- Berliner & David (2009) have shown the problem of adverse effects of policies that are created to be in line with improving standardised international comparisons for science, mathematics and reading. A narrowing of curriculum and lack of opportunity for creative moments in the education system ensues. Zhao (2012) has mentioned at length that China is looking to improve its creativity and entrepreneurial stocks through certain measures in their education system, which he has recommended need to happen.
- Some studies such as Kim, Hye-Young et al (2003) say that diet and physical exercise are a main cause of their high scores in science and mathematics. If so, how does government policy in Australia, throwing money at these subjects bring us up to their level without looking at these other variables.
- Blanket policy to not look at bridging the demonstrable gap between socio-economic classes displayed in ACER's analysis of Australian results by De Bortolli & Macaskill (2014). The Age on May 15 brought this issue up as their take on this recent debate on education 'big data' and that is a much more sensible perspective for analysis. Unfortunately, most Australians will not get this message, they get quick snipped stories on the news and the morning shows, focusing in on the "we're dropping globally" storyline. This is much easier to peddle.
- A large number of papers have been written to analyse the success of South Korean students. Huang (2001) mentioned a number of factors including a long standing cultural emphasis on these three core aspects of traditional education. Zhao (2012) has said in regards to Chinese students that you would find it an incredibly difficult task to overtake China on the rankings, in reference to US. His perspective that examinations have taken place in Chinese society for several thousand years as a means to deciding the type of job pathway that someone will embark on for life. This is engrained in their culture, just as Huang (2001) mentions similarly for the South Koreans.
- Going further into the success of South Korean students, Phillips (2015) highlights that they have such a successful standing in TIMMS and PISA testing, though they are unparalleled in their happiness, with their students being at the bottom of happiness in regards to school, of OECD countries. T.D, (2015) wrote in the economist that South Korean students are doing too much study. Numbers of hours involved in math in some Asian countries far outweigh the time that Australia puts towards mathematics, science and reading. Is this a bad thing for Australia? As a mathematics teacher, I feel that we do not want to narrow the curriculum and focus only on these core areas. Creativity and entrepreneurship are paramount in being successful in todays economic climate as Zhao (2012) points out at length in many of his books. A point of difference, thinking outside the box are just as important as drive.
- The United States ranks 1st in the world OECD Global Entrepreneurial Rankings in a recent study. Their students are ranked below Australia, and well below Asian countries in mathematics, science and reading, though they are highly sought after by companies for creative thinking and new direction. Which skills are more important to companies in the 21st century? With Australia in 3rd, I think we are showing our ability to think outside the box, even when our curriculum sometimes stifles that creativity. Check global rankings and you soon see quite a different picture to PISA rankings. These areas are apples and oranges, though the world our students need to survive and thrive in today demands creativity and entrepreneurial skills.
- One solution is to try and increase creativity. Then unfortunately politicians find vested interests in attempting to measure said creativity, something that Zhao (2012) thinks defeats the purpose of creativity.
- Diane Ravitch puts it perfectly in her blog from a US perspective on similar heat that they get in regards to global comparisons.
Where does this put us, listening to the news? It shouldn't change our ability to listen, though we must be critical in what is being served up in front of us. Money for change is not something we want to throw at our education system. Money does not guarantee anything. Wise policy does. If media looks narrowly at global testing (TIMMS & PISA) and local testing (NAPLAN), then political parties will again be hamstrung into policy that does not give our students what they need to succeed in the 21st Century, though it will prepare them perfectly for a world that no longer exists......
REFERENCE
- Berliner, David C. "MCLB (Much Curriculum Left Behind): A US calamity in the making." The educational forum. Vol. 73. No. 4. Taylor & Francis Group, 2009.
- De Bortoli, Lisa, and Greg Macaskill. "Thinking it through: Australian students’ skills in creative problem solving." (2014).
- Hwang, Yunhan. "Why do South Korean students study hard? Reflections on Paik's study." International Journal of Educational Research 35.6 (2001): 609-618.
- Jacks, Timna. 'Rich School, Poor School: Battle For Resources Creates Academic Divide'. The Age 2015: Online. Web. 15 May 2015.
- Kim, Hye-Young P., et al. "Academic performance of Korean children is associated with dietary behaviours and physical status." Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition 12.2 (2003): 186-192.
- Phillips, Matthew. 'Korea Is The World’S Top Producer Of Unhappy School Children'. Quartz 2013. Web. 18 May 2015.
- T, D. 'We Don't Need Quite So Much Education'. The Economist 2011. Web. 18 May 2015.
- Zhao, Yong. World class learners: Educating creative and entrepreneurial students. Corwin Press, 2012.
- Zhao, Yong. "Doublethink: The creativity-testing conflict." Education Week31.36 (2012): 26-32.
No comments:
Post a Comment