Unfairness in the schooling system

As I have indicated, my primary source of income is tutoring, mostly English. I have previously talked about how I am inevitably shocked by the tenuous grasp of the English language that many of my students have. But what I am often even more concerned by is the fact that the system is patently unfair for those who are shall we say, less academically capable than others.

I was reminded of this yesterday when I had a session with one of my loveliest students. This individual is a hardworking student, but one whose calling in life is not an academic one.

This student’s class is currently reading Dickens. Charles Dickens is a wonderful author. But to put it on a syllabus which is meant to be manageable for students such as mine who struggle academically, is in my opinion, patently unfair. The comment made to me was “I don’t understand what’s going on in this book”, because Dickens phrases his sentences and paragraphs so ornately. No slight against Dickens, but his work can require a few re-reads, it’s not a read for the faint hearted. 

The man himself

It is deeply concerning that for students who struggle, no commonly offered easier alternative exists.  We all too often shrink from admitting that some students are more capable than others due to our tall poppy syndrome, but I honestly believe that streaming students based on their ability into different VCE English classes is the right thing to do by both those that excel and those that struggle. It isn’t fair that students such as mine are marked by the same criteria as those high achievers, because for them, an academic achievement is understanding the plot of a Shakespearian play, let alone being able to understand the symbolism and subplots which run throughout it.  How can these students be expected to achieve a decent result which makes them feel good about themselves when they are pitted against students who are obviously in a different league to them? The answer is that they can’t. The closure some thirty years ago of the tech schools in an attempt to equalise the education system has meant that the lives of those students which are not destined to go to university and ponce around in a liberal arts degree like me are made harder. That is the sad truth. Those who are academically capable will always do well, even those who work hard to achieve decent results be alright. But those students who clearly do not belong in an environment which requires them to read Dickens in order to pass year 12 are the ones who are left behind by the current system.

 I was talking the other day with a former teacher of mine, and we both agreed that the biggest rush that you get as a teacher is in the successes of those students who aren’t academic stars. Those that are intelligent will excel regardless of their teacher but what makes you feel as though you are making a difference we concluded, is when those students who really struggle do well. I just wish the system didn’t put them in a situation beyond their capabilities in an environment where passing is an achievement.

Mud Slinging in Question Time - It's not ok

I switched on Question Time today. Whenever I do this, I am inevitably disgusted by the behaviour of all members of parliament. These are the individuals who represent us, the people, and they behave no better than common school children.

I understand that the system is inherently adversarial due to the ideological opposition of the two primary parties however, I do not believe that this requires the litany of name-calling (see Treasurer Swan’s masterpiece of “knuckleheads”) or jabs (see Prime Minister Gillard’s comments about “pawing at the bottom of the barrel”). This conduct occurs on both sides. The problem for me is that this atmosphere is unproductive and ultimately irrelevant to the role of a politician, and indeed the democratic process.

Our politicians are our leaders. They represent us, and we as a nation take our cues from them, regardless of what anybody says. When we see these leaders making catty comments at each other, how is this teaching school age children to be kinder and nicer to each other? It isn’t. 

Parliament is a space for legislating, for ensuring that all members are doing the best they can by their country and their electorate. When the Prime Minister uses the space to air a personal beef with the Leader of the Opposition – for fifteen minutes no less, this is not constructive. The famous misogyny speech of a few weeks back was not something to be lauded, as the Prime Minister was not standing up for the women of Australia – she barely mentioned all Australian women. She made repeated reference only to how she was “personally offended”. She did nothing to answer the question actually put to her (which was an entirely reasonable question), but instead decided to character assassinate Mr Abbott, citing her moral superiority as a reason to avoid actually answering his question. 

That being said, I am wearying of the microscrutiny placed on Ms Gillard. Questions about her involvement slush funds when she was still a practicing lawyer, or whether or not she received favours from other firms or groups are tiresome and do not relate to any policy or politics. So what if Prime Minister Gillard did receive shady benefits? Does that impact her policy making now in the form of favouritism to those special groups (unlikely given the overwhelming presence of specific power brokers and interest groups in Labor), and do such favours continue today? Those are the questions I would love to be asked during Question Time, in a calm and reasonable manner. Without name calling, or snarky responses and remarks. Just a group of (hopefully) intelligent, reasonable adults discussing the impacts of their policies, and responding to questions which should hopefully clarify elements of those policies previously unclear. 

Question time is great, because it can enable a transparency in the democratic process, but I think it is simply a pitch for a slinging match. Someone said to me the worst thing for Australian politics was televising Question Time, because it showed Australians what politicians actually did in Parliament, leading to the disillusionment we see now. That’s a shame, because it could be so much more.

Why mandatory voting is really important

As always, the US election brings with it debate over democratic participation and different democratic systems. The US system is one based on non compulsory voting. In my opinion, it has several flaws. So I would like to examine why I believe that mandatory voting, which we have in Australia, is a really valuable part of our democratic system and in turn, why it is a shame that it is not more common throughout democracies in the world. 

First, let’s examine the harms which non compulsory voting can usher in.

In America, because not everybody votes, there is no clear pressure on the government to ensure that everybody can easily access voting stations, or even register to vote. In some states, registering to vote is incredibly difficult, and efforts to create mass registration on the part of the Democrats were met with attempts on the part of governing Republicans to outlaw such actions. In what sort of country is registering people to the electoral roll something that could ever be outlawed? In Australia, we are simply mailed registration forms on our seventeenth birthday.

This is before we even get to election day. America’s constitution requires the election to be held on the first Tuesday after the second Monday in November. That’s fine, except for the fact that Tuesday is a work day, which means often that people need to take time off work to vote and find a polling station. This creates a natural disincentive for people to actually get themselves to a polling station.

Furthermore, because there is an uncertainty about how many people will actually turn up, it leads to scenarios such as was seen in the US election this year where people often had to wait in line for hours. If there is no tangible benefit to the individual, why would they remain in a line for hours on end, given that the statistics say that their vote doesn’t actually count that much?

People need to be given a better system that doesn’t make it difficult for them to vote. 

So what about the benefits of mandatory voting?

There are two classic arguments against compulsory voting. The first is that people shouldn’t be forced to do something against their will. I completely agree, except as members of a society, we do things we’d rather not do all the time. We pay tax, we drive at (or close to) the speed limit, we go to work. Voting is as necessary for the continuation of a democracy as paying taxes. If that argument were to truly stand, then perhaps we should make taxes optional as well.

The second argument against is that “it gives stupid people a voice”. I overheard someone saying this a few months ago. The arrogance and stupidity of that comment blew me away. There a few flaws with that eloquently made contention:

1) ‘Stupid’ people still have the option of voting in America, and one can assume that at least some of them opt to exercise that choice.

2) Who exactly are ‘stupid’ people? Judging by that comment, I would argue that the person responsible for uttering those words is probably a few IQ points short of genius themselves – should we exclude her from voting because she’s an elitist moron? (Perhaps)

3) By that sort of meritocratic allocation of votes, perhaps people who may a large amount of taxes should be given more votes like in England back in the 18^th century. Except that sort of allocation meant that people who came from the working or even middle class had less power to elect people who would actually stand up for their rights.

Mandatory voting means that people are a part of the system – there is a smaller chance that people will feel alienated from politics because there is no doubt that they will have the option to vote. If you are an Australian citizen, you must vote. There is no way that the government can attempt to dissuade you from voting. There is no way that you cannot be excluded from registering because you don’t have the ‘correct identification’ – as regulated by a party that feels that people who may have trouble procuring such documents may be a part of a voting bloc that will not vote for that party.

Finally, voting is not only a right, but an obligation. If you want to be a part of a society, you have to contribute to the discourse, and the most important discourse is voting. There should be no excuse for an individual to not participate, even if that participation takes the form of an informal vote.

Teaching English

As I indicated in my previous post, as an English tutor, I see students who have a grasp of English that is less than stellar. Often it is only a part of a greater problem, so it is frequently left by the wayside in favour of exploring themes of the set text. Obviously I fix as much as possible, particularly my pet peeves (such as its/it’s, there/their/they’re etc), but it doesn’t ensure a result of fluent English. As such, this post is dedicated to exploring  how on earth I can get my students to make verbs and subjects agree, or use correct prepositions.

An example of the type of writing I’m talking about would have a sentence that includes the phrase “impart to the reader”, has no apparent end or comma use, or has no agreement between verb and subject such as “the group are very lonely”.

There are two techniques that I often use:

1. Essays. Arguably, going through  and correcting an essay that the student has written is the best way to show students where they’re going wrong with their writing. This is quite useful for students who are in year 12, or approaching exams. The problem however, is that those students are inevitably around the year 11/12 mark, and by then, writing habits are ingrained. Asking a student between years 7 and 9 to write an essay is often difficult, because they either haven’t learned yet to write an essay properly, or they don’t see the point, so gaining their retentive attention is nigh-on impossible.

2. Correction. I remember from my own school days that being given a sheet of writing with mistakes in it was particularly effective at cementing a rule in my mind. This was particularly applicable to French, but it can easily translate to English. For example, my year 7 student has difficulty knowing when to end a sentence (his explanation being that he “may want to add something to it later”). So I wrote out a paragraph with no punctuation and asked him to insert full stops and commas where appropriate. This is quite good, but I feel that it’s not enough to radically change the work of a student who writes with several errors.

The biggest problem for me is that the things that should work are the things that it is impossible to get students to do, and keep your job. Why? Because students will hate you – and a tutor’s job exists off the relationship developed between students and you. You can only get a student to do so much before they resent you. If I could force my students to read, that would be ideal – through reading, you pick up all of the conventions and correct phrasing that I am laboriously trying to impart, but as tutors we are only with our students one hour per week.

I am contemplating trying dictation with my students, but it may simply come across as archaic and pointless.

Half the battle is motivating a student so that they like you, and want to do well. But that rules out more technical work that I would love to give.

If any tutors have suggestions or advice, I’m more than happy to hear it.