Re: [luv-talk] Should I feel sorry for Queenslanders?!
Quoting "Jason White" <jason@jasonjgw.net>
Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> wrote:
I think that the current system of giving all secondary schools the same goals is a bad one. The needs of kids who are destined to drop out at 16, the kids who will finish school but not do university, and the kids who are going to university are very different and would be best met by different schools.
Some systems separate children into these categories quite early. for example, apparently the German school system has separate curricula.
I understand and appreciate the benefits of such a model; the question is whether people who are misclassified have the opportunity to overcome their educational disadvantage and move up into the more intellectually rigorous stream destined for higher education. There will always be people who are pushed into the wrong stream, and the real problem is for those who are "downgraded" inappropriately.
IMHO the German system creates losers. It is not very fluid. Kids are "stuck" from early age. The selection happens in year 4, and it's based on teacher recommendations. Quite often, so it seems, it is more judging the social background of a child than the child's abilities. In East Germany we went to school for ten years together, afterwards only a few went to finish year 12 and go to Uni. The East German schools were in some ways "old-fashioned", with the teacher in front of the class, all kids facing the teacher. Interestingly, even after 23 years of unification (and more or less adapting the East German school system to the West German), the East German students still achieve better results in scientific subjects and maths, compared to West Germans. We could not choose between different subjects in that area, maths, physics, chemistry, biology were mandatory and separate subjects. I find the "modern" way of lumping the subjects together as "fluffy". Quite often I think the results are not impressive. Then there is all the "environmental studies" stuff etc.. I am not sure whether that is a waste of time. (Don't get me wrong, I am not against considering environmental issues or other society-relevant ones. But that has to do with world views, and a school is, in my opinion, not the place to teach kids "how to think". Sometimes it helps to know some facts to form a view, not only to have an opinion. E.g. everybody who is reading a bit of the business part of a newspaper, and compares it with the general political pages, will understand what I mean.) I like the idea of SEAL classes, selected entry accelerated learning, as my daughter is in now. It challenges them as well as keeps them in a "normal" school background, helpful in developing social skills. I can imagine Faye's problem. I hear a similar story from a German friend over there. I don't think it is easy to solve. The SEAL classes are a step in this direction, I think. The teachers there have an understanding how to deal with brighter kids. At the end, schools reflect culture. And, IMHO, Australia's system is helping kids having self-esteem and be positive "can do people". It is a value too. If I had a wish, I would get rid of all this private school stuff and use the money to pay teachers well. That's money better invested than in a million dollar concert hall or a super-gym. Regards Peter
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013, Petros <Petros.Listig@fdrive.com.au> wrote:
Quoting "Jason White" <jason@jasonjgw.net>
I understand and appreciate the benefits of such a model; the question is whether people who are misclassified have the opportunity to overcome their educational disadvantage and move up into the more intellectually rigorous stream destined for higher education. There will always be people who are pushed into the wrong stream, and the real problem is for those who are "downgraded" inappropriately.
IMHO the German system creates losers. It is not very fluid. Kids are "stuck" from early age.
The selection happens in year 4, and it's based on teacher recommendations. Quite often, so it seems, it is more judging the social background of a child than the child's abilities.
But in a system like the Australian one where kids aren't streamed would such kids do much better? There has been some research to show that a teacher's belief in the ability of the kids has a significant effect on the educational results. So if a teacher believes that some grade 4 kids aren't going to learn much then they won't teach them much and they might as well be in a school for less intelligent kids.
(Don't get me wrong, I am not against considering environmental issues or other society-relevant ones. But that has to do with world views, and a school is, in my opinion, not the place to teach kids "how to think". Sometimes it helps to know some facts to form a view, not only to have an opinion. E.g. everybody who is reading a bit of the business part of a newspaper, and compares it with the general political pages, will understand what I mean.)
"How to think" would mean logical analysis of arguments etc and the "debates" about the environment provides many good examples where young children can see the flaws in arguments.
I like the idea of SEAL classes, selected entry accelerated learning, as my daughter is in now. It challenges them as well as keeps them in a "normal" school background, helpful in developing social skills.
If "normal" in this case means anything like most schools then it's not helpful in developing social skills unless you are preparing kids for prison life. My observation is that for boys socialisation in high school is largely based around how to use force to get what you want. Someone who graduates from such a school has probably learned a lot that would help them in a career dealing drugs, but for a career in IT (the original topic of this thread) it's not particularly useful. One major advantage of home schooling is that kids learn social skills relevant to relating to adults in ways that don't involve violence - skills that are going to be useful in most of their life. Many of the alternative schools such as those following the Sudbery Valley meme also apparently do well in this regard.
At the end, schools reflect culture. And, IMHO, Australia's system is helping kids having self-esteem and be positive "can do people". It is a value too.
Part of the problem in this regard is that most people seem to think that the only options are foolish attempts to boost self-esteem (such as giving every child a prize which even a 5yo can see through) and dog-eat-dog competition. People need to understand that there are things that they are good at and things that they aren't. If you're not good at something and working in a team then you should try and find someone else who's better in that area to help train you or help you do the work.
If I had a wish, I would get rid of all this private school stuff and use the money to pay teachers well. That's money better invested than in a million dollar concert hall or a super-gym.
The multi-million dollar expenses of private schools are just monuments designed to make people feel important. In most cases there is little benefit over cheaper facilities. Not that paying teachers better will necessarily improve things. There is a limited number of people in Australia with the skills to teach well. Of those people I think that the majority are already teaching. Higher pay for high school teachers might get some of the better university lecturers to change jobs, but otherwise probably won't change things much. I think that the best thing to do is to reduce the amount of schooling. Encourage kids to leave school at 16 if it's not working for them and both reduce the number of classes (getting rid of some of the less capable teachers) and reducing the class size (some teachers who can't handle 25 kids can do well with 12). -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> wrote:
"How to think" would mean logical analysis of arguments etc and the "debates" about the environment provides many good examples where young children can see the flaws in arguments.
True. Those skills are important to cultivate in so far as this can be done. I would argue that they're essential to civic responsibilities: if someone can't understand and assess the arguments made in the media by politicians, political commentators, researchers and others, then it's very difficult to engage meaningfully in public discussion or to make an informed vote at election time. The same skills are of course useful in many aspects of life, from decisions about health, family and relationships to managing the demands and opportunities of a career.
If "normal" in this case means anything like most schools then it's not helpful in developing social skills unless you are preparing kids for prison life.
My school experience was much better than that, despite difficulties at times. There were opportunities for social engagement, but I'm not sure that they developed my social skills as such; I would credit those, such as they are, to growing up in a supportive family environment, and later having the opportunity to study and collaborate with highly successful people (successful, that is, both intellectually and socially, among other dimensions). I've heard it argued that computing technology, as a profession, tends to attract people with undeveloped social skills (leaving aside autism, which is a different matter entirely). I've never encountered actual data to confirm or dispute this claim, and most of the people I know in the technology profession are very socially adept. However, they're also in roles that would be problematic for anyone with undeveloped social skills, for example standards committees and leadership responsibilities in organizations and research departments. Of course there are the exceptions, and I've met a number of those; but I'm not sure whether there are more of them in technology than in other fields (especially other intellectual pursuits). I'm sure there are technical jobs which are not highly collaborative and perhaps better suited to those for whom social interaction is more of a problem.
participants (3)
-
Jason White -
Petros -
Russell Coker