Om nom nom nom

It’s Just a Phase

Batcan

Why Wont Youtube Film Me?

Heroin(e) For Breakfast, Adelaide Fringe

A direct, proud play about patriotism and the rule of the world, ‘Heroin(e) for Breakfast‘ was an astoundingly beautiful and very touching story which ultimately ended with a tear in my eyes and a smile on my face.

Taking us through the drug-induced love triangle of two british sisters and their shared jesus-of-the-revolution love Tommy. Intertwined between their come-down mornings is the only too familiar visit of Heroine, the drug portrayed in a metaphorical American beauty. Heroine spends her time coaxing and convincing people to take another shot with her, convincing them that the world is better off while you’re high.

I have to write a full length review for Uni so I’m not going into anything more on here, but if you ever have a chance to see Heroin(e) for Breakfast, I highly recommend you do it! It is now finished for this Fringe season, but never now when it’ll come back!

Movie Title

I love the following short film. True, funny and really well done!

Hug, Shake or Kiss?

When you go to say hello to a friend, how do you greet them? Is it a handshake, a kiss on the cheek or something else? And what about when you say goodbye, is it a hug? A kiss? What are the do’s and don’ts?

If you’re anything like me, which fingers crossed you aren’t, you’d be a fair bit awkward when it comes to these types of things. I never really know what level I’m on when it comes to mates and friends, and if a kiss, hug or handshake is in order. I usually back out of anything and simply use verbal contact.

So, I want to know- what do you do to meet and farewell your friends? A hug, kiss, handshake? Let me know!

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.