[2016 LA Club] Week 24

[literally lauren]

Ladies and gentlemen, it's time for the final instalment of the L.A. Club for 2016, and we're concluding my super-neglectful streak with one final challenge. This time, it's a three-way comparison (though you don't have to talk about each piece if you don't want to) with some fairly low-intensity, subtle contentions.

Remember that we've got 24 weeks' worth of content for you to practice with, so feel free to go back through the weeks and write on any material you like! I'll do my best to catch up on all the weeks soon, though remember that giving feedback is just as valuable too, so you're more than welcome to go through others' work as well.

Replacing this for the next three weeks will be ATAR Notes Practice Exams with a more VCAA-style compilation of Section C material, so you can also head there if you're looking for some practice + feedback

Best of luck everybody!!



Politicians are taking the fun out of learning

Education was once largely free from political direction but now it is almost exclusively run by politicians. Their catch cries are accountability and standardised testing, all the while failing to understand how or why children learn. Educational philosopher John Holt (1923-1986)  once wrote that our schools have moved steadily in the wrong direction. "Schools are becoming bigger ... more threatening, more dangerous." He said we were de-personalising education into a production line method – a one-size-fits-all mentality.

Children learn at different rates and have widely varied interests. It is counter-intuitive to allocate massive resources into the NAPLAN standardised testing, which works against the natural inquisitive growing mind of young learners. Open-ended inquiry learning is what challenges and excites young learners. Replace the nationwide standardised testing with the study of philosophy from a young age and  motivate children to learn. We are putting good money into an underachieving school system. We must ensure the system excites and challenges each and every student.

- David Hassett, Blackburn


Tech overdose has negative effect

I am studying to be a secondary school teacher and have to observe more than 80 hours of teaching. In class, I observe students and teachers.  Students regularly spend the school day on computers, ignoring directions to close them down, and play games or browse the internet instead of staying on the task assigned to them. They are no longer required to learn anything by rote, and have become experts in cutting and pasting from Wikipedia. They no longer hand write. Maths is done on the computer. Where is the research showing this has a positive effect on performance? Much of the billions spent on education has been funnelled into the purchase of computers and IT support. What a waste. Computers do not need to be in every classroom.

- Michael Rush, Kooyong


Home's role as teacher is dwindling

Millions continue to be spent investigating education, but there seems to be little improvement in performance. Education researcher John Hattie's work identifies teaching methodologies that will improve outcomes. However, his work also shows that schools  have only about a 30 per cent influence over a child's learning. Much of the outcome is determined from the home. We should be investing more money into supporting young families and pre-school education as well as informing society about taking an interest in children's education. My anecdotal evidence over 25 years of teaching notes that families are increasingly showing less interest. Schools even get push-backs from families when requesting parents to discuss learning tasks with their children. "That's the job of the school," we are told. Unless there is a culture change, I am really worried about the future of education.

- Greg Ross, Kyabram

[Anonymous]

Just on David Hassett's

Hassett implies in a disheartened tone that education has slipped from being “largely free from political direction” to “almost exclusively run by politicians”. The threat of education being dictated by political heads derives from their “failing to understand how or why children learn”, implying that politicians are unqualified and unfit for the position of nurturing children’s growth and education. Citing “educational philosopher John Holt”, Hassett contrastingly provides an informed opinion, further inflating the idea that education quality has regressed in the hands of the oppositely uninformed politicians. The adjectives “threatening” and “dangerous” suggest that the new “production line method” of education jeopardises children’s wellbeing in its entirety, inducing fear into Hassett’s intended readership of parents and drawing on parental instincts to protect their children from modern-day, “one-size-fits-all” education. This approach to education does not cater to “children learn[ing] at different rates”, furthering the idea that politicians cannot adequately meet the needs of children’s “widely carried interests”, as “standardised testing” that politicians put forth “works against the natural inquisitive growing mind of young learners”. In essence, Hassett reduces the credibility of politicians and current educational systems to be fit for the responsibility of cultivating young people’s minds – and by extension, wellbeing. Thus, Hassett calls for parents to support “the study of philosophy” and to “motivate children to learn”, implying that these solutions will correct the wrongs of the current education system in the hands of politicians.

[literally lauren]

Just on David Hassett's

Hassett implies in a disheartened tone that education has slipped from being “largely free from political direction” to “almost exclusively run by politicians”. The threat of education being dictated by political heads derives from their “failing to understand how or why children learn”, implying that politicians are unqualified and unfit for the position of nurturing children’s growth and education this stuff is a little bit summative; your quotes are really well integrated, but be careful not to breeze by them without stopping and describing the language and its intended effect. Citing “educational philosopher John Holt”, Hassett contrastingly provides an informed opinion how do you know? Where specifically in the material does this notion of Hold being 'informed' come from? How does the author set him up as an authority figure, further inflating the idea that education quality has regressed in the hands of the oppositely uninformed politicians. The adjectives “threatening” and “dangerous” suggest that the new “production line method” of education jeopardises children’s wellbeing in its entirety, inducing fear into Hassett’s intended readership of parents and drawing on parental instincts to protect their children from modern-day, “one-size-fits-all” education good stuff! Though you maybe could've analysed the "one-size-fits-all" quote too. This approach to education does not cater to “children learn[ing] at different rates”, furthering the idea that politicians cannot adequately meet the needs of children’s “widely carried interests”, as “standardised testing” that politicians put forth “works against the natural inquisitive growing mind of young learners” more quoting to summarise here; you're kind of using the author's own language to explain their points, but you need to talk about how it's being used to position ideas and affect readers instead. In essence, Hassett reduces the credibility of politicians and current educational systems to be fit for the responsibility of cultivating young people’s minds – and by extension, wellbeing. Thus, Hassett calls for parents to support “the study of philosophy” and to “motivate children to learn”, implying that these solutions will correct the wrongs of the current education system in the hands of politicians. The statements you're making about the author's contention are spot on, but you'd need to stop and unpack language more often just to make your analysis stronger. At the moment, it's clear that you understand the material, but the analysis could be a tad more specific. This is a solid start though, and a few minor changes would easily bump you into high-range territory