Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Limited trial of National Curriculum.

Again, on a rushed timetable, the government pushes out information that a trial is to be done this year (5 weeks into term). Teachers will be given programmes (at the 11th hour) and the kids will have to deal with a poorly understood curriculum by teachers through no fault of the teachers themselves.

Successful project management is not rushed and has an understanding of as many factors as possible. Head-in-the-sand management is a recipe for disaster. Success becomes a factor of luck rather than good management. Children's futures should not be a part of a recipe for the re-election of the Labor party at the next election. It should be a bipartisan agreement implemented with long term planning and proven methods.

Regardless of any issues with the trial, the national curriculum will be rolled out next year. What is of bigger concern is that senior school curriculum will be rolled out later this year. I really hope senior school curriculum will be given more consideration than the lower school programme as the consequences for university entrance and TAFE integration are far more severe than upper school teachers coping with students who have suffered a partial implementation with gaps in learning.

Theory and practical application are two completely different beasts. To quote that 900 people have been involved in the theoretical design of the curriculum (with little coalface application) is not going to impress. Are these the same 900 people that designed and implemented OBE in WA? I really hope not.

The media release is found here.

Monday, March 1, 2010

Politicians... What a zoo!

I wrote to the zoo to send me a politician and they sent me a

.. Julia Gillard

.. but she is an idiot, I sent her back.


so they sent me a

.. Kevin Rudd

.. but he kept apologising in Chinese, when I finally caught him in Australia, I sent him back.


so they sent me a

.. Wayne Swan

.. but he spent the postage and gifted my savings to inflation, I sent him back.


so they sent me a

.. Brendon Abbott

.. but he was too busy kissing babies, I sent him back.


so they sent me a

.. Penny Wong

.. but who cares about climate change anymore? I sent her back.


so they sent me a

.. Peter Garrett

.. but he set my house on fire and speared the whales, I sent him back.


so they sent me a

.. Wilson Tuckey

.. I tried to send him back, but he was returned to sender.


so the zoo thought really hard and sent me a banana.

.. it fit right in at parliament house.

Julia Gillard and the national curriculum

Yes, schools can change their whole curriculum focus, understand, resource and ensure that assessment is in place for a draft curriculum that will change five times before the end of the 2010. We obviously have learnt very little from the OBE implementation fiasco.

Dear, oh dear. I hope no-one buys her "it'll be all right mate" routine.

Here comes another round of teacher bashing when poor direction from government is the issue. I heard Kevin Rudd accept personal responsibility for the performance of his government. I hope he is willing to take the legal liability for rushing something through that affects so many.

Julia Gillard is again doing something in a political timeframe not appropriate to schools. Again, the children of Australia will suffer the consequences.

Where is the testing and ensuring that it is applicable in states where it is to be implemented? The issues will only become apparent under application, it needs a limited application/trial before rollout. Cynically, this won't be done due to the poor polling results of the Labor party and political necessity rather than good practice.

The sheer arrogance of the rush approach is astounding.

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Manual Subtraction

An interesting question was posed to me today.

How do I subtract two number manually when the answer is negative??

For instance, 3896 - 4321 (to which the answer is -425).

I originally set up the problem in vertical columns

3896
4321
------

and tried to subtract..

3896
4321
------
?575

which obviously does not work.

So I thought about it.. the only obvious solution was to say, when subtracting always put the larger number on top.

4321
3896
------
*425

As this answer is positive, it is still incorrect. It requires an additional rule, that when the order is changed, the sign of the answer is negative. Thus the answer is -425.

I'm sure everyone knows this (and it's just one of those odd cases I haven't come across before), but it could be an interesting short investigation for upper primary or lower secondary doing directed number exercises.

.. and I have a stupid cold, my nose is dripping like a tap and I can't hug my daughter. It's made my day!