A New System Required?

[lexitu]

@ Clanyx - Conflicting opinions on what you have said. Unless I've misconstrued things for "overall structure" I don't really agree. I don't think teachers and parents should be the chief decision makers in the process. Neither should genii/geniuses be elevated. But I love the idea of detailed and considered report cards where the feedback actually matters. IMO, students should complete self-evaluations and conference with teachers to get a better understanding of where they are at. This is something that I eventually intend to blog about... I'm too tired right now to elaborate. Sorry if I misread something, it was a quick read. I think you've somewhat remedied the negatives by allowing students to override the school's recommendations though. As for basic education - I love it! It's sort of like a Montessori style - kids really take charge of their own learning and there is more trust in the student.

So yeah, nice stuff there Some good ideas.

[chrisjb]

This was done in one sitting so it will have a lot of premature/stupid ideas as well as grammatical errors.


Overall structure
A report card system would be made necessary in all schools as the testing system would be dropped in favour of a more rigorous personality assessment. The quality of reports would be one of the main deciding factors in choosing teachers. Teachers would be required to note down apparent behaviour of the student, interests, etc. Stuff teachers are doing right now except without the copy and paste and they are required to go even more in-depth. The teachers would then submit these to parents and the school, and the school will make a decision on the course for the child. IMO, a proper staff board should be required for this. From years 7-10 (might be more or less depending on the level of education provided (hence, a statewide criteria might be needed)), students would be under this system. Beyond that, students would be separated into three different fields based on their traits. The first, would be similar to our current TAFE system, where students are taught practical skills for trades and schooling life ends for them there. Their years at school will then be to teach them the bear necessities of life. They would also enter the workforce at an earlier age. Students in the first group would usually show a distaste for academical work, interest in practical work, largely extroverted etc. The second tier, I imagine, would constitute the slight majority of students. This group would overlap with the third tier but we'll get to that later. A lot of specialised service jobs (accountants, psychiatrists, road planners etc.) would fall under this category. Students who complete the minimum of work, largely obedient, shows some degree of foresight and others would put them under this category. The final category is one for those geniuses I am sure we are all familiar with. The final category is designed to be a primarily research group but it does overlap with the former. Geniuses are not bound to be in the third group, but are greatly encouraged.

Basic education
As I said, grading would be abolished, so the teaching system should be re-modelled to reflect that. Schools shall still retain their curriculum and a wide as possible range of subjects should be taught. Essentially the same as the current system. The method in which teaching occurs should be less dictatorial (eg. less of THIS IS WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW). The replacing method still requires some fine tuning in my mind so I can't give an alternative just yet. Since grading is removed, there shall be no tests or exams but school work and assignments would still remain and it will be marked. Students are under absolutely no obligations to do the work; severely encouraged but not obliged. I think a very important point is to be made here. One may point out that most students wouldn't do their work under this system but remember, the entire system is being re-structured. School work needs to depart from its traditional form of copying the textbook. When students are not expected to treat homework as another chore, rather an educational tool, there is no saying what they would or would not do. Either way, if they choose not to do it, it shows that they do not enjoy academical work and it would be noted down. Besides that, the work provided by the teachers should also be specific to the students. If one finds the standard course easy, perhaps encourage more personal study, challenge the student. The reports of behaviour would then be gathered and used to decide on the child's career path. For the most part, it is quite simple. If he/she excels in math, put them in a math area. Easy. At that point, a lot of students would have a general idea of what they are into.

Upper education
Cbs. Tomorrow.


FAQ
1. There is a chance that schools (or teachers) may be dishonest in their card system
Absolutely. However, the card system, which can be traced back to the schools, keep the schools (and therefore the teachers) completely accountable for the student. Students who do not fair well in future education would reflect on the school and it would be completely in the best interest of the school to be honest.
2. Are students bound by the school's recommendation.
No, they are not. However, I expect schools to be competent enough to notice any latent behaviour within the 4 years of their schooling life. Students are free to ignore recommendations and do whatever. However, if they are mistaken they would be wasting their time. So, it's in the best interests of everyone to follow it.
3. Wouldn't students be under pressure to 'perform' constantly?
Consider how teachers evaluate your performance right now. It will most definitely be a subtle process and students shouldn't be concerned at all.



Also, stop talking about that bullying bullshit. This is the fucking internet. Don't like it? There is an 'X' button on the top right corner of the screen, go ahead and click it. Yes, I have had far worst shit dealt to me before. Quite a few times actually

Ok... I don't fully understand it. How do you decide who gets placed into which of the three categories? Without graded assesments this would be up to the whim of the teacher (I'm prety sure i'm just missunderstanding something important here).
And when you say that studnets are not bound to the school's recomendations, does this mean that someone who has been put into the 'TAFE level' of education can decide to move to the 'middle' or 'upper' levels on their own account?

From how I understand it, the system would ensure that the community would have people with all the relevant occupations, however people would have less of a choice over what their individual occupation was...

[Cthulhu]

This thread really needs to be locked.

Have to agree with you.

I think you'll find a discussion of how the VCE system is flawed and screwing people over is a yearly tradition here on VCENotes. I believe last years was 15 pages long before it got locked and that was a lot worse than this one.

[Cianyx]

Ok... I don't fully understand it. How do you decide who gets placed into which of the three categories? Without graded assesments this would be up to the whim of the teacher (I'm prety sure i'm just missunderstanding something important here).

In a sense, it is a graded assessment. However, the focus is placed more on the personalities and behavioural traits of the students than it is the marks. The school is an academical place, so if students do not appear to enjoy it, they will be placed in a more practical sector. Where they go to is essentially at the whim of the entire staff at the school as every teacher which has taught the student is expected to submit a report, and a board is later expected to review them and decide. A rather rigorous process but it hopefully ensures that students are able to excel at their full capacity.

And when you say that studnets are not bound to the school's recomendations, does this mean that someone who has been put into the 'TAFE level' of education can decide to move to the 'middle' or 'upper' levels on their own account?

Essentially yes. But I would advise against it. If the aforementioned process is executed correctly, there shouldn't be a need but it is up to the student.

From how I understand it, the system would ensure that the community would have people with all the relevant occupations, however people would have less of a choice over what their individual occupation was...

I believe it is the other way round. The system aims to equip the students with an occupation most suited to in accordance with their interests and traits.

[EvangelionZeta]

The first, would be similar to our current TAFE system, where students are taught practical skills for trades and schooling life ends for them there. Their years at school will then be to teach them the bear necessities of life. They would also enter the workforce at an earlier age. Students in the first group would usually show a distaste for academical work, interest in practical work, largely extroverted etc.

...are you implying being extroverted and not being very academic are related?  

Ok... I don't fully understand it. How do you decide who gets placed into which of the three categories? Without graded assesments this would be up to the whim of the teacher (I'm prety sure i'm just missunderstanding something important here).

In a sense, it is a graded assessment. However, the focus is placed more on the personalities and behavioural traits of the students than it is the marks. The school is an academical place, so if students do not appear to enjoy it, they will be placed in a more practical sector. Where they go to is essentially at the whim of the entire staff at the school as every teacher which has taught the student is expected to submit a report, and a board is later expected to review them and decide. A rather rigorous process but it hopefully ensures that students are able to excel at their full capacity.

And when you say that studnets are not bound to the school's recomendations, does this mean that someone who has been put into the 'TAFE level' of education can decide to move to the 'middle' or 'upper' levels on their own account?

Essentially yes. But I would advise against it. If the aforementioned process is executed correctly, there shouldn't be a need but it is up to the student.

From how I understand it, the system would ensure that the community would have people with all the relevant occupations, however people would have less of a choice over what their individual occupation was...

I believe it is the other way round. The system aims to equip the students with an occupation most suited to in accordance with their interests and traits.

This is a terrible idea.  Education should be about giving people knowledge and understanding.  I've made this argument before, but the Latin etymology for education - educere - means to bring forth what is within, and a thriving culture should have education perform this exact task - that is, draw out and formulate the souls of the young, giving them the means to interact with the world and the knowledge to affirm their own existences.  Specifically, there is a reason why so many of the "upper class" schools really emphasise self-discovery, personal development and leadership in education, and the day when school becomes about giving people jobs is the day that TAFE replaces both university (which it already has, to an extent) and high school at the same time.

Also, all of you who aren't sticking to the topic at hand, shut it, or you're getting bans.

[shinny]

OK, I think that's clean enough. The relevant bans have been awarded so that's a warning for the rest of you really. We'll be keeping a closer eye on this thread in particular in future so only carry on in this thread if you believe you can keep the discussion going without returning this thread to its former state.

[iNerd]

Is it just me or I've noticed that most, if not all girl schools have a project called ILP standing for Indepent Learning Project. I've never done one in my life. Isn't this the thing that is learning, critical analysis etc?

[s2penguin]

The UK system is just about the worst around right now 

I like the UK system.

How on earth do you guys find out about what the education system is like in other countries? I struggle to comprehend all of VCE and how it works...

[Predator]

There are a few problems if something like this was to happen.
The main one is putting them into these three tiers or categories. Everyone has said the main problem lies with the year 7-10 results if they were to be used. This is correct though since as others have mentioned, many people just do the minimum work they have to in these years as long as they pass and keep going through the years. Although, after this is a two way street where the categories would be hard to work. One student who has 'slacked' off in these four years of schooling could go and get an ATAR in the top tier or tier two quite easily with a new attitude and decent working skills. However, someone else who has done the same as person A in years 7-10 might not be able to adjust to this workload and as a result be at a disadvantage if they were in a higher tier.
Also, those who are just in the second tier may lose motivation since they know they weren't good enough for the first tier so whats the point of trying anymore. Sounds silly and stupid, though some people do lose motivation and hope over minimal things.

[Cianyx]

Y'know what's a retarded grading system? The one used in Denmark
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_grading_in_Denmark#Current_scale

[s2penguin]

TO be honest, I think the focus should be more on how can we educate people better? So unless actually counting years 7-10 in your academic record promotes learning and encourages otherwise apathetic students to learn. I see no point.

I think that's the primary concern in relation to education not how are we going to fix the education system to make sure VCE students are getting it fair and are being rewarded with hard work.

[s2penguin]

Y'know what's a retarded grading system? The one used in Denmark
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_grading_in_Denmark#Current_scale

-3. ROFLLLLLL

[Eriny]

Upon some reflection, I actually sort of like how the year 7-10 assessment has changed so that pretty much everyone gets Cs unless they are very far ahead or are quite far behind because it actually lessens the role of grades. This is because, realistically, most people would be expecting to get a C - even very smart people are unlikely to be 6 months ahead in all their classes.

I think that grades are somewhat useful. I had a Marxist lecturer who maintained that all grades did was adjust the expectations of students as to what they could expect in the future while reinforcing existing social hierarchies and while I think he probably has a point, they are very good at tracking progress and legitimising the work a student does. (i.e. assignments aren't just hoop jumping, there is an outcome and a benefit if you do it well).

However, to some extent, grades do get in the way. For instance, last year I had an assignment where we either had to do a traditional essay or we could do a more experimental 'visual project', which sounded more creative and fun. I did end up doing the visual project but in order to compensate for the fact that it wasn't what I was used to, I ended up doing roughly double the amount of work that I would have done if it were just an essay. I worried that I wasn't doing it correctly. Turns out, I was rewarded for going out on a limb with the highest mark I've ever gotten in uni but from the outset, the thought of being creative and different and exploring a topic more holistically could have easily prevented me from trying this at all. Additionally, I have been guilty of choosing subjects on the basis that I would get a good mark out of them rather than purely because I was interested in the course. I think that grades are very bad for promoting intellectual curiosity.

Meanwhile, I think 'learning how to learn' on one's own is a very important skill because it gives people a great deal of efficacy. It means that in your life, if you ever want to learn something down the track, you know that you have the ability to do so. This is important in a job, but it's also generally important in promoting life-long learning. And people who learn for their entire lives are interesting and less likely to suffer from things like dementia and generally happier. I think that one of the aims of year 7-10 is not just to prepare for VCE, but to cultivate this curiosity in people. In the classroom, I would like to see more independent and group work, less structure and the opportunity to deeply explore topics of interest. I was lucky enough to have this in year 8 and 9 for 2 periods a week, but very few students get this. Of course, it's also important to teach the fundamentals and have formal lessons (particularly for English and Maths), but there is room for some independence which I think would be beneficial for all students, because everyone would get the opportunity to work at their own level - the smart don't have to dumb down and the students that struggle don't fall behind. While it would also be important for teachers to look at what the students are doing independently, they don't necessarily even have to grade the projects because students wouldn't require that kind of encouragement if they're already interested in learning.

[lexitu]

Meanwhile, I think 'learning how to learn' on one's own is a very important skill because it gives people a great deal of efficacy. It means that in your life, if you ever want to learn something down the track, you know that you have the ability to do so. This is important in a job, but it's also generally important in promoting life-long learning. And people who learn for their entire lives are interesting and less likely to suffer from things like dementia and generally happier. I think that one of the aims of year 7-10 is not just to prepare for VCE, but to cultivate this curiosity in people. In the classroom, I would like to see more independent and group work, less structure and the opportunity to deeply explore topics of interest. I was lucky enough to have this in year 8 and 9 for 2 periods a week, but very few students get this. Of course, it's also important to teach the fundamentals and have formal lessons (particularly for English and Maths), but there is room for some independence which I think would be beneficial for all students, because everyone would get the opportunity to work at their own level - the smart don't have to dumb down and the students that struggle don't fall behind. While it would also be important for teachers to look at what the students are doing independently, they don't necessarily even have to grade the projects because students wouldn't require that kind of encouragement if they're already interested in learning.

That's really well said. Agree with mostly everything here.

In primary school I had an awesome teacher who encouraged us to manage our own learning with personal work time. The flexibility meant that I was able to pursue topics of interest as well as learning management skills. Kids could work at their own pace in their own style when they're in the right mood. We also had self-evaluations that involved personal reflection, our teacher extended this by allowing us to mark ourselves according to the assessment criteria. I think Fitzroy High School uses a similar system as far as personal work time goes, where they have 'home teachers' allowing students to work flexibly across subjects at times.

One of the annoying things about the education system is the disjunction between subjects that is imposed. In reality, subjects impinge on each other, but they are treated as totally separate and students are encouraged to have a closed mindset. For example, why not combine physics and philosophy? Students would have the opportunity to question the observations they make and look at causation behind causation. Having fixed time slots for each subject really limits the possibilities.

Here are two schools that I really like - www.candlebark.info and www.fcs.vic.edu.au - if anyone is interested.

[Cianyx]

Here's an interesting case in point in favour of alternative education.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Heilpern

Heilpern is the son of former Byron Shire Councillor, Sandra Heilpern. He initially attended Lane Cove Public School in Sydney, but his parents became concerned when the "school suggested that I needed to conform more, and told my parents that my rebellion was so regular that I needed to see a psychiatrist". He transferred to nearby independent democratic school Currambena in 1970. Recounting his memory of the alternative education he received there, he remarked:

Currambena was a revolution for me. I was asked questions about what I wanted to do each day. I learnt because I wanted to learn...The lessons of Currambena stayed with me as I did well at school, became a criminal lawyer, then the youngest head of a law school, then the youngest Magistrate in New South Wales...I can honestly attribute much of my success to my years at Currambena, for it gave me a love of learning that seems so rare these days, especially among boys.

Heilpern studied law in Sydney and Canberra,[2] and undertook postgraduate study at Southern Cross University, completing a Masters of Law by Research in 1998.[3] In 2004, he was the joint recipient of that university's Alumnus of the Decade Award.[3]