The Dilemma: Smaller Classes or Invest in Teachers?

As a new teacher going into a small central school I really do not have to worry about class sizes. My class sizes range from 3 students through to 14 students. The challenges are sometimes more to do with professional development and professional learning. Nevertheless, with the technology that is available in the 21st Century there are so many different ways to explore and learn.

A recent national survey found that those surveyed thought that investment in schools to lower class sizes was more important to raising student outcomes than investing in teachers through either recruiting the best graduates or providing bonus pay for achieving outcomes. Interestingly, this is contrary to a recent study which found that lower class sizes were not the most effective way of raising student outcomes.

The survey found that many of those surveyed believed that the investment in schools was an effective way to build a strong economy. The survey was undertaken by Interconsult for the Australian Education Union. The results will be released and discussed in full at the AEU conference that is set to start today.

My personal opinion is that both options running concurrently is a better way of going about it. Smaller class sizes in conjunction with increased teacher support through improved professional development and learning opportunities for teachers.

When it is all said and done, I am itching to get out to Collarenebri and get started.

Internet Filters and Pornography...

Not everything is as easy as installing a filter, this includes blocking pornography on the internet. The New South Wales Department of Education has installed filters on school computers presumably to ensure that students, and teachers, do not have the ability to access porn and to ensure that their time is productive in accessing appropriate academic and education-related sites.

Oops!

The filter has some problems. This is highlighted in the case of a Year 10 student who typed in the search term "swallow". Yes, I know, you can see where this is going already. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, for this particular Year 10 student, the sites that came up had nothing to do with a little bird but rather some hard core porn that dealt not with the little swallow but with a whole different set of swallow circumstances.

But, turning this into a farce is that harmless sites like the Minister of Education, Verity Firth's, own web page is blocked by the filter.

This is the problem with filters. They are not discriminating enough and too discriminating all in the same algorithm. It is perhaps better to err on the side of caution and block web pages and sites that are harmless if the filter could ensure that it was doing the job it was supposed to and filtering out all the harmful web pages and sites. However, this example clearly shows that the filters are not up to that task.

The reality is that even the constant updating of lists is of limited use. Pornographers are smart enough, and technologically savvy enough, to up and move their material to a new web page address and avoid the filter. Web / internet users are also generally sufficiently technologically savvy to be able to follow along with the pornographers, if they are so inclined to do so.

There must be a better way to ensure that access is restricted in a manner that prevents the access to pornography while maintaining access to the sites required by school-aged children.

This begs the question are the filters a worthwhile investment or a waste of time?

It would seem that at this present time filters are not working and it is time to invest in finding a better and more effective alternative.

An Orgasm A Day Keeps The Doctor Away...

So much for the traditional apple doing the trick! It seems that the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom, and in particular the office in Sheffield, has determined that rather than an apple a day being the key to good health that an orgasm is just as good for you (story here and here).

Now, the benefits of orgasm according to a brochure produced by the NHS include, among others, improved cardiovascular health. Generally, a healthy and frequent sex life is a key to excellent overall health.

The brochure is somewhat controversial because it is directed at school-age children, and in essence tells children that they have a right to a healthy sex life. This begs the question of whether there is a possibility that students will now think it is better not to give their teachers an apple.

The brochure is also controversial because it seems to take the focus of the developed lines of argument advocating safe sex to concentrating on the main reason people have sex anyway, enjoyment. I guess how much fun is depends on your experience and the experiences themselves. I am sure there are those that do not consider sex to be fun.

On the safe sex front, the brochure does, apparently, advocate self-gratification, or masturbation, as a means of beneficial sexual activity. This is not to say that masturbation is safe sex. If you enjoy it too much then there is always the risk of Repetitive Strain Injury (RSI).

The NHS document, Pleasure, includes a catchy slogan, "An Orgasm A Day Keeps The Doctor Away".

I actually think that the brochure is a good idea, and this is even when I put my father hat on and think about how I would feel if it was Will that was being given this brochure. I am a firm believer in the idea that if people, and this includes children, are to make informed decisions, then they have to be informed.

Keeping on the orgasm theme, here is a classic clip from the film "When Harry Met Sally".

Corporal Punishment

I need to thank Jakartass for the links that form the basis of this post. It is a topic I had been thinking about, perhaps reminiscing is a more apt word, as my 21st high school reunion approaches. I was on the end of that generation that was the last to see corporal punishment, specifically caning.

Amongst my mates and I getting the cane was a bit of a status thing. We used to keep a running tab across the year to see who could get caned the most. There were some bragging rights to be had for punishable bad behaviour. And it was always more preferable at boarding school to get "six of the best" strokes of the cane than it was to lose leave privileges or sports privileges or the like. We were always caned on the hands. There were no paddling of the buttocks at my school.

I remember once having to wire brush a fence and then repaint it as punishment for having condoms in my locker (different story and has nothing to do with sex) and thinking even 12 strokes of the cane would be better than having to spend two months re-painting a fence.

Interestingly in the more than 20 years since the cane has been banned as a form of punishment there are now more than 20% of UK teachers thinking that the re-introduction of the cane would be a good thing. This is somewhat modified and the re-introduction is being thought of as a measure to manage "extreme"bad behaviour. I wonder what extreme is though?

The results are based on a survey conducted by the Times Educational Supplement and some 6,162 teachers were asked whether or not they would support the right to use corporal punishment.

It seems that the slightly more than 20% of teachers who would support the re-introduction of the cane would do so as the ultimate deterrent. They would do so because they no longer believe that current means of disciplining students is working.

It is not surprising that there has been some surprise at the results of the survey, particularly from groups such as children's rights groups and charities and from the teachers union itself.

The Children's Commissioner for England said, "All forms of physical punishment against children and young people are completely unacceptable and go against the UN convention on the rights of the child, which the UK accepted in 1991. There are far more effective and positive methods of discipline than physical punishment."

I suppose there are some teachers that would like to have the Commissioner do a please explain with regard to what alternatives there are that work as he sees it.

Violence against children is unacceptable. But the key here would be what is the definition of violence? Do we mean physical violence is not acceptable? Do we mean psychological violence is not acceptable? Let's face it a good public dressing down can do as much psychological harm as a few strokes of the cane can do physical harm (strictly my opinion -- no empirical research to back this up).

The reality though is that there are still almost 80% of teachers who would not support a re-introduction of corporal punishment. This means that the chances of this debate getting any serious air time and discussion will require that the numbers get much closer together. When it gets to an almost 50-50 split then there will be a much more interesting debate brewing with a much different dynamic.

Perhaps the alternative to the re-introduction of corporal punishment is to force the disciplining of children back onto the parents. Any infraction of school rules sees the child sent home immediately with a note saying that the child will not be re-admitted to classes until there is a guarantee from the parent(s) that the behaviour will not occur again. If the child re-offends then they are suspend automatically for a week. A second offence would result in a month's suspension. A third infraction would result in expulsion and the problem child can be handed-off to another school to deal with.

The idea of getting the cane when I was in high school meant that in order to avoid it I had to not get caught. It was very much the reward - punishment dichotomy. The punishment did not deter the bad behaviour, to the contrary it taught us to be better on the planning and execution in order not to get caught and not to get caned.

However, if it was to ever pass that corporal punishment was to be re-introduced then the teachers who are granted the authority to do it must pass physical checks to ensure they are up to the task. If the cane is going to be a deterrent then it has to hurt when you are caned. I can remember some of the teachers at my high school were somewhat lacking physically and getting caned by them hurt less than getting kicked in the shins playing football.

Second, they must pass an accuracy test. As I recall it hurt like hell getting caned on the wrists. However, sometimes this was self-inflicted by pushing my hand forward rather than pulling it away. Simply, when word got around that this teacher was a woeful shot then they generally were no longer allowed to cane students and had to get in a proxy to do the deed.

Ah, corporal punishment and high school. Now, those were the days!

New York City and Eid

Multiculturalism and racism or bigotry go hand-in-hand in the sense that many oversimplify these terms to be opposite sides of the same coin. This is to say, if you do not support multiculturalism or a more plural society then you are racist or a bigot and conversely if you have racist or bigoted tendencies you cannot support multiculturalism. Sometimes I wonder whether the equation is quite as simple as that.

Nevertheless, the Big Apple or perhaps the Big Melting Pot that is New York City is soon to vote on whether two Muslim holidays are to be declared school holidays for all. The two holidays are Eid ul-Fitr and Eid ul-Adha which celebrate the end of the fasting month and the Haj pilgrimage month respectively. The vote is to take place on 16 October 2008.

This is something that has been on the agenda since 2005 and it seems that the supporters of the vote have finally mustered the numbers to take the issue to committee and then get it through to a full council vote.

The measure was initiated by a Muslim councilor from Harlem, Robert Jackson. However, it is claimed that the measure has broad support within the community and also on the council and this support is from non-Muslims as well. Broad-based support is no guarantee that it will get up when it comes to a vote.

I wonder though whether this sets a precedent that every religion should be able to lobby for its special days to be legislatively declared holidays and then have them so declared. I am happy for governments to declare as many religious holidays that they want. Simply, the more they declare the less number of days I have to work while still getting paid.

The population of NYC is approximately 7 million and of these 1 million are Muslims.

Governments Regulating Morality

It seems that the Government of Jakarta has decided the best way to break the chain of HIV infections plaguing the capital is to regulate the morality of its citizens and to pass the burden of testing and screening onto businesses. Sometimes you have to worry about the policy wonks and drafters sitting in City Hall and their inability in putting together a coherent policy and a workable law.

What follows might be too analytical for some. However, it is worth pondering some of the points raised.

It might be argued that this Regulation has been a long time in the making and an equally long time in the coming. The Regulation, No. 5 of 2008, seeks to break the chain of HIV infections that, at least, statistically have seen a rapid spike in the upwards direction. HIV/AIDS is a serious problem in the capital and there is no doubt that the government needs to be more proactive in the fight against the virus.

The basic premise of the Regulation is to break the chain of infections. Furthermore, the Regulation is designed to ensure that the quality of life of HIV / AIDS suffers and intra-venous drug users improve. However, the responses that the government proposes to this end are interesting for many reasons. In many ways the provisions of the Regulation seem to be more suggestion in nature than enforceable as the provisions seem to be aimed at regulating moral behaviour and criminalizing poor moral judgment.

The rest of the Regulation deals with matters that provide a loose framework for ensuring that people living with HIV / AIDS have access to adequate medical treatment and are not discriminated against once their HIV status is known either to an employer or the community at large. It is not explicitly clear from the construction of the Regulation but it appears that generally this provision would make it an offence to discriminate against and vilify a person with HIV.

Furthermore, the Regulation requires businesses that are considered to be high risk and potentially sources and spreaders of the virus to be more pro-active in screening their staff for HIV infection. Through to June 2008 there are 3,123 cases of HIV reported in the capital which on a percentage basis is small considering the size of the population.

There are five components to the Regulation:
1. general provisions;
2. promotion;
3. prevention;
4. medicine; and
5. treatment and support.

In general the Regulation targets those individuals that are considered high risk or work in high risk businesses. These businesses are identified in the Elucidation to Article 15(g) as, among others, employees of massage parlors, spas, discotheques, and karaoke joints. However, the Regulation also makes special mention of ensuring that pregnant women and nursing mothers have access to suitable and continuing services to ensure the health of any children born to a HIV positive mother.

Promotion is a matter of communication, information, and education. The promotion role is to be filled by the community, the Central Government, and the Government of Jakarta as required. However, it is expected that there is to be a degree of synergy developed among these promoters to ensure efficiency and effectiveness of any promotions undertaken.

It is expected that the promotion activities will focus on two core elements, namely: changing lifestyle patterns and reducing the stigma attached to being HIV positive.

The educational aspect of the promotional program is to include both internal and external (extracurricular) elements within schools. This means that schools are required to develop a personal development or sex education program that includes materials on HIV / AIDS. Interestingly, the Regulation uses the word “schools” and the Elucidation to the relevant article does not provide any assistance to how schools must be defined. So it is therefore reasonable to assume that the word schools can conceivably include from the primary level through to the senior secondary level.

Nevertheless, the likely target will be senior high school. Yet, if statistics were to bear out that increasingly larger numbers of junior high school students were engaging in high risk behaviours then it would seem to make sense to start the education program at the junior high level.

In a more general sense the promotion elements of the HIV / AIDS program are aimed at promoting the idea that a harmonious and loving family is one that does not tolerate high risk behaviours.

The prevention strategy on face value is a good one. Unfortunately, neither the Regulation nor the Elucidations provide enough detail about how the prevention strategy is going to be implemented in full. There is considerable scope for further regulations in order to “fill” out the regulatory framework.

The prevention strategy includes, among others, the following:
1. abstinence for unmarried people;
2. sexual relations only with those who are your legal partner;
3. use of preventive aids (presumably condoms although nothing is mentioned) by people of known HIV status;
4. programs to reduce the negative impacts of intra-venous drug use;
5. standard operating procedures for organ transplants and blood transfusions;
6. programs to ensure that pregnant women of a known HIV status have prioritized access to antiretroviral drugs to lessen the risk of transmission to their unborn child;
7. programs that require high risk business to routinely screen for HIV infections in their employees;
8. universal precaution for health workers who are at risk of contact with HIV; and
9. family counseling.

The above strategy gives rise to a number of questions. These questions will need to be answered going forward either in a legislative manner or in terms of a commitment to allowing certain strategies to take shape. There is also considerable scope for public / private partnerships to develop in such areas as needle exchange programs and injecting rooms as a means of reducing the negative impacts of intra-venous drug use and abuse. Other possibilities include the development of community health programs that promote the use of condoms and make them readily available to the masses.

Furthermore, the compulsory nature of the obligation on employers to test employees who work in high risk businesses is an interesting one on a number of different levels. For example, the costs of the testing are to be borne by the businesses themselves. However, the Regulation is unclear as to whether the government is going to appoint an accredited screener for the process or are the businesses free to choose a screener of their own? The Regulation is also unclear as to what the employer is to do with an employee who is HIV positive once they are uncovered through the screening process.

Another interesting question not properly addressed in the Regulation is how are bars and pubs to be tested and screened in this process. Admittedly, the Regulation would cover employees of bars but it would not conceivably cover freelance female and male sex workers who might inhabit such establishments. It would appear that there would also be a need to screen these people as well. However, if they are not employees then who does that responsibility fall to? And isn’t the screening of high risk individuals one of the pillars of this piece of legislation?

In a perversely funny kind of a way, the Regulation seems to suggest that certain entertainment venues are places of prostitution. It is clear that prostitution is illegal in Indonesia so if the government of Jakarta is making such an admission then would the more common sense approach be to close these venues down and reduce the level of prostitution in the city.

The reality is that the Regulation is far from being as comprehensive as it might have been. Considering the intent of the Regulation is to break the chain of HIV infection, then to leave large numbers of high risk individuals to voluntary testing would seem to undermine the good intentions of the provisions as they currently stand.

In terms of medicines the Regulation is much more scant on provisions and states that further regulations are to be issued to clarify this matter.

The Regulation creates both Provincial and District / City AIDS Prevention Commissions which in a cynical sense serves to create another level of bureaucracy in the system. However, if the Commissions were able to be developed in a manner that allowed for consolidation of the current diaspora then this may be a positive development.

Interestingly, the Regulation sets out a role for community participation but simultaneously obligates the members of the community to treat people living with HIV / AIDS in a just and humane manner. Combined with the earlier noted provisions, this appears to bring into play the possibility of people being charged and prosecuted for vilifying HIV positive individuals.

The community’s role also seems to include a moral policing aspect as the Regulation is specific in stating that the community must ensure that the is an increase in religiousness of the community and that the existing family units are maintained. The Regulation then goes on to state that the community must create an environment that is conducive for the, presumably, wider acceptance of the fact that there are HIV positive people and drug users living within their midst.

The Regulation also includes a Chapter on investigation and explicitly states that investigators can either be police investigators or appointed civil service investigators. The provisions in Article 27 set out what the investigators are authorized to do but what the Regulation is lacking is specifically what the investigators are to investigate. It is therefore presumed that the matters that would be subject to investigation are those relating to compliance and the specific provisions noted in the Chapter on sanctions.

Yet, it is worth noting that investigators have extensive powers to fingerprint, photograph, and seize property and documents. What is unclear from the Regulation is whether this power is as unfettered as it seems to be.

The provisions require businesses to test staff members at least every three months. Presumably, this means that investigators would be able to demand documents that would prove compliance. The sanctions provisions only note the following offences:

1. failure to keep HIV status data confidential;
2. failure to follow standard operating procedures with regards to transplants and transfusions;
3. non-discrimination against HIV positive people in the provision of medical services; and
4. compulsory HIV screening for high risk employees.

The administrative sanctions would include written warnings to businesses that have failed to comply with screening procedures. Ongoing compliance failures would then allow the government to shut down the business.

The criminal sanctions provide for terms of detention up to three months or fines of up to IDR 50 million. The deliberate spread of HIV is not subject to a specific penalty under this Regulation but rather the Regulation states that the criminal penalty will be whatever is applicable under the prevailing laws and regulations.

The Regulation was issued on 22 July 2008 and came into force on 24 July 2008.

A Camden Update...

The reaction in the press has been swift and this reaction has reached not only Indonesia but much further afield to the like of the United Kingdom from whence us convicts originated from many a generation ago!

As I posted earlier, it seems that there are others that are also of the belief that the ability of the Camden Council to reject the proposal based on traffic concerns seemed all too convenient and a little too political.

Since the decision last night a huge wooden crucifix has been erected on the site and a passage from the Bible affixed to it that reads:

"David and Goliath. The battle is won. This is the King of Kings Land. Prayer is essential in this ongoing warfare. (Eph 6:18)."

Let me play Devil's Advocate here for a bit and raise a few questions.

Some of the interviews with local residents reflected that the happiness that they felt with the rejection of the development proposal had nothing to do with planning issues but an intense desire not to have Muslims in the community because they would build Mosques, ghetto-ize Camden, and make Camden a hot bed of fundamentalist Islamic activity.

1. Is Australia truly a multicultural nation or is that just lip service to an ideal?

2. Isn't it true that racism is alive and well in Australian small towns with limited numbers of migrants?

3. Would this planning / development proposal been rejected if the school was to be an Anglican, Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish school?

4. Isn't it true that schools have always been built in rural areas and usually on farm land converted for that purpose?

There are probably a thousand other questions I could ask but these four will suffice for now.

I am certain that the Quranic Society will appeal this decision to the Land and Environment Court and I think they have a good chance of winning. It seems the objections on which the Council based its decision play more to political expediency than good development sense.

There is also a history in the sense that the last time a similar case came before the Court where a development application was rejected by the Baulkham Hills Council for an Islamic Prayer Hall for reasons that it did not fit the community profile, the Council decision was overturned by the Court. The prayer hall has been built!

For Australia to really move forward and become a leader in community relations we have to escape this culture of fear and religious intolerance.

Multi-Cultural Australia?

It is being reported that the Camden Council has rejected a development proposal submitted by the Qu'uranic Society (the spelling is how it is the story -- but I would have thought Quranic or Qur'anic -- that's just me though) to build a 1200-student Islamic School on land it bought in the Camden area. Camden is located south-west of Sydney.

The Mayor, Chris Patterson, issued a statement immediately after the vote was taken saying that the decision was one based solely on issues of traffic management and the loss of agricultural land but most definitely not on religious grounds. Although I have not read the planning reports, and the planning reports recommended that the Council reject the proposal, it does sound all a little convenient.

The Council received some 3000 submissions on the proposal and only 50 were for the development. So, even if the planning recommendation was to permit the development the Council would have been between a rock and a hard place with almost 3000 residents rejecting the proposal. Some suggest that the community was divided over the application. However, the breakdown above would suggest that any suggestion of community division is a bit of a furphy. If the community was truly divided on the proposal then those community members that were for the development did not make their support all that well known.

The interest in the vote saw some 200 Camden residents attend the meeting and apparently a loud cheer erupted when the Council confirmed that it had rejected the proposal. Community feeling was definitely not running with the Qu'uranic Society on this school development.

Anti-proposal rallies attracted up to a 1000 people! This culminated in some one deciding to impale a couple of pig's heads on spikes and string an Australian flag up between the heads. This to me sounds very un-Australian for a land that prides itself on tolerance and acceptance of difference. The spiking of the pig heads also does not seem to have any relevance with the land and traffic issues identified by other stake holders, the intent was to offend and to stake claim to the land as Australian land.

The Qu'uranic Society can appeal the decision to the Land and Environment Court. However, this would require the court to not only overturn the decision but to go against the reports submitted by the Department of Primary Industries, the Roads and Traffic Authority, and the NSW Police who all rejected the proposed development.

A more likely scenario after spending AUD 1.5 million on acquiring the land and a further AUD 250,000 on the proposal is that the Qu'uranic Society will sell up and seek land in a more favourable Council area where there are unlikely to be primary industry or traffic concerns.

I wonder home multi-cultural is Australia really? Is this just an isolated incident or is it endemic of a much wider-spread of fear and loathing to that which we might not understand or that we fear?

The residents of Camden have spoken!