Unusual AFL Club Guernseys

The Adelaide Crows have released their away jumper for 2013 and I will admit that it will have to see it on the field before I can say that I like it. However a work colleague mentioned the www.footyjumpers.com website that shows all the various jumpers worn by each of the VFL/AFL clubs. Therefore this entry shows the more unusual choices made by clubs over the years.

The footyjumpers.com website was kind enough to include all of Port Adelaide’s previous jumpers on their website and I guess if they call themselves “One Club” then they should be included. So they get a guernsey in the article so to speak.

This is the Port Adelaide 1877-1882 version, a pink lace-up guernsey no less. This was changed from light blue and white hoops. Personally I think the players would have preferred the old guernsey instead.

Next is the 1883-1901 guernsey for Port Adelaide which is only marginally better with magenta replacing the pink and the inclusion of blue stripes. This was the last guernsey before the black, white (and teal for the Power) versions that we know (and in most cases hate) today.

  

The question I have about this is: How do you convince the players of a club with a tradition such as Port Adelaide, playing a tough man’s game that is Australian Rules football to wear Pink or Magenta every week ?

How about Richmond’s c1895-1901 guernsey instead, admittedly it’s a little hard to describe apart from the obvious black and gold hoops. However I’m sure I saw this on henchmen in a Batman episode from the 1960’s or 1970’s, perhaps they were inspired by Richmond's effort.

Below is the Fitzroy jumper from 1893-1896 where they wore Maroon canvas jumpers, with chamois reinforcing. It suggests to me that Fitzroy were doomed from the outset after wearing this guernsey. However it still took around 100 years for Fitzroy to cease operations.

Of course there is Footscray’s effort from 1887 to 1889 which could also pass for a night shirt. I guess convincing the player to wear this every week would be much easier compared to the early Port Adelaide guernseys. However I might consider joining a new club if this was presented to me.

Or perhaps the Hawthorn pre-season guernsey in 1995 that was only worn once in a game against Sydney. Quite rightly too I may add, it almost looks more like a West Coast Eagles guernsey with a hint of brown rather than a Hawthorn guernsey.

Here is the Saints guernsey from 1915-1918, the Saints originally had Red, Black and White as their current colours but changed the White to Yellow to avoid a clash with the colours Germany used in WW1. Ironically the current flag for Germany is Yellow, Red and Black. St Kilda reverted to their original colours after the war and they still use them today. However in my opinion the WW1 version is much better than the 2001-02 away guernsey shown further below.

I guess the one thing that could be said about the 2001-02 St Kilda guernsey is that you could never be excused for not spotting a player further up the field. But depending on the opposition side you were playing it could really limit the colours available for the umpires to wear. Although maybe a brighter version of the 1877-1882 Port Adelaide jumper will suffice.

Are the NAPLAN tests achieving the desired outcome?

 



image: www.fangornfarm.com

Reading an article about the NAPLAN tests in "The Age" this morning had started me thinking about the impact that standardised tests such as these have on the school system and on the education of children. Admittedly some of this may be a stretch at first, but hopefully I can bring it together to show an alternative viewpoint. The link to the article is included below:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/naplan-tests-take-heavy-toll-20121125-2a1n6.html

If you have never heard of the NAPLAN tests, these tests assess the literacy and numeracy skills of students in years 3, 5, 7 and 9, have been conducted across Australia since 2008.

At its most basic level the basis for tests such as the NAPLAN arises from the need to classify and name things in society. For instance the fact that I am born in a country called Australia makes me Australian when in fact we are all human. This is not to say that I am not proud to be Australian, it merely illustrates the point.

The arguments put forward about the NAPLAN tests will often be based on the need to determine which of our schools require more funding than others to narrow the gap between schools that are at the end of the spectrum compared to those at the upper end.

However if you are a parent whose child attends a school that is “underperforming” per se, then there is a large incentive to change the child’s schools in order to receive the best education possible. It is a part of human nature to provide for our offspring and this is what makes the private school sector attractive as parents believe that they are investing in their child’s future by sending them to a private school.

Invariably the numbers attending an “underperforming” school fall and less funding is provided to that school because of the low enrolments. But this does not solve the problem; it merely shifts the burden to the more “popular” schools.

Therefore schools that have “underperformed” in previous NAPLAN tests have the incentive to raise their average score by any means possible. Unfortunately there are anecdotes that suggest schools have requested some students remain home on NAPLAN test day. This sends the wrong message to the child and shatters the child’s confidence. It also heightens the divide between the “haves” and the “have-nots”, in a society that is dominated by status (real or perceived) this is very important.

But what is often forgotten is the ability of the child at each point in their life. To draw a parallel with sport, just as some sports participants are late developers there are some children that are late starters from an education viewpoint. But the short-sightedness of some may in fact stall a child’s development for years to come.

The article provided several statistics that provided results which were unsurprising. But for me, there were two statistics that really stood out: 73% of teachers Australia wide taught to the test and 69% of teachers Australia wide spent less time on subjects not covered by the NAPLAN test. This shows that everything is geared to ensuring the best results are achieved in the test and not by providing a well rounded education especially at the primary school level.

The more disturbing thought is that the main focus of our primary school teachers is on passing the test rather than actually teaching our children. Unfortunately this type of teaching also occurs at the Year 12 (or Matriculation level) where the aim is to maximise the students TER (or equivalent) score as they enter the cut-throat world of achieving a University place. However the main difference here is that the students themselves have decided their subjects to study in that year. The student is often taught enough to pass the exam, (and often uses rote learning to achieve it) but the student may not necessarily have a full understanding of the subject. Once these students reach university they often need to learn the skill on how to structure an argument based on independent thought.

So my thoughts are these: In trying to determine a system where we can compare literacy and numeracy skills for primary school children, have we designed a system that may provide false results because teachers focus their teaching towards passing the tests rather than developing (or ascertaining) the individual child’s understanding and skills in these areas?

Secondly, Should the Government consider removing the NAPLAN testing for Year 3 and Year 5 children (8 and 10 year olds) and test children in Year 6 along with Year 7 and Year 9 students instead?