Tampilkan postingan dengan label schools. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label schools. Tampilkan semua postingan

Selasa, 03 Mei 2011

Teachers Bonus a Waste of Money

There isn't much doubt that the bonus scheme for teachers will not work. Like the mystique of "time and motion" where the claim is made that human productivity is linear and is an increasing curve, it's a pipe dream! Machinery can only be speeded up so much before parts start flying off in all directions and everything shuts down for maintenance. Furthermore, when task are done too quickly a lot of "non-size" rubbish is produced. While output in some industry can be improved, for paper carriers such as teachers this is virtually impossible.

Some teachers are better than others and for the main part this is innate: it is not learned and never can be. The only measurement is the quality of students that are lucky enough to be taught by them. Even then, tying down the factors that do improve matters is not easy to identify. Usually. students have an affinity with a teacher; thus they are prepared to work harder. It is not the teacher who is putting in more effort - it is the student. Testing students to deduce the performance of their teachers will also drive a wedge between teachers and students. Considering only one in ten teachers will benefit from the bonus scheme it is divisive for teachers themselves. Industrial strife is just down the road.

Overall, it is a silly exercise. Why should the Government, the taxpayer, pay more? Will good teachers be paid more for what they are already doing? It seems so. Why single out one sector of employment for a reward that everyone else doesn't get purely because it is motivated by one person, Julia Gillard? Apparently it has to do with good teachers being virtuous people. It is not much use holding out one group as an example if there is no intention to apply it to the whole workforce. Paying good teacher more will not make lesser beings respectful toward them. It will make the average teacher angry. Let's not go back to pet projects like in the Howard and Rudd eras.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Education

Rabu, 02 Maret 2011

The Government Is Wrong to Fund Chaplaincy in Schools

Most people don't attend church, synagogue or mosque yet Nations pander to those who hold religious beliefs with outdated ceremonies. It seems one hasn't the right not to believe in anything other than accepting the fact that humans live and die.

Ron Williams tried to send his children to a school that taught all religions but also taught secularism. He couldn't find one. Schools identified with one faith and virtually condemned all others. He saw requests for gold coins to fund scripture union classes as offensive and something he wasn't going to give. Indeed, chaplains seemed to be at war with teachers over the minds of students. What he found most difficult of all to accept was that the government was already partially funding Access Ministries which were "transforming the nation for God." Adolf Hitler tried similar brain washing systems to control the Hitler Youth.

What is driving the wads of cash? All political parties need the support of the church to win elections. Indeed, it is the silence of the churches that is the objective.

The issue is now being taken to the High Court by Ron Williams with the intent of stopping the funding. He probably won't win. His attempt is worth loud applause from the community.
~~~~~Religion~~~~~
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Senin, 29 November 2010

Ethics as a Subject in Schools

According to the NSW government, ethics is the nearest thing to religion. There is an admission here that religion somehow dictates the mode of behavior in adulthood. In centuries past this was most definitely true. You have only to read the accounts of people who were at deaths door, like being adrift at sea in a boat, to perceive that life after death was paramount in people's thinking. Not going to hell was also important.

Teaching ethics as an alternative to religious education in schools seems to be a logical option. Next year the NSW government will allow parents to choose secular ethics as a subject for their children instead of religion. Some would argue that religion does not really teach people how to behave in society. It is more important than that. Believing in God is paramount, not how one behaves toward his/her fellow Man. Behavior is secondary to being submissive to God.

The problem with ethics is the supposition that there is a correct way of social interaction. Stealing and lying, for example, are condemned. But business is part of our daily lives. Isn't the act of selling really stealing? There is something unethical about buying a tonne of apples on the cheap, then putting them is small bags and selling them at a high price. That is basically what all trade is - the act of buying in bulk and selling individually. To live in an ethical manner would involve the adoption of non-market principles of activity. Living in a commune where everything is bartered would be ideal.

The NSW Government has confused ethics with abiding by state laws and the rights of people as determined by the state. If ethics as a subject is to be a building block of education there will inevitably be calls for the "correct' curriculum. There will be difficulties because what is right for one person is wrong for another. Is it wrong to take a life for example? Most governments "dictate" that doctors shall not take a life under any circumstances. If you are a soldier though it is perfectly okay to kill someone.

Ethics then is similar to religion in that the most important facets of the "subject" are hard to pin down. And like religion, ethics is a battleground for differing views. Making ethics a school subject is not going to be a simplistic way of "settling" the issue of religion vis-a-vis society. Indeed, it may cause more problems.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sabtu, 25 September 2010

Restricting School Food Is No Fun

Restricting food at school canteens takes all the fun out of life for kids. Though increasingly many school are ignoring state government programs and selling "banned" food. Allowing "junk" food to be sold only twice a term is too limiting and quite meaningless. At lunch times high school students are going to the local shop and buying what they want.

There is nothing wrong with pies and sausage rolls in a normal healthy diet. Octogenarians have regularly eaten such food all their lives. Elderly people also have a sweet tooth and eat cakes and ice cream. Couples are seen at shopping centres partaking of coffee and and cake. The key word is moderation. Packets of chips with empty calories are the real culprits.

Obesity starts in the home not at school. It is what parents feed their children that is the issue. The colour-coding system is farcical and childish. Of course children don't want to be seen by their peers eating the good stuff. If tasty food is not sold schools will have to subsidize canteens. They certainly won't make a profit.


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Minggu, 31 Januari 2010

Schools Charge for "Free" Computers

When schools got new computers for their student the last thing you think would happen would be school charging a fee to use them. But this is what has occurred. What are the schools thinking of? A public school is asking parents to buy the computers for $1200. Another is trying to lease them for $1400. It boils down to a technicality. Schools are saying computers must be left at school. There will a charge if they want to take them home.

The ridiculous thing is after paying for a computer a student will still not actually own it. Computers will have to be taken back for use by other students. What a rip off. Over Years 9 to 12 a school will receive $1460. A good laptop can be purchased for $795 anywhere.

Just what is the Federal Government thinking of? It says schools can charge if they want to. Surely this negates the free computer promise. It wasn't voted in to do this. Education Minister Julia Gillard says Schools can arrange for home use as they see fit. The Government should have said providing computers was just a way of giving schools more funding because that is what has happened. Again children from poorer families lose out. It has brought further inequity with some states not charging.

The Labor Government is obviously in league with schools. It is trying to force parents to buy computers by making rental extremely high, so the Government will meet its target of every child having a computer by default.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .