We have been helping our grandson prepare for his Year 3 Naplan test.
Now, he is a bright kid (of course), near the top in the top stream of his school although he nearly a year younger than most of the class. And he is coping with the questions and just needed help with technique.

But I have been staggered by the complexity of the material thrown at these kids and, frankly, I can't see how the average 8-9 year old would cope. Unless of course they receive pre-knowledge of the questions and coaching on them.
The standard of language skills on average is just not there.
I can't help thinking that if the same kind of education "experts" who have devised this system are also at work in things like the curriculum and Gonski, then God help the poor little sods.

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 3:39pm:

We have been helping our grandson prepare for his Year 3 Naplan test. Now, he is a bright kid (of course), near the top in the top stream of his school although he nearly a year younger than most of the class. And he is coping with the questions and just needed help with technique. But I have been staggered by the complexity of the material thrown at these kids and, frankly, I can't see how the average 8-9 year old would cope. Unless of course they receive pre-knowledge of the questions and coaching on them. The standard of language skills on average is just not there. I can't help thinking that if the same kind of education "experts" who have devised this system are also at work in things like the curriculum and Gonski, then God help the poor little sods.

well done to you for venturing into anything to do with todays education system... for me it is a foreign language... no plus or minus anymore...

why I will never know doesnt matter what its called the outcome is the same....why not leave something that worked for years alone and spend the time on getting the  knowledge through to the kids... this is where they fall through the cracks. when you dont understand something you get bored and switch off...I am like yourself bogy have bright healthy grandkids...but lets not kid ourselves they too wont be left behind at some stage..

because some idiot thinks every child is the same.has the same comprehension skills...and every child yearns to learn...

they think putting a fancy name NAPLAN on will make all the bad stuff go away..trouble is a generation pays the price for all this nonsense.thats what makes me mad..



maybe they should put those down at treasury through the course... ;D ;D ;D ;D

People need to understand that the public education system isn't about education its about how much money can be rorted out of the budget to gift to union ensconced bludgers and layabouts so that they can flit effortlessly through life without barely lifting a finger.

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 3:39pm:

But I have been staggered by the complexity of the material thrown at these kids and, frankly, I can't see how the average 8-9 year old would cope.

You must be joking.

Sample tests here: http://www.nap.edu.au/naplan/the-tests/the-tests.html

Soren wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 5:23pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 3:39pm: But I have been staggered by the complexity of the material thrown at these kids and, frankly, I can't see how the average 8-9 year old would cope. You must be joking. Sample tests here: http://www.nap.edu.au/naplan/the-tests/the-tests.html

looked.  Far from easy or even likely most Years 3s would answer correctly.

It is composed entirely of the stuff they spend 6 hours a day, 5 days a week doing, so they'd bloody well better be able to cope.

... wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 7:18pm:

It is composed entirely of the stuff they spend 6 hours a day, 5 days a week doing, so they'd bloody well better be able to cope.

So, it is surgically curriculum driven, and specifically directed at what every Year 3 kid is taught 6 hours a day, five days a week?

They are all experts on koalas?

Aussie wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 7:30pm:

... wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 7:18pm: It is composed entirely of the stuff they spend 6 hours a day, 5 days a week doing, so they'd bloody well better be able to cope. So, it is surgically curriculum driven, and specifically directed at what every Year 3 kid is taught 6 hours a day, five days a week? They are all experts on koalas?

No, but surely they can read and follow instructions by now...


Quote:

Read Koalas on page 2 of the magazine and answer questions 1 to 6. 1.  Where do koalas spend a lot of time? in the trees in the water on the ground

Too hard?  C'mon...

They have got 45 minutes to read several 'books' and then answer questions on the content of each book?

Get out of here!

And check this out!

Are you telling me all of that is being taught to all Grade 3 kids for six hours for five days each week?

I'll bet it is not.

Aussie wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 7:38pm:

They have got 45 minutes to read several 'books' and then answer questions on the content of each book? Get out of here!

Get yer fvcken hand off it.  The magazine (singular) is 8 pages long.  FFS, you reckon you need to be an "expert on koalas" - theres only 7 buggeren sentences of information to absorb! 


http://www.nap.edu.au/verve/_resources/Example_Test_Reading_Magazine_Y3.pdf

Give them some credit - They're year 3 students, not SOB. 

Quote:

Give them some credit

So, you reckon it was easy peasy?  I don't.  I reckon it would have taken most Year 3 kids the allocated 45 minutes to read and digest the books.

It's not meant to be easy peasy. 

It's a test. 
For testing.


Quote:

test  /test/ Noun A procedure intended to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of something, esp. before it is taken into widespread use.

So you see, if every kid got 100% it would be worthless for it's purpose of establishing the quality, performance or reliability of schoolkids. 

... wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 8:05pm:

It's not meant to be easy peasy.  It's a test.  For testing. Quote: test  /test/ Noun A procedure intended to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of something, esp. before it is taken into widespread use. So you see, if every kid got 100% it would be worthless for it's purpose of establishing the quality, performance or reliability of schoolkids.

And at what strength do you rate the 'test?'

I reckon............too bloody hard, especially given that I disagree with you that Year 3 kids are taught that stuff for 6 hours for 5 days each week.

I reckon a good student will ace it in 15 minutes, whereas a very poor student will take the full 45 to fail it. 

It does precisely what a test should.  What's the problem? 

... wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 8:20pm:

I reckon a good student will ace it in 15 minutes, whereas a very poor student will take the full 45 to fail it.  It does precisely what a test should.  What's the problem?

The problem is have is that I reckon it is too tough for Joe Blow Year 3 kids.  It is probably fantastic to ID  'ace' students, and dumb f.ucks, but it is hardly a fair test for those in between.

I reckon.

The testing occurs in May if I've read things correctly.......so the kids are only into year 3 by a few months.

I've only looked at the Yr 3 Numeracy test at this stage......imo ...pretty tough practical applications of Math concepts for kids this young...

If the kid is interested in reading books, the test would not be so difficult IMO.

It's also up to the parents to encourage enjoyment from reading, however, I can empathise with how difficult that might be these days considering the available options for home entertainment.

Personally, I think I would have breezed the test at that age, for no other reason than Enid Blyton books being put in front of me.
The faraway tree series, The wishing chair, The famous five series, The secret seven...Enid Blyton was an absolute genius.
To be fair, I probably didn't get right into the more complex ones until aged 9 or 10.

Alinta wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 8:41pm:

I've only looked at the Yr 3 Numeracy test at this stage......imo ...pretty tough practical applications of Math concepts for kids this young...

And what of those who find it easy?  They'll be left to wither on the vine while the dopes drag them back down to mediocrity.  Why does everything have to revolve around catering to the braindead?

Aussie wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 8:28pm:

... wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 8:20pm: I reckon a good student will ace it in 15 minutes, whereas a very poor student will take the full 45 to fail it.  It does precisely what a test should.  What's the problem?  The problem is have is that I reckon it is too tough for Joe Blow Year 3 kids.  It is probably fantastic to ID  'ace' students, and dumb f.ucks, but it is hardly a fair test for those in between. I reckon.

if we put all these year 3 kids in a race would they all finish at the same time? I doubt it and we accept that......yet we put a book in front of them and expect them all to read it at the same rate...pathetic..

all kids have different levels of concentration....just the same as they all have different levels of comprehension..

thats what make education so tricky...

it isnt like a conveyor belt rolling off cars to be sprayed..each one the same as the last...


and remember this is all about the schools.. bugger the kids.

... wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 9:38pm:

Alinta wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 8:41pm: I've only looked at the Yr 3 Numeracy test at this stage......imo ...pretty tough practical applications of Math concepts for kids this young... And what of those who find it easy?  They'll be left to wither on the vine while the dopes drag them back down to mediocrity.  Why does everything have to revolve around catering to the braindead?

charming.....they are not braindead what an appalling thing to say... they just need more time.and perhaps some understanding I am very glad you are not a teacher.

cods wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 9:45pm:

... wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 9:38pm: Alinta wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 8:41pm: I've only looked at the Yr 3 Numeracy test at this stage......imo ...pretty tough practical applications of Math concepts for kids this young... And what of those who find it easy?  They'll be left to wither on the vine while the dopes drag them back down to mediocrity.  Why does everything have to revolve around catering to the braindead? charming.....they are not braindead what an appalling thing to say... they just need more time.and perhaps some understanding I am very glad you are not a teacher.

take a good look at me cods - This cynical, jaded attitude is the end result of an education spent with human boat anchors wasting my time.  For a long time, I thought it was great that I didn't need to put in any effort throughout my schooling.  All these people stressing about exams, assignments, homework - I never stressed because it was always easy.  Easy isn't even the word - It was often intuitive.  Good marks, zero effort - cool, right?  Wrong. The mind still needs to be exercised or it will decay.   
I wonder how many other young minds have been set on cruise-control by the education system.  I wonder whether ignorance, indiffernce and idiocy are really what we should be cultivating in our schools.  With HBO, MTV, twitter etc if there's one demographic that's amply catered for in our society, it's the braindead.  Can't we let education be for the intelligent?

If you don't want more people turning out like me, perhaps it would pay to stimulate young minds, instead of turning them all into a bland, homogeneous mush.

... wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 9:38pm:

Alinta wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 8:41pm: I've only looked at the Yr 3 Numeracy test at this stage......imo ...pretty tough practical applications of Math concepts for kids this young... And what of those who find it easy?  They'll be left to wither on the vine while the dopes drag them back down to mediocrity.  Why does everything have to revolve around catering to the braindead?

I expect teaching methodology has changed greatly since I was a teacher in the 90's Robert. Much of what I read in this Naplan Yr 3 numeracy exam is the type of extension activity provided to the bright kids who wanted/needed challenge...had a flow on effect for their classmates who started to think the practical tasks were "kind of fun"....."a math game"...

That said, I think this Numeracy test is a tough one to use as a standardising measure, particularly in the early stages of Year 3.

I see there is a 2012 National Report available .....looks something of a weighty read, but I'll give it a go.

Yes, they are given their results and their place within the school and among all the kids in the country who sat the test.
You can also see the Naplan results for almost every school in the country at the Myschool website.

... wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 9:38pm:

Alinta wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 8:41pm: I've only looked at the Yr 3 Numeracy test at this stage......imo ...pretty tough practical applications of Math concepts for kids this young... And what of those who find it easy?  They'll be left to wither on the vine while the dopes drag them back down to mediocrity.  Why does everything have to revolve around catering to the braindead?

Well, it's one of the roles of the schools to teach reading and comprehension skills, but I can appreciate how tough that task may be these days.

Certainly, I remember trying out other writers such as "The brothers Grimm" which didn't fire my interest to any great extent. If not for Enid Blyton, I might now say that I would've struggled with that test.
..and if X-boxes were around in those days...forget about it! Screw the test.

My point is that a lack of interest doesn't mean being brain-dead by any stretch of the imagination.
To the contrary, thoughtless drone compliance may be more of a sign.

Amadd wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 10:30pm:

My point is that a lack of interest doesn't mean being brain-dead by any stretch of the imagination. To the contrary, unthinking drone compliance may be more of a sign.

That's what I'm saying.  But people lose interest for different reasons.  Some because it's too hard, some because it's too easy, some for other reasons entirely.  But they are all crammed in together, taught uniformly and expected to all reach their potential? 

... wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 10:37pm:

Amadd wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 10:30pm: My point is that a lack of interest doesn't mean being brain-dead by any stretch of the imagination. To the contrary, unthinking drone compliance may be more of a sign. That's what I'm saying.  But people lose interest for different reasons.  Some because it's too hard, some because it's too easy, some for other reasons entirely.  But they are all crammed in together, taught uniformly and expected to all reach their potential?

So you think the test isn't worth the paper it's written on?

Amadd wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 10:40pm:

... wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 10:37pm: Amadd wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 10:30pm: My point is that a lack of interest doesn't mean being brain-dead by any stretch of the imagination. To the contrary, unthinking drone compliance may be more of a sign. That's what I'm saying.  But people lose interest for different reasons.  Some because it's too hard, some because it's too easy, some for other reasons entirely.  But they are all crammed in together, taught uniformly and expected to all reach their potential?  So you think the test isn't worth the paper it's written on?

I'd go further - I'd say the education system isn't worth the paper it's written on.  The test in itself I'm indifferent to. It's just a measure to tell us what we already know - some people are smart, some people aren't.

It is in the best interests of the school to make the students look like dummies as this attracts extra funding, dumb arse schools get more than smart schools and with that extra funding principals can employ more staff to do their job for them so that they basically get a hundred thou a year for doing nothing.
A better system would be to make the principal turn out genius's or be sacked, then you would get real results. 

I believe in the three R's as a necessary base. Beyond that, I think that personal interest is more equipped to extract the best out of a person.

No I don't think it's right to have a kid labelled as a dummy because of various reasons.

Innocent bystander wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 5:02pm:

People need to understand that the public education system isn't about education its about how much money can be rorted out of the budget to gift to union ensconced bludgers and layabouts so that they can flit effortlessly through life without barely lifting a finger.

Do you actually believe that or are you just trolling?

SOB

... wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 7:47pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 7:38pm: They have got 45 minutes to read several 'books' and then answer questions on the content of each book? Get out of here! Get yer fvcken hand off it.  The magazine (singular) is 8 pages long.  FFS, you reckon you need to be an "expert on koalas" - theres only 7 buggeren sentences of information to absorb!  http://www.nap.edu.au/verve/_resources/Example_Test_Reading_Magazine_Y3.pdf Give them some credit - They're year 3 students, not SOB.

You are such a troll . . . .

SOB

Amadd wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 9:04pm:

If the kid is interested in reading books, the test would not be so difficult IMO. It's also up to the parents to encourage enjoyment from reading, however, I can empathise with how difficult that might be these days considering the available options for home entertainment. Personally, I think I would have breezed the test at that age, for no other reason than Enid Blyton books being put in front of me. The faraway tree series, The wishing chair, The famous five series, The secret seven...Enid Blyton was an absolute genius. To be fair, I probably didn't get right into the more complex ones until aged 9 or 10.

Different strokes for different folks. Not all kids are interested in reading. It has no bearing on thier intelligence. Some ppl in high educated positions dont read much (because they dont like it) and some cleaners in universities read all the time. It means nothing.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30^th, 2013 at 6:15am:

Amadd wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 9:04pm: If the kid is interested in reading books, the test would not be so difficult IMO. It's also up to the parents to encourage enjoyment from reading, however, I can empathise with how difficult that might be these days considering the available options for home entertainment. Personally, I think I would have breezed the test at that age, for no other reason than Enid Blyton books being put in front of me. The faraway tree series, The wishing chair, The famous five series, The secret seven...Enid Blyton was an absolute genius. To be fair, I probably didn't get right into the more complex ones until aged 9 or 10. Different strokes for different folks. Not all kids are interested in reading. It has no bearing on thier intelligence. Some ppl in high educated positions dont read much (because they dont like it) and some cleaners in universities read all the time. It means nothing. SOB

Miss Borg, you don't get to be "in high educated positions" if you don't read.


Like most here I do question your intelligence.

KJT1981 wrote on Apr 30^th, 2013 at 7:09am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 6:15am: Amadd wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 9:04pm: If the kid is interested in reading books, the test would not be so difficult IMO. It's also up to the parents to encourage enjoyment from reading, however, I can empathise with how difficult that might be these days considering the available options for home entertainment. Personally, I think I would have breezed the test at that age, for no other reason than Enid Blyton books being put in front of me. The faraway tree series, The wishing chair, The famous five series, The secret seven...Enid Blyton was an absolute genius. To be fair, I probably didn't get right into the more complex ones until aged 9 or 10. Different strokes for different folks. Not all kids are interested in reading. It has no bearing on thier intelligence. Some ppl in high educated positions dont read much (because they dont like it) and some cleaners in universities read all the time. It means nothing. SOB Miss Borg, you don't get to be "in high educated positions" if you don't read. Like most here I do question your intelligence.

Reading and comprehension isnt your strong suit is it troll. You dont have to "enjoy reading". you can just read what you have to to get by. I know lawyers and psychologists with no bookcases in their homes. They just dont read if they dont have to.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30^th, 2013 at 7:15am:

KJT1981 wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 7:09am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 6:15am: Amadd wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 9:04pm: If the kid is interested in reading books, the test would not be so difficult IMO. It's also up to the parents to encourage enjoyment from reading, however, I can empathise with how difficult that might be these days considering the available options for home entertainment. Personally, I think I would have breezed the test at that age, for no other reason than Enid Blyton books being put in front of me. The faraway tree series, The wishing chair, The famous five series, The secret seven...Enid Blyton was an absolute genius. To be fair, I probably didn't get right into the more complex ones until aged 9 or 10. Different strokes for different folks. Not all kids are interested in reading. It has no bearing on thier intelligence. Some ppl in high educated positions dont read much (because they dont like it) and some cleaners in universities read all the time. It means nothing. SOB Miss Borg, you don't get to be "in high educated positions" if you don't read. Like most here I do question your intelligence. Reading and comprehension isnt your strong suit is it troll. You dont have to "enjoy reading". you can just read what you have to to get by. I know lawyers and psychologists with no bookcases in their homes. They just dont read if they dont have to. SOB

As if you would EVER be invited into the home of a lawyer or a psychologist.  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Never had a book case in any home in which I lived.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30^th, 2013 at 6:02am:

Innocent bystander wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 5:02pm: People need to understand that the public education system isn't about education its about how much money can be rorted out of the budget to gift to union ensconced bludgers and layabouts so that they can flit effortlessly through life without barely lifting a finger. Do you actually believe that?

Yes but only because its true.

KJT1981 wrote on Apr 30^th, 2013 at 7:37am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 7:15am: KJT1981 wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 7:09am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 6:15am: Amadd wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 9:04pm: If the kid is interested in reading books, the test would not be so difficult IMO. It's also up to the parents to encourage enjoyment from reading, however, I can empathise with how difficult that might be these days considering the available options for home entertainment. Personally, I think I would have breezed the test at that age, for no other reason than Enid Blyton books being put in front of me. The faraway tree series, The wishing chair, The famous five series, The secret seven...Enid Blyton was an absolute genius. To be fair, I probably didn't get right into the more complex ones until aged 9 or 10. Different strokes for different folks. Not all kids are interested in reading. It has no bearing on thier intelligence. Some ppl in high educated positions dont read much (because they dont like it) and some cleaners in universities read all the time. It means nothing. SOB Miss Borg, you don't get to be "in high educated positions" if you don't read. Like most here I do question your intelligence. Reading and comprehension isnt your strong suit is it troll. You dont have to "enjoy reading". you can just read what you have to to get by. I know lawyers and psychologists with no bookcases in their homes. They just dont read if they dont have to. SOB As if you would EVER be invited into the home of a lawyer or a psychologist.  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Go away troll

SOB

Innocent bystander wrote on Apr 30^th, 2013 at 8:11am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 6:02am: Innocent bystander wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 5:02pm: People need to understand that the public education system isn't about education its about how much money can be rorted out of the budget to gift to union ensconced bludgers and layabouts so that they can flit effortlessly through life without barely lifting a finger. Do you actually believe that? Yes but only because its true.

So you think anyone that goes to a public school is a bludger and layabout?

Im calling poe. Nobody is that stupid.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30^th, 2013 at 8:19am:

Innocent bystander wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 8:11am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 6:02am: Innocent bystander wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 5:02pm: People need to understand that the public education system isn't about education its about how much money can be rorted out of the budget to gift to union ensconced bludgers and layabouts so that they can flit effortlessly through life without barely lifting a finger. Do you actually believe that? Yes but only because its true. So you think anyone that goes to a public school is a bludger and layabout? Im calling poe. Nobody is that stupid. SOB

Don't sell yourself short.

If the kid is interested in reading books, the test would not be so difficult IMO.

This is a very good comment, can't recall who made it.
But the fact is very few kids these days are encouraged to read outside school. Teachers will tell you they know that a lot of homes don't have one book in them.

Robert, you are too hard on the kids from my point of view. It's all very well to say the test does what it's supposed to do, weed the good students out from the bad. But what does it say about our society that you are setting 8-9 year-olds up to fail . . .and that's what it looks like to me. The vast majority, unless there is cheating, will score badly and that is not the way to promote an enjoyment of education, which is what we need to have.

... wrote on Apr 30^th, 2013 at 8:30am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 8:19am: Innocent bystander wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 8:11am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 6:02am: Innocent bystander wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 5:02pm: People need to understand that the public education system isn't about education its about how much money can be rorted out of the budget to gift to union ensconced bludgers and layabouts so that they can flit effortlessly through life without barely lifting a finger. Do you actually believe that? Yes but only because its true. So you think anyone that goes to a public school is a bludger and layabout? Im calling poe. Nobody is that stupid. SOB Don't sell yourself short.

Go away troll

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30^th, 2013 at 8:19am:

Innocent bystander wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 8:11am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 6:02am: Innocent bystander wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 5:02pm: People need to understand that the public education system isn't about education its about how much money can be rorted out of the budget to gift to union ensconced bludgers and layabouts so that they can flit effortlessly through life without barely lifting a finger. Do you actually believe that? Yes but only because its true. So you think anyone that goes to a public school is a bludger and layabout? Im calling poe. Nobody is that stupid. SOB

Oh yes, you are that stupid..... ::)

FriYAY wrote on Apr 30^th, 2013 at 12:19pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 8:19am: Innocent bystander wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 8:11am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 6:02am: Innocent bystander wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 5:02pm: People need to understand that the public education system isn't about education its about how much money can be rorted out of the budget to gift to union ensconced bludgers and layabouts so that they can flit effortlessly through life without barely lifting a finger. Do you actually believe that? Yes but only because its true. So you think anyone that goes to a public school is a bludger and layabout? Im calling poe. Nobody is that stupid. SOB Oh yes, you are that stupid..... ::)

You see? you do this then complain the thread is "about me". Troll.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30^th, 2013 at 12:39pm:

FriYAY wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 12:19pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 8:19am: Innocent bystander wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 8:11am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 6:02am: Innocent bystander wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 5:02pm: People need to understand that the public education system isn't about education its about how much money can be rorted out of the budget to gift to union ensconced bludgers and layabouts so that they can flit effortlessly through life without barely lifting a finger. Do you actually believe that? Yes but only because its true. So you think anyone that goes to a public school is a bludger and layabout? Im calling poe. Nobody is that stupid. SOB Oh yes, you are that stupid..... ::) You see? you do this then complain the thread is "about me". Troll. SOB

Just trying to show you, that yet again, you got it wrong.

I don't expect you too understand.

Dumb troll is dumb troll, get it?

Of course you don't.

;D ;D

FriYAY wrote on Apr 30^th, 2013 at 1:24pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 12:39pm: FriYAY wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 12:19pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 8:19am: Innocent bystander wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 8:11am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 6:02am: Innocent bystander wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 5:02pm: People need to understand that the public education system isn't about education its about how much money can be rorted out of the budget to gift to union ensconced bludgers and layabouts so that they can flit effortlessly through life without barely lifting a finger. Do you actually believe that? Yes but only because its true. So you think anyone that goes to a public school is a bludger and layabout? Im calling poe. Nobody is that stupid. SOB Oh yes, you are that stupid..... ::) You see? you do this then complain the thread is "about me". Troll. SOB Just trying to show you, that yet again, you got it wrong. I don't expect you too understand. Dumb troll is dumb troll, get it? Of course you don't. ;D ;D

Go away troll.

Now what were you distracting from? What didnt you want to discuss? Hmmmmm . . . .

Ahhh the myth that all unemployed are layabout bludgers.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30^th, 2013 at 1:28pm:

FriYAY wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 1:24pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 12:39pm: FriYAY wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 12:19pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 8:19am: Innocent bystander wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 8:11am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 6:02am: Innocent bystander wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 5:02pm: People need to understand that the public education system isn't about education its about how much money can be rorted out of the budget to gift to union ensconced bludgers and layabouts so that they can flit effortlessly through life without barely lifting a finger. Do you actually believe that? Yes but only because its true. So you think anyone that goes to a public school is a bludger and layabout? Im calling poe. Nobody is that stupid. SOB Oh yes, you are that stupid..... ::) You see? you do this then complain the thread is "about me". Troll. SOB Just trying to show you, that yet again, you got it wrong. I don't expect you too understand. Dumb troll is dumb troll, get it? Of course you don't. ;D ;D Go away troll. Now what were you distracting from? What didnt you want to discuss? Hmmmmm . . . . Ahhh the myth that all unemployed are layabout bludgers. SOB

Wrong thread you dam moron....

And who TF said the highlighted bit?

Dumb troll.

I'll tell you in a couple of years how little goes. Already we have found areas where her teacher thinks she needs to work harder on, but have found it is more about her confidence, as she was doing stuff at home but a bit shy at school.

Doesn't look too hard....but not everyone performs well in the test/exam situation.

Ah, you gotta love pharmaceutical companies:

http://www.watoday.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/adverts-pulled-from-tv-after-public-backlash-20130430-2iqa1.html

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 30^th, 2013 at 10:54am:

[highlight] Robert, you are too hard on the kids from my point of view. It's all very well to say the test does what it's supposed to do, weed the good students out from the bad. But what does it say about our society that you are setting 8-9 year-olds up to fail . . .and that's what it looks like to me. The vast majority, unless there is cheating, will score badly and that is not the way to promote an enjoyment of education, which is what we need to have.

It is not society that sets them up to fail but their own families. What is schooling about in a literate society if not mastering reading and writing (of letters and numbers)?
It's not about watching tele or playing computer games. If the family doesn't apply the necessary discipline to make sure that a kid learns to read and write properly then the school alone - or especially despite the family - cannot do it.

This is where all the Gonski nonsense is revealed - education is not like medicine, where new and expensive and ever more sophisticated equipment is always coming into use and needs massive funding.

Reading, writing, maths, debating, critical thinking, the ability to focus doesn't require more and more equipment. If anything, all the electronic 'equipment' is there to distract and stupefy. If you look back over the last few decades, education standards have been going down commensurately with the amount of electronic gadgetry introduced into education.

FriYAY wrote on Apr 30^th, 2013 at 1:48pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 1:28pm: FriYAY wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 1:24pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 12:39pm: FriYAY wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 12:19pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 8:19am: Innocent bystander wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 8:11am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 6:02am: Innocent bystander wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 5:02pm: People need to understand that the public education system isn't about education its about how much money can be rorted out of the budget to gift to union ensconced bludgers and layabouts so that they can flit effortlessly through life without barely lifting a finger. Do you actually believe that? Yes but only because its true. So you think anyone that goes to a public school is a bludger and layabout? Im calling poe. Nobody is that stupid. SOB Oh yes, you are that stupid..... ::) You see? you do this then complain the thread is "about me". Troll. SOB Just trying to show you, that yet again, you got it wrong. I don't expect you too understand. Dumb troll is dumb troll, get it? Of course you don't. ;D ;D Go away troll. Now what were you distracting from? What didnt you want to discuss? Hmmmmm . . . . Ahhh the myth that all unemployed are layabout bludgers. SOB Wrong thread you dam moron.... And who TF said the highlighted bit? Dumb troll.

I did why? Just condensed it all into a sentence.

Also I meant publicly schooled ppl not unemployed. Those topics all get mixed up because you ppl seem to think the same on them all. Publicly educated, refugees, unemployed . . . . .

SOB

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 30^th, 2013 at 10:54am:

If the kid is interested in reading books, the test would not be so difficult IMO. This is a very good comment, can't recall who made it. But the fact is very few kids these days are encouraged to read outside school. Teachers will tell you they know that a lot of homes don't have one book in them. Robert, you are too hard on the kids from my point of view. It's all very well to say the test does what it's supposed to do, weed the good students out from the bad. But what does it say about our society that you are setting 8-9 year-olds up to fail . . .and that's what it looks like to me. The vast majority, unless there is cheating, will score badly and that is not the way to promote an enjoyment of education, which is what we need to have.

Actually, well over 90% scored "at or above national minimum standard" in every state except NT. 

http://www.nap.edu.au/verve/_resources/NAPLAN_2012_National_Report.pdf

Funny - the oldheads are the first to complain about kids these days not being able to do the basics - yet complain that piss-easy tests are "too hard". 

90% across Australia, above the National average.
That means if there are some students out there that are below that average , Its not the students fault its the fault of the Teachers not doing their JOB. Teach

... wrote on May 1^st, 2013 at 8:36am:

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 10:54am: If the kid is interested in reading books, the test would not be so difficult IMO. This is a very good comment, can't recall who made it. But the fact is very few kids these days are encouraged to read outside school. Teachers will tell you they know that a lot of homes don't have one book in them. Robert, you are too hard on the kids from my point of view. It's all very well to say the test does what it's supposed to do, weed the good students out from the bad. But what does it say about our society that you are setting 8-9 year-olds up to fail . . .and that's what it looks like to me. The vast majority, unless there is cheating, will score badly and that is not the way to promote an enjoyment of education, which is what we need to have. Actually, well over 90% scored "at or above national minimum standard" in every state except NT.  http://www.nap.edu.au/verve/_resources/NAPLAN_2012_National_Report.pdf Funny - the oldheads are the first to complain about kids these days not being able to do the basics - yet complain that piss-easy tests are "too hard".

if 90% did really well why the need for the GONSKI report???surely we are doing really well.. :-[ :-[