2010 NAPLAN tests are due to be conducted between the 11th-14th of May this year (unless a school makes [...]]]> A reminder that any parent or guardian may WITHDRAW their CHILD from having to participate in the NAPLAN 2010 tests (at the bottom of this post, I also add some notes regarding other NAPs occurring this year).

2010 NAPLAN tests are due to be conducted between the 11th-14th of May this year (unless a school makes a request to vary the date).

False information on MySchool Website

I’m not sure why the MySchool website continues to misinform the Australian public. They have already been informed of this, and appear to simply avoid fixing their error (as of March).

The information pdf on their site, titled MySchool Fact Sheet about NAPLAN is only one of numerous places where the misinformation is promulgated on the site. Therein, it falsely states that:

Not only is it the case that quite a number of students do NOT participate, the document totally omits any reference to withdrawing a child. Instead, it makes sole mention of exemptions, thereby falsely implying that the only option for non-participation is for students with specific needs. This is, as will be obvious from what follows, simply not the case: ANY student may be WITHDRAWN from participating in NAPLAN by their parent or carer. Read on for details on how to withdraw from participating in NAPLAN. In 2009 in some schools, every student in 3, 5, 7 and 9 was withdrawn by their respective parent!

Withdrawing from NAPLAN 2010 – it really is quite simple

Withdrawal is different to exemption: for an exemption, rather strict conditions apply. For withdrawals, the process is simple (in most States and Territories at least – as long as the parent or carer is aware of the option which, unfortunately, is a little like the plans for an intergalactic bypass as described in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy).

Basically, page 11 of the (Victorian, as typical example) Principal and NAPLAN Coordinator’s Guide 2010 states that:

Withdrawn students

In the event that a parent/carer wishes to withdraw their child from the NAPLAN 2010, signed parental consent using the Student Withdrawal Form (page 24) is required. This form is to be retained by the school.

…and so, for ease or use, attached below is a copy of that page 24 form (which is also available from the VCAA site).

For those interested, apart from my longish entry last year (Cf my blog-post NAPLAN – or the demise of pedagogical principles), the Age has claimed that Victoria has the highest rate of student withdrawals in the nation!

Given the many concerns surrounding the as-yet unknown potential uses of data collected and matched to each child in various computer databases (never mind known uses such as recently reported in the Age), it may be of value to carefully consider how our children are being ‘tagged’.

It seems that about 10% of Victorian students did NOT participate… some as a result of being exempted, others simply due to their parents or carers signing the withdrawal form. And that despite official documents and information to parents making it rather unknown that withdrawing is really that straightforward!

Well done Victoria – though there’s still quite a way to go before it is generally realised that ALL students may be withdrawn by their parents or guardians/carers!

Incidentally, of major concern is the Federal Government’s plan as reported in another Age article: “Ms Gillard also promised the government would introduce identification numbers for all school children, to help track the progress of individual students between different schools, school systems and states”.

ID numbers?!!!?? I suppose that this is a ‘natural progression’ from NAPLAN… and has ALREADY begun: Victorian 10 y.o. now have a VSN [Vic. Student Number] that schools have been required to participate in keying the information for!

Anyhow… here are the forms:

Victoria

PLEASE note that this year, unlike previous years, you’ll need to tick each box to ensure that your child is withdrawn. It seems that they’re making it increasingly confusing!

Tasmania & A.C.T.

I have received no information as to the whereabouts of the withdrawal form for schools in the ACT, but have been informally told that the Principal’s Administrative Handbook has the information therein. So it seems that the situation is a little similar to that of Tasmania, which follows.

It appears that Tasmania continues to present the same mis-information on their site: the Tasmanian Department of Education site claims (as of 4th March 2010) that:

In May, all students in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9 across Australia will participate in national tests that will assess their performance in literacy and numeracy.

All students across Australia will be doing the same tests on the same days.

[their emphasis]

This is of course not factually correct, as no student that has been withdrawn, exempted or absent will do so (about 10% in Victoria last year). And, of course, various schools may also have applied for a variation of date as to when to submit the test to students who have not been withdrawn.

What is not clear is (again) WHERE the form to withdraw one’s child is located… so I’ll here assume that the situation is the same as last year from information I received from them (I have not asked for the same again):

“The form is located on the Department of Education staff intranet for government schools, non-government school principals should have a copy of this form at their school. The process is to discuss the withdrawal with the child’s school principal, completed forms are then sent back to Educational Performance Services and the student is formally withdrawn from the testing. [my emphasis]“.

For information only (as the forms appear to alter each year), last year’s form looked like the following:

Queensland

For Queensland, the form needs to be completed before the 30th April:

N.S.W.

NSW appears to be using the same form as last year (how reasonable and non confusing!) – at least according to their download site here. I therefore simply leave the information as as last year (N.B. that the correct box for withdrawing a student is ‘WITHDRAWN’, not ‘exempt’ – this latter is reserved for a specific category of students):

W.A. & N.T.

N.B. date for withdrawal in NT: 1st April!!!
N.B. date for WA: 4th May

(The reason for both WA and NT being together is that the administrative handbook is for both these regions)

In brief: The WA form is further below. For the NT no specified form is required: instead a simple letter from the parent/carer is sufficient. Should you have problems writing such a letter, simply use the one below, inserting the student’s name:

Simple letter suggestion for the Northern Territory:

I quote here from the Administrator’s Handbook available from the WA Department of Education site (page 10) [my emphasis]:

Withdrawn students

Parents or caregivers may withdraw their children from the tests. This is a matter for consideration by individual parents in consultation with the principal. Withdrawals are intended to address issues such as religious beliefs and philosophical objections to testing.

Parent/caregiver withdrawal does not constitute exemption. Withdrawn students will be considered as being absent from the testing.

The principal is responsible for registering all parent/caregiver withdrawals. Western Australian schools use the form available on their state‘s website. In the Northern Territory, letters from the parent/caregiver should be provided to the principal and then forwarded to the Assessment and Reporting Manager by 1 April.

It’s also interesting that should the school not have provided information to parents about the option to withdraw a student, there may even be legal grounds against the person responsible for overlooking such should a parent or carer pass the date by which this would need to be legally completed.

It’s also rather incredible to reflect that some funding for needy students is being tied to participation in NAPLAN!

Form for Western Australia:

SA

The South Australian’s Principals Handbook states that (page 11, my bold emphasis re. date):

Student withdrawal Parents/caregivers may withdraw their child from the NAPLAN tests for philosophical or for
personal reasons.

A pro forma is provided on page 25 and must be endorsed by the parent/caregiver who withdraws his/her child from the NAPLAN tests. The pro forma must be kept at the school and may be required for future reference.

The principal must finalise all student withdrawals by Friday 30 April.

A copy of page 25 follows

Other NAPs in 2010

(Perhaps the abbreviation ‘NAP’ points to our need to awaken to the ongoing march against healthy pedagogical practices!)

One can only read with concern an ACT Dpt Newsletter stating with apparent glee the following:

Once upon a time, Victoria (Australia) had a simple register that provided an easy means for schools to ascertain whether or not a teacher had appropriate qualifications. Actually, there were a number of such registers: one [...]]]> The above titular expansion of the acronym I have increasingly heard used by teachers (retired and active) and other educators…

Once upon a time, Victoria (Australia) had a simple register that provided an easy means for schools to ascertain whether or not a teacher had appropriate qualifications. Actually, there were a number of such registers: one for state schools, another for independent schools, and a third for Catholic schools.

In the 1990s, the then Victorian government considered that the register for state schools was redundant, as the same information was being collected by the Department of Education as part of employment. I’m not sure what happened to the Catholic register.

The independent register remained intact.

The registration bodies were efficient and straightforward for most of teachers: if a person had graduated with an appropriate teaching qualification from a university, it was pretty much a straightforward process of providing copies of the same, paying a processing fee and, subject to no court order effectively prohibiting one from teaching, the qualified individual would remain on the register. After all, one doesn’t suddenly become less qualified with time.

For people that did not have a degree from an Australian university, the registration body provided a means by which to ascertain and determine parity or, in the case where there was no exact equivalent, in consultation and given the needs of various schools, provided a provisional or ‘reduced’ (for ease of this blog entry) registration – reduced in that certain constraints of time or levels or subjects were specified.

A quite sensible system, really.

When that government was voted out, I do not think that anyone could have foreseen the draconian system that was to be introduced in its place.

Orwellian educational doublethink newspeak

Part of the rationale was a twisted thinking that incorrectly claims that teachers wanted such a body: some teachers had been surveyed about whether or not they thought a registration body was an idea they would support. Having previously (or contemporaneously) had the experience of the registration bodies mentioned above, there was of course an overwhelming support for the same. Then what can only be surmised to be extreme left-wing bureaucrats came into the picture.

Firstly, a ‘two-fold’ aspect was being promulgated by the then proposed Victorian Institute of Teaching: on the one hand to ‘promote’ teaching; on the other to ‘regulate’ it. Only here a quick twist came from its organising committee once the legislation had been passed, and a claim that ‘the best way to promote teaching is by regulation’ (I was there at the time of the meeting in which this was spoken, and could not that believe such explicit Orwellian Newspeak Doublethink could be so easily spoken in educational circles!).

added tax with no value

If that was not bad enough, an ANNUAL FEE for registration was now required – effectively an indirect tax collected by the state of Victoria, rather than the Federal government.

At that time, the Federal Government had passed anti-compulsory membership legislation (section 180 of the [Federal] Workplace Relations Act 1996), which allowed for Conscientious Objection to Membership of an Organisation. Unfortunately, the Industrial Relations body considered (without further evidence at that time – something that neither I nor other teachers had the time or money to argue) that the VIT ‘is not a ‘registered organisation of employees’ (given that only teachers employed by schools require to be registered with the VIT, I personally, of course, disagree, and there MAY have been a lost window of opportunity).

retirement

Effectively, and in practice, this has had a number of ramifications. The first is that a number of teachers opted for early retirement rather than have to engage in such nonsense… with unexpected consequences:

In the past, when a school (especially, I suspect, independent schools) had an experienced teacher take leave (whether long service, sick, or visiting interstate or overseas for ‘short’ or expended periods), it would be able to call in a relatively recently retired teacher to fill in the gap. This provided part income for the willing teacher, as well as providing the school with a teacher who had experience and was already quite familiar with the tone of the school. Needless to say, this was now an impossible option: a retired teacher living in the same street as I last year described to me the impossibility of doing such without having to begin a process for re-registration with the VIT; other examples of immediate experience also include another recently retired teacher who’s book is used for VCE classes in the subject being in the same situation with regards to the school at which he had previously taught for decades.

teachers – not nurses, architects nor doctors

One of the arguments for the VIT that has been repeated by some of its employees are that it is comparable to the ‘equivalent’ body for architects, nurses or medical doctors. I cannot (nor will I) comment on whether or not there is a need for registration bodies in those professions: they are best situated to make such assessment.

One clear distinction, however, is that unlike in each of those professions where dangerous materials are used, teaching (except in very specific circumstances in some of the sciences) does not. Also, unlike, for example, doctors or psychologists who often work on a one-to-one situations with patients, teachers generally work with healthy groups (classes). And finally and most importantly, unlike those professions, teachers, working as teachers registered with the VIT, are employees of a school (if they were not, they would not need to be registered with the VIT). Therefore, there are rather significant differences.

This does not mean that I do not favour a sensible registration body as described in the opening section of this blog entry.

cart before the horse

Part of the claims of the VIT is the ‘valuing of education’. Frankly, their actions have shown the opposite.

It is not up to the bureaucrats in that body to determine whether or not an Australian University has an adequate teaching degree. Rather, a fundamental respect for the integrity of tertiary institutions needs to be maintained: by all means it is acceptable for the registration body to request of universities curricula outlines for their education degrees and graduate diplomas – but this to enable the body to ascertain parity with someone’s presentation of a foreign ‘equivalent’, NOT to ‘approve’ or not something that the University has already internally approved!

The way it is at the moment, it’s simply a further insult to education in general.

If a person has completed appropriate teaching qualifications, then they have. To have to effectively re-submit to similar criteria to the VIT in their first (and/or second) year of teaching is nonsense and undervalues tertiary education. If a person does not seem to be adequately prepared, then it is certainly the role of supervising teachers (during a teaching round by a student) to so inform the tertiary institution. Similarly, if a course provided by a tertiary institution is not quite sufficient for the expectation of a school, then there needs to be appropriate feedback mechanisms put in place (by the tertiary institution, not the VIT) whereby adequate communication of the type is possible and welcome.

As it is, the VIT tertiary ‘involvement’ is just another insult to education in general, and teachers in particular.

qualified… then less so???

Part of the problem with making inappropriate comparisons with other professions is that what may indeed be appropriate for them (and that’s really for those professions to decide) is taken on by the VIT and ‘adapted’ to teaching. A case in point is the recent (as of last year) further requirement that a teacher undertakes a certain number of hours of ‘professional development’ within a 5-year period.

In other words, what the VIT is effectively stating is that a teacher who is currently qualified (and who may be a very experienced and highly effective teacher) and registered as such will be deemed unqualified five years hence.

This also takes no account of the different needs for different individuals: some, in their early teaching career, may be better focussing on their classes and familiarising themselves with their school; others, in their 30s and 40s (for example), may highly benefit from ‘professional development courses’ (all teachers involve themselves in professional development by the mere fact of teaching!); finally, for those nearing retirement, it may be that their acquired wisdom is best cherished by their peers – and such may in fact be of best value. To require of any group to undertake so-called professional development hours is senseless.

How can a qualified teacher, currently teaching and further developing their teaching by teaching, suddenly be less qualified to teach!?

The VIT’s requirements are becoming oxymoronic.

above the law

A sensitive issue (because of both its destruction on lives and its emotive impact) is whether or not the VIT should be able to require a police profile provided to them.

This is rather quite unacceptable, and moves Victoria ever closer to a closed police state (and inadvertently decreases public view of the profession). Having both my grandfather and a cousin in the police force (the first a former Commissioner of Police in Europe), I am certainly aware of the types of information that can be collected and stored in both formal and informal files.

There is something else at stake here.

IF a court decides that a convicted person is to have a life-long exclusion from some forms of participation (such as teaching), then it is of course for the courts to make that determination (and they should have the power, for some crimes, to so do). However, there is another side to this, and that if a person has been convicted and served their sentence for the same, then the VIT has no business in requesting past records.

The slow increased usage of ‘police checks’ in a whole range of employment is something that is likely to have ramifications for society as a whole that really needs to be carefully held in check.

Of concern is also, of course, the close contact between the VIT and law-makers: it seems that when the VIT wants something that it considers is a good idea (even when it’s terrible), direct access to the Minister’s office, and amendments to the legislation, follows all too quickly.

fine on tax

This year, yet another development has occurred: charging a 43% fee on payments made ‘late’!

As if it’s not insulting enough to have to pay an annual $70, SOME who have paid late are being charged an additional $30 for a computer generated invoice.

To be frank, there’s not much I can add to this…

The requirement to have to pay by December in the year prior to teaching is already not right: for some teachers, it may not be until January or even February whether then know whether or not they’ll have a teaching contract. Additionally, December is normally rather busy with the writing of student reports.

What would be the problem with making March the due date for what is, in any case, an inappropriate registration charge?

only do what you have permission to do

There’s an old joke that goes something like the following:

In the UK, you’re allowed to do it unless a law prevents you from doing so;
In Germany, you’re NOT allowed to do it unless you’re permitted to do so;
In France, you’re allowed to do it even if you’re not permitted;
in Russia, you’re NOT allowed to do it even if you’re permitted to.

It seems that we’re increasingly moving from the UK model to the German, and all too rapidly to the Russian one.

If a person has appropriate tertiary qualifications or experience, a school should be able to employ them to teach. It should be obvious that no school would want to keep someone on staff who is inappropriate.

In terms of teaching, as for most things, the move to ‘permission to do x’ rather than ‘prohibited to do x’ demonstrates how a major shift has occurred since the 1960s: one that radically shifts from the struggles from liberty towards one with an over-riding concern reflecting inherent fear.

register yes, VIT no

Over the years, I have had numerous occasions to discuss various aspects of education with teachers in the State, Catholic and Independent sectors. I have yet to meet a single teacher who supports the VIT. Of the thousands of teachers registered, there probably are quite a few who do… but frankly doubt it’s even a small minority: it’s more likely to be, at most, an insignificant minority.

I look forward to the day when the State Government alters the legislation and makes VIT an option (or simply makes it obsolete). If an option, I’m certain that voting with our feet will quickly show the support the VIT has amongst the teaching profession.

communication

On a personal note, when I received the invoice for registration at the end of last year, I simply (and without noticing the threat of a FINE set at 43% of the invoice amount) left it in my pigeon hole. After all, that is what I have done over the past few years, and something that I look at on my return a few days prior to teaching the ensuing year… except that this year, a FINE was issued for ‘late payment’.

Not everyone who paid in January had to pay that fine, incidentally.

As soon as I received the invoice for the fine, I looked up on the VIT’s website information about how to contact them. Being repeatedly placed in a queue on hold (and not being able to hold, of course, as I have classes to teach), I instead sent them a facsimile (16th Feb). A few days later, not having heard from them, I called, the person I spoke with not having a copy of my facs, I again sent it.

Again no response.

Over a week later (1st March), I again call, and as the person to whom I spoke did not work on that day, and again my letter not being available to the person on the other end of the phone, and with threats from them to suspend my registration (even though I paid the necessary annual amount), I opted to simply pay the fine.

But really – enough is enough, and this will be but my first entry into the public realm to reflect what are (not only my own) frustrations with the VIT’s insulting existence.

I note, of late, that the VIT advertised for a few days for a ‘Communications Officer’. Personally, I remain sceptical as to what this means: one would HOPE that this position will be someone who is willing to LISTEN to what teachers are saying (communication includes, after all, listening). Frankly, however, I rather suspect that the position would have been better titled ‘Propaganda Officer’.

Only time will tell…

It only reflects how strange US society has become, and how its pre-eminence in the world of online downloads leads to quite weird decisions. Cf Need Marijuana? Your iPhone Can Help.

It’s OK to have a listing of where to obtain marihuana even in locations where it is not legal, but an application [...]]]> What can I say!?

It only reflects how strange US society has become, and how its pre-eminence in the world of online downloads leads to quite weird decisions. Cf Need Marijuana? Your iPhone Can Help.

It’s OK to have a listing of where to obtain marihuana even in locations where it is not legal, but an application that uses mediæval and renaissance imagery as part of a tarot deck gets the can if some of its images depict paintings of women with bare breasts!

The case in point is Kat Black’s wonderful application for her new Touchstone Tarot… have a look at the following, the left-hand image from her deck, the right-hand one the same card ‘rectified’ for the purposes of avoiding censorship on Apple’s iTunes store (perhaps renamable to iSore):

[ps - a note on the slang used in the title: "she's apples" is an Australian colloquial expression for "it's fine/it's good/it's approved". I'll leave the purposeful reference to Apple Macs in the ambiguity thereof]

Let’s begin with the last of these first: the flu ‘pandemic’ and the reaction to it by officialdom.

I accept that when the first outbreak of this new influenza virus began to make its [...]]]> Quite a mouthful, that heading… and considering I also wanted to include something on synæsthesia, I’ve rather narrowed somewhat my ‘focus’!

Swine flu pandemic

Let’s begin with the last of these first: the flu ‘pandemic’ and the reaction to it by officialdom.

I accept that when the first outbreak of this new influenza virus began to make its round, health officialdom around the world followed the dictates of the virtually useless WHO and began to put in place restrictive measures in case the virus turned out to be another ‘Spanish’ flu on the world’s population (irrespective as to whether the number of deaths caused post WW-I had more to do with the lack of food, sanitation and post-war devastation that effectively left a large section of the world’s population severely weakened and at high risk of any viral spread).

Within two weeks, however, it was quite apparent that this new strain of H1N1 ‘swine’ flu was no more dangerous than a bad flu year. Yet here were so-called ‘Health’ departments in many regions (including Australia, sadly), reacting as though schools need to be closed, individuals isolated (effectively under ‘voluntary house gaol’), and fear-mongering encouraged. (… the whole episode ignites elements of cynicism as this coincides with government stockpiles of Tamiflu reaching their expiry dates, to which Europe has responded to by extending the previously agreed expiration by two years – so wait and see what happens over the next two years in Europe!). In fact, even the WHO is in its documents (the ones not as obvious) says: ‘Most people recover from infection without the need for hospitalization or medical care. Overall, national levels of severe illness from influenza A(H1N1) appear similar to levels seen during local seasonal influenza periods, although high levels of disease have occurred in some local areas and institutions.’ In other words, this is no different to normal annual flus.

What comes to mind is the story of the ‘Boy who Cried Wolf’… but then again, perhaps the paucity of stories encouraged has given rise to a lack of such knowledge amongst the ‘Health’ Departments. For their brief elucidation (in case anyone therefrom reads this – which I doubt), the story is rather simple: A boy (yes, the story has a boy doing such, not a gender-less youth) runs from a forested area back towards his village crying out ‘Wolf… there’s a wolf… hurry…’, at which the villagers hurry from their various tasks into the safety of their homes. The boy goes outside and laughs at everyone at how easily they had been duped. On another day, during another week, the boy is again seen to be running back in apparent panic yelling that this time there really was a wolf heading their way. Again the villagers rush their children and themselves into the safety of their homes, and again the boy goes outside and burst into hysterical laughter at their gullibility. Their credulousness hardened, when during a third time some months later that boy again ran towards the village yelling of a pack of wolves heading in their direction, the villagers only showed disdain at his poor sense of humour… only to be ripped to pieces by the pack that came some minutes later.

This is not the first time that WHO and various Health Departments are crying wolf. Of course the virus will spread, but the question that needs to be asked is whether or not it is of major concern. To begin with being cautious is one thing, to continue to respond as though death is coming when the figure in the distance is recognised for the normal annual migration of a caravan hearder, then the population needs to simply be thanked for its cautiousness and informed immediately that what was potentially a hazard had been rashly assumed to incorrectly be such, rather than encouraged to continue to respond as though we are each about to potentially become very very sick.

Of course, it could be argued that it’s really the media that is at fault in disseminating the information as though highly contagious and dangerous. Only problem is that official documents from government health organisations indicate a similar kind of thinking. Why, for example, would someone who is returning to Victoria receive the following ‘instructions’ from DHS (which all schools have also received) giving the impression that it is really not much of a ‘voluntary’ option:

From 25 May 2009, DHS is asking parents of children returning from USA, Canada, Japan, Mexico and Panama to voluntarily keep their children home for seven (7) days from arrival back in Australia. This is a further precautionary measure to assist in managing the spread of the virus.

Strange as it may seem, I never see such ‘precautionary measure’ suggested for children returning in other years from regions in which the flu is likely to have been picked up. Nor should they, as far as I’m concerned (lest this be interpreted that Nazi-like regimes ought to be implemented!).

So what does this have to do with play, stories and the brain’s plasticity?

Probably more than I am to immediately recognise, but that was not the reason for the combined blog entry. Rather, having recently read Norman Doidge’s The Brain that Changes Itself and having recently (a few days ago) attended a lecture during his Melbourne visit, the various happenings of the week: Obama’s extremely worrying speech; the ‘swine’ flu goings on; and stuff I have recently re-read or just read on play, stories, computers in education, and the brain’s plasticity are somehow making their combined entry…

…and after all, being a blog, it seems appropriate to allow such meanderings.

So, let’s move to play and stories for a second:

The importance of play and stories in healthy development

I was rather pleased to see in so many indirect ways the manner in which Doidge’s book supports in unintended ways the depth and breadth of subjects and ways of working to which students in Steiner/Waldorf schools are exposed and participate. It seems to me that, at the very least, this type of education encourages a healthy neuronal development.

But more on some of his comments later – for in some areas, he may be going further than is warranted.

With regards to play, it was heartening to read in New Scientist a review of The Playful Brain: venturing to the limits of neuroscience by Pellis & Pellis. Within that review is a real gem:

Preventing unstructured play is damaging – if you prevent an animal from playing when it is young, it will have serious social problems later

And so here again, we have further support (in addition to the previously released Play: How it Shapes the Brain [...] by Brown and Vaughan) of this all important element of what is really all about learning.

And really, stories, and the art of not only the telling of stories, but also the development of the imaginative ability to actively participate by listening and reading prolonged narrative, is also mentioned in another New Scientist book review. Therein, the art of story is argued to be culture-forming and have the ability to shape both individuals and history.

This has important consequences for, by providing a paucity of story, we would expect a paucity of cultural development within a community that limits story-telling, and for it to become prone to not only religious dogmatism, but also acting to its defence by perceiving that any difference of view constitutes an assault on safeguarding what is for them effectively all-encompassing (North Korea and Gaza appear to be extreme examples of this). Any community that encourages a rich narrative base – as indeed, again, found in Steiner education – is likely to also have its members able to develop far greater empathy and understanding of others, and contribute to a culture that progressively becomes enriched by the accepted contributions of the diversity of interest of its members.

… and this leads us to the recent worrying development in Obama’s speech.

Obama, the USA and imprisonment without fair trial

To be incredibly frank, I had not desired to travel to the USA from time Bush was elected to office. Apart from other considerations, the treatment of visitors apparently only become worse since I last went there in the early 1990s and, since the 11th Sept. 2001 New York attacks, fear of the foreign only appears (and I can only say ‘appears’ as I have not visited since) to have reached a pitch that is difficult to fathom. With Obama heading into the Oval office, many outside the USA had high hopes that this was about to change… yet, he appears to be effectively proposing the introduction of a parallel legal system that would allow individuals deemed potentially dangerous to the USA to be incarcerated without due trial, without legal representation, and without conviction for any wrong-doing. Effectively, what he’s saying is that Guantanamo Bay should never happen again: that was illegal… so let’s develop something that would make it legal (!!!) and not off-shore… and then Guantanamo Bay will instead become a legalised Holding Bay for non-convicted individuals who are considered, whether by misidentification or duly supposed to be potential criminals!

…and this coming from a US president that is seen as somehow motivated by liberalism? Either I am totally mis-understanding true liberalism, or those who have painted Obama with that brush have, unfortunately, rather severely misunderstood his provenance.

See, as a sad state of affairs, this rather insightful summary posted on YouTube:

For those who may [...]]]>
As you may be aware, next week is when Australian schools are under obligation to provide standardised tests to students in classes (or years) 3, 5, 7 and 9 who have not been withdrawn from participation by their parents (or by their school in very special circumstances in which this is permitted).

For those who may not have been so informed, any parent/guardian has the right to withdraw their child from participating in the national standardised tests without having to justify their decision. As of last year, these have been renamed ‘NAPLAN’ and replace the various but similar State-standardised tests (such as the ‘AIMS’ in Victoria) which were, in any case, as pedagogically unsound. This is due to take place over three consecutive mornings in lieu of whatever schools had determined was best educational practice.

Ever since standardised tests were first introduced, in order for the Federal government to mandate these to independent schools, they have been tied to funding agreements. In other words, irrespective as to whether or not these reflect the pedagogical and educational underpinnings or the philosophical foundations of a school, in order to receive Federal funding, the school must agree to provide these to every student not withdrawn. The reason to tie these to funding agreement is that education, by our constitution, remains a State prerogative. This ‘loophole’ used by both major parties (which has not been tested in courts) is deplorable yet, given that these National tests have now established themselves as a multi-million dollar industry, these would inevitably fight against any proposal to drop such ‘compulsory’ imposition in schools by any future Government.

When initially introduced, the funding agreement had a clause that allowed schools (and specifically, it turned out, Montessori and Steiner schools amongst but few others) to seek exemption from participation. The wording was very specific:

“Where a school has a longstanding, well documented publicly stated approach to education which may provide it with grounds for being exempted from participation in a standardised assessment programme, the school should make a case to the Commonwealth for consideration by the Commonwealth Minister.”

Under this clause, Steiner schools made submissions and as a consequence were exempted, the Government and DETYA recognising that standardised assessment programmes such as NAPLAN were of such a nature that provided sufficient ground for exemption.

The Federal Government followed this through, if I recall, in 2002, with deleting the clause that allowed any schools to seek exemption, at the same time reminding those same schools that parents may decide to withdraw their child(ren) from such participation, and that whether these children are in independent, catholic or state schools. Verbal communication with some people at Canberra indicated that in their view as parents have elected to send their children to a Steiner school, they would ‘of course’ support its pedagogical, educational and philosophical views and would thus withdraw their child(ren).

It should be mentioned that the main impulse for National Assessment Programmes comes not from educational considerations, but rather out of a means by which the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) may measure and compare narrow criteria across countries, thereby able to give the impression of educational details per country. The Australian participation is based on this, and the OECD’s Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), which published what may be considered the foundation stone for NAPLAN development in 1999. Here, we begin to understand how the child is mere cog-in-the-machine to which may be expected certain achieved ‘benchmarks’, rather than a wholesome developing individual with varying propensities to developing a wealth of skills in non-standardised ways of learning and non-standardised time-frames.

I am confident that should all parents be aware of the nature of both Montessori or Steiner/Waldorf education and the nature of the standardised tests, withdrawal of each child would take place without the need to either discuss the nature of education and those tests. In fact, I would suggest that if parents in general were aware of educational principles and sound pedagogical practice, most students across the nation, whether in independent, Catholic or State schools, would be withdrawn.

There is, of course, a Catch-22 here: parents are generally NOT informed that they in fact have that choice, and teachers in many schools are discouraged (and in some cases I have heard even prohibited [?!??!!!] even if from their professional judgement!) from informing parents of that possibility – perhaps this may have something to do with principal salaries being tied, in some cases and in indirect manner, to NAPLAN outcomes! (this is a result, in Victorian State schools, of tying a portion of a principal’s pay to the school’s attainment of specified ‘performance targets’ as measured against standardised assessment outcomes). More recently, it has been noted in the media that various schools are actually preparing students for these tests, and other students are obtaining private preparatory tutoring or purchasing preparation programmes – of course such is necessary as these tests are of a style that does not generally form part of sound pedagogical practice and certainly of a style that is not used in most schools.

As the results of these tests are likely to be saved in some government-held database for each individual who participates, it is worth considering how such results may be raised in some unexpected and even unintended manner twenty or thirty years hence.

So, if a parent does not want their child to participate, what can be done? Simply ask for a withdrawal form… and if the school’s office is unable to locate one (even though it’s simply a matter of photocopying page 23 from the Naplan information booklet for schools), download one from either:

Vic. VCAA site: student withdrawal form; or by clicking the pdf image above!

…and hand it in to the school prior to the 12th May!

You may need to be clear and firm – it has been mentioned to me that pressure has been placed on parents to not withdraw their child. Simply, in that case, follow it up with a letter instructing the school that your child is NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN NAPLAN TESTS.

What’s already on the cards and forthcoming…

    NAPLAN   →   NAP-LAN + NAP-SL + NAP-CC + NAP-ICTL

Lest it be thought that I am scare-mongering, let’s have a look at some of the ‘complements’ to the NAP-LAN (Literacy And Numeracy): already implemented in schools on a ‘rolling’ basis are the NAP-SL [Scientific Literacy] for year 6; the NAP-CC [Civics and Citizenship] for years 6 and 10; and the NAP-ICTL [Information and Communication Technology Literacy] also for years 6 and 10. I would be surprised if the intent was to restrict these to samplar student populations, given the nature of both politicians and the thinking of bureaucrats who, by having an ‘interest’ in educational results, mistake that as an expertise in education.

It has been reported that in the UK, what started out as the equivalent of a simple standardised assessment programme in literacy and numeracy has degenerated into an array of over seventy standardised tests that a typical student will undertake in their schooling

…but of course, it can’t happen in Australia! After all, we’re not that idiotic about submitting our children to so many standardised tests that only mimic education!

How I hope that this is in fact the case, and that we wake up to what is occurring as those who are enamoured by such tests expand these across an array of fields in order to (improperly) respond to the (valid) criticism that the current tests only provides quantifiable results for a tiny fraction of education (as if increasing their range deepens an understanding of the education of the child).

    Educational support not provided to students in need

In terms of educational support for students in need, some States and Territories (including WA, I have been told of two others that I have not been able to verify) have already implemented tying educational support to participation in the NAPLAN tests.

In a Dec. 2008 Media Release from Julia Gillard’s office as Minister for Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (for of course, education forms part and parcel of employment considerations, rather than the Arts and Sciences), it was stated that:

At the COAG meeting on 29 November 2008 the Australian Government delivered an unprecedented National Education Agreement to drive education reform. [...][and that] $540 million to drive improvement in literacy and numeracy outcomes.

note the wording… NOT to support children who may need it in literacy and numeracy, but to ‘drive improvement in literacy and numeracy outcomes‘ – in other words, funding will likely be tied to participation and poor results in the NAPLAN tests, and further moves from genuine educational principles and sound pedagogical practices inevitably diminish.

The slide away from adequate educational support, based on sound pedagogical principles, and towards further diminishment of genuine qualitative assessment seems to thus already be taking place… of course, at first, only for students in genuine need. The method reminds me of the now famous [...but I cannot recall the source] post-WWII poetic reflection:

I didn’t object when they took the Jews, because I wasn’t Jewish. I didn’t object when they took Catholics, because I wasn’t Catholic. I didn’t object when they took homosexuals, because I wasn’t homosexual. I didn’t object when they took the Communists, because I wasn’t communist. When they came to take me, there was no one to object.

further information for parents, guardians and carers regarding the withdrawing of a child or children under their care from participating in NAPLAN tests.

Please do not be confused by the (it seems mandated) standard reply that ‘it is expected that all students will participate’… even to the question about whether or not a parent has an option to withdraw their child (which the above response sidesteps rather than answers). Parents have the right to withdraw their child(ren) in each and every State and Territory in Australia (which is different to a child being exempted for specific pedagogical, psychological or other reasons).

In NSW it states that:

‘Students may also be withdrawn from the test at the request of the parent/carer.’

For WA and the NT, it is stated thus:

Parents or caregivers may withdraw their children from the assessment. [...] Withdrawn students will be considered as being absent from the testing.

For the NT, it seems that a simple letter from the parents is sufficient… though both WA and the NT appear to have a DEADLINE as to when such can be presented…

reminds me of the Douglas Adams’s Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy: surely it’s the parents’ fault for not having informed themselves from an obscure document well filed in some remote location if they missed the deadline!

In SA, it seems also that parents had to inform themselves from the well filed documents that there is a deadline – though I would venture that if a principal (for schools that have a principal – NOT all do!) has NOT informed you, then there may be a legal case against the school:

‘Parents/caregivers may withdraw their child from the NAPLAN tests for philosophical or for personal reasons.[...]
The principal must finalise all student withdrawals by Friday 1 May.

For Qld, again the statement is clear:

‘Students may be withdrawn from participation in the NAPLAN tests at the written request of their parents/carers.’

Being based in Victoria, I have already provided the form in the main section of the blog entry above. still, for the sake of completeness, here is the statement:

‘In the event that a parent/carer wishes to withdraw their child from the NAPLAN 2009, signed parental consent using the Student Withdrawal Form (page 23) is required’

As to Tas. and the ACT, it seems the withdrawal information is even better filed than the other states! Please let me know their location if you find them (and good luck!). Though the Tasmanian situation is explained a little in what follows

One aspect of the Tasmanian site is factually incorrect (other states make similar comments, by the way, despite its obvious inaccuracy): it states that ‘All students [in yr 3, 5, 7 & 9] across Australia will be doing the same tests on the same days’… well, no… not quite: none of the withdrawn, exempted, nor absent students will be doing those tests, and some schools who have students participating may have applied for a variation of date. Having also recently contacted the Tas. Ed. body to aid my search, the reply in fact explained why I could not find information or form: it seems that only SCHOOLS can access this, as it is on their intranet, and for independent schools, it’s with the principals (I presume for schools that have no principal, check with the office)! Here is part of the reply that explains this:

The form is located on the Department of Education staff intranet for government schools, non-government school principals should have a copy of this form at their school. The process is to discuss the withdrawal with the child’s school principal, completed forms are then sent back to Educational Performance Services and the student is formally withdrawn from the testing. [my emphasis]

To their credit, the Dep. response was about the friendliest I have had, and they also (bless ‘em) sent me a copy of the form, downloadable from my site here. Given the nature of the form, I can well imagine how some parents may have pressure put on them to not withdraw their child – I would suggest to simply be firm about your intent and perhaps even inverse the question that is likely to be put to you: ‘why should my child participate, and can the principal assure that the data will NEVER be used at any time in the child’s life in any manner that may have negative consequences’

P.S.

As a small post-scriptum, I contacted the ‘Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs’ (MCEETYA) from the NAPLAN 2009 site (www.naplan.edu.au) as there is NO information to parents thereon that withdrawing their child is even an option. Their reply was that:

There are nationally agreed protocols around issues such as withdrawal of students. These are administered by the relevant Test Administration Authority

and directing me to the list of those ‘authorities’ for each State and Territory at www.naplan.edu.au/test_administration_authorities.html. As there are indeed nationally agreed protocols, ie, a parent or guardian may decide to simply withdraw their child(ren) from participating, it seems like purposeful manipulated dis-information that such is not on their website.

I would encourage any parent to request that such information is at least added to the FAQ page!

At one level, this can be seen on a common basis as one boards flights: the fear of some flight incident is driving society to measures reminiscent of fascism – and the [...]]]> Those words, penned in 1674 by Nicolas Boileau-Despréaux (Canto I, l.64) in his L’Art Poetique, has unfortunately so many resonances in today’s socio-political climate.

At one level, this can be seen on a common basis as one boards flights: the fear of some flight incident is driving society to measures reminiscent of fascism – and the stupidity of what is or is not permitted onboard getting increasingly prison-like. One needs only reflect on what is already available from a business or first-class seat to consider the stupidity of preventing, as one of hundreds of possible examples, nail-clippers as part of one’s cabin luggage!

If J. G. Bennnett could write in the first volume of his Dramatic Universe that ‘security can only be achieved at the cost of freedom’, he certainly omits to also clearly state that the kind of ‘security’ achieved cannot be secure.

‘Oft fear of an evil drives us to another worse’

Locally, this has been repeatedly implemented by our local State Government (currently a Labor regime of the worst type). The worst has been the legislation pertaining to the creation of the V.I.T. (the compulsory body that teachers teaching in schools have to register with and pay an annual fee to – that’s correct, in order to be allowed to work, one has to PAY an annual fee!). This body has basically been given a carte blanche as to what it may or may not do. And of course, whenever it desires to its power some additional area, it merely has to mention what it wants to its mates currently in government for the legislation to get incrementally altered its way, henceforth claiming that its own hands are bound by the legislation. A case in point is that as of last year, a person who has a teaching degree from a University and is even deemed to be qualified to teach by the VIT (as if the former is not all that should be required! What an insult!) may be deemed to suddenly no longer be qualified some five years later – even if that person has taught in a school for those five years in a highly effective and appropriate manner. Why? because of a new imposition that a teacher must now also subject him or herself to a minimum number of hours of ‘inservice’.

Frankly, I may want to focus on my teaching and my enjoyment of the same. Currently, due to both my temperament and perhaps also my age, I happen to enjoy attending various conferences (but these are my business alone, and I should not have to report to the VIT what I do!). Does attendance to those make me a better teacher!? Some perhaps assist, but most are an utter waste of time… In any case, a teacher does not suddenly become LESS qualified to teach over time! Nor, for that matter, should a willing teacher who has recently retired suddenly be unable to take on replacement teaching tasks a school asks of him or her simply because the VIT has decided that since the person has not paid his or her annual forced fees, it makes the person any the less a teacher.

Basically, the VIT is an insult to both the teaching profession and to education in general.

Similar examples can also be found in registrations for taxi drivers; in the manner in which roads have an increasing number of theft-cameras (a more appropriate name to what used to be called ‘speed-cameras’, recently inappropriately renamed ‘safety-cameras’: they have nothing to do with safety!); airports (already mentioned); and even the now relatively old ‘zero’ blood-alcohol reading for new drivers (which has altered our culture to one that encourages binge-drinking in the young).

‘Oft fear of an evil drives us to another worse’

Both the State of Victoria and the ACT have of more recent times legislated a Bill of Rights. And now there is talk of the still new Federal Government wanting to also introduce one. Frankly, not only is there no need for such, but these cannot be used to encourage Justice in unjust states (one need look no further than the former USSR or the USA to find many such examples, both of which still allow a sentencing to death).

Better for each law reform to be guided by reflections as to whether or not Justice is therein reflected, than to let down our guards and permit the introduction of laws to be deemed fine simply because of an over-arching principle of ‘Human Rights’. I for one see this trend as another example of the fear of unjust existing leading to wanting ‘rights’ bills… to what derision in judgement will this lead, and how will considerations of Justice as a Virtue be diminished?

‘Oft fear of an evil drives us to another worse’