• Congratulations to the Class of 2024 on your results!
    Let us know how you went here
    Got a question about your uni preferences? Ask us here

Comment in The Age Newspaper about Education (1 Viewer)

Slidey

But pieces of what?
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
6,600
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Hmmm. Interesting dilemma. I think, however, that except in rare cases, the minimum UAI to become a teacher should be about 80 or so. Although overall I recognise the prime importance of passion, it must necessarily be tempered with intelligence.

Colour me elitist if you desire.
 

RogueAcademic

Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2007
Messages
859
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Thanks for reminding me of this thread. I just wanted to bring to everyone's attention, Opposition Leader Dr Brendaon Nelson's budget reply regarding the low entry scores for entry into education courses:

"The single most important influence in the life of a child – apart from a parent – is their teacher.

But no teacher can teach what he or she does not know.


The standard of teacher training in Australia must be improved. Higher standards in universities, means higher standards in classrooms. In this, we are failing. The Coalition commits to education reform so essential to our economic and social development. The Coalition will require a number of conditions for funding of Australian Universities that train teachers.

Entry scores to undertake teaching courses at university are embarrassingly low.

The minimum university entrance score must be higher for entry to an education degree."

Quote taken from Mr 7%'s official Budget Reply page at the Liberal Party website:

http://www.liberal.org.au/info/news/detail/20080515_BrendanNelsonsBudgetReply.php

Seems to me he's on the same page as Pauline Ashton.
 
Last edited:

Captain Gh3y

Rhinorhondothackasaurus
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
4,153
Location
falling from grace with god
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Last year the lowest UAIs you could use to become a teacher (before factoring special considerations, rural entry schemes etc.) were 55.00 for primary at ACU and 60.00 for high school (arts) at Newcastle.

The .00 seems to suggest they stopped it there rather than filling all the places. It's low because there's a huge number of places and very little demand for them (obviously).

If there are calls for training more teachers (since some large percentage are set to retire over the next decade) how can that be reconciled with setting an arbitrary UAI cutoff of 80 at all universities for education knowing that most students in these degrees have low UAIs?

Short of doubling the salaries there isn't any way to do it.
 

RogueAcademic

Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2007
Messages
859
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Captain Gh3y said:
Last year the lowest UAIs you could use to become a teacher (before factoring special considerations, rural entry schemes etc.) were 55.00 for primary at ACU and 60.00 for high school (arts) at Newcastle.

The .00 seems to suggest they stopped it there rather than filling all the places. It's low because there's a huge number of places and very little demand for them (obviously).

If there are calls for training more teachers (since some large percentage are set to retire over the next decade) how can that be reconciled with setting an arbitrary UAI cutoff of 80 at all universities for education knowing that most students in these degrees have low UAIs?

Short of doubling the salaries there isn't any way to do it.
It could be why his approval rating consistently hovers around the record low.

But then again, for those students who seriously aspire to be teachers, it'd encourage them to put more effort into getting a higher study score doesn't it.
 
Last edited:

RogueAcademic

Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2007
Messages
859
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
See below.

So now the government has made it official - education courses aren't attracting 'clever young people' anymore, and entry scores are going to be raised to filter out the 'not-so-clever' people.

I understand that entry scores reflect demand, but with the alleged low quality of teachers coming through the system, it seems as if the low entry scores have also been attracting large numbers of students who aren't doing so well in high school, at uni, and subsequently in the workforce.

I don't get how raising the entry scores and thereby reducing the intake of students will solve the teacher shortage in Australia though, even if they believe it will filter out the less desirable students.

--

New benchmarks for teacher courses

* Farrah Tomazin
* June 12, 2008

UNIVERSITY teaching courses will be required to meet tough new national standards under a landmark agreement by state and federal governments to boost the quality of teachers in schools.

Education ministers discussed the idea during a telephone conference yesterday, amid growing public concerns that too many teachers are graduating ill equipped to deal with life in the classroom.

Under the changes, all Australian university teacher training courses will, for the first time, be forced to meet a set of national benchmarks in order to be accredited. The benchmarks will be established by a national body, rather than the current system, in which courses are regulated by state authorities.

Victorian Education Minister Bronwyn Pike, who pushed for change at yesterday's meeting, said the shift would alleviate an existing problem, whereby teachers who train in one particular state aren't always qualified to work in another because of the lack of consistency in the accreditation of courses and the registration of teachers.

The push to improve the quality of teacher training comes after years of concern from politicians and educators about the low entry levels for education degrees and the quality of such courses. In a damning assessment of the state of the teaching profession, a Senate committee report last year said teaching no longer attracted the same proportion of "clever young people" as it did 40 years ago and recommended all high school teachers should obtain an arts or science degree before studying education.

A union survey of 2000 teachers released this year also called for government intervention, after finding most new public school teachers felt they were inadequately trained to deal with classroom demands, abusive parents or difficult colleagues.

"This will provide an opportunity … for us to establish a national framework that will pick the eyes out of what works best in the system," Ms Pike told The Age last night.

Sue Willis, president of the Australian Council of Deans of Education, said the proposal was a long-awaited reform that would help tackle teacher shortages. "It would mean that if a person studied at an accredited course in the Northern Territory, they would be eligible to apply for a job in Victoria," Professor Willis said.

Australian Education Union federal president Angelo Gavrielatos said part of the problem was that universities were so cash-strapped due to years of underfunding, the practical experience offered to student teachers had suffered.

Australian Secondary Principals Association president Andrew Blair said that, at present, teacher quality varied between states.

"The job of teachers is becoming more and more complex. Unless you get the right kind of training programs, the graduates are going to find it fairly hard to cope once they enter the classroom," he said.

Yesterday's ministerial conference was the first time an agreement had been reached to develop a new teacher-training model. The changes will be gradually brought in from next year.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/new-benchmarks-for-teacher-courses-20080611-2p4v.html
 
Last edited:

~shinigami~

~Summer Song~
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
895
Location
Adelaide
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
What I think some of these people are forgetting is that if these people with "low" ENTERs/UAI/TER are able to graduate from BEd, Bwhateve/DipEd etc then they are good enough as they meet the standards. Their year 12 score means absolutely nothing. If they are not good enough then they would have failed their course.
 

AsyLum

Premium Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Messages
15,899
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Or just ministers/politicians in general.
 

RogueAcademic

Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2007
Messages
859
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
~shinigami~ said:
What I think some of these people are forgetting is that if these people with "low" ENTERs/UAI/TER are able to graduate from BEd, Bwhateve/DipEd etc then they are good enough as they meet the standards. Their year 12 score means absolutely nothing. If they are not good enough then they would have failed their course.
It could be the difference between a student who has graduated with bare passes, or a student who has graduated with high distinctions.

Secondly, the news article allege that the quality of the education courses are not up to scratch either, inferring that not-so-clever students have been able to get away with graduating from below standard courses.
 

incentivation

Hmmmmm....
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
558
Location
Inner West
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
It's an interesting debate.

Teaching like many careers is not purely about academic prowess. I mean, as has been said, there must be a coincidence between knowledge and the practical application of that knowledge. Teaching is very much about the latter, and the communication of the knowledge that someone has.

Ultimately, what we learn throughout university forms a foundation. A bed of knowledge from which we can develop the practical skills pertinent to a particular career. It is through experience, not just knowledge, that skill and success is derived.

However, I do see the point of both Ms Ashton and Brendan Nelson. We need to make teaching an attractive career to those who may have considered it, but have been cajoled away by more promising offers elsewhere. The answer of course, does not lie in the academic entry for relevant tertiary courses, as this is merely a reflection of the market. There needs to be greater incentive in both monetary terms and career prospects, and a focus upon skill development. You can know all there is to know about widgets, however, unless you possess the teaching skill, methods and communication abilities required to effectively impart that knowledge, your ability as a teacher will be limited.

From what I understand, a teachers salary maxes out at $75,000, with promotional prospects centered around school adminstration positions (Principal etc) or DET positions.

Skill development i.e. a greater emphasis on practicum to complement academic learning is the key.
 

~shinigami~

~Summer Song~
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
895
Location
Adelaide
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
RogueAcademic said:
It could be the difference between a student who has graduated with bare passes, or a student who has graduated with high distinctions.

Secondly, the news article allege that the quality of the education courses are not up to scratch either, inferring that not-so-clever students have been able to get away with graduating from below standard courses.
I don't disagree with that but what I do disagree with is these people taking ENTER into account, it just does not come into this debate on the quality of education courses at all.
 

Iruka

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2006
Messages
544
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
But the quality of education courses, is, in general, quite atrocious.
 

RogueAcademic

Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2007
Messages
859
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Exphate said:
Which is exactly what I said.
No, not really. My post was expanding on why university lecturers are a different kettle of fish altogether.

Exphate said:
False. You have to take into account the rediculous scaling system, reliance on "school ranks", rank in school, performance in school, performance in the final. There are multiple "school" related issues that affect performance, as well as any number of personal issues that can affect your performance in year 12, and subsiquently your UAI/ENTER/TER (whichever system you fall under). To claim a low enter is simply an indication of a lack of understanding is rediculous to say the least
Obviously, if you perform really badly in your exams, it shows a lack of understanding of the material and lack of understanding of what's required of you, regardless of what your previous/personal circumstances are. Regardless of any allegedly ridiculous scaling system, regardless of rank in school. When it comes down to it the teacher has to, at some point, pass these skills down to their students too.


Exphate said:
They go through uni, a stage that you can't complete WITHOUT understanding, exam skills and motivation. You have to complete a degree in the subject area you wish to teach, before you can actually teach it (and a Dip Ed...or combined within a specific education degree - such as my own).
As pointed out in the article, the general quality of education courses are questionable, so what the article is saying is that 'not-clever-people' are getting away with it in sub-standard courses.

Exphate said:
Also, the performance of a student really comes down to how they study, and how dedicated they are. If there are issues with a teacher not explaining material enough/at a level they understand, they need to take some responsibility and undertake personal learning.

The best teachers may not know the material down to the dot, but are such that they can pass on the material they know effectively and in such a way that students are able to understand and learn the material. It's as much about personality and teaching "style" (accomodating of all learner types for one) as it is about knowledge, and no ENTER/TER/UAI will ever be able to measure that.
That may or may not be true, but what the politicians and education authorities are saying is that having a low entrance threshold is allowing many questionable students through a uni course that is already questionable in itself, leading to a large number of sub-standard teachers out in the workforce.
 

RogueAcademic

Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2007
Messages
859
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
~shinigami~ said:
I don't disagree with that but what I do disagree with is these people taking ENTER into account, it just does not come into this debate on the quality of education courses at all.
I think what they're saying is that, as an analogy, you could leave some food in your backyard to attract beautiful native birds, but there's a pretty good chance you're also going to attract rats, unless you place the food in a place that's harder for the rats to get to.

The quality of the students getting through is an issue that's synonymous with the quality of the education courses, I don't think they're specifically saying that: crap ENTER = crap course.
 

~shinigami~

~Summer Song~
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
895
Location
Adelaide
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
RogueAcademic said:
I think what they're saying is that, as an analogy, you could leave some food in your backyard to attract beautiful native birds, but there's a pretty good chance you're also going to attract rats, unless you place the food in a place that's harder for the rats to get to.

The quality of the students getting through is an issue that's synonymous with the quality of the education courses, I don't think they're specifically saying that: crap ENTER = crap course.
I see where you're getting at and I think we almost on the same train of thought but not precisely yet.

What I am trying to say is that I agree that the state of education courses may be substandard at the moment. That is what we need to fix.

The yr12 entry score is determined by supply and demand, there's no need to do anything in that regard.

What I think is, if we improve the course, make it harder or just better so that if a person is able to graduate from the course then they are good enough to be teachers. Therefore, even if people with low entry scores can enter the course, only those who are able to reach the standard are able to graduate.
 

RogueAcademic

Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2007
Messages
859
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
~shinigami~ said:
What I think is, if we improve the course, make it harder or just better so that if a person is able to graduate from the course then they are good enough to be teachers. Therefore, even if people with low entry scores can enter the course, only those who are able to reach the standard are able to graduate.
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.

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.
 
Last edited:

Graney

Horse liberty
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
4,434
Location
Bereie
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
RogueAcademic said:
Secondly, the news article allege that the quality of the education courses are not up to scratch either, inferring that not-so-clever students have been able to get away with graduating from below standard courses.
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.

I doubt education faculty courses are commonly that much easier to pass than other arts/business/science/law etc... It's easy to get through on p's whatever you do. Why should employers in any field have to put up with students who just scraped through?
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top