Claims+in+the+Media+Sue+09

CLAIMS IN THE MEDIA
A bit behind schedule but rapidly catching up. Have spent many hours navigating and practising all these new computer skills. Wiki's. Web Conference, very scary. But here I am, finally think Ive got it. __"Pupils's get in touch with the environment" The Examiner, Tuesday, August 3, 2010 writer unknown.__ The article highlighted the importance of National Tree Day for our students(Rebeccca Gilling, Planet Ark). The students collected seeds from their local area, grew seedlings and planted them on this day. Ms Zindersic from Birds Tasmania had also taught the students the importance of caring for their local environment and native habitats. Mr Buggs from Parks and Wildlife also believes "it is a vital part of education to expose the children to the natural areas around them". "The future of our planet really relies in the hands of our children......" Ms Gillings said. I agree that it is important to expose students to their own natural environment, I like the way the learning experience was relevant to where they live and play etc the beach. What I really liked was that the learning experience was very real and concrete, the hands on experience outdoors appeared to really engage the students. I also liked the way the students were involved in the whole process, not just the final product of planting. I felt Ms Gillings comment about the future was a bit ambiguous, we do not want to put too much weight on the environmental issues for our young students. With great learning experiences like this our students will value the importance of the environment naturally. Leanne Martello

**From Sue,**
== **Thanks for all your posts. I have read them all and found your comments and reflections interesting and well thought out. it's good to read that you are considering both sides in a particular argument.** == == **If you scan through the articles I think it becomes very clear that so many stakeholders have so many different views as to what should be included in the curriculum. The task of curriculum designers then becames more obvious and it is not an easy one.** ==

CLAIMS IN THE MEDIA – Priscilla Hutchison Article: //Schools must teach thinking// by Rachel Browne Printed on March 14, 2010 Sourced online from the Sydney Morning Herald This article calls for students to be taught thinking. Students need thinking skills so that they can take charge of their lives. The article argues that while schools teach history very well, they do not do such a good job of preparing students for the world today. They are not taught how to make decisions and choices. They do not know how the shop down the road operates. They are not learning how to take out a mortgage. As a result, “education is way behind where it should be.” I partly agree with this article. While I feel there is a need for students to learn about the past, I also believe it is of a higher priority that they are capable of functioning in the future. Thinking should be encouraged in schools. I see it not as a skill that needs to be developed, but an existing trait that requires nurturing. Young minds love to question, explore and find out how things work. In schools, when interest is shown in how a musical instrument is made or why an animal behaves in a certain way time should be spent investigating. Teaching time is limited and not all questions can be answered, but thinking should be promoted instead of stifled whenever possible.

==

=

 * "BUSHFIRE safety could soon be a part of every child's education" is a statement made in an article published in the Herald Sun on 2nd August 2010. A call has been made by the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission to include fire-safety lessons as a part of the national curriculum. It is also believed that the Victorian State Government is supporting this call. They believe that many more people and families are living in bushfire risk areas. It has been found that many of those caught in the Black Saturday fires didn't understand the behaviour of bushfire. They believe it could be integrated into "subjects such as history, geography, science and environmental studies". **=====

=
//Deanne Wilson (3/07/2010)//
 * I am not sure if I totally agree with this being included in the national curriculum. I can understand the Bushfires Royal Commission's call as they are concerned with the welfare and safety of Australians in the instance of bushfires. Where is the line drawn in the curriculum content? Do we include first aid in the curriculum as we have a concern for the safety and well being of all Australians in case of an accident or emergency? Would it be applicable to be incorporate the teaching of bushfire safety and history nationally? Schools incorporate fire-safety training programs into their planning when they are available and should hold regular fire evacuation skills and practise throughout the school year. Wouldn't this be considered enough for the majority of Australian school children? **=====

=
===

Printed Nov 20,2005
In the article 'Obesity Up, Phys Ed Down', Backss (2005) reports alarming facts about the negative impact that Education spending cuts are having on the health of American school students. In particular he states that although "obesity is at near epidempic proportions amoung our young people", Governments are suprisingly contributing to the problem by cutting budgets on school spending which is resulting in Phys Ed programs being scrapped. According to Backss (2005) only "six percent of schools in the United States offer daily physical educational classes" due to the fact that many phys ed teachers are losing their jobs thanks to schools no longer being able to afford the reported "$500,000" it costs to run a phys ed program. This flies in the face of recommendations by the National Association for Sports and Physical Education in America who recommend 2 1/2 hours of organised physical activity per student, when according to Backss (2005) only "50 percent of kids are enrolled in a weekly phys ed class". This seems remarkable when you consider the measures that the Australian Government, and community, have gone to in recent years to implement numerous healthy active fitness programs in schools and also by circulating resources and information in a push to better inform parents and care providers, about the benefits of healthy eating to combat the growing problem of childhood obesity in our country.

In another similar article 'Phys Ed cuts may leave children's health behind', Noffsinger (2005) approaches the same problem form a teachers perspective pointing out that due to the same budget cuts reported by Backss (2005) "gym duties" are now being assigned "to classroom teachers". One teacher from the Rio Linda school is quoted as saying "it's nothing any of us want...I just see it as learning a new curriculum" with this seventh and eighth grade teacher reported to be teaching "20 minutes of phys ed per day". Nofffsinger (2005) reports that all over America "cash strapped schools are slashing their phy-ed programs...in some cases eliminating them altogether" and one principal descibes this being something they "were forced to do because of the dismal state of the economy". Some commentators also attibute the funding cuts in American schools to phys ed and other subjects such as "art, music, business and language programs" to the Bush administrations "No Child left behind act" that directs resources away from these subjects in order to meet the "testing requirement in core subjects like english and math". I found this interesting considering the Australian Governments push through NAPLAN testing to also raise Australian students proficiency in these areas and am wondering if we will now see in Australia, like America, similar cuts to 'non-core' subject programs in Government schools as more resources are poured into raising the level of numeracy and literacy test results in schools? Surely the health and wellbeing of students is just as important as them having the ability to multiply or write a narrative.

Mel A. Suleau 31/07/2010

Claims in the media
== This is the article I found for what should be taught in schools. Title: Let the market decide the best approach Authors: Ross Farrelly THE recent controversy over Wayne Sawyer's editorial in English in Australia, the journal of the Australian Association for the Teaching of English, is yet another example of the endless dispute between conservatives and leftists over what should be taught in schools, and which teaching methods ought to be employed. Sawyer accused English teachers of failing to educate a thoughtful generation of voters who can successfully apply their critical faculties to the policies presented in the recent election campaign. It's obviously desirable that voters be able to judge the relative merits of political parties. But the part of Sawyer's editorial which aroused comment was that he equated the success of the Howard Government with a lack of judgement on the part of the voters, implying that successful teaching entailed engendering sympathies which lie to the left of centre. Kevin Donnelly responded by bemoaning the influence of left-wing, progressive ideology in the English classroom and yearning for the days when texts were studied in a ``disinterested pursuit of truth''. I agree with Donnelly's opposition to overt ideological influence in the classroom. The question is, can it ever be eliminated or should we merely aim to minimise its influence? At present a single curriculum monopolises every Year 12 English classroom in NSW. Every student who wishes to graduate from the NSW education system has no choice but to study the curriculum proscribed by the NSW Board of Studies English Curriculum Committee. If there is ideological bias in the curriculum and the methods by which it is taught, that bias is absorbed, consciously or unconsciously, by every Year 12 English student across the state. But the same would be true of any state-wide curriculum. It's unlikely that any curriculum would be totally free of bias or unquestioned assumptions, so rather than simply replace one monopoly with another, a better approach is to foster a diversity of curricula and let them succeed or fail on their merits. Brendan Nelson commented that Sawyer's editorial ``confirms in part what is held as the worst fears of parents that often teachers are seeking to impose their own particular views which they are perfectly entitled to have, but not to impose those views on students.'' If Nelson opposes the imposition of a single view on students, why does he call for increased uniformity across the education systems of the various states? Nelson has recently put forth a proposal for a uniform starting age, and has even raised the issue of a uniform national leaving certificate. He may not think much of Sawyer, but he shares his zeal for uniformity. If we really want educational standards to rise we need to foster an education environment which encourages innovation, in which successful programs flourish and sub-standard programs die a natural death. This can brought about by the introduction of a number of competing leaving exams to which schools may subscribe. Surely we can recognise that parents have different aspirations for their children and ought to have some sort of choice about the curriculum they are taught. Furthermore, we must recognise that replacing one monopoly with another will not allow us to meaningfully compare the two. If we really want the best for our schools we need to trial different curricula and different teaching methods simultaneously, and let parents have the freedom to decide which system is working best. As with other industries which encourage innovation and let the market decide on the best solution, educational progress needs to be driven by demonstrable success, success which can be appreciated and understood, not just by professional educators and academics, but also by the men and women who comprise the parent body of our society. In an environment of curriculum competition, theories such as post-modern deconstruction, whole language learning and fuzzy maths would have to stand the rigorous examination of the market and their influence would be proportional to their efficacy. If these theories produce the results the parent body seeks then they deserve to flourish, if not, their influence should be confined to the communities who are dedicated to such a philosophical position. Rather than leaving the debate mired in the trenches of the progressive v conservative battle which is confined to the committee rooms of centralised educational bureaucracies, the student body would be far better served if the merits of various educational approaches were put to the test of the market. Ross Farrelly is a Sydney-based educator and writer. This comment is based on his article Parent Power in the autumn 2005 issue of Policy magazine. Copyright 2005 / The Australian This article argues that what should be taught is schools should be in majority up to parents of the students, and also to find the best teaching strategy for the curriculum should be to implement and researched simultaneously different strategies to find the best outcome/strategy. I agree with the notion that parents should have a say in the curriculum in that they all have personal aspirations for their children, however to leave the majority up to parents may not fit with that what is best for Australia. Parents (speaking from experience) feel very strongly about their children’s’ education and to find the best balance of what is best, would be to consider all stakeholders viewpoints. Jennifer Sweeney ==

CLAIMS IN THE MEDIA:
I viewed a news story on Southern Cross Television where Australian Primary School Principals developed a plan to tackle what they claim is an overcrowded curriculum. They unveiled the first national charter to map out the basics of a good primary school education. The plan was a simplified curriculum focusing on English, maths, science and social studies. It was claimed the current curriculum was too diverse and not enough focus on the core subjects as mentioned above. I have mixed feelings about this news story. A good primary school education should consist of strong maths and English learning, but with the changing nature of society and technology, it is important that other areas of the curriculum are taught and assessed appropriately, for example information technology and the arts. Simplifying the curriculum is a good idea to encourage the teaching of the core subjects, but each individual is different and needs to have their creative or non-traditional learning subjects recognised. Jason Blundell - 27/7/2010.

== From Sue, You can add your post here by just clicking on edit (above right) and then typing. Note that some of the group have gone into 'discussion' to add their contribution. It might be better to use the discussion section for each collaborative group to start up their own discussion page. You can just label it CollGrp 8-1etc. Basically, just try it out. There are no right and wrongs on the Wiki but it is a good way to develop a collaborative document around a topic or idea. Eventually of course you could use it for assignment 2. Sue ==

=
In the article, Less will mean more in national curriculum, in the Sydney Morning Herald on March 2, 2010, Headmaster of The King's School, Parramatta, Tim Hawkes, presents his opinion on what should be taught in Australian schools. Hawkes is steadfast in his opinion that a national curriculum should be taught in all schools. He states it is absurd to have a country of 22 million people with 9 different curriculums. He states, "Already there has been much discussion at the professional level, with a general "thumbs up" being given to the draft curriculum by most of the relevant teacher associations". The national curriculum aims to cover less material, in greater depth, and Hawkes says this will be welcomed by many teachers, "as we need to study less in order to learn more'. Hawkes seems to support the fact that the national curriculum will have more elements of traditional learning. For example, in English there will be a retreat from studying popular unsophisticated texts "to more classical texts of timeless quality". In History, the curriculum has been made less Euro-centric and more relevance has been placed on Australia's place in the Asiatic and Pacific Region. Hawkes also seems to favour the addition of the "concept of sustainability:the capacity of the world to remain unaffected by things such as population growth". Hawkes defends the greater acknowledgement of Australian history from an indigenous point of view. It is interesting to note however, his reservation of the inclusion of indigenous understandings of the natural environment in science and that it is perhaps better dealt with in another subject area. In summary, Hawkes opines that Australia should welcome the introduction of a national curriculum to be taught in schools as it "represents an attempt to garner best practice from around the country and the world". He encourages everyone to engage in the consultation process and says that it is up to everyone to ensure that the national curriculum will "extend and develop our children so they are well-prepared to take their place in a fragile and fast-paced world". I agree with Hawkes claim that a national curriculum should be taught in Australian schools. As families today are more mobile, the transition of students moving to a new school would be less problematic. Also, research has shown that by studying less, more is learned. By moving away from studying popular unsophisticated texts and replacing them with classical texts, a culture of intelligence can be cultivated. It is relevant in todays society for our children to study Australia's place in the Asiatic and Pacific Region, as it will be relevant to many in their future working life. The concept of sustainability will help students to understand their responsibility and accountability to protect our world. The greater acknowledgement of history from an indigenous point of view, in my opinion, shows our respect to the indigenous community. To conclude, I believe a national curriculum will enhance the quality of education that students receive in Australian schools. (Tanya Gavralas) ===== ==

==

Claims in the Media
In the article Call for action on lack of young folk in farming industry,which featured on the Narromine News Online website on July 23 2010, the NSW Farmers' Association Rural Affairs Committee Chair Sarah Thomson states that due to the lack of young people in the agricultural industry there is a farming industry skills shortage. The article then supports this using a report commissioned by Australian Council of Deans of Agriculture which shows a 30 per cent decline in university graduates in the area of agriculture from 2001-2006. A call to make Agricultural Science more accessible and affordable to students is proposed by Sarah Thomson. The article then goes on to discuss the need of providing more focus in the curriculum for years k - 12 on sustainable food and fibre Production with an aim of opening the pathway into a career in the Farming Industry. The Farmers' Association are in the process of developing a policy to be implemented at a National level for K-12 in schools. They are also aiming to seek more funding to enable rural families to have more access to higher quality education. This article has clear goals for a very specific one industry result. However it is important to consider the implications of not reflecting on the needs established in this article. Putting it simply if there is no one to run farms it will effect food supplies, exporting and in turn the economy so whilst it appears to have a narrow view the effects could be global. Therefore it is most definitely worth further examination and reflection on ways in which this could be integrated into the National Curriculum. (Kylie Wicks)

maaitken 137262"As a nation we have to be able to reassure ourselves that we have got a high-quality curriculum being taught to every child in every school", Julia Gillard March 2010 on "Draft National curriculum Unveiled" ABC.

The new curriculum, simply just makes sense. Or does it? When there are so many students studying interstate and travelling (80,000 is an approximate figure), why not have the same curriculum everywhere? It is, as far as most, but not ALL are concerned, common sense. Julia Gillard stated that Grammar and phonics will be integrated into the new curriculum to ensure that peoples writing abilities and in particular, their understanding of grammar would become more understood. Ms Gillard also speaks about her work with alot of younger people and how much she notices their lack or grammar skills. As for phonics, this requires starting at the beginning, sounding out the letters of a word. Without sounding too naive, i have always been under the impression, that yes, the younger generations could be educated in this area more but a grade 10, 16 year old student sounding out phonics such as C-A-T? I don't think so. This is a little unecessary. A grade 10 student should be taught this basic grammar in primary school and shouldn't have to relearn it, if so, what kind of teachers are there in schools these days? The Australian flag and the apology to the stolen generation that was made in 2008 will also be included in the new curriculum, in History. A fantastic idea, does anyone really know what anything on the Australian flag means, we know what it REPRESENTS but do we know what it MEANS and why the flag looks the way it looks and is what it is? If so, fair enough but there wouldn't be alot of people my age, (I am 23) that would know what the apology to the stolen generation was even about or why it was so important for us as a nation to make that apology. I like the statement made by Ms Gillard that "This is not a black armband view of history, but of course, teaching the history of Australia requires us to teach the history of the first Australians, our Indigenous peoples." This is a very valid point, how can we teach history when noone knows where they came from to begin with let alone someone elses history? The expectations of this curriculum is that it will become the top curriculum and if successful, a world's BEST curriculum. What a way to show everyone we are proud Aussies with so much pride. However, maybe i am being naive and possibly ignorant but isn't this entire curriculum debate turning into one big competition about "who is better than who?". I understand, and also agree with alot of what Julia Gillard has stated so far but are we going to get to a point where it isn't even about the students anymore but about who's the best and also....who's the boss? History will become a compulsory subject in most states and i agreed with this as we all need to know where we come from. Are we all originally from Australia though? What if the classroom is teaching our kids about their indigneous history,but like some of us, we aren't historically from here? It can raise too many questions making a subject like that compulsory. A new curriculum also means more training for teachers. This is addressed in this ABC report. There has been no budget set and no firm ideas as to the type of training and extra education our teachers may need.

Sara Hollingsworth Article: Sound Ideas by Joan-Maree Hargreaves, Sydney Morning Herald, 31/07/2008 The importance of music being taught in schools is discussed in this article. Various schools are mentioned and information is given about how they incorporate music into their school curriculum. Hargreaves includes several quotes from the different school principals, one of which is “McCrudden says: ‘Music teaches innumerable social skills such as co-operation, concentration, articulation of abstract concepts and discipline, which greatly enhance student's overall educational development. And it's fun.’” I agree that music is an important area to be included into the school curriculum. Music is something that everybody can enjoy listening to, moving to and participate in creating. There are opportunities for music to be integrated into different subject areas such as English, SOSE, LOTE, Drama and no doubt other areas as well. Students would benefit from the opportunity to explore lots of different types of music and musical instruments to find what suits them. Music is a great way to allow self-expression, and can be done as group work or individually. For students who may struggle with the pressures of literacy and numeracy, they may gain better self-confidence in an area such as music which has not got such right or wrong answers.

Claims in the media. Danielle Porter. For the week three task I read an international article titled, “The Ugly Truth of What We Teach in Schools”. Posted by Aaron Eyler on January 18, 2010. In the article Eyler refers to Dr. Scott McLeod who has written articles on what is really relevant for students to know these days, especially with technology leaping forwards. Eyler has a main point throughout his argument that the content of the curriculum needs to be subjective to each student and their capabilities and aspirations. He believes, and I tend to agree, that there needs to be more of a focus on teaching information that you will use, and less focus on areas that aren’t particularly as useful to your career choices. In his last sentence he demonstrates that yes you may come across things that you don’t know but there are ways of finding out. “Even if a student needs to know tidbits of information (like the parts of a neuron) later on in life, Ebbinghaus’ research suggests that they have no choice but to look it up...” As far as researching and looking things up go, the internet is in nearly every work place, and if not you don’t go far these days to find one. It is easy as that to learn new things in the workplace, especially with night courses at Tafe colleges to expand knowledge. Eyler makes reference to Herman Ebbinghaus’ findings that, “people forget 90% of what they learn within 30 days and ‘most’ of it within hours”. For full findings and information see, Medina, J.J (2009). Brain Rules: 12 Principles for Surviving and Thriving at Work, Home, and School. Chicago” Pear press. p.100. The results of this, Eyler, believes are the implications of what we teach in schools. Again, I tend to agree. In school, I enjoyed more practical learning with lots of colour and fun. Whereas reading from a board or a book was plain boring and I became the statistic. In high school I wanted to do well and enjoyed the subjects that were useful to me if I pursued my dream as a Police Officer, and bludged the ones that didn’t matter to me. I believe that if every child did all the things that would help in the future rather than information they never use then we would most likely see more concentration in schools and hopefully less disruptions. At the moment there are so many Stakeholders for the curriculum that I think we are overlooking the little voices of the little people and not asking what they want to learn and what they think they should learn. More importantly, why they should be learning it.

Intelligent design to be taught in Queensland schools under national curriculum This is a very controversial subject and therefore a very confronting and interesting article. It begins by slamming Creationists for daring to believe in creation over evolution and paints the picture of a small minded minority overtaking common sense, science based curriculum. As the article continues it becomes clear that this is not the case at all, creation will be taught in the subject of ancient history under the title of ‘controversies’. I agree that this should be taught in our schools, as it is part of our Christian heritage and will provide ample opportunities for students to explore both Darwinian and creation views. The curriculum should provide opportunity for students to be exposed to as many differing points of view as possible, in all areas. By Therese Duff
 * by Carly Hennessy
 * From: The Sunday Mail (Qld)
 * May 30, 2010 12:00AM

‘ Less will mean more in National curriculum’ Tim Hawkes, The Age, March 2010. Tim writes an interesting article about the benefits of a National Curriculum. One of the advantages Mr Hawkes reports about would have to be the some 80,000 children moving interstate every year. These children become disconnected and I have to agree. Every state has their own curriculum and outcomes, not only confusing for children trying to learn a whole new way of learning from state to state, but also for teachers trying to identify just what a new student knows, and how to bring them in line with their own states curriculum. Tim also writes about the teachers wariness on once again accommodating another change to the curriculum. For decades bureaucrats have been justifying their existence by fiddling with what should be taught in schools. However, as Tim writes this new national curriculum and change has to be taken seriously to enable the whole nation and teachers to be stimulated with new challenges and enrich them in useful professional development. I agree with this assertion, however, I am sceptical about the amount of professional development the teachers will receive as I have been told it is up to each state to educate their teachers regarding the implementation of the new curriculum. The National Curriculum aims to cover less material but in greater depth. I believe this will be welcomed by educators, teachers are time poor trying to implement all facets of the current curriculum, getting ready for reports, NAPLAN testing and implementing a mind boggling amount of topics. The national curriculum proposes that one feature will be “going forward into the past”. The new proposed curriculum will introduce more elements of traditional learning. For example, more classical texts will feature. Classical is great but we still need to look forward and teach for the future, do we really know what we need to teach these children for say, 20 years time? I do believe in teaching heritage, where our country came from and the pioneers and of our past. The implementation also of history from the indigenous point of view has been welcomed by many and will be an interesting facet of the new curriculum. Tim Hawkes proposes we all embrace this National Curriculum and I tend to agree with his views for greater outcomes for students and the wider community.

By Melanie Lette

__ Schools must teach thinking __ Report by Rachel Browne March 14, 2010, The Sun-Herald (Sydney) Edward de Bono echoes the opinions of many when he talks about the recurring nature of the curriculum (literally this ‘education revolution’) and warns that its constructors need to move with the times. Dr de Bono deems that knowing how to think gives children ‘the ability to take charge of their lives…make decisions…choices and so on’ and that it is time ‘to include thinking in the national school curriculum.’ I too believe that teaching and learning in this area is vital and there is a need for children to be taught, not only how to think, but how to express themselves. It has now become imperative for children to be able to think for themselves; to read and criticize claims made in the media; to be empowered to stand up to peer pressure; and to regard themselves in a positive light regardless of their inadequacies. They need to know that it is OK not to be perfect and at times to actually fail. Dr de Bono is concerned that ‘happiness rates have decreased over the last 60 years, with Australia one of the few countries showing a downward trend’, and this is the result of wrong thinking. Our students need to learn how to live in the present and how to be content…happy!! These are all qualities we can impart to our students…if we have them ourselves.

By Ruth Knowles August 2nd 2010 Claims of the media If you wish to develop this Wiki to be a useful tool for ongoing sharing of work and for collaboration you can use this page to post your response to the Week 3 activity on stakeholders and the claims made in the media about what should be taught in schools.


 * Report on one claim you have seen in the media about schools and what should be taught.


 * Do you agree with this claim? Why/why not?

Please ensure that you have expressed yourself clearly.

When making your entry to this wiki please use a subheading to keep this page organised.