Inconversible Thoughts

Procrastination, My Friend

I find it truly remarkable that we, as people, are able to procrastinate with such little effort. For example, I came home today with the intention of doing some homework. I have a very simple, quick 200 word essay to write up by next Friday. Knowing that I will be in Sydney for most of next week I need to get it done this week. Arriving through my door I put my books away and place my laptop and phone on charge. I hang out the washing, do the dishes, make a few business phone calls and send some text messages. Ok, an hour later and I should really get this assignment done.

I sit at the computer and quickly check the news headlines and the weather. I check my emails and respond to a few. I reorganise some other work that I need done and I check my project manager for what other works needs to be complete soon. Ok, time to get on with this one.

I open up my web browser and check the comments on this blog. I delete all the spam and then check the stats. I filter through the referrals and then start writing up this post. In fact, this post is already bigger than the essay I need to write! But still, I haven’t started the essay. I mean, the essay needs to be 200 words, this article is 247.

Ok, time to work on it a little bit. Ciao!

Children Aren’t Always the Future

We often hear it phrased that the children of today are our ‘future’. This has been said over the last two decades and continues to be thrown around, especially in the political lime light. It is a way that politicians and those that want to be seen as empathetic can earn some reward points with the voters. Over the last many years it has worked well, right to the point that you believe it. Well, it isn’t true. Not in the way that you think it is.

When we say that the children of today are tomorrows leaders, that they are the future, we bring about thoughts that they will be able to do the world better, that they will be the politicians and presidents who will be able to bring about a new way of living, a better one. We trust that moving forward the children, then adults, will be able to place their knowledge and their skills in making the world a better place. This is all true, and very possible. This isn’t the problem though. The only thing that detracts all of this from happening is found in the description itself, for example when I wrote “place their knowledge and skills in making the world a better place”, what exactly are the knowledge and skills that these children gain?

To answer this thoroughly we need to look at the education system. Focusing on the Australian Education system we see a system which uses residual powers. The states look after the schools, the nation looks after the universities. Everything else simply fits in here or there, but in general things are consistent state-by-state. If we restrict out focus to the state schooling of South Australia we can see that the setup is very simple, yet in being so is very limited. The selection of topics available to students from reception through to year 12, final year of school, is very limited. In fact, students are told what they will study up to Year 10, and before this it is selected from a state curriculum. Surely this is good? Well, what is ‘good’ when it comes to Education?

The question of a ‘good education’ can bring about many different responses. At the end of Primary School, year 7, what do we want our students  to be able to do? Should they be able to read and write? I would assume most people would say yes, and I agree: They should be literate. They should be able to do simple mathematical equations? Once again, I agree: They should be numerate. But what else? Is it enough to simple know how to read and write? What about going beyond what is ‘required’ to live, and delve into what will help them beyond that. What if they leave primary school with the ability to read, but no desire to do so? What if they know how to multiply but have no will to apply it to their everyday lives? What if they can string together sentences but not appreciate the beauty contained within a poetic verse? Is their education still a good one, or merely an acceptable one? Is it even this?

The way that South Australian schools are currently set out, the students all learn the minimum and are graded depending how well they do on a ‘Basic Skills Test’. Each South Australian student does this and it allows the government to rank the students amongst themselves. Good for competitive reasons, bad for ranking schools and providing money to those schools that seem to be doing well within the test. Beyond this, the schools are teaching a curriculum which was devised by those on the payroll of the political party in power. It was not especially consulted through the experienced Education faculty members, nor was it given the chance to be scrutinised by the parents and community members that it would actually serve. Reminiscent of the strict teachings of the early 1920’s, it is now in place and students are being taught it verbatim. It seems to be doing ok though, so why change it?

I tie this back to the opening paragraph and remind you that the students are supposed to be the future: a forever changing path to help improve the world. How can a student of today change the world tomorrow if all they are taught is the same as yesterday? I mentioned above that the current curriculum is similar to that taught in the 1920’s, this means that our students are offered the same mindset (conservative) and same approach (conservative) as they were many decades ago. When it comes to implement “changes” in the political ring, do you not think that the students will also “change” in accordance to what they taught growing up?

The question often gets asked “if it isn’t broken, why not fix it?” A valid question, but a very naive one. When it comes to the education system, who gets to decide if it broken or not? Unlike a car or toaster, it simply doesn’t ‘stop’ working. Yes, there are the physical signs that it is in strife- such as what we are seeing now: violence within our schools; a decrease in test grades (though measurement of these is questionable); teachers striking, etc. There is another way of measuring a broken Education system but, and it is the way that we should approach it from the beginning. If we look at the current news articles in regards to education we will see that they are somewhat familiar of previous attempts. Julia Gillard has been in the media a lot in recent times in regards to education as she is attempting to push for a revolutionary change, unfortunately it is not a ‘new’ change, but a step back into what was proposed a long time ago. Not only with her national curriculum, but other things as well. In addition to the curriculum she is attempting to introduce a Nation Student Number for all students which ties the student’s academic records to the student for the life of their schooling. Questionable though it is itself, it is not unlike a government proposed to do with all citizens many years ago. Here is a very good example of a person pushing for something ‘new’, but is merely a repeat of what they were taught growing up. It is not new, it is not revolutionary, and it is not good. In regards to the curriculum, Julia is merely trying to push on the students what she learnt growing up, which is what they then would push on their students once they are in power.

What Australia needs is a *new* approach to Education. I believe that schools should be focussing more on ethical and moral topics rather than the technical ones. For example, I learnt psychology during school and in retrospect I believe that it was the biggest waste of my time. I’ve never used it, I’ve never had the urge to pursue a career in psychology and I could have been doing something else. What if I had actually studies Ethical Problems or something of the sort, perhaps I may have been able to make a contribution to the world through my understand of third-world-suffering or similar.

As it stands students are our future, but their voice is simply the echoes of leaders of the past. For the future of our state, country and world I do hope that we soon see a greater focus on the Education system within Australia.

A National Curriculum for Australia

At the moment Australia leaves the schools to be governed by the States, but this has lead there to be 8 different curriculums being taught.

Australia is a technologically advanced country in which it is assumed that most families, and indeed schools, have access to Internet and computing capabilities. It is easy for each school to be simultaneously updated on curriculum and anything else that the Minister of Education would like to implement.

At the moment each state has professionals and politicians, each with their own view of what a ‘good education’ is, contributing to the curriculum. This structure is continually being looked over, reviewed and revised. 8 times over. This is one of the biggest problems that a country can face in regards to education, and it seems that Australia has not yet picked up on it. Our Minister for Education, while she may be great at what she is doing, does not have a background in education. Rather, her background lies in an Arts degree and law, yet here she is leading a country with what she believes a curriculum should look like. She consulted her political friends and those on her pay roll, and they supported exactly what she said. What I would like to know is if we asked an independent professor of Education their opinion, if they would support Gillard. I assume not.

Each state is given ‘x’ amount of money to put towards schools, and each State then dishes this out through different ways: some do it on student performance, other on teacher performance; regardless all States are using a different measurement to try and achieve the same thing. They are caught up on ranking the schools among themselves and funding is spread thin.

Currently if a student in year 11 from Adelaide moves to Sydney they are potentially going to be messing up their chances of a University entrance. In Year 11 in South Australia, this Student would be contributing units towards their SACE (South Australian Certificate of Education), while in Sydney they would be doing the HSC (Higher School Certificate). These two certificates, while basically say the same thing at the end, are judged on different aspects of the schoolings and are composed of different topics, units and weighting.

Of the three problems posed above: 1. inexperienced politicians trying to run the curriculum, 2. Funding for each school being handed out differently and 3. The curriculum itself differing in different areas, the idea of a National Curriculum could help ease each of these.

If we were to separate the implementation of a curriculum from the government and give this to the task of a board of professionals, all with experience in the education field as opposed to political history, they may be able to tie in with research being done around learning behaviours, difficulties and environments, and create a learning structure based on age, demographic and importance to topics that are of relevance. This board of professors may be also better equipped to deal with approaching schools that do not meet the learning averages. This alone could help those politicians that are in charge hand out the money from a federal pool of money, this would allow a direct target to be placed on troubled schools rather than hoping that it gets covered up as money trickles down through the system.

It would also allow a cross-the-board structure of study. One student in Year 11 would be learning the same thing as another student thousands of kilometres away in the same year level. While each student would have a unique learning experience, and each school may approach with different content, the topics of the classes would be consistent across the board.

There is a lingering fear that if the curriculum is made Federal than the teachers, schools and local governments would have less power and choice, but the contrary may be true. As the governing is made Federal there would be a greater need for the schools and local teachers to be more adaptable and able within their teaching approach to fit the curriculum into a shape that would suit their own students. While nationally there may be talk about ‘local produce’ in a society class, each city, town or shire would need to relate this back to how it affects their own area through job growth, economics, etc.

One point to keep in mind is that the National Curriculum outlined in this short article is NOT the same as that proposed by Julia Gillard. As mentioned above, Gillard is a politician with no real-world experience in the education sector, and has not consulted the appropriate sources for information. She is implementing a curriculum which only serves her own interests and her own beliefs in regards to education and teaching, and is not reflecting on the true needs nor beliefs of the Australia public.

Schools an Urban “Killing Field”

The term “killing field” usually isn’t associated with our suburban school yards, and more often than not when they are, it isn’t good news. A few schools in Queensland have been described with these words by the company that they hire out their grounds to on the weekends. The company in question is Urban Assault, a business built around providing a paint-ball tournament within urban areas such as shopping districts, school yards and skate parks. Thrown into the national media ring, these schools are now under pressure to cancel their contracts and fore-go the money being earned.

The issue in question is the idea of schoolyards being used as battle grounds. Tens of thousands of dollars and countless professional hours are spent each year trying to educate students on the importance of non-violent activities around the playground, and these schools are now allowing realistic war scenarios to be played out right there on campus. With the potential to undermine all the work that has been done, community members and parents are worried that their children are going to be normalised to such behaviours.

There are some positive outcomes to the paint ball activities happening around the state, with the primary outcome being extra funding being funnelled into these specific school budgets. Urban Assault simply ‘hires’ the grounds for a sum of money which is then directly spent by the school. With stringent guidelines as to who can play including written consent for those under 18, and a rigid military-like protocol for game play, the battles themselves are more about strategy and heroism than violence and killing. The skirmish sessions seem to be resting on a very sharp knife edge.

For those old enough to remember back to 1999, the developed world was shocked by the news of 12 students and 1 teacher being shot dead within their own school at Columbine in the United States. 21 other students were injured by the gunmen and a further 3 injured indirectly from the attack. The two students who performed the slaughter were both deemed to be suffering from mental illnesses, and were heavy gamers. Being persuaded by such activities as pretend military scenarios- generally video games but also real life [such as paintball skirmish], the boys then disembarked and opened fire on the school. There is fear that getting students to learn the ins and outs of warfare, especially within their own school, opens the doors to replay such terrifying situations. Other school tragedies include the recent Queensland stabbing, the Bath School Disaster, the Virginia Tech Massacre and the Texes U Massacre.

It is normal for all students as they are growing to play both the ‘good cop’ and ‘bad robber’ roles, this has been the same for all generations in the playground. Is this army-like behaviour simply the new generation of kids, or is it something that we should be trying to stamp out immediately? Do our playgrounds have room for developing and testing skills required to covertly kill and attack other students?

Australian Students to Receive National Identification Numbers

In recent news the Australian Government has been discussing the idea of giving students a single identification number which will follow them right from reception through to the end of their secondary school whether this be year 12 or 13. The proposed ID will allow teachers and schools to be able to keep track of performance levels of students regardless of whether a student moves mid-semester, and could potentially help with the decision making of scholarships and other merit-based awards.

The unique identification number for each student is different to the Student ID numbers currently used by schools, as they will be provisioned nationally and will remain with the student regardless of their geographic, cultural or other changes that they may undertake. Current ID numbers are school-specific and do not correspond with the students marks.

This decision by the Government has raised many questions within the teaching community especially after the controversial My Schools website was released. The website allows a platform for schools to be publicly shamed depending on the performance rating that their students receive, which in turn ‘outs’ underperforming teachers. While this may sound like a good thing in theory as it would allow a better view as to where funding should be channelled, the reality is that the grades posted on My School are very subjective and can be varied for many different reasons. Not all schools sit the same exams, not all schools have the same work and not all schools run the same, yet they are all compared without any of these variables considered.

The unique student identifier would add to this as it would be able to track a students, and therefore schools progress as those being educated move throughout the system. It raises ethical concerns about privacy, and is very reminiscent of the proposed ‘National ID Cards’ in 2006. In this proposition the Government wanted to assign every citizen and resident a single ‘ID Card’ which would tie back to their bank details, credit ratings, criminal history, Medicare, and basically everything else about a person that the government keeps. It poses tremendous risk in regards to fraud, and many other concerns in regards to just how much the government should be able to keep tabs on us. This ID card has been proposed multiple times in the past and has immediately been rejected by the Australia public, and the Coalition is claiming that this new Student ID number is merely the Governments way of introducing the ID Card an alternate way. The number would already tie back all the data a school has on the child, which in turn the government does. This would include financial help the student and parents are receiving, school reports and grades, and possible identification information.

In addition to the new student number that the Government wants to introduce, they are also calling for stricter protocol in regards to classroom teaching. Julia Gillard, the Minister for Education, has said that she would like to implement a government auditor to physically review the teachings at each school. She is quote by the Sydney Morning Herald as saying “gone are the days when we could have teachers in classrooms with the door closed” I’m not exactly sure what she means when she says this, as from what I know about how schools are currently run, classrooms are continually being scrutinised by other schools, ministers and the partners of the children being taught. What better way to review a class room than by those directly affected, this is after all a representative democracy, right?

While nothing has yet been implemented the Government has promised that they are looking to do this shortly, and are currently consulting with the creators of the My School website as to how this may go ahead.

Changed Topics

I’ve made some big changes at Uni. I’ve dropped out of my ICT computers and have now swapped into Drama as a major, and English as a minor. Instead of having “ICT” as both a major and minor (meaning I had it everyday, all day) I’ve now got a lot of mixed things, which tie in well with each other

I’m now at Uni 5 days a week, although the days are short which isn’t too bad. Timetable is below:

Mon: Drama 2-5

Tues: Drama 10-11, Education 11-12

Wed: English 9-11, French 1-2

Thur: Education 10-11, Drama 11-12, French 1-2

Fri: French 11-2

I’ve got a total of 14 contact hours, which isn’t too bad at all.

I think I could be a good Drama teacher

Kath On A Hot Tin Roof, Adelaide Fringe Festival

Kath On a  Hot Tin Roof is an intimate show about Kathryn Bendall’s life from the 60’s through to today. A random mix of monologue, skits being acted out while your stupor is broken only by the somewhat annoying audio and visual props that she uses, we are taking on a long journey through the years of sexual revolution through to her children being the after effects of a politically incorrect fake thalidomide incident.
A humour which will most definitely be appreciated by the older community members, perhaps above 40, Kath On a Hot Tin Roof did make me laugh and it was an enjoyable show.

(more…)

Flinders University ICT1A, Maybe Not for Me

University has well and truly began and even now I am sitting in my second class, which is also my second ICT class. It seems that this semester ICT is taking up most of my time. Mondays, Tuesday, Wednesdays, Thursdays… it seems to be the bulk of what I do. It also seems to be rather boring. While I realise this is just the second lecture, so far it has been tedious. Yesterdays lecture we found out that we’ll be using unix to run a virtual environment with Windows. A very large portion of this topic is also apparently a ‘how to use Microsoft Office suit’ course. Throughout yesterdays lecture the student-lecturer that was ‘guest speaking’ continually referred to ‘Word’ as ‘Windows’. Dude, seriously quit it. Windows is not Word, Word is not windows. If you are going to try and teach me something, get it right.

Today I have ICT right now (yeah, I’m not really paying attention. We’re having a quick history lesson being told that there are computers everywhere, mobile phones, etc. No shit sherlock). After this there is Education, more ICT then French.

I haven’t had any of my other lectures yet as this is, as I said, only my second lecture. I’m going out on a limb though and assuming that they will be ok. French, Education… things that i Haven’t really done much of . But ICT? I’ve been working in for 5 days a week, for the last few years. I’ve been adjusting the HTML, PHP and CSS code of my websites for at least 2 years now, and here in this class I’m learning what the difference between a handhel and a desktop PC. Ugh, even just in the last week I installed a new CPU, RAM and HDD in friends computers. I know thisssssssssssss.

Ok, I’ll stop whinging now.

Is Being The Other Woman Wrong?

One thing that I hate emotion is the fact that with emotion comes morals, and morals are subjective. Whether you believe something or not doesn’t always matter, because it cannot control those that believe something else.

Take for example the moral of ‘don’t cheat’: sure, you can follow this but will your partner? ‘Cheating’ in itself doesn’t necessarily outline any boundaries nor any moral code per se.

I think most people would agree that if you sleep with someone while in an agreed-upon monogamous relationship other than your partner, this is cheating. That’s a simple truth, I believe.  But why is it wrong? Pushing beyond the acceptable boundaries of trust, respect, commitment and pulling on emotional heartstrings, cheating is just something most people cannot deal with.

What about the flipside, not the person being cheated on nor the person doing the cheating, what about the person who they are doing the cheating with? Are they doing something morally wrong?

Taking the scenario from the beginning, imagine A meets B, but B is already with C. A and B hit it off and hook up. I think it is safe to assume that amidst all of this, we can agree that B has done the wrong thing for cheating on C. But at this point, is it ok to judge A?

If B never mentioned that they were in a relationship, how can A be held accountable for the actions? I think the only ‘morals’ that they can be questioned on is sleeping around with other people, which, for some, is not important.

Taking it a step further, what if B had mentioned that they were in a relationship but was still wanting to go ahead with it, does this then mean that A has broken moral code? Being ‘the other woman’ can be a big thing for any guy or girl, but is it necessarily wrong?

Going from the perspective that both A and B were fully aware of the situation, there is one main point that I can think of to tease out. This is the idea of who did what. Did the person in the relationship initiate the hook up, or did the single person? I think that if A were to try and persuade B then this would be the first flag to say that A is doing something morally wrong. If it was fully initialised by B, however, A has little to worry about.

A quick google shows me that there are many people who believe that ‘the other woman’ can live with a clean conscious, however thinking about it my mind races with other questions. If this happened to me, I do think that I would have some emotional anger for the other woman, but I do think that I would vent most of it on my partner/ex-partner to the point until logic took over.

Is the other woman doing something morally wrong?

University Grounds

As I write this I am sitting on the green lawns of Flinders University, parking my self out side of the ICT building where I’ll be learning Computer Studies, the view before me is almost breathtaking.

The foreground is a dense arrangement of trees, bushes and shrubs working their way down the steep incline towards the lake nestled by Uni Central. Beyond the hills of the university the metropolitan Adelaide stretches out towards the ocean, which glistened in the bright sunlight, teasing the uni students who are stuck inside working.

Today’s weather is an odd arrangement between the warmth and the wind: the skies are blue and cloudless and the sun intense, but the wind is strengthening by the hour and howling through the trees and buildings surrounding me. It plays on my skin, sometimes warm beneath the sun but sometimes prickled with cold as a gust of wind wraps itself around my body.

The birds around Flinders Uni are taking full advantage of the clear sky, diving in and out of the trees seemingly playing a game that doesn’t end. Their chatter can be heard all around the university as pigeons, parrots and many more are seen high amongst the tree tops. Beneath them a throng of students are assembled, and walking around. It is the first day here for many, and the first back for many more. Lectures have started and people are slowly loosing the cheer that they arrived with. Nerves are creeping up on many as they realise they are alone in a lecture of dozens of people, and that soon the workload will be piling up on them.

A musical beat is floating over the wind, coming up from Central. The O-Week celebrations are continuing as tunes are blasted from speakers. The cafeteria is full of people, as is the bar. The shops will soon be in full swing, I’m sure.

The laws that I am perched on are at the top of the hill, the highest point of the uni. Surrounding me are other people, some in groups and others by themselves. Chatter is quiet as people lay soaking in the warmth of the sun, slowly penetrating through the wind. Jackets are wrapped tightly around bodies, while others adorn shorts and thong. Personally I am comfortable and warm with pants of denim and a nice hooded jumper. The climb to the top of the hill tested my strength and brought forth a little perspiration, but now I am chilled and relaxing.

I know that this relaxation won’t last, and in a few minutes when my lecture starts a new world will open up to me. Already I am unsure if the topics I have selected are what I want to do, but with time I am sure that I will work that out. I will give my ICT topic a go, but it takes up the most of my time, and this isn’t what I want. I may even get to change into something fun, like Drama or English or Japanese. These things are useful. ICT? Apparently it is where the jobs are… things to think about. Why not do both? Just overload later on…