Comment in The Age Newspaper about Education (2 Viewers)

[RogueAcademic]

Are you suggesting

No, it's what the government and education professionals are recommending in the Senate committee report, as reported in the article.

Are you suggesting teaching should be harder than all other tertiary degrees? Or should all tertiary degree's be much harder? Because what you are arguing could be said about any degree or field. There are plenty of stupid, lazy people in my degree, who will go on to be offered proffesional positions.

First of all, the Senate committee report suggests that education courses are already sub-standard to begin with.

Secondly, whether a student is stupid or lazy are factors which may or may not explain lack of academic ability. I know students who appear lazy and sloppy as hell but they have a natural ability to produce well written assignments and perform really well in exams. I know some students who don't take a single page of notes through the semester and yet they are able to recall lectures well enough to do well in the exams. I also know students who look like they put in a lot of effort throughout the semester only to produce very average marks after the exams are over.

I doubt education faculty courses are commonly that much easier to pass than other arts/business/science/law etc...

Read the article, the Senate committee report is saying that education courses are sub-standard in the first place.

 

[Graney]

I scored a relatively low UAI. In many subjects I scored average marks. Ms Ashton says I would be a shit teacher. However, in Chemistry I scored over 95+.

I think It's reasonable to assume after 3 years university study of chemistry I would understand the syllabus better than any high school student could possibly hope.

I would say that's a fairly typical example. Most teachers would have an understanding of their chosen speciality that exceeds the potential assumed by just their UAI. Your UAI/Enter shows your performance over a range of subjects, which is pretty irrelavent to most teachers. All they need is sufficient performance in their chosen subject area.

I should hope passing a university level science degree would equip you with sufficient skills to comprehend the secondary science syllabus, or english, p.e. etc...

 

[RogueAcademic]

But as was discussed earlier in this thread, another important factor in being a teacher is the ability to transfer your knowledge appropriately in context with who the target students are.

Of course a PhD graduate in chemistry has a firm grip on the basics of chemistry as well as an advanced understanding of higher concepts. But there are many PhD graduates and professors at universities who are phenomenally bad teachers/lecturers.

Simply claiming to be an expert in any given topic doesn't mean you'll make a good teacher. Specifically passing a university level science degree definitely does not suggest that you'd make a good teacher.

The point to be made is overall academic ability, as evidenced in general performance in academic assessments, regardless of what the topic is.

 

[Graney]

I was argueing against those who suggest that it's possible for teachers to be qualified without even understanding the syllabus. Unlikely I believe.

I don't agree overall academic ability in a wide range of disciplines necessarily matters for a teacher.

I think it's too hard to measure who would make a good teacher or otherwise. Improve the training, but I think the current entry level is fine, let anyone with a half-decent UAI in. Then when they do gain employment, monitor and enforce strict outcomes. Just demand a certain standard on the job, like every other proffesion does.

How does that:

The point to be made is overall academic ability, as evidenced in general performance in academic assessments, regardless of what the topic is.

Demonstate this:

the ability to transfer your knowledge appropriately in context with who the target students are.

???

 

[RogueAcademic]

I don't agree overall academic ability in a wide range of disciplines necessarily matters for a teacher.

Put it this way - a student with an inability to perform well enough in high school exams is obviously showing an inability to grasp the work required of them, whatever the reasons may be leading up to the exams. If they showed an affinity for one topic only, say chemistry, then obviously there are other factors at play as to why they may have performed badly in other subjects.

By 'overall academic ability', I am referring to a student's ability to show that they have academic ability first by showing they understand what is required of them in academic assessments. Academic ability, of course, is key if they want to go into a profession that is pretty much all about academic ability.

Improve the training, but I think the current entry level is fine, let anyone with a half-decent UAI in. Then when they do gain employment, monitor and enforce strict outcomes. Just demand a certain standard on the job, like every other proffesion does.

What's your definition of a half-decent UAI?

What's the difference between having universities and the workforce act as the filtering system, as opposed to filtering out sub-standard students first before they get to the university stage? A lot of resources presumably go into training these teachers, it would be a waste of time and effort to simply throw it to the wind until they get into the workforce and we find out it's been a waste for some sub-standard teachers. Can you imagine if they applied the same philosophy to medical university entry standards? Just let sub-standard students through the system and we'll sort them out at the other end?

 

[Graney]

What's your definition of a half-decent UAI?

>30

Whatever market demand says the UAI entry score should be, in order to fill the available number of places.

What's the difference between having universities and the workforce act as the filtering system, as opposed to filtering out sub-standard students first before they get to the university stage?

Because there is no clear basis to filter them before they get to uni.

The sub-standard can easily be fired, re-trained on the job, or held back from promotion. It's easy to measure who is a good teacher once they are in the workplace, as opposed to judging them on their performance in a range of irrelavant subjects that didn't suit their particular interest in high school.

Can you imagine if they applied the same philosophy to medical university entry standards? Just let sub-standard students through the system and we'll sort them out at the other end?

There are only selective places for medicine because the demand is high relative to number of places. It's also a lot more expensive to train a doctor than a teacher. If medicine was in low demand and they applied the same philosophy to medical proffesionals, the sub-standard would be fired, re-trained on the job, or held back from promotion. The barefoot doctors seem to work out okay for china.

A lot of resources presumably go into training these teachers, it would be a waste of time and effort to simply throw it to the wind until they get into the workforce and we find out it's been a waste for some sub-standard teachers.

You could say the same for all degrees and training. Engineering has a huge drop-out rate, but is increasingly easy to get into.

A lot of resources get wasted in all education on people who fail somewhere down the line. Such is life. Due to HECS debt, it's always in the users best interest to waste as little as possible. You'll always attract people who at least think they can succeed.

By 'overall academic ability', I am referring to a student's ability to show that they have academic ability first by showing they understand what is required of them in academic assessments. Academic ability, of course, is key if they want to go into a profession that is pretty much all about academic ability.

Your premise is that the person with the highest UAI will be the best teacher, and that in general people with a higher UAI will be better teachers. I see no reason to believe that is true.

Teaching is an abstract skill, quite different from a persons ability to rote learn some King Lear. The ability to learn and pass HSC assessments would seem to me to have little to do with teaching.

Perhaps on the job training and reskilling for teachers should be better and more readily available. Tbh, I think most university students, properly trained could make very competent teachers.

I think just about anybody who understands the course material could potentially teach it well.

 

[RogueAcademic]

Whatever market demand says the UAI entry score should be, in order to fill the available number of places.

And if you read my posts, that was the same point I was making regarding the latest news article I posted.

The sub-standard can easily be fired, re-trained on the job, or held back from promotion. It's easy to measure who is a good teacher once they are in the workplace, as opposed to judging them on their performance in a range of irrelavant subjects that didn't suit their particular interest in high school.

That probably entails questionable use of time and resources. Doing that would further devalue the university courses.

If a student finds subjects irrelevant at school, then they are likely to have little passion with the idea of coming back to spend the rest of their lives teaching at school, much less pass any kind of passion for learning on to their students.

There are only selective places for medicine because the demand is high relative to number of places ...The barefoot doctors seem to work out okay for china.

Do you realise that we know how the UAI system works, don't you? But you're completely missing the point in the news article I posted that politicians don't seem to know that UAI reflects demand. I'm the one questioning their motives for raising entry requirements and thereby reducing the number of students going through the system.

The point I was trying to make about medicine is purely a case in point where you filter out sub-standard students early in the process so as not to waste time and resources on ones who are not likely to succeed.

You're more than welcome to depend on barefoot doctors to treat your ailments, nobody's stopping you. You're also more than welcome to let a sub-standard teachers take your children through high school. Most parents would prefer to have well qualified teachers rather than teachers who constantly have to be monitored on the job where they are already supposed to be degree-qualified.

You could say the same for all degrees and training. Engineering has a huge drop-out rate, but is increasingly easy to get into.

Engineering degrees at good universities have arguably higher entry requirements than education courses......

Due to HECS debt, it's always in the users best interest to waste as little as possible.

Who pays teacher salaries in public schools?

Your premise is

No, it's the govt's premise, read the articles and the posts. Also, you're missing the finer points of the argument we're making in this thread.

The ability to learn and pass HSC assessments would seem to me to have little to do with teaching.

The ability to learn and pass HSC assessments also show a more well-rounded student who, amongst other things, demonstrably understand how to study and survive school, and these students are more likely to be able to pass these skills to their students than a student who has not survived school as well.

Perhaps on the job training and reskilling for teachers should be better and more readily available. Tbh, I think most university students, properly trained could make very competent teachers.

It's one thing to talk about post-graduation continuing education and improvement, say for eg where doctors and lawyers are expected to undertake regular study/training throughout their career to keep on top of changing/improved medical procedures and laws.

It's completely another thing where you have to set up some kind of monitoring system to catch incompetent 'professionals' and make them go through re-training for skills that they should've already possessed upon graduation the first time.

I think just about anybody who understands the course material could potentially teach it well.

That's the whole point. Someone who doesn't understand course material and consequently is not able to perform well in assessments isn't likely to be able to show another student how to pass with flying colours.

 

[Graney]

How do you then propose we attract more of these amazing talented students then? The governments measure seems pretty sound and reasonable to attract the people you seem to think are needed for teaching.

That's the whole point. Someone who doesn't understand course material and consequently is not able to perform well in assessments isn't likely to be able to show another student how to pass with flying colours.

A third year university physics student who doesn't understand the course material in high school physics. Cool story.

 

[RogueAcademic]

The governments measure seems pretty sound and reasonable to attract the people you seem to think are needed for teaching.

Seriously man, are you actually reading anything in this thread...?

A third year university physics student who doesn't understand the course material in high school physics. Cool story.

Perhaps if you expressed your points of argument clearer..

 

[Graney]

To repeat, how do you then propose we attract more of these amazing talented students then?

I think i've been pretty clear in this thread.

There have been two potential issues with future teachers raised in this thread as I understand it.

Firstly, that potential teachers may be inadequate in understanding the syllabus. That's a joke of an idea. Any university graduate, even on P's, is going to be able to comprehensively understand their chosen field at a high school level.

As I said "A third year university physics student who doesn't understand the course material in high school physics. Cool story."

Secondly, is that they may have inadequate "ability to transfer your knowledge appropriately in context with who the target students are."

I think I said it clearest when I posted, I can't see how "overall academic ability, as evidenced in general performance in academic assessments, regardless of what the topic is" is a complete and sufficient assessment of the ability of a teacher "to transfer your knowledge appropriately in context with who the target students are."

"The ability to transfer your knowledge appropriately in context with who the target students are" is a very abstract skill set, very different and unrelated to pretty much anything you do in school. It's also a learned ability and I don't believe too difficult that your average 60 UAI graduate couldn't pick it up in a sufficiently excellent teaching program.

Attitude, personality, empathy with students, correct teaching methods and training etc... Would play a far larger role than whatever it is the HSC measures.

If I'm missing the point, link or quote me to what exactly I'm missing?

 

[RogueAcademic]

Any university graduate, even on P's, is going to be able to comprehensively understand their chosen field at a high school level.

Well who knows, P is a bare pass. University academics use a P to mean you've just barely understood enough of the material. The assessors have deemed the student not to have understood at least half of the taught material, as well as having an inability to understand the fine detail, nor has the student appreciated the subtleties of the topic.

A teacher like that could potentially miss out on passing on a complete picture, they'd probably have holes in their knowledge, or they may lack an understanding of more advanced topics to be able to appreciate how the basics should be taught in a way that would open the way for students to move on to advanced topics, or to even teach in a way that encourages an interest or passion for more advanced topics.

"The ability to transfer your knowledge appropriately in context with who the target students are" is a very abstract skill set, very different and unrelated to pretty much anything you do in school.

Didn't your school make you do presentations and other projects that actively encourage effective communication of whatever topic they're learning to the teachers and other students?

and I don't believe too difficult that your average 60 UAI graduate couldn't pick it up in a sufficiently excellent teaching program.

Anything that's 'sufficiently excellent' would be sufficiently excellent for anything really...

Attitude, personality, empathy with students, correct teaching methods and training etc... Would play a far larger role than whatever it is the HSC measures.

Being a good doctor or a great human rights lawyer or a brilliant architect or a ground-breaking scientist or a philosopher, archaeologist, is far more than just HSC measures too. But getting through HSC is where it begins for most of those who aspire to be a doctor, lawyer, architect, scientist, philosopher, archaeologist, engineer, the list goes on. Demand for these courses are generally higher than education courses, students who aspire to these careers have to work hard to meet entry requirements. Students who aspire to be teachers, generally speaking, have had the luxury of not having to compete at that level to get into uni but it seems it hasn't worked, judging by the alleged number of sub-standard teachers out there today.

To repeat, how do you then propose we attract more of these amazing talented students then?

I'm not sure how it can be done in this day and age. Maybe 30, 40, 50 years ago and beyond, teaching was a respectable profession in the community but there isn't that same sentiment today. It's similar to the trend in women placing career over family and kids today, being a stay-at-home mum doesn't hold the same value anymore for Gen Y. It would certainly help to raise take-home salaries for teachers as well as provide adequate facilities and resources for schools, smaller teacher-student ratio, who knows if that's enough to change societal perception.

 

[~shinigami~]

I see, but then by definition that would mean they would have to design tertiary education courses for 'not-so-clever' people. It potentially becomes a question of how much resources, time, and effort does the government and tertiary institutions want to risk on students who may not have the ability to undertake such academic pursuits in the first place.

That is a good point but the thing is these "not-so-clever" people are already in these courses already and since we can fund these places right now, I don't see a problem. What I mean is, some people are proposing to artificially raise the entry score so that it will either attract more "talented students" or lessen the amount of "less talented" students who enter these courses.

What I propose is not doing anything about the entry score (lowering or raising) but just to improve the courses if they want to do anything at all.

There is a severe doctor shortage in Australia too. If entry standards for medicine courses were lowered... do you believe it's viable for them to attempt to re-design medicine courses to accommodate sub-standard students? One of the first things they would have to do is stretch out the courses from 4-6 years to however long it takes sub-standards to pick up what they need to pick up.

That's the thing though, there is no correlation between a high yr 12 score and becoming a capable doctor hence the wide variety of entry methods available across Australia. Some universities only take people with 99+ while others take people with 90+ or even just having a fixed threshold hurdle (a la UWS) while taking other things such as interviews and UMAT into account more.

 

[RogueAcademic]

some people are proposing to artificially raise the entry score so that it will either attract more "talented students" or lessen the amount of "less talented" students who enter these courses.

I don't think raising the score will do much to alleviate the teacher shortage though, much less quality teacher shortage. I daresay most high-achieving students with high UAI scores are aiming for other types of high-flying careers.

That's the thing though, there is no correlation between a high yr 12 score and becoming a capable doctor hence the wide variety of entry methods available across Australia. Some universities only take people with 99+ while others take people with 90+ or even just having a fixed threshold hurdle (a la UWS) while taking other things such as interviews and UMAT into account more.

UMAT + interview was introduced to help find those students who show potential. The threshold to scoring an interview is still largely your high school score, and that is simply because when you've got thousands of applicants for a course, there's no other easy way to process all the applications.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

A third year university physics student who doesn't understand the course material in high school physics. Cool story.

Are you one of those people who thinks all you need to be able to teach 3rd grade is to have passed 4th grade?

 

[RogueAcademic]

If you have such a major issue with education degrees

Actually, I don't. In fact I had never paid it much attention until I saw that small comment by Pauline Ashton which got me thinking about whether she had a point. And in fact I didn't even realise education degrees were apparently sub-standard until I read that article in The Age (posted above) a couple of days ago.

how do you propose it be fixed?

In regards to fixing the education courses, considering I didn't even know there was a problem until I read the article a couple of days ago, I have no idea. But I'm sure, acting on the senate committee report, that there will be focus committees formed, audits carried out, further debate and arguments to follow, more reports submitted, some kind of action taken, and another public outrage before the cycle begins again.

In regards to attracting more students to the teaching profession, I already gave my 2cents in a post above.

 

[~shinigami~]

I don't think raising the score will do much to alleviate the teacher shortage though, much less quality teacher shortage. I daresay most high-achieving students with high UAI scores are aiming for other types of high-flying careers.

I think you have misread my post or taken that quote out of context because your post is implying excatly what my sentiment is which is that, changing the entry scores will not alleviate any problem currently with the system at all.

 

[Graney]

Are you one of those people who thinks all you need to be able to teach 3rd grade is to have passed 4th grade?

Are your class mates struggling with concepts in the year 12 physics curriculum?

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Are your class mates struggling with concepts in the year 12 physics curriculum?

Answer my question

 

[RogueAcademic]

I think you have misread my post or taken that quote out of context because your post is implying excatly what my sentiment is which is that, changing the entry scores will not alleviate any problem currently with the system at all.

No actually, I understood perfectly what you were saying, I was making a statement in agreement with you.

 

[Graney]

I didn't think you were serious...

As mentioned, there are two sets of knowledge education students must aquire, 1st understanding the course content, and 2nd being able to teach it well.

With regard to the 1st, I'm not saying all you need to teach year 12, is to have passed year 12. I'm saying I can't imagine someone completing 3 years of tertiary specialisation in a course, graduating with less than a high school level of comprehension in their field.

The 2nd is entirely another matter.