Do Political Statements Have a Place in the Classroom?

[icyfroth]

THOUSANDS of Australians have been wearing “Close the Camps” T-shirts in a show of support and solidarity with asylum seekers. In the coming weeks, they’ll be joined by up to 500 members of “Teachers for Refugees”, who want to see offshore detention facilities closed.

For those whose office is the classroom this simple act of protest becomes all the more meaningful … and all the more controversial.

There are reports that in addition to wearing these T-shirts in the classroom, Victorian teachers intend to hold “informal discussions” with students about Australia’s treatment of refugees.

The Victorian Opposition says it’s “political indoctrination” for teachers to openly declare and promote their personal stance on a highly politicised. The Education Union is backing its members’ campaign against the alleged human rights abuses being perpetrated in Australia’s name.

It’s an issue where there are almost too many “other hands” to count.

Should teachers be expected to keep their personal political views private? Where is the line between teaching students how to think critically about issues and teaching them what to think? How should teachers be expected to handle an increasingly polarised political climate? Is there a point when an issue become too political to be taught in schools and, if so, where is that point?

I’m personally sympathetic to the political views of these education activists. Reports about the conditions on Nauru and Manus Island and the harms being perpetrated in Australia’s name are deeply distressing.

Like so many Australians, I find myself most affected by stories about children who are growing up in these detention facilities. I can only imagine that teachers — who spend their days working with children of the same age — feel and understand the ramifications of this issue even more acutely.

And yet, I know I’d be alarmed if the issues teachers were campaigning on weren’t aligned with my own political views.

Entire Article Here

Tricky Question isn't it?

I'd like to think that Teachers in Australian schools are focussed on teaching primary school children the basics of Reading Writing and Arithmetic, at least, instead of their personal politics.

Australian children seem so be slipping down in global educational levels.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-30/australia-declines-in-global-education-report/8077474

Australia is losing to Kazakhstan in the latest global education report card.

Key points:

• Australia plunging down the international leaderboard for Year 4 and Year 8 results
• Simon Birmingham says pumping more money into schools is not the answer
• Labor's education spokeswoman Tanya Plibersek agrees results are troubling

The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) is conducted every four years and shows local students crashing further down the international leaderboard.

How embarrassing!

And alarming!

[springyzone]

I'm retired now but taught in primary schools most of my adult life.

As far as I am concerned, it is totally inappropriate for teachers to be pushing any particular barrow while in the classroom.

Political protests are for private time.

Having said that, I think a lot of teacher bashing goes on. I worked in the public sector and know just how dedicated and competent most of the teachers were. I know that a lot of them put in very long hours. I know that the prin's main focus at all times was on what was good for the students.

There is a lot of talk about falling standards or about 'better' teacher training or better discipline but there is an elephant in this room & the elephant is the students.

Public schools are having to cope with huge numbers of students who

-are refugees or from migrant backgrounds & have minimal English. They may have been born in Australia but that doesn't mean English is spoken in their homes.

-have significant psychological problems, leading to violent or disruptive behaviour.

The plain fact of the matter is about 90% of discipline time is spent on about 5% of kids and some of those kids need to be removed from the classroom, for the sake of the other students. But that usually can't happen, it won't happen & the teacher will be blamed.

There are some feral kids out there & it is about time there were some consequences for them. At the moment there aren't many a school can impose without bringing trouble down on itself.

[chameleon54]

---

@springyzone wrote:

I'm retired now but taught in primary schools most of my adult life.

As far as I am concerned, it is totally inappropriate for teachers to be pushing any particular barrow while in the classroom.

Political protests are for private time.

Having said that, I think a lot of teacher bashing goes on. I worked in the public sector and know just how dedicated and competent most of the teachers were. I know that a lot of them put in very long hours. I know that the prin's main focus at all times was on what was good for the students.

There is a lot of talk about falling standards or about 'better' teacher training or better discipline but there is an elephant in this room & the elephant is the students.

Public schools are having to cope with huge numbers of students who

-are refugees or from migrant backgrounds & have minimal English. They may have been born in Australia but that doesn't mean english is spoken in their homes.

-have significant psychological problems, leading to violent or disruptive behaviour.

The plain fact of the matter is about 90% of discipline time is spent on about 5% of kids and some of those kids need to be removed from the classroom, for the sake of the other students. But that usually can't happen, it won't happen & the teacher will be blamed.

There are some feral kids out there & it is about time there were some consequences for them. At the moment there aren't many a school can impose without bringing trouble down on itself.

---

I suspect that is the purpose of the FLO ( flexible learning options ) scheme that operates in the school our son attended.

The kids are moved to a separate campus a few hundred metres from the main school. Students in the programme come to an "agreement" with staff on when and how many days a week they will attend school. This usually works out to be TWO DAYS A WEEK. The rest of the time most sleep until midday, hang out around the shops, sometimes shoplifting, attend several parties a week including on weeknights where they sit around occasionally drinking alcohol, but usually smoking dope.

The FLO programme is light on numeracy and literacy and weighted towards cooking and craft type activities as this is all the kids will engage in. In fairness, there is also an emphasis on finding traineeships and job opportunities for the kids with some limited success.

Vulnerable students who are still coping with regular school try to get into the FLO programme as it is seen as a big bludge and a way of dropping out. The result is that one in seven kids from the school are thrown onto this educational scrap pile, not receiving an education or gaining work skills. Plenty of these kids are bright, energetic kids who could go onto good things if given some structure and guidance.

Heck, one of them was running one of the largest and most successful drug selling businesses in town by age 15. This was in competition to more hardened and experienced adult drug dealers. I have to admit, I admired his business acumen. He really was quite the entrepreneur.   

The system is broken when these kids are deserted by the state which requires them to stay at school until the end of year twelve. Many are simply not cut out for the cooky cutter education system and forcing them to stay at school to meet some " education nation" ideological doctrine is a complete waste of everyones time and not doing anyone any good.

Education has a vital role to play in keeping Australia competative in an increasingly complex global world, but the emphasis needs to return to encouraging apprenticeships and traineeships for kids who are not suited to advanced schooling.

[springyzone]

I completely agree with you, chameleon.

I taught in a primary school but all the same, we did witness some students with extreme behaviour and there were times they attended a different schooling format, but the problem with it was the parent had to agree to it & many wouldn't.

We could not even get many of the refugee families to take up the offer of 6 months of dedicated English lessons before they came to the primary school.

When it comes to secondary school aged children, I think we need to offer more alternatives. Back in my day (admittedly a long time ago) young people could leave school earlier and take up a trade or an office job.

I think there is a real need for more vocational type training to be available today, too.

Academic subjects aren't for everyone and there is nothing wrong with that.

I have a friend who teaches hair dressing. She was saying though that there are several of her students who just don't turn up. One girl attended only one lesson this year. We're talking about year 10 level. The parents were notified early on but their response is why is their daughter not being given a pass as it is the teacher's fault their daughter wasn't made to go.

It's a shame as this sort of vocational training would be perfect for some students, but a teacher can only go so far. Even parents can only go so far. You can only lead the horses to water, you can't make them drink, so to speak.

That's why I say the students are the elephants in the room. So much talk of funding, better teachers, teacher training etc will only go so far. Somewhere along the way, someone needs to ask-Which students are causing the trouble or the poor results and is there an alternative for some of them as in a covventional classroom, they don't settle down to learn and they disrupt everyone else's learning.