<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [Year 12 IT Apps] itapps RIP</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>Unfortunately I won’t be teaching ITApps next year or a Year 11 class either due to extraneous circumstances, however I would like to point out the following issues:<BR>
<BR>
Having taught at private schools and governments schools the ITApps course is clearly better suited to students with higher literacy standards. As the course is primarily theoretical, with the examination determining the overall study score result, students from higher socio-economic backgrounds are clearly at an advantage by being able to grasp the meaning of the language used in the course earlier and quickly. This was especially true of girls in IPM as it used to be, who in general achieved higher results due to their higher literacy standards compared to boys. <BR>
<BR>
Students from disadvantaged backgrounds and those from non-English speaking backgrounds struggle with the course content. It is important to note that in my experience, (and studies support this view) that there is a direct correlation between student achievement and parent education levels. In addition many of these students also struggle with the practical component of the course in being unable to understand complex instructions, in particular regarding software packages such as DBMS. The question here is “As a society do we want to discriminate a student’s educational achievement based on the educational attainment of their parents?” It would seem that the answer in contemporary education circles is yes. <BR>
<BR>
I have one student in my ITApps class this year I am hoping will achieve 40 for a Study Score. The rest are well below the average. A more ‘Technical’ ITApps course would suit these ‘underperforming’ students better as their analytical literacy skills are required less than their ‘knowledge’ based fact skills. VCE course designers would argue that that is why we have VET IT and related technical courses at TAFEs. However I would argue that this is a highly contentious point worthy of extended debate, not the least given that our VCE curriculum is driven by the ‘Sandstone’ universities. My point here is that there is no reason why a more ‘technical’ IT VCE course would be less challenging than the current design. <BR>
<BR>
Why don’t all public schools offer a purely VET Years 11 and 12? For the majority of public schools the staff level of expertise is at VCE level, for most subject areas. VCE classes of 1 or 2 students is not possible. This would endanger a school’s ability to offer a VCE curriculum and bring into question the ‘modus operandi’ of a school. It is one of the reasons why public school teachers end up with students in their VCE classes who are unable to cope with the VCE course content in ITApps and related classes. <BR>
<BR>
regards, <BR>
Zach Alexakos <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 1/11/10 10:45 AM, "Mark KELLY" <<a href="kel@mckinnonsc.vic.edu.au">kel@mckinnonsc.vic.edu.au</a>> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>Next year I have the first SD class running in 3 years (12 kids), and ITA with 12 year twelves and about 10 year elevens doing it as enhancement.<BR>
<BR>
(The admin originally wanted me to run a combined yr 11 + ITA class. I said <B>no</B>.)<BR>
<BR>
So next year, no year 11 IT.<BR>
<BR>
This year I had 19 in ITA (17 year twelves & 2 year elevens) and 22 in year 11. It chops and changes every year. No idea why.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<p></p><p><b>Important - </b>This email and any attachments may be confidential. If received in error, please contact us and delete all copies. Before opening or using attachments check them for viruses and defects. Regardless of any loss, damage or consequence, whether caused by the negligence of the sender or not, resulting directly or indirectly from the use of any attached files our liability is limited to resupplying any affected attachments. Any representations or opinions expressed are those of the individual sender, and not necessarily those of the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development.</p>
</BODY>
</HTML>