After 2011-13 Year 11-12 subjects will look like this: (2 Viewers)

[alcalder]

Any new national curriculum cannot be expected to bring people to higher standards of education because the dumbing down of the curriculum is a phenomenon that has been going on for over a century. Every decade (or twenty years - I can't remember which), education dumbs down one year. Therefore, what Year 12 is learning know, was learnt in Primary School at the turn of last century.

So, a new national curriculum will be dumber than the current top curriculum.

Also, by dumbing it down more of the population can reach benchmarks, until that group of students is not taught to the current high expectations and then their marks will slip below the benchmarks and the benchmarks will need to be lowered again and again to pick up the slack that falls behind.

For those who are interested, here is a very "interesting" book about Education in the USA, but it really does reflect what is going on here. Download for free:

the deliberate dumbing down of america

In terms of what I know of the current HSC curriculum the Physics course has been simplified WAY too much and if they change 4U maths from what it is now (which is exactly what it was when I did it) it will be a travesty and not serve those students who need that challenge.

Too much, those elite subjects, intended for those who really need a challenge to enjoy school and stay interested, are used by some as status symbols: 4U maths, Physics, Chem, 4U english. And too many people fail at getting good marks because they are doing courses not intended for them. Therefore, to make it more "accessible" for them, the BOS simplifies the courses (ie dumbs them down). And it will happen again in the National Curriculum.

AND, then there is Julia Gillard saying that there are no plans to have a national matriculation qualification. How can there be a National Curriculum and no national matriculation qualification? Honestly.

I'll get off my soap box now.

 

[Gmac_0]

We have the school certificate to provide the absolute essentials of maths. It would make sense to finish teaching these essentials before kids reach the end of mandatory education and start optional education - i.e. years 11-12.



I don't know what UMEP is, but it's not in the proposed syllabus. Also, Further and CAS aren't in it either, which leaves a gaping hole between Methods and Specialist.

Basically I'm not going to debate the merits of the VCE because my knowledge of it is limited and it's not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is whether or not the proposals are decent curricula for years 11-12. I think they've cannibalised the VCE, added a cursory nod to the HSC and others and ended up with a program that won't do students much good at all.

UMEP is uni extension maths basically. Around 5-10 kids from my school took it last year I think. Methods CAS and Methods only differed in that methods cas went up 7 and methods normal went up 6, so really doesn't change too much, however I believe that methods was eliminated anyway, so there was just the one methods CAS left, which will then simply be renamed methods, lol. As for the certificate maths and the 'essential' thing - really, this isn't part of VCE anyway. It is something the government has just pulled in. I'm not entirely sure if Foundation was even VCE, I don't think it is, in fact, just VCAL or VET or some other thing that some VCE students take.

Agreed, that overall, it doesn't look too good lol.

 

[57o1i]

Any new national curriculum cannot be expected to bring people to higher standards of education because the dumbing down of the curriculum is a phenomenon that has been going on for over a century. Every decade (or twenty years - I can't remember which), education dumbs down one year. Therefore, what Year 12 is learning know, was learnt in Primary School at the turn of last century.

+1 to the rest of your post but I am struggling with the image of 11 year olds in any century doing year 12 trigonometry/binomial theorem etc.

 

[Existential]

"Deduce" =/= fact. Its poor scaling is due to the academic ability of its cohort in other subjects. This has nothing to do with TAFE. The intention was as I quoted previously. And also, you can do Senior Science and still get into uni. So you can't just make sweeping statements like that.

of course Senior Science has it's merits, but it's common knowledge that the course is not as rigorous nor academic as the four main sciences. it is the trend for many schools to use senior science as a subject for those who could not handle the "specialist" sciences.

and it doesn't scale very well.

therefore one could make the judgement that it should not be used to gain entry into science uni courses - no uni puts S.S as a prerequisite.

 

[Existential]

With regard to Maths, if the federal government thinks it would be better to 1) reduce the expected standards by making something like Essential Maths a year 11-12 program, 2) strip a chunk of 4U content, thereby reducing the challenge for students of higher potential while also 3) leaving a massive gap between the expected standards for Methods and Specialist students ... well, I think that's probably a sign they need to get their heads checked. One might argue that they've mitigated the damage done by removing 4U content by replacing it with new stuff like matrices and stats, but that contributes to problem #3: Methods and Specialist are too far apart.

The reason why people are pointing at Victoria is because the subject names and mechanics of the courses look like the Victorian system. Plus the CEO of ACARA is out of the Victorian education system (there are two people each from VIC and NSW and one from WA on the executive but the ones from Victoria are clearly the senior pair).

Also, Maths has been working pretty fine in NSW for a while now and what problems it does have will not be fixed by dumbing down the curriculum until everyone gets a prize.

+1

and the fact that the system of worth to subjects (eg. units) has not been released is retarded.
on the proposed maths curriculum it says that a number of courses can be taken together, including general and methods which is all the more retarded.

my guess is that they want everyone to be able to get a HSC equivalent. even the IM students.

 

[Existential]

We have the school certificate to provide the absolute essentials of maths. It would make sense to finish teaching these essentials before kids reach the end of mandatory education and start optional education - i.e. years 11-12.

+1

i cannot stress it enough.

non-calculus maths courses should be non-ATAR.

and since the leaving age had risen, and the SC is up for the boot, NSW should redesign their junior and senior structures. we (NSW) should decline this national curriculum at this stage.

 

[Existential]

and, then there is julia gillard saying that there are no plans to have a national matriculation qualification. How can there be a national curriculum and no national matriculation qualification? Honestly.

+1

 

[Existential]

see the edited first post

 

[ilikebeeef]

of course Senior Science has it's merits, but it's common knowledge that the course is not as rigorous nor academic as the four main sciences. it is the trend for many schools to use senior science as a subject for those who could not handle the "specialist" sciences.

and it doesn't scale very well.

therefore one could make the judgement that it should not be used to gain entry into science uni courses - no uni puts S.S as a prerequisite.

You did not say "science uni courses" in your previous post, instead saying that S.S is intended for those who will go to TAFE, but let's just leave it at there now.

 

[4025808]

With regard to Maths, if the federal government thinks it would be better to 1) reduce the expected standards by making something like Essential Maths a year 11-12 program, 2) strip a chunk of 4U content, thereby reducing the challenge for students of higher potential while also 3) leaving a massive gap between the expected standards for Methods and Specialist students ... well, I think that's probably a sign they need to get their heads checked. One might argue that they've mitigated the damage done by removing 4U content by replacing it with new stuff like matrices and stats, but that contributes to problem #3: Methods and Specialist are too far apart.

The reason why people are pointing at Victoria is because the subject names and mechanics of the courses look like the Victorian system. Plus the CEO of ACARA is out of the Victorian education system (there are two people each from VIC and NSW and one from WA on the executive but the ones from Victoria are clearly the senior pair).

Also, Maths has been working pretty fine in NSW for a while now and what problems it does have will not be fixed by dumbing down the curriculum until everyone gets a prize.

Let's just have NSW not implement the national curriculum, and maybe even strengthen our own state's curriculum
Not until they reach to our standards (which might not in the end, since every generation will continue to become dumber and dumber :/)


*sigh* i seriously wonder what the governments been doing.... must've been smoking something i suppose... :/

I heard that creative writing is going to be scrapped from the new syllabus (not sure which one....)
and I'm like... omg screw that, and it means that easy marks are gone for me >_<

Now that adds to a further downgrade..

And for the minds of most people, it would obviously be better to make things harder to raise the level of students instead of making things dumber just so that everyone can pass >_<

I like the idea of the IB though... wouldn't mind to have every category of subject to be compulsory.... like I wouldn't really mind so much if i had to pick a science (although im doing physics, im dropping it) if everyone was forced to do it...
It probably would make people much more all-rounder, since they have to do subjects from different categories and therefore gain more experience...
though on the other hand, i wonder whether if people are going to ever use all of that knowledge of the subjects they hated....

 

[57o1i]

I like the idea of the IB though... wouldn't mind to have every category of subject to be compulsory.... like I wouldn't really mind so much if i had to pick a science (although im doing physics, im dropping it) if everyone was forced to do it...
It probably would make people much more all-rounder, since they have to do subjects from different categories and therefore gain more experience...
though on the other hand, i wonder whether if people are going to ever use all of that knowledge of the subjects they hated....

The IB was offered at my school ... I seriously considered whether to do it but eventually opted for the HSC because I didn't want to a science (or CAS or an extended essay, though I did go to a few TOK classes in year 11) and because I thought the HSC was a good program. But if I'd been given the choice of the IB or this national curriculum it would have been IB all the way.

Pity the IB is being scrapped at my school :|.

 

[4025808]

The IB was offered at my school ... I seriously considered whether to do it but eventually opted for the HSC because I didn't want to a science (or CAS or an extended essay, though I did go to a few TOK classes in year 11) and because I thought the HSC was a good program. But if I'd been given the choice of the IB or this national curriculum it would have been IB all the way.

Pity the IB is being scrapped at my school :|.

it's a great qualification especially if a student is considering opting for overseas universities....
sucks that it's being scrapped at your school.
But is it due to the low demands of the IB?

 

[57o1i]

it's a great qualification especially if a student is considering opting for overseas universities....
sucks that it's being scrapped at your school.
But is it due to the low demands of the IB?

Yeah, it is a great qualification. Particularly considering that it's getting more and more recognised in Australia.

The demand for IB is okay at my school ... we usually have ~20/100 students take it. But they did a full survey on it last year though and the results were that it wasn't overly cost effective because the amount they had to spend on training etc wasn't offset by the number of enrollments it generated. Plus a bunch of other issues. But the decision to scrap it was really controversial ... one of my friends was Dux of the 2008 cohort and she did the IB and when she came back to give her address at Speech Night she basically ripped into the board for cutting it. Subtly, but we all got the message.

Do they offer IB at your school?

 

[Existential]

You did not say "science uni courses" in your previous post, instead saying that S.S is intended for those who will go to TAFE, but let's just leave it at there now.

perhaps i left something out - but the essence of my point was valid.

 

[Existential]

Let's just have NSW not implement the national curriculum, and maybe even strengthen our own state's curriculum
Not until they reach to our standards

that's what the NSW BOS are moving to do (see my link of notice in the first post)

ie. they are not implementing ANYTHING (not even trialling a thing) in 2011.

 

[Shadowdude]

Pfft...

"Mathematical Methods" and "Specialist Mathematics". I prefer 'Mathematics Extension 1' and 'Mathematics Extension 2', it's far more elitist and awesome.

 

[slyhunter]

Pfft...

"Mathematical Methods" and "Specialist Mathematics". I prefer 'Mathematics Extension 1' and 'Mathematics Extension 2', it's far more elitist and awesome.

I chuckled. Yes I agree.

 

[gracee09]

specialist mathematics sounds so posh... extension sounds more brainy lol

 

[Existential]

specialist mathematics sounds so posh... extension sounds more brainy lol

lol which brings us back to the whole 'dumbing down' approach of new curriculums like this one.

however, i dont really have a problem with the history, english and science subjects proposed.

 

[Omnipotence]

FML. What will I do with my textbooks?