Alan Tudge, the Federal Minister for Education and Youth is, of course, an asshole. He is a nasty, down-punching, vindictive, glass-jawed, born to rule shithead. But, is Tudge an idiot?
Yesterday, Minister Tudge gave a major policy speech – Being our best: Returning Australia to the top group of education nations. The title indicates the subject, and a very smart teacher-friend of ours suggested Tudge’s speech was “quite good”. So, we read it. Our feelings are mixed.
What follows is Minister Tudge’s speech,* with our brief thoughts – critical and supportive – interlaced. At the end, we give a quick summary of our thoughts.
My argument today is that we are not yet living up to this aspiration of a world class education system set out in [the Alice Springs Mparntwe] Declaration where every child is reaching their potential. In fact, based on international benchmarks, we have moved further away from it over the last twenty years.
I want to take you through the evidence of this and outline where I believe we need to focus to lift school standards and realise the aspiration of that Declaration. There are many great reforms already in place, but more will need to be done.
We should set ourselves a new goal of being back amongst the world’s best within a decade.
We will only achieve this if we work together. The Australian Government does not run schools, and no state or sector can achieve this goal alone. My approach will always be to work collaboratively with those who share the ambition of a world-class education system that provides opportunities for every student.
I have spent two decades involved in schools policy in some form – from working with Dr Brendan Nelson when he was Education Minister, to assisting with some of the toughest schooling challenges in remote communities as Noel Pearson’s Deputy Director, to being a founder of Teach for Australia, and then in parliament, as a member of the Parliamentary Education Committee and as the Prime Minister’s Parliamentary Secretary looking after indigenous affairs.
We know very little about it, but our understanding is that Teach for Australia is a very good thing. (EDIT 13/03/21: And maybe not. See the comments below.)
Noel Pearson’s work on education seems worth evaluating and difficult to evaluate, and we won’t attempt it here. We have not much liked anything we have read by Pearson, and he may be a fool. But, at least Pearson doesn’t suffer other fools, and he’s put his heart and soul into trying something different. We’re open-minded.
I have learnt that there is no silver bullet in education. However, I have also learnt that there is good evidence of what works, and that if we are focused, amazing things can be achieved. This is about our children and our nation’s future so what can be more important!
Where I want to start the discussion today, however, is on school funding. I have watched or been involved in the funding debate for many years and I am pleased that the school funding wars are now over.
Yes. We lost.
Funding for schools has increased by 38% in real per capita terms over the last decade. The School Resourcing Standard model for funding schools has been agreed by the Commonwealth with all State and Territory governments.
Since 2013, the Australian Government’s school funding has increased in nominal terms by 80% to a record $23.4 billion, and we have committed a further 40% increase to reach $32.8 billion by 2029. From 2013 to 2029, government schools funding will increase the most by 193%, catholic schools by 109% and independent schools by 161%.
Scotch College gets an eighth polo field.
The federal funding is locked in and agreed through to the end of the decade. The states and territories will need to live up to their side of the bargain also, but with record funding to all schools, our focus is now on how to use the money not how much schools should get or the distribution between the sectors.
Tudge really is an asshole. The federal funding of private schools is obscene.
I mentioned at the outset that over the last two decades, international benchmarks suggest we are moving away from the ministerial aspiration of a world class education system. Our standards have dropped in both absolute terms and relative to other countries.
Consider the evidence, as provided by the most authoritative international assessments: the OECD’s PISA tests of 15 year olds.
Since 2000, Australia’s performance in reading has declined by 26 points, or the equivalent of nine months of schooling.
In maths, we have fallen 33 points since 2003, or by 14 months of schooling.
Tudge is, of course, unaware that PISA’s testing of mathematics is garbage. No one should pay any attention whatsoever to PISA.
In science, we have fallen 24 points since 2006, or by 11 months of schooling.
This decline has been consistent across different groups of students. Our top students are less likely to score in the highest achievement bands and our lower performing students are more likely to have fallen below the proficient standard. The problem is not a growing divide in student results; it is a decline in performance across the board.
As our student results have fallen, we have dropped behind more and more countries.
In the early 2000s, we ranked 4th internationally in reading, 8th in science, and 11th in maths. By 2018, we had fallen to 16th in reading, 17th in science and 29th in maths.
We are being significantly outcompeted in our neighbourhood. For example, Australian students are now, on average, about one and a half years behind Singaporean students when it comes to reading and science, and three years behind on maths.
But it is not just the Asian tigers that have leapt ahead of us. The UK, Canada and New Zealand – all countries we used to outperform in education – are now ahead of us on all three assessment domains.
If this was our economy, this decline would be a national topic of conversation. Perhaps the lack of attention is because the decline has been gradual rather than sudden. But when viewed over a twenty-year period, it is profound – and it will have consequences for our long-term productivity and competitiveness if we cannot lift our education performance.
Two other international tests do not show quite the decline as PISA. TIMMS (which covers mathematics and science) and PIRLS (which covers reading literacy) have shown slight upticks recently. Our performance in TIMSS in 2019, especially in Year 8, was promising and perhaps an early indicator of a turnaround. I hope this is the case.
A false hope. TIMSS is an excellent international test of Year 4 and Year 8 mathematics (and science), and our education overlords should really, really really be paying attention to what it tests and Australia’s (woeful) performance. But “Australia” did not improve in 2019: all of the improvement indicated by the Year 8 TIMSS results was in New South Wales.
There is no consensus as to why our performance has declined over the last twenty years.
It is certainly not because of a decline in funding. As outlined, our funding has gone up considerably in real per capita terms while at the same time our standards have declined.
Nor is it class sizes which have steadily declined over the past few decades and are now considerably smaller than other countries that significantly outperform us. Moreover, many of our schools are now brand new, with facilities that older generations look at with envy.
But these things don’t have as much of an impact as what happens inside the classroom. The quality of the teaching, the rigour of the curriculum and the discipline in the classroom matter most.
Tudge is correct, and this is hugely important. The blowing of money on polo fields and technological snake oil hasn’t helped, and Tudge ignores the massive and insane administrative-accountability burden that has been placed upon teachers. Nonetheless, he is correct. KKK.
So how do we get Australia back to being amongst the best in the world?
The first step has been done; state and territory ministers, along with the former federal minister, have agreed the ambition to be world class.
Whoa. Big first step. Let’s all be sure to catch our breath.
But we should go further.
Really? That first step was just so helpful, maybe that’s enough.
We should set ourselves a 2030 target to be again amongst the top group of nations across the three major domains of reading, maths and science. We used to consistently be in the top group, which means we can get there again.
Fine. By what measure of success? PISA results? TIMSS results?
I will be taking this to the next Education Ministers Meeting in April.
Such a target would then become a guiding principle and place urgency to the task.
Ten years is a reasonable, while ambitious, timeframe to again be amongst the top nations. By achieving the goal, we would be living up to the aspiration of giving Australian students the opportunity to achieve their best.
We have many building blocks already in place to achieve the target.
For example, there are already great initiatives in place across a variety of areas and I commend the state education ministers and Minister Tehan and Birmingham for these. This includes accreditation of initial teacher education courses, the Year 1 phonics check, the national unique student identifier, a new education evidence institute, and many more reforms.
Great to see phonics noted. The teaching of reading in primary schools is arguably worse and more damaging than the teaching of arithmetic.
I will continue to work with the state and territory ministers to implement these initiatives. They will make a considerable impact.
I will also prioritise new reform areas in the months ahead to accelerate our progress.
Building on our progress to date, my focus and the Government’s focus will be on three areas: quality teaching, particularly initial teacher education, curriculum and assessment. In addition, I will be leading a continued focus on indigenous students, particularly those in remote communities, whose level of educational attainment remains catastrophically poor.
Let me start with quality teaching.
We have tens of thousands of passionate teachers who transform our children’s lives, giving them skills that they seem to magically acquire. After parents, they are frequently the most important person in a child’s life, and in some cases, the most important person.
Quality teaching is by far the most important in-school factor in determining student performance. If we get this right, we will achieve our goal.
Tudge is correct.
Consider: a student with a teacher in the top 10% of effectiveness achieves in a half a year what a student with a teacher in the bottom 10 percent achieves in a year. That is, a good teacher has twice the impact of a poorer teacher on student learning.
What does this even mean? How does one begin to quantify “effectiveness” and “achievement” and “impact”? This numerology suggests that Tudge has no clue how to evaluate the quality of a teacher or their teaching.
Most of the challenge of quality teaching lies with the states and the non-government education authorities who employ the teachers and run the schools. They manage the issues associated with salaries, conditions, hiring, and firing. There is still much work to do on this front to better reward the brilliant teachers and to more easily let go the ones who are better suited in alternative careers.
The federal government’s main leverage over quality teaching is its funding of universities to deliver Initial Teacher Education courses, and through the provision of high-quality teacher professional development.
All teacher professional development is pointless and a waste of everybody’s time, as a matter of fact and, pretty much, of necessity. Teachers learn by teaching, then reflecting, then teaching again, and that’s pretty much it. KKK.
Our Initial Teacher Education courses play two central roles – selecting the future teacher workforce and then training that workforce.
Top-performing education systems set high standards for who becomes a teacher. They know and apply Michael Barber’s maxim that, ‘the quality of an education system cannot exceed the quality of its teachers’.
Finland, for example, rigorously assesses potential teachers through standard school leaver exams, additional tests of critical thinking, and mock teaching activities. Only one in 10 applicants make the grade. Singapore has a similar level of selectiveness.
Once selected, top-performing systems ensure that teachers are rigorously trained, equipped with the skills, confidence and knowledge to be highly effective from day one in the classroom. The best ITE courses are focused on practical capabilities, essential content knowledge, and proven pedagogical strategies rather than fads. For example, primary teachers in Singapore are rigorously trained in systematic and explicit teaching of grammar – a key to great literacy teaching.
This is sounding better. We’re not convinced that Finland is the great role model it is sometimes presented as, but at least Tudge is saying the right words. The noting of teaching grammar, which is currently non-existent in primary schools, is particularly good to see.
In Australia, we have made real inroads into the task of raising standards in the selection and training of our teachers in the last few years.
No we haven’t.
Guided by the Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group (TEMAG) recommendations, every initial teacher education course must now be assessed and accredited. This is a big breakthrough that over time will be fundamental to improving student outcomes.
We very much doubt it. Before reading Tudge’s speech we had not heard of the TEMAG report or the Government response. To us, it appears to be very much the standard swill.
Further, every teaching student now sits a test before graduation to ensure they have personal literacy and numeracy skills that are in the top 30 per cent of the adult population. If they do not pass the test, they cannot enter the classroom to teach.
ACER’s literacy and numeracy test is pointless and evil. We haven’t yet written on this obscenity, but it is on the list.
In addition, we have invested in Teach for Australia, a proven model that I helped found, that supports an accelerated pathway into the classroom for top graduates from non-teaching faculties.
We have made good progress, but there is still room for improvement.
We are still not consistently attracting the best students into teaching.
So you’re gonna offer teachers more money and make the job less shithouse? Or, is that suggestion too weirdly free market for you?
Moreover, some teachers are still graduating from their courses insufficiently prepared to teach in a classroom either because there has been too much focus on theory at the expense of practice, or because evidence-based teaching methods are not taught. I hear this consistently from school principals and graduates alike.
The OECD data backs this up: teachers in Australia feel less well prepared than the OECD average across curriculum content, pedagogy, managing student behaviour and monitoring student development.
La Trobe University has recently offered a short course in teaching phonics to existing teachers. A thousand teachers have signed up already. It is great that they offer this course and teachers are keen to learn, but it is an indictment on some education faculties that they were not taught this in the first place given how clear the evidence is.
The next evolution of reforms is needed, to build from the TEMAG reforms. I will soon be launching a review to help shape such reforms. This review will investigate where there is still further work to do to ensure that all ITE courses are high-quality and adequately prepare our teachers to be effective from day one.
This has been talked about for almost two decades now, going back to the National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy in 2005, so l will be impatient with education faculties that are not implementing evidence-based practices. It is the kids that miss out!
This is very good to read, but the weak point is the term “evidence-based”. What counts as evidence, and who will evaluate the evidence? Think of the craziest education idea, and you’ll be able find “evidence” to back it, and an education “authority” claiming to be convinced by that evidence.
Further, for many of the changes that a sane person would make, is any evidence required or helpful? Does anyone need evidence, for example, that if kids aren’t sitting still and paying attention to a teacher then they’ll learn bugger all? Sure, Tudge needs “evidence” for political reasons, but to appreciate the major educational and cultural changes required, all one needs is a sense of history, a pair of eyes and a brain.
I will also be looking for mechanisms to enable school principals and expert teachers to have a greater input over the content and delivery of teacher education courses in a similar way that practitioners and employers are in medicine and law.
We need to find additional pathways to attract outstanding students to teaching, including talented mid-career professionals.
This is very good. Intended or otherwise, it is more viewing teaching as vocational rather than professional.
Twenty years ago, when our standards were higher, a person could be trained to become a teacher through a one-year Diploma. Now it takes a minimum of a two year Masters. It would be a rare mid-career person who could afford to take two years off work. Shorter pathways are required.
For everyone. The push from a 1-Year Graduate Diploma to a 2-year Masters was monumentally stupid: needless, costly torture to trainee teachers, and almost certainly lowering teaching standards.
We need a system that recognises that many professionals have deep expertise and relevant experience that would make them highly impactful teachers. I would love to see more engineers and accountants, for example, using their mathematical expertise to help us address our critical shortage of maths teachers.
In the end, the quality of teaching is the most important factor in student outcomes. It is my most important priority when it comes to schooling.
That Tudge listed this as his first and most important priority is very good.
My second area of focus will be on the Australian Curriculum, which is currently under review by ACARA.
Tudge is presumably unaware that ACARA is run by clowns.
This is an opportunity for us to take a step change improvement and put us on the pathway to again being amongst the top nations.
The Alice Springs Declaration sets the objective of ‘promoting [a] world-class curriculum’. It is the right objective: without a world-class curriculum, we will not achieve world-class learning outcomes.
The curriculum sets the standard for the student outcomes we expect – and so our curriculum must reflect our aspiration to be among the best in the world again.
This can be done by benchmarking our curriculum standards against top performing countries like Singapore and using this analysis to set our expectations for student learning.
As with “evidence-based”, benchmarking is easily gamed and is effectively pointless, except for political purposes.
Education Ministers have given ACARA the job of refining, updating and decluttering the content across the current curriculum. By the start of next year, we will have a more streamlined, coherent, focused Australian Curriculum available to be implemented in our schools.
Signs are that this updating of the Curriculum will make things even worse. We hope to write on this in the next day or so.
We will not bridge the three-year gap between us and Singapore overnight, but my hope would be that our revised national curriculum will put us on a pathway over the next decade that will see Australia rise to the top tier of global reading, maths and science standards.
Within the national curriculum content, I would like to see greater focus put towards the fundamentals of reading, mathematics and civics and citizenship. These are the building blocks which underpin other content areas and set individuals up for a greater contribution in our society and democracy.
Yes! Finally, the three Rs! Reading, mathematics and … civics.
Jesus H. Christ. A proper classroom culture (not ScoMoFo’s fucking “Australian values” bullshit) is critical, coming before the three Rs. But it’s not a goddam area of learning, it’s the way you create a medium for learning.
Tudge’s push for “fundamentals” is very welcome, but he really screwed up the dismount.
I will have more to say on these content areas in the months ahead including how we can use technology better (particularly in maths teaching) to make up for teacher shortages in particular areas.
He means Mathletics, or some other brand of dog shit. Inevitably, this will be monumentally stupid and monumentally damaging.
We will need a renewed push in reading where too many are transitioning to secondary school without the fundamental reading skills.
Good.
We need to improve the knowledge that young people have of our society and our democracy.
Start with Peter Dutton and your other goon mates, you turd.
My third priority area will be assessment.
John Hattie’s research tells us that effective assessment and feedback influences student achievement as much as prior cognitive ability – that’s a significant effect that should make us sit up and pay attention. It’s clear that assessment empowers teachers – putting student data at their fingertips to personalise learning plans and address areas of weakness.
Our uninformed understanding is that Hattie is a bit of an idiot. But, good assessment is good.
This is why our national annual assessment of student progress – NAPLAN – is so important.
And bad assessment is bad. NAPLAN is garbage.
We must protect NAPLAN, and not give in to those who call for less accountability and less information for teachers and parents.
At the same time, we will continue to refine the NAPLAN tests to ensure they are optimised to provide the information that schools, teachers, parents and policymakers need to lift school standards. The shift to online assessment will be completed in 2022, which will help deliver results faster. This year, we will assess other opportunities to adjust the tests or their implementation.
A national, lower-year testing scheme for arithmetic and spelling-grammar and comprehension would be valuable and worth the effort. We cannot see how the idiocy of NAPLAN could ever morph into that.
NAPLAN assessments must be supported by a range of other assessments. Great teachers use formative assessment on a daily or weekly basis to assess student learning and identify where more instruction and support is required.
We will do more to embed formative assessment in every classroom in the country. The Online Formative Assessment trial, initiated under the National Schools Reform Agreement, is being developed now.
This trial has great potential to increase the effectiveness of classroom teaching by making robust assessment quick and easy for teachers to regularly complete. It is critical that this trial delivers on its great promise, and I will be monitoring its progress closely and supporting its implementation.
I will also be looking into how we can develop a repository of proven assessment tools that teachers and parents can use, in classrooms and at home, to see how children are performing.
It’s not clear what this all means, but it sounds bad. Good teachers will always have their own methods, of varying degrees of formality, of assessing their students, suitable to the topic and the students. Perhaps Tudge is proposing to offer assistance for this, but it sounds more declarative and needlessly micromanaging.
Finally, I will continue the Government’s priority on indigenous students, particularly those in remote areas. This has been a long term commitment of mine, as it has been for many Australians. There are no simple solutions, but I do think we can do more. I particularly want to see a greater focus on the early years so that kids don’t start school from behind.
And you know, whatever the intention it’ll change almost nothing.
School education is a topic that every person has experience with, a view on, and every Australian should have an interest in. We have all been through the schooling system and many of us have children, nieces, nephews or grandchildren still in the system.
Overall, our school system works well. But as a whole we can do better to ensure that we deliver on our ultimate goal of ensuring that every child reaches their potential.
I am optimistic that we can lift Australian school standards to put us among the world’s best education systems again. And, more importantly, I am confident that we know what it will take to achieve this goal.
We will see.
*) We cut out a statement Tudge gave on sexual assault in schools, as well as the opening, boilerplaterish part of his speech.
SUMMARY
OK, does anybody else have whiplash?
After reading Tudge’s speech, we wrote to our teacher-friend and graded it a D+, maybe a C–. After reflecting and writing and reflecting, we’re probably willing to raise that to a C+ or B–. Although containing a number of genuine idiocies, the speech is focused upon flagging genuine problems with Australian education, and suggests some plausible approaches to at least alleviate those problems. As such, we cannot see that Tudge’s proposals will end up causing much harm, and they may even do some good.
But not much good. At best, Tudge will be relying upon the evidence and the experts to implement changes. But, as we have queried above, which evidence and which experts?
The reality is, Tudge will be relying upon half-wits at ACER and ACARA and the like, along with God knows which academic nitwits. And what is the alternative? Who can you think of in Australia, who has both the educational clout and proper sense-knowledge-intelligence to make a decent go of Tudge’s proposals? Is there a single person?
Tudge’s speech is good in sum, but Tudge doesn’t understand the depth or the fundamental sources of the problem. To go properly into that is another, long, post. We’ll just make one note: any proposal for education reform that doesn’t begin with a blanket ban of computers in the primary classroom is not a serious proposal.
Yep, C+ is probably about right.
B+ is being generous, but I see your point.
In The Australian today there was another article (12/March/2021, Page 19 for those playing at home) where a commenter with a fancy job title said that teachers are not flexible and not responsive to data and that until this was fixed, education was not going to improve in this country.
Yep. Great. More teacher bashing… and now they think you can replace mathematics teachers with technology… sure… because that has worked in the past (not).
It may sound like petty whining, but years, if not decades of political interference in education has not improved it – quite the opposite by their own admission. So, maybe more of the same is really not the answer…?
And, what is the answer? I have no idea.
C+. No way it’s a B+.
Was the Australian article by one of those CIS clowns? I think I half-read it. In any case, it is true: teachers are not flexible and, in the main, they are not teaching well. On other hand, no one has yet told them to flex in any sane manner.
Yes, the Mathletics thing, whatever it meant, was perhaps the most insidious line.
As for the answer, it is most definitely political interference. But it has to be the proper interference. Which, except in marginal ways, is never gonna happen.
RF, I
agree with your comment
“… years, if not decades of political interference in education has not improved it – quite the opposite by their own admission. So, maybe more of the same is really not the answer…?”
The political interference boils down to asking all sorts of ‘expert bodies’ to come in and make things right. So I’d paraphrase your comment as
“… years, if not decades of … [recommendations and advice from the same so-called ‘expert bodies’] in education has not improved it – quite the opposite … So, maybe more of the same is really not the answer…?”
We may not know what the answer is, but we know what the answer is not. The answer is NOT getting more advice from the same ‘expert bodies’ such as ACER, CIS, VIT, VCAA, Education Faculties, etc. When something is fucked and X repeatedly gives you advice that makes it even more fucked, why would you keep going back to X for advice? It makes as much sense as staying in an abusive relationship.
Sacking the whole fucking lot of them and making a fresh start would probably be the first step towards the right answer.
I really didn’t like the deference to other groups and bodies without any notion that these groups could be part of the problem.
I REALLY didn’t like the technology part. Fuck right off with that.
Yes, and that’s the fundamental problem. But again, who could he call upon? Name a single body or educational big shot that you’d trust to guide such reforms?
The more I think about it (and I think about it A LOT) there are really two very large issues here (as well as an ever-increasing number of smaller ones that are doing plenty of damage the longer they go unchecked):
1. Referring to “teachers” and “education” as a broad category under some assumption that they are all the same. This is not the case. Learning and teaching of different skills requires very different types of education and hence different educators. The quest to find a common core of skills seems to have been a contributing factor to the lowering of the proverbial “bar” for many years. Why do primary teachers and secondary mathematics teachers sit for the name “numeracy” (I still HATE that “word”) test as History, PE and Music teachers? Surely we can hold some teachers to a higher standard of number skills?
2. Yes, there is a major issue in how teachers are trained, but I think there is also a HUGE issue in how schools attract, select, develop, retain and promote their human resources (not just teachers here but also the support staff who may work 1-on-1 with students who require specific intervention programs). School leadership is not quite an oxymoron (in some schools it is, for sure) but there are a lot of what I would call “good” (not brilliant, but certainly far from awful) teachers who work for no more than 10 years in schools before deciding they can do better elsewhere. If good teachers are not managed well, they will leave and schools will be left with “unresponsive”, “inflexible” staff who remain in some cases because they lack the above attributes to move elsewhere.
3. Specifically referring to Mathematics teaching, why are university Mathematics departments not involved (at all?) in the training of Mathematics teachers? Is this a university decision that “Education” is a stand-alone faculty and doesn’t want any input from other faculties or are the Mathematics lecturers so difficult to find in the first place in Australia that they have no time for this? (Genuine question, btw)
Thanks, RF. Underlying your 1 and 2 is a more fundamental question: what is education? That is, what are schools for?
Of course these questions have always been around, with contesting ideas. But I’m not sure our society ever been further from a coherent and helpful answer. And I see no way to get there.
Where I work, miraculously, we *are* involved — heavily so — in the training of maths teachers. They complete essentially a major in mathematics, doing the same subjects (but not as many and no capstone) as BMath students. Many of our graduates have excellent depth, certainly more than any of the teachers I had growing up and moving around rural NSW.
The point about money is correct. We make a lot of money from our education students. It is a big deal for us. It is also vitally important. How it works… good communication and good people from both sides who really care about producing good math teachers.
Estonia had a good go at it about 12 years ago: throw out the ENTIRE curriculum and start again.
Their PISA results have been on the rise ever since.
PISA …
“We know very little about it, but our understanding is that Teach for Australia is a very good thing.”
Suggest a re-edit:
“Because we know very little about it, our understanding, which is heavily influenced by TFA’s marketing, is that it is a very good thing.”
It isn’t. It promotes teaching as a social justice cause in order to attract the naive and idealistic. It then inflicts upon these SJWs a 6-week long crash-course ‘intensive’ boot camp that convinces them that they are ready for the classroom. These SJWs are then parachuted into some very tough schools with very little practical preparation and told to ‘go forth and teach’ – on their own in a classroom with some very challenging kids that even very experienced and capable teachers cannot properly manage. In the meantime, reality strikes in the form of ‘WTF have we signed-up for!?’. Don’t forget, they are also trying to complete a 2 year Masters in Bullshittery while teaching the equivalent of 4 days per week. Do you want to see stressed, dejected and despondent preservice teachers? Talk to some real TFA Associates, and then decide whether it is a very good thing. What they say might alarm you. At minimum, it should change your perception of this Not-For-Profit organisation.
Thanks, SJWTFAWTF.
My admittedly poor understanding of TFA is not at all influenced by TFA’s marketing; I am entirely unaware of TFA’s marketing. No matter, I’m very willing to be corrected on TFA, and I’ll try to look into it a bit. (If anybody reading this blog is a TFA survivor, I’d be very interested for you to post your thoughts, and/or to email me.)
TFA is a minor aspect of Tudge’s speech and my critique: if anything, I was trying to be cautious, to indicate that even though Tudge is a bona fide asshole, it doesn’t mean that anything he touches must be a screw up. But, maybe TFA is.
I will add, that although the Masters of Bullshittery is pointless and tortuous, it is also trivial. Except for having to get up to yell “Here” for the marking of the roll, a person in a coma could do it.
Do TFA teachers have to pay for the MoB and be there for roll call? If not, I’d regard it as an insane and tortuous burden, but not a heavy burden. Still, on top of a very tough teaching gig, it wouldn’t be fun.
A comment from one of my sources, when I suggested that TFA may not be as good as they had suggested:
I don’t know much about TFA but I’m sure that the criticisms are likely to be fair.
Probably the intention was to give an alternative pathway and to parachute talent into shitty schools, but then some asshole created a bunch of needless impositions that make it no less evil. Any evaluation of such candidates should simply be there to ensure that that candidate is capable, or shows good potential and intention of becoming capable. This is, in fact, a trivial thing to see. You shadow them for one day, you ask their supervisor, you ask the principal. End of story.
And there does seem to be a problem with the wrong people being sent to tough schools. The behaviour issues that these schools have mean that only a very specific type of person survives in such places. Sure as shit, that person isn’t me. I’d be eaten alive.
So, in line with the SJW comment above, it would appear:
1) TFA, even if well-intentioned, has got serious problems.
2) My trusting attitude to government programs is wrong: I must learn to stop being so rosy and optimistic.
1)- Part a)- possibly, but hard to distil from their sophisticated ‘smoke and mirrors’ obfuscation; Part b)- absolutely.
2)- Part a)- an essential attribute that will all but guarantee your recruitment; Part b)- perhaps not, as this epiphany will save you.
Let me make a comment about federal funding of non-government schools. The federal government should not have got into this in the first place. According to the Australian Constitution, education is the responsibility of states and territories, and the states and territories are responsible for school education.
If someone wants to start up a non-government school, then so be it. But don’t expect the government to fund it. (BTW, for those who “give a Gonski”, Gonski-1 proposed that state governments should provide more money to non-government schools.)
If I were in charge, I would give notice of winding back federal government funding to schools to nil over say 10 years. (This would make little difference to Scotch which obtains about 10% of its funds from governments.)
I liked this article: https://www.aare.edu.au/blog/?p=5056
Thanks JF for showing us the article by Zyngier. The issue I have with his article is that he looks only at federal government funding. “Today private schools in Australia receive 75% of all federal funding.”
A better picture of all government funding to Australian schools is here:
https://research.acer.edu.au/policy_analysis_misc/29/
I don’t understand your objection. You already noted, correctly, that the federal government should be giving 0% to private schools.
My objection to the argument proposed by Zyngier is that he focuses only on federal funding for schools. It is more appropriate to consider all government funding.
Although I believe that all governments should not provide money to private schools, I was being critical of Zyngier’s argument.
My opposition to governments providing funds to private schools stems from my wider conviction that governments should not be involved in private enterprise at all. In a capitalistic society, governments should govern. They may well set the rules for competition, but that should be the extent of their involvement in the marketplace.
I admit that all my family has gained benefits from education in private schools. Nevertheless, it was a mistake for Australia to start this process.
I completed the Master of Teaching (Secondary) through Deakin in 2019. I did the entire course on-line, except for placements of course. I did not have much difficulty in doing the course, but I found it difficult to do well probably due to jargon and expectations in education. Overall, I enjoyed the experience. Since then I have done a GCertEd through ACER that deals entirely with assessment. I enjoyed that too, especially now that I have a better understanding of jargon and expectations in education.
There is a simple reason why university mathematicians do not get involved in education: money. The money follows the students, and having mathematicians involved in mathematics education takes money away from schools of education and goes to mathematics departments.
Also – and I am going out on a limb here – few academics in any discipline, outside schools of education, are seriously interested in education.
Terry, your mistake was to attempt to do well on the assignments. Aiming for any higher than a 55 is pointless.
Marty, that was TM’s
mistake.
TM, if you want to work as a secondary school teacher you will be forced by the Vampires to follow this process:
Click to access Moving-to-full-registration-FACT-SHEET.pdf
(Note the instances of poor grammar, by the way). I give you my 100% money-back guarantee that you will NOT enjoy the experience, overall or otherwise.
If I was tasked with improving educational standards in Victoria the first thing I would do is abolish the Vampires. Standards would rise instantly.
I am now pleased to be working as a secondary teacher at least for the rest of 2021. I have had a few shorter term positions since gaining registration so I am pleased to have a job for a slightly longer term. I have a tutor position (part-time) made available through the state government. I am assisting Year 11 students in General Mathematics. It’s a nice job for me right now.
Over the last couple of years, I have been struck by the fact that many students in senior secondary classes seem to have fallen through the cracks. For example, what is the value of 8-6+2? In one of my earlier short term positions, I had a debate with my students who thought that the answer was 0. Not just one student – but several. After all, BODMAS tells us to add before we subtract. They learnt this in earlier years with teachers who were more experienced than I am. I tried to convince them that 0 was not correct. Eventually I suggested to them that they use their calculator; the calculator said 4; the students replied that this was because the calculator does not follow BODMAS. In the end, one student sighed in frustration and said “Whatever … let’s move on.” Another suggested that I need a new approach. True.
Huge amounts of money had been invested in teaching these students about mathematics since they started school. And what had they learned from that?
None of this is news. What do you conclude?
The problems are deep. I often just shake my head with the lack of knowledge of mathematics in *some* of our upper secondary students. In one class, I met a student who did not know how many hours there are in a day. Where were you when this was covered? What can I do?
The BODMAS I was taught as a child was “… Addition and Subtraction as they come”. Your students were either taught incorrectly or remembered it incorrectly.
I am pleased to say that, having submitted my re-registration in September 2020, I was informed last week that I have satisfactorily met all my registration requirements and that my VIT card will now be sent.
So it’s only taken 7 months (faster than for some other teachers, I hear). But apparently it could take up to 20 working days for my card to arrive …
(I think all VIT staff must have a second job at Births, Deaths and Marriages …)
I am sceptical of numerical targets. Yet politicians and policy makers cannot help themselves. (“By 1990, no Australian child will be living in poverty.”) I like to ask, if a target is not met, who will resign? Usually these targets have no scientific or even rational basis. They might sound good – if you don’t think about it too hard. W. Edwards Deming was a statistician who made his reputation in management. One of his points to better management was to eliminate numerical goals because they don’t help us to do our job better.
Also, often in education and healthcare, programs are established without any specific purpose. For example, it is being proposed to offer a 4th VCE subject in mathematics, Foundation Mathematics. What is the purpose of Foundation Mathematics? The discussion paper presents no real answer. So it will be impossible to evaluate the success of this innovation.
TM, the purpose of Foundation Mathematics is the same as the original purpose of Further Mathematics. But in due course, Foundation Mathematics (should it become a reality) will be subverted and perverted in the same way that Further Mathematics was. Then some moron will no doubt propose a 5th VCE subject in mathematics.
I’d bet London to a brick that Foundation Mathematics will become a reality.
I never bet against a sure thing, TM. Of course it will become a reality. And it’s certain to get subverted and perverted over time (just like Further Maths did) – the lack of integrity of many bastard schools will again be the cause of this as they find ways to game the system to inflate the appearance of their academic credentials.
I suspect that Foundation Mathematics 1-4 will replace the mathematics taught in VCAL but open to all year 11-12 students. I have had some experience in teaching VCAL mathematics and while it has some flaws, it also had some good points. I fear that the new Foundation Mathematics will simply become a very basic mathematics subject with all the hoops that are present in other VCE subjects (fixed content, SACs, examinations) but the good points (such as flexibility, no CAS calculators) will be lost. We will wait and see. On the other hand, it will open more jobs for mathematics teachers.
Probably not.
It will open more jobs for teachers that will now be required to teach mathematics.
There is a very big difference.
And it is core to a lot of what is wrong in mathematics education. Marty has blogged about it for many years and it has been repeatedly in the news. Journalists are very good at reporting the problem; “commentators” are not so good at suggesting workable solutions.
Will it replace VCAL numeracy? Probably, but may take a while to filter through to all schools.
Will it open up more jobs for mathematics teachers? Probably not.
I expect that VCAL will disappear – indeed this has already been proposed by the government. VCAL will be subsumed somehow into VCE, and almost all (perhaps all) the previously-VCAL students will have to do Foundation Mathematics. In my short experience, in a couple of schools, VCAL students learn mathematics under the guidance of mathematics teachers – although I did encounter one exception to this. Enrolments in VCAL have been growing steadily, and, if this trend continues, I expect that Foundation Mathematics will lead to more jobs for mathematics teachers.
Why do we want more jobs for mathematics teachers?
In theory it would make them an even more valuable commodity and therefore increase their worth.
In practice, maths teachers are still seen like fruit – just pick one off the fruit tree when you need one. And if the fruit tree is bare, no problem, just use anyone. After all, it’s only Foundation Maths (/Yr 7 Maths/Yr 8 Maths etc.) – how hard could it be to teach? (Sarcasm here, this is one of the many problems in many schools – thinking an out-of-field teacher can do just as good a job teaching maths as a specialist. Often done out of convenience and/or to save money).
I like to think of myself as a durian.
You’re certainly prickly enough …! lol!
I was only speculating on what are likely consequences of the introduction of Foundation Mathematics.
I suspect the main reason for Foundation Mathematics Units 1 to 4 is that other states already have it.
Of course, this raises a host of new questions too…
The purpose of the subject ought to be clearly stated by VCAA.
Indeed. The operative word being
. There is a laundry list of things VCAA 
to be doing.