<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: run to where the ball will be!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.core-ed.net/greg/2009/06/run-to-where-the-ball-will-be.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.core-ed.net/greg/2009/06/run-to-where-the-ball-will-be.html</link>
	<description>My journey in the evolving world of ICT's, Learning and Teaching...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:58:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Cherry Picking Stats &#124; Graham Wegner - Open Educator</title>
		<link>http://blog.core-ed.net/greg/2009/06/run-to-where-the-ball-will-be.html/comment-page-1#comment-1009</link>
		<dc:creator>Cherry Picking Stats &#124; Graham Wegner - Open Educator</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:04:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.core-ed.net/greg/?p=989#comment-1009</guid>
		<description>[...] And as a teacher who sees the benefit of covering SACSA outcomes in &#8220;flexible&#8221; time in the guise of Inquiry Learning, I wonder why we&#8217;d even want to strive for the OECD average of 4 %. This perception that we don&#8217;t spend enough time on the &#8220;basics&#8221; is very interesting. I have heard that this call is usually because the government (or in this case, the parents&#8217; representative body) don&#8217;t really have a clear vision of the future, so grasping for the past is the usual response. Just for the record, I have no problem with the State Government&#8217;s call for minimum times for English, Mathematics and Science. My own timetable for my class matches those requirements pretty well - but I sense that &#8220;flexible&#8221; equals &#8220;undesirable&#8221; in this new initiative. Improving our own education system needs to focus on what is relevant for our students, not as Greg Carroll puts it so eloquently, following the ball around. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] And as a teacher who sees the benefit of covering SACSA outcomes in &#8220;flexible&#8221; time in the guise of Inquiry Learning, I wonder why we&#8217;d even want to strive for the OECD average of 4 %. This perception that we don&#8217;t spend enough time on the &#8220;basics&#8221; is very interesting. I have heard that this call is usually because the government (or in this case, the parents&#8217; representative body) don&#8217;t really have a clear vision of the future, so grasping for the past is the usual response. Just for the record, I have no problem with the State Government&#8217;s call for minimum times for English, Mathematics and Science. My own timetable for my class matches those requirements pretty well &#8211; but I sense that &#8220;flexible&#8221; equals &#8220;undesirable&#8221; in this new initiative. Improving our own education system needs to focus on what is relevant for our students, not as Greg Carroll puts it so eloquently, following the ball around. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
