behalf. I had actually read a book previously called "My posse don't do homework" based on a true story about a teacher in New York. Although I added the Cohen bit, she wasn't that courageous! )

It worked. They were learning. Yes! I was finally teaching, really teaching!
No! I wasn't, at least not according to the Ed Dept.
I was smacked over the knuckles for it and told to stick to what was set.
Devastated and disillusioned I walked away from teaching.

I wish you luck with what you want to do Santos, but I feel your frustration already.

 

[Stocka]

Originally posted by vanders
well, as a recent high school finisher, i think there is not too many big problems with the Education system.

If this was a court of law, that sentence would qualify as evidence against itself!

 

[M29]

Why hasn't Dr Marx answered this yet?
Surely he dosen't have no answers?!

 

[wagstaff]

I probably haven't got that much to add to what has been already said here but I'll say it anyway.

Looking back as a 23 year old who completed uni last year, I realise how much of a wasted experience school is. I ask myself from time to time: what did I learn about the world around me in areas such as history, science, economics and other areas?

The answer is, not much.

It's only in the last few years when I've searched for my own sources of knowledge in areas such as the Internet that my understanding of the world has advanced in any form.

And while people might argue that most kids don't want to learn about complex sort of issues but I think if they're given the right environment to learn that makes all the difference.

Certainly the constructivist theory is one I support.