DonRamsay Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 . . . Don't know about high schools, but not in all primary schools. Some have tested having full-time qualified science teachers in primary schools and report higher levels of student interest and engagement which flows on into high school. I think that quality teaching in early years is the most "bang for the buck" because the effects set the kids up for all their following education. Having a qualified science teacher at a Primary School might just stop some of the uniformed BS that many primary school teachers feed the kids especially related to all matters green. Not against Green, quite the contrary, but it must be science based not folklore. The one thing we don't teach much in primary school is foreign language. Kids learn language very easily when very young when the brain is more pliable. By the time they get to high school, it's too late. Only way to get rid of unreasonable xenophobia is to study "foreign" cultures.
eightyknots Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 Having a qualified science teacher at a Primary School might just stop some of the uniformed BS that many primary school teachers feed the kids especially related to all matters green. Not against Green, quite the contrary, but it must be science based not folklore. The one thing we don't teach much in primary school is foreign language. Kids learn language very easily when very young when the brain is more pliable. By the time they get to high school, it's too late. Only way to get rid of unreasonable xenophobia is to study "foreign" cultures. Yes, I agree. Perhaps one of the many Aboriginal languages could be studied and learned as well? That may improve relationships with the First Inhabitants.
bexrbetter Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 Tell me more about these vestal virgins. Starfish, wouldn't bother.
bexrbetter Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 The one thing we don't teach much in primary school is foreign language. Kids learn language very easily when very young when the brain is more pliable. By the time they get to high school, it's too late. Only way to get rid of unreasonable xenophobia is to study "foreign" cultures. Mark Twain ..... “Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.”
rankamateur Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 Yes, I agree. Perhaps one of the many Aboriginal languages could be studied and learned as well? That may improve relationships with the First Inhabitants. Were would be the point, there would be even less people to converse with than there is for me with my (now lost) year 7 French, complete waste of time.
Old Koreelah Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 All good ideas, people. Australia has a dismal record of studying other languages. Several well-publicised government initiatives have failed. A friend of mine spent years training to teach Japanese, including a couple of their written scripts, but it was mostly wasted effort. Kids tend to choose easier electives. Science is hard work and has been allowed to almost die out in schools and universities. It was once said that in Germany for every ten students of engineering and science there was one Arts student. In Australia we had ten Arts students for each one attempting science or engineering. With such a shortage of trained people, some high schools struggle to attract any science trained teachers. What a clever country.
facthunter Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 Not only has Science been neglected, it was actively discredited by our previous PM, and money pulled out of it every which way. Discraceful behaviour really. It will be a while before we even get anywhere near where we need to be. Change is coming fast and we need to be up with it. Kids today have no confidence the studies they do will get them a job. Too much uncertainty needs more thought and planning to allay despair. Being out of work is a total overthrow of certainty to be able to pay your way in any real sense, make any purchases on a loan basis or plan anything. Nev
Pearo Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 Were would be the point, there would be even less people to converse with than there is for me with my (now lost) year 7 French, complete waste of time. Maybe to preserve a bit of our countries history?
rankamateur Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 Maybe to preserve a bit of our countries history? I am all for preserving culture and contact with country, but just as I have lost my French, without use and practice, learning a near extinct language is just more feel good tokenism. Better to get on and pass on the spoken history in the language of the land before it, like the traditional language is lost for all time.
facthunter Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 French has a high "connection" to latin as does english spanish Italian etc. Structurally it may be hard to achieve and pronunciation is difficult but it is relatively easy compared with say Persian, Chinese Japanese. English must be very hard for others to get right. Few of us do. Nev
DonRamsay Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 One big reason for learning another language is to develop a value and an understanding for other cultures. Few in Australia will ever need another language and that will only be more so in future as English acceptance as the world language continues to saturate the globe. But, it is fun to learn at least a smattering of another language or two especially when you travel to some places off the beaten track where English is not known. My wife used to teach a program at high school in Year 7 that involved a sampler box of 4 languages in one year: French, German, Latin and Japanese. Nobody was going to end up a cunning linguist as a result of that year but they had been exposed to other cultures and opened the door for some with a real gift for language to blossom. Back in the 1800s a wonderful fellow, Rev Threlkeld, set up a mission for the local Awabakal people. He learned their language and wrote a version of the Bible in the Awabakal language. That made Awabakal one of the best documented of all the multitude of Aboriginal Languages and ensured it would not be lost as hundreds have been. Sadly the mission eventually closed because there were no Awabakals left. They had moved on or been moved on by the rapidly expanding European community. The mission stood where the Toronto Hotel was built and there was another on the other side of the Lake at Belmont.
DonRamsay Posted November 20, 2015 Posted November 20, 2015 Now I seem to remember somebody asserting that our laws are all based on the ten commandments. Perhaps? Perhaps not. Let's get those two shining lights of political philosophy, George Washington and Sarah Palin, to explore this idea.
bexrbetter Posted November 28, 2015 Posted November 28, 2015 Not only has Science been neglected, it was actively discredited by our previous PM, and money pulled out of it every which way. Discraceful behaviour really. I could not disagree more. Abbott pulled money out of unproven programs as well as installing, at miniscule cost, an opposing study to give balance. In any sense of the meaning of the word, that is science. The moment that you pre-determine an outcome, that's when science stops and that is the major failing of the pro argument that has it's own thread. Abbott's biggest fault that he was courageous to run the country without first consulting all the morons on Facebook, meanwhile Turnbull is now hugely popular albeit runs exactly the same Government without any policy change, that's how stupid the Australian public are.
Marty_d Posted November 28, 2015 Posted November 28, 2015 Bex... the man is a dinosaur, which is why the country breathed a collective sigh of relief when he was rolled. He was so far out of touch that it was beyond a joke. His leadership will be remembered for gaffes, awkward speeches in front of ranks of flags, giving a knighthood to Phil the Greek, and broken promises. Not to mention being autocratic and removed from reality thanks to an over-dependence on Peta Credlin. Should we also mention "coal is king", his intransigence on marriage equality... the list goes on. For someone who was in the job less than 2 years he had way too many strikes against him... or perhaps that was why his stint was so short. He was against science; he tried to scrap the the Clean Energy Finance Corporation despite the fact it was actually making a profit. He didn't like wind farms because they were "ugly". He loved coal and said it was "good for humanity". He's been known to say that climate change is "bullsh*t". The fact that the polling figures are pretty much reversed for the LNP following his departure doesn't mean that the Australian public are stupid - it just means he was deeply unpopular. Turnbull's big test will be after he wins the next election (I don't think Shorten will go close). The honeymoon will then be over and the public will expect to see some action on the things he stands for. Unfortunately the very conservative rump will expect to see "business as usual" (ie slashing services, reducing tax, and bending over forward for large corporations, especially those that dig up stuff and sell it). Turnbull uses the term "agile" a lot - well, he'll have to be. There's a direct conflict between many of his personal beliefs and LNP ideology. As for "no policy change" - in general, perhaps you're right, but Scott Morrison has changed his opinion 180 degrees about taxing high superannuation, which is refreshing....TONY ABBOTT: "Your superannuation saving are safe under this government. We promised before the election there would be no adverse changes to superannuation in this term of parliament. There have been none. There will be none. We've said that we have no plans for further changes to superannuation and let me make it crystal clear: under this government there will be no increased taxes on superannuation." Yesterday... SCOTT MORRISON: "It should not be seen as an open ended savings vehicle for Australians to accumulate large, super large balances in a tax preferred environment well in excess of what is required for an adequate retirement. It is not an estate planning vehicle, nor was it ever intended to be. When Australians see the Government supporting the accumulation of enormous superannuation fund balances in a tax preferred and in retirement a tax free environment, that does undermine confidence in the system." My personal belief is at least there's more chance of positive change under Turnbull than there ever was under Abbott. There's no way in hell I'd vote for him still... (the Greens look more professional under Di Natale than Milne and will likely get my vote) but I'm glad that Abbott is gone.
Old Koreelah Posted November 28, 2015 Posted November 28, 2015 Not only has Science been neglected, it was actively discredited by our previous PM, and money pulled out of it every which way. Discraceful behaviour really. It will be a while before we even get anywhere near where we need to be. Change is coming fast and we need to be up with it. Kids today have no confidence the studies they do will get them a job. Too much uncertainty needs more thought and planning to allay despair. Being out of work is a total overthrow of certainty to be able to pay your way in any real sense, make any purchases on a loan basis or plan anything. Nev So true Nev, and stupid governments expect kids to study for years in the hope that a) they'll pass the course and their service provider doesn't go broke b) economic changes won't have closed down the industry they were training for c) they'll get a job that pays well enough to pay off the student loans and d) give them a chance to get onto the housing market that is distorted by negative gearing.... Who would want to be a kid today?
bexrbetter Posted November 28, 2015 Posted November 28, 2015 it just means he was deeply unpopular. As for "no policy change" - in general, perhaps you're right, My personal belief is at least there's more chance of positive change under Turnbull than there ever was under Abbott. Yup, sums it up, exactly my point thank you. I'm far from a Abbott supporter btw, but I am anti- ignorance. Supporting spending a billion on green tech without fully supported facts and no challenge to the plan is bollshot at it's most ignorant finest. There has not been unsupported spending in the history of not just Australia, but the whole World based on and for the popular vote. Abbott stopped the wild spending in order to actually investigate and get some balance into it all and got crucified for it. Many Australians could give less a toss about anything to do with policies and actual knowledge of how a country actually works and hence we got popular clowns like Hawke for 3 terms whereas Keating was far smarter but hated more than even Abbott. The Australian economy is going down badly at present, well below estimates and of real concern and policies such as marriage equality are NOT front line issues in this economic climate, Corps/large Companies supposedly underpaying tax are just some of many examples of how the Greens need a reality check and how they grovel for dirty grubby votes by way of social guilt tactics. "Oh you're against marriage equality then you must hate gays you bigot". "Oh you don't think Companies should pay more tax, then you're a grub against the common working man who pays his taxes". "Oh you don't believe in climate change (as presented) then you don't care about our beautiful earth you ignorant denier" blag blah ...... I keep asking Jacqui Lambie "Who's going to pay for it" on Facebook to met with a bunch of ignorant dumb idealists who jump in in defense who also find in very short time that they are no match for economic facts - heard the ALP skite about all green tech by 2050 recently, no because from the moment they announced it, the real economic facts were thrust in their faces including from their own members. If they can't budget it even close with all their economic experience, money and talent, as the Libs knew they couldn't either, then the Greens certainly haven't got a hope. Turnbull is a nice guy, well the Libs unchanged policies must be much better now then - FGS. He was against science; . No he wasn't, he understood what science is, most Australians don't understand what science is, that's the problem. We have another thread about climate change, no need for it here, but I do have a bit of news to post there .... it's real science too but the "Climate Hysterics" aren't going to like it, but that's science for you.
facthunter Posted November 28, 2015 Posted November 28, 2015 I talk to kids on trams etc. They're OK but we are failing them. Our mob isn't doing it right by any measure. I'd like to be a young kid again, but you would have to think outside the square to get anywhere. (Not that I got far last time. At least I mucked around with planes and bikes. ) Nev
facthunter Posted November 28, 2015 Posted November 28, 2015 There was no basis in science in the LNP. THEY didn't have a minister for science. Pyne now carries the science folio. He's admitted to having no scientific background and it shows. The damage Abbott has done to this country is large and would have gotten worse. The response to Turnbull replacing him is evidence of the total inadequacy of the previous incumbent. The swing is way above anything hoped for, and everybody except a few like Bolt and Hadley are glad he's gone.Nev
Marty_d Posted November 28, 2015 Posted November 28, 2015 The Australian economy is going down badly at present, well below estimates and of real concern and policies such as marriage equality are NOT front line issues in this economic climate, Corps/large Companies supposedly underpaying tax are just some of many examples of how the Greens need a reality check and how they grovel for dirty grubby votes by way of social guilt tactics. "Oh you're against marriage equality then you must hate gays you bigot". "Oh you don't think Companies should pay more tax, then you're a grub against the common working man who pays his taxes". "Oh you don't believe in climate change (as presented) then you don't care about our beautiful earth you ignorant denier" blag blah ...... Strange thing about the economy. When Labor was in, all you could hear from Abbott & Hockey were the screams about how bad the economy was (against all evidence). When the LNP got in "the adults were in charge" and they were going to fix all the economic ills. Well, their first Budget was an absolute stinker and amazingly didn't get through; but suddenly, despite every economic indicator being worse than when Labor were in, it's not a problem and we're doing well. One could almost believe there was no correlation between the economy itself and political statements about it. Most people agree there is a structural deficit which needs to be addressed. Especially with ageing population. The question is what you do about it. You either need more income (tax) or less spending (services/benefits). The low hanging fruit of Newstart has been pretty much picked bare, with everyone in the social welfare industry agreeing that the dole is too low to live on. Hitting the pensioners with massive assets has been rejected by Labor. Stopping multi-millionaires from using superannuation as a tax-free investment was originally rejected by LNP, but now being mooted by Morrison. Health and Education have been cut to the bone already. Defence somehow seems immune from this with massive submarine and F-35 purchases imminent. So without cutting, they need more income. Where should the income come from? Everyone knows that stopping tax avoidance by large companies will not fully fill the need. Nor will fixing Superannuation. Nor will removing Negative Gearing. BUT... these are all glaring inequalities that should be fixed first, before looking at raising the GST or broadening the base, both of which will squeeze the battler much more than the comfortable to rich. If you want the public to support you, as Turnbull knows, you've got to be seen to be fair. That means fixing those loopholes that the big end of town enjoy before screwing extra shekels from the rest of us. Now, back to climate change. The science is in and almost every reputable scientist agrees that it's caused by human activity and it's going to f*ck us up big time if it's not stopped. Bill Shorten has announced 45% cut by 2030 and zero net by 2050. No, they haven't costed it, but here's the thing... it doesn't matter. Whatever it costs to do this, it needs to be done, because if it's not done we are screwed. Early this century the world needs to transition to renewable energy sources. It will happen. If I was someone who invested in the market, I'd be pulling out of traditional resource companies and backing renewables, because that's going to be the future. Instead of asking where the money is coming from to transition us to a low-carbon economy, try asking what the costs will be if we don't. If the world doesn't keep it down to a 2 degree increase, what are the extra costs from severe weather events, the loss of low-lying Pacific islands, massive changes needed to agriculture, losses to the marine food chain, algae blooms, more intense bushfires... the list goes on and on. What will these cost? (in pure economic terms, not even mentioning the changes to our way of life). Will they cost less than fixing the climate in the first place? Can the Greens lead the country? Probably not. But the more influence they have in Parliament, the better if you ask me.
facthunter Posted November 28, 2015 Posted November 28, 2015 Sensible talk about it is a good start. There's been a lot of lies spread and those who have been at it should be held to account. There's not a lot of atmosphere to hold all the muck we shoot at it and rivers and landfill are not sewers. 250 years ago you could drink from any river here . Now there are practically none. Water is our most precious resource.Nev
Old Koreelah Posted November 29, 2015 Posted November 29, 2015 ...Now, back to climate change. The science is in and almost every reputable scientist agrees that it's caused by human activity and it's going to f*ck us up big time if it's not stopped... Whatever it costs to do this, it needs to be done, because if it's not done we are screwed... Bold leadership needed, but absent. Nobody questioned the cost of defeating Hitler. The American space program cost billions yet enjoyed wide support. We need that same vision and courage now.
Old Koreelah Posted November 29, 2015 Posted November 29, 2015 Just got home from a Climate Change March and read the shock news we've lost one of our own. Totally lost interest in arguing with fellow aviators. I was looking forward to meeting up with Ross again some day.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now