It is indeed a dark and serious picture that you paint, Dr Donnelly. But what will shine light upon it, besides your article, and bring about a happy ending?

Well, I don't know. But something's got to change.

And you can tell by the massive response in the number of comments to this article that the public really cares a lot about the education of their children. It's all so very bleak and sad.

If only we could get rid of those ideologically driven political ratbags in the state curriculum departments and replace them with real educators. It's no wonder Australia is suffering a skills shortage. And I have to tell you that it was a cold day in hell, when Comrade Paul Keating announced that Australia was to become the "clever country" back whenever it was. Ever since then it's been getting dumb and dumber. Thanks Paul!

It's also interesting to note that China and India aren't having this trouble. Good luck to them. Somebody has to run the world in the future, might as well be them. Because it isn't going to be us here in Australia, that's for sure.

Stick a bunch of trendy lefties into positions of authority in the Immigration Department and start looking under your train seat for bombs.

Stick a bunch of long haired men and short haired women into positions of authority in the Education Department, and you end up with children who may be socially "progressive", rights aware and vehemently anti racist, they just don't know how to read, write or do bloody sums.

Ya gotta hand it to our educated elite, everything that they get their flaccid fingers onto becomes a total disaster. The only good to come out of all of this is that their is a growing realisation in this and every other western country that chardonnay sucking trendy lefties, with their incredible worldview, are simply a bunch of certifiable lunatics.

Dr. Donnelly,
Thou art known by thy fellow travellers methinks.

Donnelly.
As a student at university studying to become a teacher, and also someone who has been taught by syllabus and OBE, I can see the positives in both.

In your article you say, "Not only are teachers described by such jargon as "knowledge navigators" ... but the emphasis is on group learning and real-world relevance."

Oh God, Not Real World relevance!
We wouldn't want students to emerge from school capable of actually getting jobs and surviving in the real world. And Group learning, what the hell would that be useful for? No jobs expect you work in a group situation, you're right, how terrible it must be to consider "real world" relevance.

In regards to your comments about America adopting OBE and then dusting the cobwebs off Syllabus learning.
It's not like they're students are coming out so great. Their public schools are terrible, who in their right mind would want to follow the US's degredation into the slums of public Education?

You mentioned that OBE had only been tested in a handful of countries, and this was a bad thing? Why can't Australia be innovative for once? Are we that dependent on others? We will never be known for inventing or innovation or leadership with an attitude like yours, we will only be known as the babies that have to copy everything from the 'adult' countries.

Didn't your students ever say,"Sir, what's this got to do with my life?" Because that is what students want to know, "Sir I am going to be a musician when I'm older, why I am I learning algebra?" What did you used to tell them? OBE gives teachers that flexibility to answer that question and make learning relevant to students' futures.

Let's call a spade a spade: OBE in Western Australia

It is time for the WA curriculum council, the education department, the education minister and the premier to stop misleading the public. The Western Australian teachers who oppose OBE are not a handful of trouble-makers and ratbags. As shown by votes (where they were allowed) at recent professional development sessions, the overwhelming majority of year 11 and 12 teachers believe the new courses are not ready. A great many believe they never will be ready. These new courses share (at least) two fatal flaws.

Firstly, there is no curriculum. Teachers are expected to develop their own to illustrate the listed outcomes. This will invite a least common denominator, one size fits all, approach. Learning about the sociology of the cosmetic industry is not real chemistry, discussing whether air bags should be mandatory is not real physics, and movie posters are not real literature. Students continuing on to university, TAFE or the workforce will be disadvantaged seriously. A “culturally-sensitive curriculum” borders on nonsense. Some cultures have no numbers larger than 20, and at least one recognises only “one, two and many”. Shall we teach mathematics on this basis?

Secondly, the “levels” proposed to measure student achievement are meaningless, edu-babble drivel. If you take a Level 5 descriptor, and add words such as “regularly, independently and fully”, you now have a Level 6 descriptor. Level 6 will get your daughter into university, but Level 5 won’t. No matter how conscientious the teacher, her subjective view of how regularly, independently and fully your daughter (one of her 120 students) performs can mean university acceptance or denial. This is totally unfair to the parent, the student and the teacher.

In contrast, the NSW approach includes detailed syllabi and traditional grades, the two essentials lacking in the WA scheme.

I also anticipate WA university courses may need to be extended an extra year to compensate for students’ poor preparation. Is this what we want for our children?

[Retired Associate Professor Steve Kessell, Science and Mathematics Education Centre, Curtin University, Perth]