Post by: pi on January 03, 2015, 03:11:28 am
The tldr for someone without 15min to watch:
- This is happening at Templestowe College right now, which is a high school that traditionally caters for Years 7-12
- No more "Years", students entering the school (Year 5s or Year 6s) will join an "entry class", which is a common year that can have traditional Year 7s, Years 8s, etc who are at that academic level (the level is pitched at a traditional Year 8 level)
- After this "entry class" it's a free-for-all, students can pick from a grid of subjects: non-VCE subjects (high school maths, random projects, etc.), VCE subjects, Uni Extension (if prerqs met) etc. eg. a traditional Year 8 could do VCE 1/2 subjects and start their 3/4 sequences from traditional Year 9 and on-wards until they want to graduate (ie. high school could last as short as 4 years)*
- Students are involved in selection of teachers, they actually interview them (another panel of principal and senior teachers also conduct an interview too)
*This doesn't seem to be unusual for the keen beans of AN Class of 2018 though :P
What are your thoughts on this?
Post by: keltingmeith on January 03, 2015, 04:03:24 am
The fact is that what TC is doing is different, though. There will be nay-sayers, quoting years of research against TC, and there will be those that say it's a step in the wrong direction. However, the biggest thing to really take away is what this really is - it is a step in a direction. This is certainly a system that will be detrimental to some students, but it is also a system that will help many students, and the important thing is to go into it with an open mind and not walk in with prejudices, whether they be bad or good.
Personally, I think the system is amazing - just remove VCE altogether and I'll love it even more. :P Except then's the question of how to handle university entrance, and I'd probably hate a Japanese system more than the current ATAR...
Post by: pi on January 04, 2015, 07:28:39 pm
I like the idea of starting VCE subjects earlier, but I don't want to compromise "years" and the "normal" school subjects such as high school maths, science, english, history, PE, etc. I'd be in favour of a system allowing students to accelerate up to 2 subjects, starting the 1/2s in Year 9, and another 2 in Year 10 (with options of repeating).
So for example:
Year 9: 1/2 English, 1/2 Methods, yr9 Science, yr9 PE, yr9 History, yr9 Geo, yr9 Art etc
Year 10: 3/4 English, 3/4 Methods, 1/2 GMA, 1/2 Chem, yr10 PE, yr10 History, etc
Year 11: 3/4 English (repeat, for example), 3/4 Spesh, 3/4 Chem, 1/2 Physics, 1/2 Economics
Year 12: 3/4 Physics, 3/4 Economics, 3/4 Biology, uni Chem
I'd be in favour of something like that. Would be a timetabling nightmare for schools though.
Post by: spectroscopy on January 04, 2015, 09:14:55 pm
i really dont think you schools should compromise things like secondary history and science and even PE because theyre a part of a well rounded education
the system would be good if there were still requirements, like "2 years of PE/health" "2 years of a history" "3 years of math" and that sort of thing, so that way you could do it as a yr 9 or 10 subject, or instead you could take it as a vce subject later on if you wanted to explore other things in earlier years, or yolo it and do said subject every year
im generally really liking the system though. it would be a pain to timetable but would be absolutely AWESOME to partake in. in things like science my productivity peaked in year 10 and if i were doing a vce subject at the time i probably wouldve done better in it than any of the study scores i ended up getting lmao
Post by: vobinhood on January 05, 2015, 12:07:48 am
Additionally, schools should include a 'show and tell' talk on a regular basis where students can talk to their peers and teachers about the project they're working on and their goals and aspirations in regards to it.
This would really help them explore concepts and receive feedback on how to improve/look at the idea from different points of view etc.
Post by: 99.90 pls on January 05, 2015, 02:57:09 am
Regardless of what school you go to, socioeconomic background etc, there are always going to be kids looking for a bludge. More often than not, these are the kids in the "bottom third". Most of us are guilty of it too; we've all picked electives or classes in the past for the sole reason of "bludging", rather than interest in the subject.
What's more, are Year 9 kids really best placed to know what they want for their future? Of fucking course they all said "game design"; but the notion of 600 code monkeys flooding the industry and all managing to find a job, prosper and live happily ever after is something out of a Marxist fairytale. Currently, the lead up to VCE are valuable years which allow students to gain a more holistic world view before making INFORMED decisions.
Not to mention that what he is proposing already exists. VCE. Hundreds of subjects for you to choose from, covering a huuuuuuuge spectrum, all cross-compatible in terms of contributing to the ATAR thanks to VTAC's nifty scaling system.
We always blame the system for our own shortcomings. It's not the system's fault. The system is bloody fine. The issue originates from places far deeper than the education system, such as parenting, a culture addicted to instant gratification, and a generally lackadaisical attitude towards study and work in general.
Post by: pi on January 05, 2015, 04:37:10 am
Post by: keltingmeith on January 05, 2015, 07:47:05 am
No, this curriculum does more than just supply an education which is both welcoming to students, and diversive enough to keep them interested. This curriculum gives POWER to the children.
In a world where couples buying a house get to have a say in what the house is like, a world where a patron chooses their meal at the restaurant, and the music listener decides on which bands they listen to, does it not seem strange that a student has almost no say in what they study? Sure, they can choose what things they'd like to study, but it's basically akin to being told you must eat at a seafood restaurant, and then being given a limited menu. Or even being told you must spend your life listening to punk rock, and thus being limited to whatever bands play music in the genre.
By giving students the power to control the curriculum, as this school is doing, it's leading a paradigm shift from what is usually consented as strange to something more normal. This is the TRUE beauty of the system - not in that it can help students accelerate, or giving them more to choose from. It's a system in which the consumer is truly allowed to choose and shape what they consume, which is how any good marketing system is designed.
Post by: Russ on January 05, 2015, 08:44:48 am
Post by: brenden on January 05, 2015, 10:04:58 am
You're making the assumption that consumers (14 year old kids in this case) are rational and informed. This seems like an interesting modification to the system, especially in allowing flexible projects in areas of interest, but I'm hardly convinced it's well designed.Yeah but people who design the the education system aren't rational anyway so there's no waste.
Edit: was using rationality in a different sense to Russ to be cheeky. In hindsight it was probably a monumental fail of a joke. I''ll be off now.
Post by: Russ on January 05, 2015, 10:16:46 am
Post by: 99.90 pls on January 05, 2015, 12:54:53 pm
I feel like you're not giving these students enough credit. Yes, it is true that they are just kids who don't know what they want out of life, but why should we restrict youths based on a curriculum both small and stifling? You may argue that VCE has plenty of subjects to cater for one's interests, but then how is it that FIRST YEAR UNIVERSITY has more than double the amount of subjects available to a student than VCE can offer? This is even including the subjects they've essentially doubled up, just to "cater" for different skill levels (foundation/general maths, methods/specialist, music investigation/performance).
VCE covers a large enough range of subjects already. They even have Dance and Furniture Making, for crying out loud. The system is fine as it is. An inability to take an interest in (or at least try to take an interest in) at least a few of the hundreds of subjects offered is indicative of a personal issue rather than an issue with the system. Don't forget, VCAL is there too for 'practical' interests.
.... does it not seem strange that a student has almost no say in what they study? Sure, they can choose what things they'd like to study, but it's basically akin to being told you must eat at a seafood restaurant, and then being given a limited menu. Or even being told you must spend your life listening to punk rock, and thus being limited to whatever bands play music in the genre.
That's preposterous. You're telling me that being offered hundreds of subjects, ranging from Specialist Maths to Horticulture to LOTE is "akin to being told you must eat a seafood restaurant" and other equally inappropriate analogies? VCE is a blessing, in comparison to secondary schooling in most other countries.
What you're saying is indicative of a systemic tendency to blame higher authorities regardless of the circumstances, thus shifting responsibility from ourselves to some arbitrary punching bag. This is exactly the kind of societal attitude which fosters the growth and acceptance of the "bottom third". It's never my fault, it's always someone else's fault.
By giving students the power to control the curriculum, as this school is doing, it's leading a paradigm shift from what is usually consented as strange to something more normal. This is the TRUE beauty of the system - not in that it can help students accelerate, or giving them more to choose from. It's a system in which the consumer is truly allowed to choose and shape what they consume, which is how any good marketing system is designed.
Being given the ability to pick every subject you do (barring English, and even then, you get three choices) for the final two years of secondary schooling is not enough "[choice]"? Ridiculous.
And it's interesting how you keep referring to education as a product/service and to students as "consumers". Since when did education become a commercial venture? Education is a privilege; we should be making the most of it, rather than acting like entitled brats. Consumer rights have nothing to do with this.
Post by: dyskontent on January 05, 2015, 02:09:45 pm
What you're saying is indicative of a systemic tendency to blame higher authorities regardless of the circumstances, thus shifting responsibility from ourselves to some arbitrary punching bag. This is exactly the kind of societal attitude which fosters the growth and acceptance of the "bottom third". It's never my fault, it's always someone else's fault.
While one's acceptance of the current system and refusal to make any attempts at improvement are the reason why our education levels compared to the rest of the world are slipping. It seems quite presumptuous to assume that because this system works for me, that it is therefore the best system and anyone who doesn't like it is just looking for someone else to blame / has a 'personal' issue.
For the people who go to elite private schools / selective high schools, it's easy to support the system a system that they benefit from; seeing as the majority of people that get 99+ ATARs go to these schools. The fact is that it is okay to be a passive learner, following a rigid curriculum in these caring, high quality environments because the majority of the teachers are good and the spoon-feeding is ubiquitous. In schools where students often do not have access to the best quality teachers / facilities, being a passive learner means that you fall behind, in asking students to be responsible for their own learning is to encourage the students to feel that they have a personal stake in their own education, rather than being forced into doing something by the high school system. I think it has to be emphasized that education is for the student, so the student should be able to have a greater say in what they learn.
Of course I'm not saying that the curriculum at TC should be implemented everywhere, but the fact that it is being attempted should be cause for encouragement as it provides an alternative to the overwhelming majority of schools that follow a strict curriculum, and can cater to students who would otherwise suffer in a regular school.
VCE covers a large enough range of subjects already. They even have Dance and Furniture Making, for crying out loud. The system is fine as it is. An inability to take an interest in (or at least try to take an interest in) at least a few of the hundreds of subjects offered is indicative of a personal issue rather than an issue with the system. Don't forget, VCAL is there too for 'practical' interests.
While this may be true, the fact is that the vast majority of these subjects are not offered at many schools. And the issue of choice doesn't extend to what subjects you can choose, (after all the VCE curriculum effectively covers all the major areas of study), but when you can undertake these studies. In basically every other school, 3/4 subjects can only be taken in Year 12 and a few in Year 11; but what about the talented mathematicians that would be more than capable of taking Maths Methods in Year 10 or even Year 9, but are instead forced to delay their mathematical learning until Year 12 - as a MHS student I'm sure you know that having to take methods in Year 12 isn't something that suits people who would be more than capable of doing methods earlier. What we are effectively doing is stunting students mathematical learning for 2 or more years just so they don't disturb the system. If students are capable of doing subjects earlier on they should be more than able to, not doing so is wasting their time as well as probably instilling a boredom of the subject as they are forced to listen to material that they have already learnt.
As for VCE being a 'blessing' in comparison to other countries.
I'd firstly like to say that what TC is proposing isn't to get rid of VCE but instead to cater a students individual desires / talents to best be able to tackle VCE. Furthermore, while compared to some countries we may have a more varied curriculum; in countries such as the US (which is severely lacking in education in some areas, so I'm sure as hell not advocating a US system), students are able to subjects at whatever level is suitable, often being able to take multiple first or second year university subjects at the local university if they are capable.
Post by: keltingmeith on January 05, 2015, 03:57:28 pm
You're making the assumption that consumers (14 year old kids in this case) are rational and informed. This seems like an interesting modification to the system, especially in allowing flexible projects in areas of interest, but I'm hardly convinced it's well designed.
As I said earlier, I don't think you're giving them enough credit. Sure, they're 14 years old - but they know what they want. Sure, they might not be willing to accept that to make video games you need maths, or that they can't actually speak their own language as well as they think they can, but that's why they have parents and teachers to help guide them. The fact of the matter is, even in a normal school, OLDER kids make these faulty decisions (ever counted the amount of year 12s saying they didn't do methods because they didn't realise they needed it for commerce?), so what's wrong in letting the 14 year olds have more input? At least let them make the mistake of what they think being a video game designer is earlier, BEFORE their VCE subject selection (when they gotta choose those uni pre-reqs...).
VCE covers a large enough range of subjects already. They even have Dance and Furniture Making, for crying out loud. The system is fine as it is. An inability to take an interest in (or at least try to take an interest in) at least a few of the hundreds of subjects offered is indicative of a personal issue rather than an issue with the system. Don't forget, VCAL is there too for 'practical' interests.
You say that, but have you truly looked past VCE as to what COULD be offered? What about looking at the aspects of video game making? "oh but they have multimedia and software development", so a student should be forced to forego an entire subject just because there's ASPECTS of two which suit their needs? Or learning about US/UK history? Last I checked, there was nothing about vikings or the anglosaxons covered in VCE history. And don't even get me STARTED on the amount of sciences offered in VCE... No, "chemistry, biology, physics and environmental science" ISN'T plenty. It's like saying the only ice-cream flavours are vanilla, chocolate, strawberry and banana.
That's preposterous. You're telling me that being offered hundreds of subjects, ranging from Specialist Maths to Horticulture to LOTE is "akin to being told you must eat a seafood restaurant" and other equally inappropriate analogies? VCE is a blessing, in comparison to secondary schooling in most other countries.
Yes. I am. Look up. And just because we have it better than most countries, doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to do better. Our economy is a lot better off than any third world countries, too, but we're still trying to improve that.
What you're saying is indicative of a systemic tendency to blame higher authorities regardless of the circumstances, thus shifting responsibility from ourselves to some arbitrary punching bag. This is exactly the kind of societal attitude which fosters the growth and acceptance of the "bottom third". It's never my fault, it's always someone else's fault.
Honestly, I feel like you're just having fun by picking on said "bottom third", just for the fucking sake of it. Y'know what? I've met this "bottom third", I've been friends with this "bottom third", and they will admit themselves that they might not be the brightest of the bunch, but EVEN THEY can see that school isn't *trying* to be interested in them, so why should they be interested in it? Would you ever buy a dress/suit that doesn't look nice? Just because school is interesting to you, doesn't mean there's a problem with everyone else because they can't get it to be interesting for them.
Being given the ability to pick every subject you do (barring English, and even then, you get three choices) for the final two years of secondary schooling is not enough "[choice]"? Ridiculous.
Nope. Not at all - glad you can see where I'm coming from. :P And it's not ridiculous, far from it - if you could choose whatever job you wanted (oh wait - you can do that!), but only given the choice of *obvious* careers, how would you feel? Hell, the entire job of "scientist" almost goes out the window ENTIRELY if you had a system like this, and don't even get me STARTED on what happens to teaching with no "teaching" VCE subject. (on this, why shouldn't there be a VCE subject based on learning - both teaching kids how they can best learn, but also the best way to help others learn)
And it's interesting how you keep referring to education as a product/service and to students as "consumers". Since when did education become a commercial venture? Education is a privilege; we should be making the most of it, rather than acting like entitled brats. Consumer rights have nothing to do with this.
Y'know what, getting food is a priviledge, so I think we should all just eat the cheapest food ever. Screw all the people with jobs that are constantly trying to improve their product so that they can KEEP THOSE JOBS.
Post by: pi on January 05, 2015, 04:18:35 pm
As I said earlier, I don't think you're giving them enough credit. Sure, they're 14 years old - but they know what they want. Sure, they might not be willing to accept that to make video games you need maths, or that they can't actually speak their own language as well as they think they can, but that's why they have parents and teachers to help guide them. The fact of the matter is, even in a normal school, OLDER kids make these faulty decisions (ever counted the amount of year 12s saying they didn't do methods because they didn't realise they needed it for commerce?), so what's wrong in letting the 14 year olds have more input? At least let them make the mistake of what they think being a video game designer is earlier, BEFORE their VCE subject selection (when they gotta choose those uni pre-reqs...).
I think the fact that "OLDER kids" make regrettable decisions is more of a reason to restrict this "academic freedom" from younger students.
Seeing as though we're using analogies for every point here, 18 year olds statistically make some of the worst decisions as P-platers, let's let 14 year olds hit the roads solo too?
I'm not against giving 14 years olds more choice, but I'm not sure they need or should have as much as TC is giving them. In the current system (or at least when I was say, 14) I had my core subjects of maths/english/science/history/geo/PE and then a bunch of elective spots (IT/flight technology/woodwork/textiles/mentalwork/vis comm/etc etc). I don't think that system, ie. the current system, is lacking in that regard to variety. Having said that, I don't think it caters enough for academically able students well enough in regard to starting VCE early (as I've mentioned twice now), that would be my only criticism.
I don't think comparing high school to university is a fair or relevant comparison. One is for minors, one is for adults. One is where parents have a high input, one is where it's mostly the student calling the shots. One is a gateway to careers, one is designed to provide a foundation for a broad range of subjects. I don't think there's any need to "tailor" your schooling*by doing obscure sciences (say, astronomy) just because they 'exist' in the 'real world'. School is obviously /not/ the real world, and it isn't supposed to be. Having said that, if we can improve the content in the subjects we have, I'm all for that. But I don't see the need to revamp the system to cater for every little interest, there's plenty of time for that once you've got an educational base to stand on.
*and let alone the terrifying potential scenario of "super keen parents tailoring their child's schooling from 14 years of age to complete 15 VCE subjects for the perfect score simply because the school will let them" (way to talk about ruining a childhood)
Post by: Orb on January 05, 2015, 09:08:08 pm
*and let alone the terrifying potential scenario of "super keen parents tailoring their child's schooling from 14 years of age to complete 15 VCE subjects for the perfect score simply because the school will let them" (way to talk about ruining a childhood)
^^ have to put in my 5 cents' worth with that statement
If you've ever lived in a predominantly asian or just extravagantly competitive neighbourhood, you realise that it's generally in the Year 11/12 years when parents amp up all their expectations and regulations. It's because these parents realise that it's this period where it's crucial, critical for their children.
So if we made Year 7 and Year 8 count towards this crucial period, what's to stop these parents from enforcing stricter regulations, because they've realised that the 'ever-important' time is here? This potentially shifts the mentality back into a high-school regime like China, where Chinese students are forced day-in, day-out to 6-8 hours of academic rigours, not to mention the top students the recipients of 12-14 hour crippling mental activity periods.
As a member of a competitive family, I can safely say that I had one of the best Year 7-9 periods where I was allowed to participate in whatever I wanted and pursue my interests, because parents encourage it too (saving the major academic pursuit in Years 10-12). If this plan was implemented, it's again, safe to say that my teenage period would be severely affected due to academic regulations. Some of the co-curricular activities that i've been in have had a significant impact on my future desires and career choices, something that I may have never had the chance to had Year 7 been a repeat of Year 11.
Post by: pi on January 05, 2015, 09:23:23 pm
off-topic
This potentially shifts the mentality back into a high-school regime like China, where Chinese students are forced day-in, day-out to 6-8 hours of academic rigours, not to mention the top students the recipients of 12-14 hour crippling mental activity periods.
I was actually reading this article last night, which was really shocking and eye-opening. One quote which really got me was: “To be honest,” one of my Chinese friends, a new mother, told me, “the gaokao [hardcore Chinese equivalent of VCE] race really begins at birth.”
It'd be a real shame if that happened here.
Post by: Orb on January 06, 2015, 09:34:27 am
off-topicI was actually reading this article last night, which was really shocking and eye-opening. One quote which really got me was: “To be honest,” one of my Chinese friends, a new mother, told me, “the gaokao [hardcore Chinese equivalent of VCE] race really begins at birth.”
It'd be a real shame if that happened here.
response to off-topic
That article is surprisingly incredibly accurate, albeit very slightly exaggerated.
"During the day, Lin timed her cooking to coincide precisely with class breaks, so her son could devour his meals without wasting a second of study time. “We have to do all we can,” Lin said. “Otherwise, we will always blame ourselves.”
It really puts our freedom to learn what we want to learn in perspective.
"school administrators were so keen to have a student admitted to one of China’s top universities that they were offering a sizable reward: nearly $50,000 to be divided equally among Xu’s family, his middle school and — naturally — his teachers at Maotanchang."
When you think of $50,000 in Chinese Yuan (around 270,000rmb) it's the equivalent of 3-4 years of a family's income. All for someone who gets into a top-tier high school.
Crazy.
"During the day, Lin timed her cooking to coincide precisely with class breaks, so her son could devour his meals without wasting a second of study time. “We have to do all we can,” Lin said. “Otherwise, we will always blame ourselves.”
It really puts our freedom to learn what we want to learn in perspective.
"school administrators were so keen to have a student admitted to one of China’s top universities that they were offering a sizable reward: nearly $50,000 to be divided equally among Xu’s family, his middle school and — naturally — his teachers at Maotanchang."
When you think of $50,000 in Chinese Yuan (around 270,000rmb) it's the equivalent of 3-4 years of a family's income. All for someone who gets into a top-tier high school.
Crazy.
Post by: pi on February 27, 2016, 05:03:10 pm
Quote
School dumps cut-throat VCE ranking
Students at one Victorian school will become the envy of all teenagers, as they wave goodbye to the ATAR from next year.
Under a proposed new model, students at Templestowe College will be given the option of applying for any course at Swinburne University without an ATAR.
Entry into the university's courses - which will include the full gamut of undergraduate degrees - will be based on new measures of student ability: grit, leadership and strong inter-personal skills.
"The ATAR is simply a ranking tool, people imbue too much status in that," said Andrew Smith, vice president of engagement at Swinburne University, who is calling on other schools and universities to take part in the pilot.
"There are many students who have talent and show commitment, but to whom the ATAR system is not suited. This gives them an opportunity to come through university using a different pathway," he said.
Students who opt in to the new scheme at Templestowe, will apply for a Swinburne course 12 to 24 months before finishing school.
They will decide how many VCE subjects they wish to undertake, and will be given the option of ditching the ATAR (this would not be compulsory).
They will spend much of their final year of school completing a long-term project, in which they will demonstrate their skills in their chosen area, and write a thesis about their project, and their reasons for choosing their university course.
They will also be assessed on their involvement in extra curricular activities, their leadership skills and community engagement.
The school, rather than the university, will ultimately decide whether the student will be admitted into the degree, said Templestowe College principal Peter Hutton.
"In most circumstances, I would argue that schools and teachers know their students far better than an ATAR score can determine.
"For example, a student may be able to achieve an ATAR of 70 or 80, but may not be suitable for university, because they lack a degree of independence needed, or struggle to complete their work to deadline."
Mr Hutton said the ATAR system had led to high degrees of stress and depression among students, as it pitted students against each other in their bid to succeed.
"Sometimes in the school system, we seem to place greater value on those students who are more academic. That, to me, is abhorrent.
"We can't afford to have a system where half the kids come out knowing their ATAR score is less than 50. While that doesn't define them as a failure in our mind, we, as a society, consider them a failure."
Swinburne University's Mr Smith said the new model did not risk lowering standards at the university, as the school would closely monitor the students' progress throughout their year, and advise the university on whether the student was ready for the course.
It comes as a growing number of universities are selecting their students based on interviews and portfolio work, with Victorian Tertiary Admissions Centre data showing that only one in four Victorian university courses published a clearly-in ATAR this year.
University of Melbourne emeritus professor, Patrick Griffin, said while the ATAR was a good mechanism of "sorting and selection" for universities, it did not accurately predict students' success at university.
Post by: HopefulLawStudent on February 28, 2016, 01:51:10 pm
What's to stop a school from saying a student was ready for the course? This model heavily relies on schools honestly monitoring and gauging student progress and whether they were ready for the course.
I feel like it's a cute idea but large-scale, can you imagine what sort of mess that would result in?
Post by: pi on February 28, 2016, 01:59:52 pm
Post by: Aaron on February 28, 2016, 02:20:06 pm
Quote
There are many students who have talent and show commitment, but to whom the ATAR system is not suited.We have to ask ourselves, why is the ATAR system not suited to these individuals? Is it because of stress (due to so many complicated calculations from scaling, weighted marks and so on)? Is it because of the workload? Is it because they simply can't be bothered to do the work? These are questions that should be answered before taking any sort of action.
Do Year 12's really understand what will happen if they 'ditch the ATAR' so to speak, and apply for a place at Swinburne. I can only hope that there is proper career counselling available and that the students who do choose this 'pathway' are fully aware of what will happen, and don't choose it to avoid the demands of Year 12.
Post by: lurkering on March 06, 2016, 03:09:43 pm
How can assessments be monitored properly all the time with this type of 'curriculum'. I'd hate for my parents to choose my classes, but it certainly can happen at such a young age and with the amount of 'innocence' a 13 year old would have.
Post by: thushan on March 07, 2016, 09:10:55 am
I see why TC is doing it, and firstly I commend their guts in innovating and trying out something different. However, I think this proposal is rather risky.
Allowing 13-15 year olds to choose their own academic pathways COULD be beneficial; however, a working knowledge of English (and how to express oneself clearly in the written and spoken format) and Mathematics (so as to be able to perform arithmetic, think mathematically and learn how to think critically, apart from the specialist knowledge that can be acquired) is essential.
I would say - so long as these two subjects are compulsory, I would be happy for this new model to pass.
As for selecting students based on things other than ATAR - I believe unis do this already to an extent (given ATAR is not the sole determinant of doing well at university), but to allow schools to decide which of their students can study which courses makes selection a lot more subjective, and at worst, lead to corruption.
On another note, you might like this clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGA11A340Ck
Post by: meganrobyn on March 07, 2016, 09:57:56 am
In my own experience teaching, anyway, the teachers who used more of this approach got 'oohs' and 'aahs' at first, but most students got bored with feeling like they weren't learning or being challenged enough. Over time it tended to be the more 'traditional' teachers with high content and performance demands who got better results and across-the-board engagement. I always felt the pressure to be a more 'fashionable' teacher, but every time I tried I cringed at the waste of time - and usually the students would ask if we could go back to normal anyway (except for a few, who said "No, that was fun!" but couldn't necessarily show too much for it).
I think this tends to change the more advanced the student becomes (eg you benefit from way more freedom in a PhD, for instance), but my personal experience certainly coincides with the trend of the research on this one. In a lot of education circles people are starting to ask why this 'failed experiment' keeps on being implemented, and the answer many people give is that it sounds really good. And 'fun'. So it sells well.
Eg, from a quick search, because I haven't kept copies of the research I've read:
https://www.studentsfirst.gov.au/review-australian-curriculum
http://www.suttontrust.com/researcharchive/great-teaching/
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic951140.files/whyMinGuidInstructionDoesNotWork-kirschnerSwellerKlark2006.pdf
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/inside-school-research/Why%20Mental%20Arithmetic%20Counts.pdf
https://educhatter.wordpress.com/2012/09/16/open-concept-schools-why-is-the-failed-experiment-making-a-comeback/
Post by: cathiwalker on January 05, 2017, 02:46:12 pm
I'm not totally for it, but I do like some aspects.
I like the idea of starting VCE subjects earlier, but I don't want to compromise "years" and the "normal" school subjects such as high school maths, science, english, history, PE, etc. I'd be in favour of a system allowing students to accelerate up to 2 subjects, starting the 1/2s in Year 9, and another 2 in Year 10 (with options of repeating).
So for example:
Year 9: 1/2 English, 1/2 Methods, yr9 Science, yr9 PE, yr9 History, yr9 Geo, yr9 Art etc
Year 10: 3/4 English, 3/4 Methods, 1/2 GMA, 1/2 Chem, yr10 PE, yr10 History, etc
Year 11: 3/4 English (repeat, for example), 3/4 Spesh, 3/4 Chem, 1/2 Physics, 1/2 Economics
Year 12: 3/4 Physics, 3/4 Economics, 3/4 Biology, uni Chem
I'd be in favour of something like that. Would be a timetabling nightmare for schools though.
To some extent, this system already exists, the schools have the capacity to make the choice. My daughter did a 1/2 Biology unit in Year 9, and 3/4 Biology in Year 10, at Box Hill High. She then did what is now fairly common, two 3/4 subjects in Year 11. Box Hill won't let students do English or Chemistry early, their feeling for some reason is that they don't have the maturity (I can see the point in English, I'm not convinced about chem!). Some student have ended up doing 3 Year 12 subjects in Year 11. I guess that you'd get around the timetabling issues by subject 'blocks' (doing a Year 12 subject in Year 10 did mean that she couldn't do other options for Year 10, like Duke of Ed, from memory).
I think that the Templestowe College option sounds great for kids that get bored easily, you have more option to work at your own pace. I hope that it works out well for the school and their student (I know of a couple of kids going there, and their parents are certainly really happy with the school structure).