Er, Kevin, didn't you WRITE 'the report'? Isn't it a bit misleading not to mention that?

I’ll put aside for now the matter of comparing educational attainment across different countries and some very difficult questions like what constitutes “essential” learning.

Since the introduction of OBE, amounts of time and resources are used – especially in primary schools – for preparing syllabi and creating or procuring the materials to deliver them to students. The lack of clear, sequential syllabi also makes for a high level of anxiety among teachers as they try to fulfil their responsibility to equip students for their future lives as well as helping them deal with immediate concerns. No wonder the attrition rate in the profession is so high.

However, we must not regress to the old system that bound syllabus rigidly to chronological age. Life experiences, along with physiological, psychological and emotional development, will always vary among students of the same age. It’s part of being human.

Likewise, we must not allow the system to present certain schools or communities as “failures” and others as “elite” simply because they are forced to use the same syllabus despite the circumstances and developmental levels of their clientele.

The issue is far more complex than the either/or question that Kevin Donnelly presents. Of course he may have deliberately simplified the argument to be more polemically effective in his article, and this is understandable, but as educationists we must be more than polemicists.

I'm with Laurie on this. Kevin has pushing this barrow for so long it would have been amazing if his report came up with any other conclusions.

Thank you Mr Donnelly. I totally agree.
Anyone interested may I refer;
An Examination of the New Visual Arts Syllabus Years 11-12 for NSW,
Alan LEE,
Nat Library
Bar Code 980605724
Ask your childs teacher why opinion is negated, indeed, anauthorised, and how administrators write syllabus, not the people with the knowledge. Carry the government line or lose the job.

Thank you for your article Mr Donnelly

I have taught both curricula approaches and sillabi approaches. And I have taught a combination of both as a university senior lecturer and curriculum designer.

Experience tells me that a syllabi approach until year 10 is the better way to go (teachers can still be creative). I think students in years 11 and 12 should be introduced to a conceptual model in preparation for tertiary studies. But even so, when it comes to final scores, I think that students should be required to reach specific criteria. They should have an equal right to pass, and an equal right to fail.

I taught at university level for some 10 years or so. Much of my time was needlessly spent in teaching Australian born students who did not know how to use correct grammar or how to spell. I was supposed to be teaching mental health nursing.

I did not have the same problem with the many Hong Kong students who were in my classes. They thrived on the Barrows and Tamplyn model of Problem-based Learning (PBL). They were a joy to teach. They could read fluently, write quite well given that English was their second language, and they worked their buts off. My only complaint about these students was that they worked too hard - often telephoning me until midnight.

For goodness sake. Students have a right to pass, and they have an equal right to fail.

Failure can be a strong motivator. People do not die as a result of failure. Failure can be a great teacher. Some of my most outstanding students became outstanding because they had failed!

Cheers
Kay

Dr Donnelly,

You have made your point. Over and over and over again. It will be ignored like all your other efforts because they are all based on assumptions and generalisations. You are a dinosaur. Thank heavens no-one listens to you.