My little Bloke Lachie Y 5 reckons he did all right. Now he can get back to learning.Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoMick
Printable View
My little Bloke Lachie Y 5 reckons he did all right. Now he can get back to learning.Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoMick
Yeah, it's just a 3 day interruption to more important stuff, from my point of view. It produces limited information on a national basis which gives the education bureaucrats some data to make pretty graphs and tables. However, at school level, I doubt if it does anything to improve the quality of education. It doesn't reveal anything that a good teacher wouldn't already know. My opinions, of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppabillytea
Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app
I think that is the whole point of it - firstly, to make this knowledge available to the bureaucrats even if the 'good teacher' (or his/her superiors) does not pass this information on, and perhaps hopefully provide this information in the case where the term 'good teacher' is not strictly applicable.Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoMick
John
I have to say that federal education bureaucrats, from what I've seen, do little to nothing to improve what happens in schools.Quote:
Originally Posted by JDNSW
As for curriculums and so on, while the feds produce glossy documents full of jargon, it is the state bureaucrats who control what happens in each state and it is the principals and teachers who make the difference in each school and classroom.
Teachers should already know which kids are doing well and which are struggling and be able to pinpoint the reasons. The main role of the federal NAPLAN bureaucrats is to limit the amount of federal funding each school gets. By refusing to provide Gonski's needs-based funding the feds are strangling the schools who have the students with the greatest needs.
Schools don't need NAPLAN to tell them which students have the greatest needs - they already know very well and are struggling to do more with limited funding.
For exampleNAPLAN results
I'll preface this with - I am no longer in school, and have distanced myself from the politics of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoMick
The scientist in me asks: How is the school's and students performance best evaluated if not by a Naplan style test? What bias might be introduced by other means (for the purposes of allocating funds, which seems to be the best way to achieve outcomes)?
The HR professional in me asks: How many teachers are involuntarily out of work? Is there a skills shortage or excess? For all the extra funding and need for teachers / aids, how long, realistically, will it take to get results (keeping in mind the uncertainty of a political party's tenure)?
I'm all for funding where funding is most needed, but in the absence of real data (which sadly has to come from an easily digestable source), how would this funding be allocated? Through my schooling and 8 years of tertiary education I've seen good and bad teachers, and good and bad students as well... I think the concept of throwing funding at students and schools will work up to a point, but after that it's a poor investment. Without valid data, the return on investment will never be known. Herein lies the problem.
Somewhere in the last few days I have seen a news report commenting that despite increased school funding in the last twenty years, Australia has slipped down the ranks in international comparisons of education results.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toxic_Avenger
I think that while improvements in education may need more money, supplying more money does not necessarily improve education. And as you point out, there really needs to be some tool to tell whether it is working, which is what NAPLAN is intended to do.
Looking at changes over the years, from my education, to my childrens' and now to my grandchildrens', I see some pretty substantial changes, especially in things like teacher/student ratios. What I do not see is any substantial changes in results.
John
Fair points.
Naplan gives overall comparisons between schools, but schools with a high proportion of students with special needs such as disabilities or with students with languages other than English already know their overall average results will be significantly below schools with fewer students with those needs. They don't need Naplan to know that.
What counts is school leadership, well-organized programs and teachers who are supported to help students, plus lots of aides to give individual support to students. If school funding is short then there arent enough staff and many staff are casuals so the standard falls. Full time committed experienced staff make a huge difference. Naplan cant fix that.
Got no idea on Naplan, but, as far as teachers go, I feel they have been degrading in capability for some time.
I went to a grammar school,,, supposed to be the bee's knees,, on receiving a report, it couldn't be read. I started the argument, mum and dad filled it up, then I proceeded to finish it, with both the teacher and the head master.
If you can't write, I personally don't think you should be allowed to teach.
Ahhh... apartment life.
Not 5 minutes before writing this post the 'serial urinator' in an upstairs apartment to mine did his usual trick of ****ing out the window and onto the concrete landing 2 stories below.
Tonight I called out to him mid-act (using a few choice words that might fail the swear filter here).
I don't think I've ever heard anyone cut one off mid stream that quick... ever. :twisted:
I'm probably the first one to flop it out when in the bush or side of the road in a discrete spot, but not out the window of a apartment block within a few meter's of someones bedroom window (when there is an operating toilet literally meters away).
A blow in?Quote:
Originally Posted by Toxic_Avenger
"Orange wildlings just point, grunt, and occasionally gurgle, "