Claims+in+the+Media+Jenna+06

=Week 3 - What Should We Teach?=

Claims in 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

NB: Hi Guys - please also click on the 'Discussions' link at the top of this page to view some of your other colleagues postings, which were inadvertantly posted on the wrong spot. (Sharon Fraser)

Claims in the Media (Adam Crowe)
This article is from The Times, titled “Primary school children 'should be taught technology, not tradition'” written by Alexandra Frean on December 8, 2008. This article is in regards to a report by Sir Jim Rose, a former schools inspector and senior government education adviser.
 * Mr Rose suggests that children are so computer literate at such a young age, that ICT skills usually taught in secondary schools should begin in primary school.
 * Mr Rose is recommending a whole new approach to learning, moving away from the teaching of traditional subjects, such as history, geography and music, towards a focus on teaching, organised around six general themes: English, communication and languages; mathematics, science and technology; human, social and environmental understanding; physical health and wellbeing; and art and design.
 * Mr Rose believes that technology should be taught and used across the whole curriculum.

Like Mr Rose I believe that technology needs to play a bigger part across the curriculum, but it should be integrated and not replace any of the core subjects. It should also be one of a number of teaching skills a teacher uses, as students learn best in different ways. I have seen how engaged and motivated students become when using different technologies. For example, we started teaching the concept of time to the kindergarten class. After two classroom sessions, half of the students understood time to the hour and three students understood time to the half hour. After one forty minute session on the computer using an interactive maths program focusing on time, nearly all could now tell time to the half hour.

Claims in the media. (Jodie Watson) I found an interesting article titled “ 5 Things that should be taught in every school” by Brian Kim March 13, 2007. The five areas were personal finance, communicating affectively, social skills, sales, time management and they added one more health. I agreed with most of this article, a lot of it is basic that we could have learnt by the time we have left school mostly within the house but unfortunately it is not being taught and our young adults are facing the consequences. ​
 * Under personal finance they focus on how young people today were struggling with personal debt as most very under-educated in the ways of how credit cards, loans, interest, hidden charges etc worked. Understanding the difference between needs and wants and not buying everything because someone else has it.
 * Communicating effectively was to cover the basics of having a conversation with someone for the first time, convey the message effectively and clearly of what you want to say.
 * Social skills talked about talking to people for all walks of life and not just within your social groups where you sort of develop your own way of communication, eg Texting – abbreviating words. Cutting out slang, building rapport and learning to approach people.
 * Sales didn’t mean to turn everyone into a sales rep., but about being able to pitch ideas to people, sell ourselves in interviews and being able to listen actively.
 * Time Management - being able to complete things, making a “to do list”, learning to prioritise and breaking things down to get things done.

Claims in the Media ​ An article written in the Sunday Star-Times on the 18th of April, 2010, by Sarah Harvey, discusses research instigated by Family First. The Curia Market Research unveils some responses to important factors facing families in the 21st century. The questions are formulated from the Family First policies. Although the survey was asked randomly to ony a 1000 people, one statement could become quite poignant, yet controversial, for one area of the curriclum; Sex Education. 'Schools should teach abstinence as a part of sex education'. According to the research, 68% agreed with this statement. As a parent of two teenage boys, who have both been involved in their school's Sex Education through the science curriculum, I believe abstinence should be included.This is not only a moral issue, but a health one as well. Some children are becoming more experimental at an early age and if this 'solution' is put across in a positive way, then perhaps we will have less teenage pregnancies and less spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Just don't tell them about condoms as a form of contraception. I was not completely 'happy' with what their teachers delivered within the classroom.There were certain factors that I did not think belonged in the classroom! Admittedly, I am a fairly conservative parent on this subject and have instilled in my boys a sense of moral ethics that I hope lead them in good stead. So, if a teacher can talk about other aspects of sexuality, why can't abstinence be included? What about the students who have not grown up in a supportive environment with moral beliefs? Is it up to the school to instill or broach the subject of self control? If the school doesn't, where else do students learn or be exposed to such alternatives? To me, Sex Education is a moral or personal self refective subject like religion and the arts and so I think all facets should be explored no matter how controversial it may appear. (Joanne Wagenknecht)

What does the media think? The article ‘Positive Outlook on Curriculum’ by Kevin Donnelly (2009, the Australian), argues the positive aspects of the new curriculum. Pointing out that the governments more conservative and “back to basics approach” is the way to go. Donnelly appraises the use of the discipline-based curriculum, but also notes that there will be a “[nod] in the direction of cross-disciplinary learning.” He points out that each subject is exclusive and that a cross-disciplinary education will not be sufficient, as each subject needs its own, individual approach. The article focuses mostly on English-Literacy, and what the new English curriculum will entail. Donnelly points out that, as well as the traditional literature, “multi-modal texts” (such as the use of forums and Facebook) will be included, basically weakening the meaning of English-Literacy. Despite these few weak points, Donnelly is confident that the new Australian curriculum will be a move in the right direction, arguing “for a proper balance between curriculum content and process and between explicit teaching and more student-centred approaches.” I agree partially with what Donnelly says in his article. I haven’t read the new curriculum, but I do think that the basic subjects should stay separate from their peers, since they are impoartant things to learn and shouldn’t be diminished through cross-disciplinary teaching. A multimodal delivery is a great inclusion, as, in an ever more technical world, the use of modern techniques is a valuable thing. I’m not sure that a conservative approach is the best approach, but if there are some modern approaches included, it could still work. (Ursula Marley)

What should we teach in schools? **​ From an article entitled, "Curriculum Overload", Added subjects a Distraction" by Tony Rindfleisch (Sunday Herald Sun) Melbourne, dated 6/2/2005.** **The author of this article Tony Rindlefleisch is concerned that extra subjects added to the school curriculum over the years has distracted learning away from the literacy and numeracy, the core basics of the curriculum. His article states that even though the majority of these extra subjects are warranted and teach our children worthwhile attributes for life, it comes down to the fact that he feels that reading, writing and mathematics are more important.**  **Mr Fred Ackerman of the Victorian Primary Principal's Association supports the inclusion of these extra subjects as he feels that they assist children to become"more rounded" enabling them to have a "greater capacity" to think and reflect in their learning, instead of just being handed information by the teacher. A spokesperson for the Education Minister, Lynne Koster supported Mr Rindfleisch's views and thus supported a curriculum that focused on literacy and numeracy. It was stated that these subjects helped develop the skills necessary for future employment and success in the business world.** **It is interesting to note that in 1985 an example of core subjects at school would have been, English, Maths, Science, Social Studies, Physical Education, Religious Education and Art. In 2005 it was noted that the subjects were English, Maths, Science, Studies of Society and the Environment, Physical Education, Arts, Technology, Foreign Languages, Information Technology, Bike education, Swimming, Sex education, Religious education, Sun safety, Nutrition, Children's rights, Anti-Bullying, Civics and citizenship, Leadership, Multiculturalism, Road Safety, First Aid, Personal Development, Gifted and Talented programs, Social Skills, Personal finance,Conflict resolution, Mentoring etc etc. The list could probably go on.** **I agree with some of this article as I think we need Literacy and Numeracy but we also need many of these extra subjects are mentioned above. I feel that the list of what we teach in schools has grown because perhaps of our busy lifestyles and more parents working so things like swimming, road safety, sun safety social skills and bike education have now become the teaching role of the classroom teacher not the parent.** **In conclusion, we need to learn subjects in the curriculum that are preparing us for what is happening in our world now and what will happen in the future. (Jennifer Thomas)**

=School media posting-Disabled Students suspended=


 * || In the Adelaide Sunday Mail on Sunday July 25th, reporter Renato Castello in his article SCHOOLYARD ALARM, reported on research conducted regarding students with disabilities such as autism, ADHD and Asberghers, were being suspended from schools due to an increase in violence related to there diseases.
 * || In the Adelaide Sunday Mail on Sunday July 25th, reporter Renato Castello in his article SCHOOLYARD ALARM, reported on research conducted regarding students with disabilities such as autism, ADHD and Asberghers, were being suspended from schools due to an increase in violence related to there diseases.

He spoke "emotivelly" about how lack of education and federal funding was the major contributor to this occuring. Schools apparently had no alternative but to suspend these students.

Ironically, this week, I encountered this first hand. I work as an SSO and also an a bus driver in the morning and afternoons driving home our students from the Special Education Unit. Most of these students have autism and cannot communicate verbally.

On Wednesday of this week when I arrived to collect my students for my bus run I was told that I would not be taking home Student X because he had become violent and hit an SSO in the mouth. The next day there were 2 more instances of similar incidents.

Prior to working this job I was completely oblivious to this violence occuring. I am now in full view of what these students must go through on a day to day basis.

I am in full agreeance wih reporter Castello in that there is insufficent funding available to assist with these students education. The schools require more SSO workers. This requires more funding. On some days there are only 3 SSO workers to monitor and educate nearly 20 students in the special education unit. A far cry from what is required.

Bruce Woodcock || Tillard, T. (2010, July 21) Headstart on an Apprenticeship Retrieved from [] This story followed Julia Gillard, Prime Minister at Richmond High School in Victoria as she visited the building site of a half constructed Trade Training Centre. It is the Prime Ministers intention to build two and a half thousand Trade Training Centres in High Schools across Australia during the next 10 years. The purpose of the proposed Centres is so that students “will do trade related courses to give them a head start in Apprenticeships”. The Prime Minister believes that it will provide clear pathways for Vocational Education for those students who are not going on to University and have an interest in a trade.

The ‘National Trade Cadetship” will be open to students in years 9-12 and will allow them to complete the equivalent of a Certificate 1 in their chosen Vocation. This will enable students to go straight into their second year of an apprenticeship upon leaving school. This means more experienced school leavers entering the workforce, and more potential earnings for the graduates. The project has received criticism from Geoff Hawke who is a Senior Researcher of VET at the University of Technology in Sydney. He believes that the logic of doing an apprenticeship is to gain practical and real skills from a real work situation and that there is no proof that Industry will take these Certificate One holders seriously. Simon Morginson, Professor of Higher Education at the University of Melbourne supports the idea and said that “it’s a good idea, perfectly sensible and it will come down to whether it’s done well or not”. He believes that three key aspects will determine the validity of this training. Firstly, that it is done as pre-training preparation for work, it must be integrated into National Apprenticeship Programs and needs to be well grounded, working towards enhancing young peoples opportunities. Currently there is 22 Trade Training Centres providing training services to 70 schools. By the beginning of the school year in 2011, the aim is for 68 to be completed which will service 173 schools. I agree with this initiative. I have worked as a Training Presenter delivering a workshop to year 10 students (particularly in low socio economic areas) all across Australia. This workshop is called the ‘Polish Program’ and is designed to help bridge the gap between leaving school and entering the workforce. A large percentage of these students had become disengaged from school for various reasons but a lot of them had just lost interest in the traditional teachings and were planning to go onto a trade and didn’t see ‘what boring stuff like History and Art’ had to do with their future. These students however, would excel during their work experience placements and show high enthusiasm for our workshop because it was equipping them with what was viewed as ‘real life skills’ and they were given the opportunity to personally interact with local employers from their Community, at a sit down lunch. Some of these students wanted to go into a trade from a very young age and I think that giving them the opportunity to ‘get a head start’ as well as finding something in School that they can really apply themselves to and get 'real results' from, has to be a positive thing. I hope that it is done well and integrated into the National Apprenticeships Scheme so that skills and qualifications are directly transferable into the students chosen career path. (Kim Braslin)

Claims in the media
===The Sun newspaper reports on Sep 20, 2006, that Professor Laurel Trainor asserts that "Music lessons can boost a child's brain power" and also that "musical training is having an effect on how the brain gets wired for general functioning related to memory and attention". Professor Trainor demanded "that all schools should teach musical instruments".=== ===I do not agree with the claim that all schools should teach musical instruments although musical training may be beneficial to children's brains. Children undergo significant development and growth before entering compulsory education and if parents were concerned to provide the absolute optimum opportunities for their children, they would invest in musical training and education at the earliest opportunity, i.e before entering the education system. Early childhood education normally includes lots of opportunities for singing and dancing activities, preparing and socialising the children in readiness for the real work of education. The time in primary education after the kindy and prep years is already crowded and to include specific music training as well would mean a cutback on some other subjects. As Literacy and Numeracy are life-skills, I don't believe we as parents, communities or a nation, can afford to diminish core-subject education. I would rather see History and Geography fitted into the curriculum before musical training. I think parents and families should take more responsibility to round out their children's education in the arts, religion, moral issues and general life-skills. (Sharon Jones)=== ===[|//caroline.bate//] //In the Parenting Magazine April 2009,there was an article about "What Should Be Taught in Schools?" The suggestion was Finances and Life Skills and address teaching children from as young as prep to be encouraged to understand saving and finances and the basic health and life skills. A school had adopted an amazing reward structure where the children were rewarded in make believe money and they could either save it or spend it at the end of each month on items that the teacher would auction. The students earnt their money through chores, homework, social behaviour etc. It was a discipline that could be integrated with maths. Life skills involved cleanliness, cooking and time management. These two skills were adapted according to the students grade and could be continued into high school. Julia Gillard had endorsed the idea and said that she felt it would benefit all students once entering the workforce. //===

//Claims in the media //
===//In the Australian, there was the following article: Literacy taught by illiterates by Christopher Bantick. //=== ===//" //There are many children who cannot read, write, spell, understand grammar, construct a clear sentence and punctuate with meaning. The reason is palpably obvious.=== The students accepted into university teaching courses are often simply the leavings, the lees if you like, after the better students have opted to undertake more prestigious and ambitious degrees. One has only to look at the entrance scores for teaching, some as low as 56, to see that high-flyers are not entering the classroom. The result is teachers who are not proficient in literacy are teaching children. Is it any wonder that Australia is producing illiterate children when they are taught by illiterates?" ===//Bantick suggets that literacy levels among students are low due to illiterates teaching literacy. Bantick also highlights the importance of literacy in school. //=== ===//I agree with this claim that teachers need to be literate in order for them to effectively tecah literacy in schools. Literacy is not justa subject that students learn but literacy is in all learning areas. Students need to have good literacy skills in order for them to survive in our world I believe. //===

//Bethany Armstrong //
The article cited on [] entitled ‘History jostling for room in crowded curriculum’ (2007) by Jennifer Macey addresses the issue of modifying the overcrowded primary school curriculum to contain only core subjects. The article states that The Australian Primary Principals Association suggest that English, Maths, Science and Social Education should make up the curriculum with subjects such as sport, art and music taking a back seat. The article goes on to suggest that history will not be given the emphasis it deserves as it will only make up a small portion of the ‘Social Education’ area of the curriculum. I agree with the claim that the primary school curriculum is overcrowded. I also agree with the idea of integrating history into a Social Education subject. I think history is an important subject but it does not necessarily have to stand alone in the curriculum, it can link in with ideas of the environment and geography which are all encompassed in a Social Education subject. I think careful consideration of the curriculum is necessary as there are many stakeholders. It is vital that the curriculum is not overcrowded and that key learning areas, such as numeracy and literacy, are given an appropriate amount of attention, however, other aspects such as sport, art and music play an important role in the education of students therefore need to find their place in the curriculum without jeopardising the time spent on other core subjects. Georgia Fountain

<span style="color: #4b185d; display: block; font-family: 'Arial Black',Gadget,sans-serif;">Claims in the Media <span style="color: #4b185d; display: block; font-family: 'Arial Black',Gadget,sans-serif;"> <span style="color: #2d145c; display: block; font-family: 'Arial Black',Gadget,sans-serif;">I found the article "Schools should be free to teach what they want" by Chris Berg, The Age, 7 March 2010. In this article the author discusses the new National Curriculum and how he belives that it is more about making the Government look "good" than for the benefit of the students whom it will affect. The article states that the new curriculum has been designed to "equally serve" the students who attend relatively well off schools as well as remote schools. The author also states that "the reason for the national curriculum is that there are 80,000 students who move interstate each year." This means thats the curriculum would be "imposed for the convenience of just 2.3 per cent of the student population." The article goes on to suggest that if we really want a "revolution in education" then if would be necessary to take control of the curriculum away from the government and give control back to the schools. The author believes that there will continue to be discontent with the way Australian children are taught as long as the government has control. I took some time to really consider what the author was trying to say in this article. While, my initial reaction was to agree and think along the lines that of course the teachers and school would know what is best for the students, I hadn't stopped to consider all the stakeholders. I'm not sure that I agree with putting the curriculum entirely in the schools hands. I do agree with the author that there needs to be some "flexibility to tailor the curriculum to the needs and profile of their student body" However, from our weekly readings I believe that there are more parties than just the school/teachers who need to have a say in the curriculum. (Nicola Conroy) <span style="color: #2d145c; display: block; font-family: 'Arial Black',Gadget,sans-serif;">

Claims in the media - Laura Jacobs

I found this article titled "Less will mean more in the national curriculum" by Tim Hawkes, Sydney Morning Herald 2/3/10. In this article is talked about the advantages of the new national curriculum and how is is going to benefit all children accross Australia. He believed that it should of happened before, under the opinion that its too complicated to have so many different curriculums Australia wide, as when children move states its harder for them to get back into a new curricula. He also believed that it will make it more benefial for teachers as it wont be as complicated. Because it isnt as much material and its in greater depth

I fully agree with his statements i wasn't too sure of the new curriculum but after starting this subject and learning more about the state versus national curriculum i realised that with the curriculum they are trying to cover all children from all different backgrounds and are really trying to give the Australian children the best start at life.