Senior National Curriculum - 16 views

• 
  #3 Matt Esterman on 25 Aug 09

   

  Hi Jason,
  
  The link is
  
  http://www.acara.edu.au/position_papers.html
  
  Matt

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">Hi Jason, <br /> <br /> The link is <br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.acara.edu.au/position_papers.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.acara.edu.au/position_papers.html</a> <br /> <br /> Matt</div>

  ...

  Cancel
• 
  #4 Jason Heiser on 26 Aug 09

   

  Matt,
  
  I don't know that I would support this initative. It seems very remeniscent of a system we have in my state that isn't serving its students at all. At the moment my state is looking to make some changes to its testing system and include a larger scope of disciplines, which to date the main focus was Math and English. In that respect though I applaud Australia for looking at the whole student and thinking in terms of a well rounded learner. I noticed there is little room for electives in this system that calls for differentiation. Part of Differentiation is offering choices to the people we teach and with a restriction on elective courses that seems counter-productive to differentiation. Restricting electives could be problematic...
  
  Additionally, there seems to be a theme in all of this of preparing students for their next step whether it voacational, workforce, college and so on. Wth that being said, what about citizenship? There is nothing in this for citizenship? I would see it as more beneficial to have students take a Civics or Government course at this stage. This type of instruction certainly go along with this theme and a course like this would greater signficance to this age then a younger student. At this point they are looking to enter the workforce, college, etc.. and do they know their rights and responsibilities as a citizen? With a restriction on electives what gets the nod and what ends up going away under this system? What about Geography?
  
  Lastly, here is what I gathered on their idea of Units. It seemed to me units would be smaller parts of a larger course which doesn't seem to change anything in regards to your teaching. It was mentioned in the article that Unit 1 and Unit 2 could be put toether in a year long course (p.10). Why break it up into units, then? If I do Modern History and it covers 1900-present and you break it up into Unit 1: 1900-1960 and Unit 2: 1970- present, its the same thing just a different name, same standards, and the testing of competencies. With that in mind I didn't see any flexibility in this structure and with some of these questions not answered in this I don't know I would support it. Thoughts?

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">Matt, <br /> <br /> I don't know that I would support this initative. It seems very remeniscent of a system we have in my state that isn't serving its students at all. At the moment my state is looking to make some changes to its testing system and include a larger scope of disciplines, which to date the main focus was Math and English. In that respect though I applaud Australia for looking at the whole student and thinking in terms of a well rounded learner. I noticed there is little room for electives in this system that calls for differentiation. Part of Differentiation is offering choices to the people we teach and with a restriction on elective courses that seems counter-productive to differentiation. Restricting electives could be problematic... <br /> <br /> Additionally, there seems to be a theme in all of this of preparing students for their next step whether it voacational, workforce, college and so on. Wth that being said, what about citizenship? There is nothing in this for citizenship? I would see it as more beneficial to have students take a Civics or Government course at this stage. This type of instruction certainly go along with this theme and a course like this would greater signficance to this age then a younger student. At this point they are looking to enter the workforce, college, etc.. and do they know their rights and responsibilities as a citizen? With a restriction on electives what gets the nod and what ends up going away under this system? What about Geography? <br /> <br /> Lastly, here is what I gathered on their idea of Units. It seemed to me units would be smaller parts of a larger course which doesn't seem to change anything in regards to your teaching. It was mentioned in the article that Unit 1 and Unit 2 could be put toether in a year long course (p.10). Why break it up into units, then? If I do Modern History and it covers 1900-present and you break it up into Unit 1: 1900-1960 and Unit 2: 1970- present, its the same thing just a different name, same standards, and the testing of competencies. With that in mind I didn't see any flexibility in this structure and with some of these questions not answered in this I don't know I would support it. Thoughts?</div>

  ...

  Cancel

To Top