Kev at it again he should go back to teaching. He would be able to teach people to lie by omission, presenting half the story and general misrepresentation are Kev key skills here. Kev's a good enough in my day kind of guy and no amount of evidence will change his mind.

Three words that need to be understood

Education

Teaching

Learning

Who does them and why.

I'm still searching for the Kevin Donnelly "OFF" button.

Why on earth this man receives so much air time is beyond me. His advice is based on ideology rather than pragmatism.

Don't forget that KD is a die-hard vouchers fan and would love to see the entire Australian school system privatised and subject to a voucher system. No doubt he is waiting in the wings to cash in on that - he has his own company and will create his own school on the back of buckets of loverly government money.

Hi,

Good to see the continued interest in what I have to write. How about looking at the arguments, instead of having a go at me? If you look at the <www.platowa.com> site you will see a lot of classroom teachers agreeing with what I have been arguing for some years.

The problem is that Kevin Donelly seems to infer that education should not be based on some concept of what outcome we actually want from education. True, I can find many things in current, past and no doubt future curriculum that can be held to ridicule. Under the old curriculum in Maths I did 2 weeks on non unreal numbers with no idea why or within what context they were useful - are they? However that is the wrong way to argue against a concept - to pick bits - it is like anecdotal evidence - which is not evidence at all. Perhaps an analysis of "Home and away" would actually be more meaningful to most students than Shakespeare. That does not mean the Shakespeare is less literature, but be honest it is hardly relevant (bad word to some in education) to most students, as it was to me.

Science at school was taught and still is as though we were all to be come professional scientists. The problem is that very few do (includes me with a degree)It is much better than science is taught to students so that they can understand science as educated lay people. If they want more they get more. There is nothing wrong with seeking to institute a curricullum that aims to help students become thinking people. It is to me the first ime such aims have been expressed . We do not simply aim to have our children "good at maths or science" but better educated people.

Yeah, thanks for the link, Kev.

Bunch of whackos, evidently. Answers a lot of questions I had about you.

You have found the wrong target and are pursuing it relentlessly. How about reading Jonathan Kozol if your real concern is to help disadvantaged kids? At least he ventures out to the coalface rather than tossing stones from his ivory tower.

Kevin Donnelly is never short of detractors. Presumably, most of them are products of the dud education system he reports on.

Our shambolic state education system was stuffed up by the last three Labor governments and, the last three Coalition governments appear not to be interested in it; why would they when they can bring in "skilled" workers and professionals like doctors who can speak and understand English just as badly as the local losers we are turning out - for far less money.

Unless your kid is particularly bright and keen enough to learn, despite the dumb curriculums"; and, unless you have the money to send him or her to a decent school, and maintain a continuing interest in the kid, you may as well throw them on the growing heap of failures who can barely read and write, do basic maths, or think for themselves - thanks to the politically correct relativism they have been subjected to by left wing cranks.

The Chinese and Indians must be laughing themselves silly at all this relativistic nonsense. Meanwhile, Newton, Rutherford, etc. must be rolling over in their graves.

"How about looking at the arguments, instead of having a go at me?"

Kev, you have been banging on with these arguments so relentlessly for so long that you have come to embody them. When people think you're a fossilised loon it's because you've come to symbolise a bunch of values in education which largely reflect your highly subjective, antiquated view.

Well Kev,

This OBE stuff from the web site you stated actually looks quite good. Imagine teaching social skills to a child! What an interesting concept. Teaching them skills that will help them in gaining employment, and questioning the false and limiting morality of the past and replacing that with more tolerant and liberal world views.

Of course Kev, you forget the crucial role that parents have to play in raising their children. Only a fool would entrust any school system to actually teach their children. Parents must be involved from early in the child's development in teaching and not rely upon a school to teach your "Reading, Righting and Rithmatic" - your "three R's".

Education only begins with post-grad studies. Before that it's just baby-sitting.

"That does not mean the Shakespeare is less literature, but be honest it is hardly relevant..."
So what is the answer? Is it nobler of the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous misfortune? Or is it better to take up arms against a sea of troubles, and by fighting, end them?

shorbe

"The Chinese and Indians must be laughing themselves silly at all this relativistic nonsense. Meanwhile, Newton, Rutherford, etc. must be rolling over in their graves. "

That would have to be on the list of silly post for this site I think you should go and read about the world view of these culture and how the western Science is in many areas coming to the same conclusions. By the way Newton and Rutherford are just two of the father's of modern relativistic scientific world view. The act of observation changes and forms our reality and it is often not the same for each observer.

The line to take here is Newtons “laws of gravity” are still used when you want a simple answer and we use Einstein’s relativity when we want the more accurate one. So if you want simplistic answers the subscribe to the fixed frame ideas of the past or if you want real answers then prepare yourself for the truth…..

For Kev there may well be many teachers that think like you but you have to concede there seems to be many more that don’t. You do your argument a disservice by seeming not understanding why they don’t agree with you.

Where does the electron go when it’s tunnelling shorbe?

Could not say about weird and whacky, but much much worse, when we might excuse politicians for being like it, but as an old fella studying international relations, god bless, but have not found one mention of why the public is being conned with terms such as freedom and liberty.

Not one explanation from the most elite teachers of the Queen's English that freedom and liberty are two-toned or two timed, meaning that they can have seemingly good or evil intentions under different propositions.

For example, the liberty to shoot an enemy in wartime is correct English expression, as liberty to be loving and compassionate is also correct English expression.

The same goes with freedom without needing another expression.

From the above, it can be understood how the public can be dumbed down by misguided expression which even the father of Laizey-faire Adam Smith gave notice to when he expressed that free-market capitalism was really a concept based on the freedom or the go-ahead for competitive greed by the entrepreneur...... We might as Smith did not that there is need to find a clearer or fairer defiition.

We might wonder how many ordinary people have been misled probably by not the wrong use of freedom and liberty, but through abusive use by politicians and even social science teachers who should either know better, or should have been taught better

Kevin would have more chance of having his arguments taken seriously if he didn't freight them with cliches like "political correctness". He attacks a variety if "isms" and ideologies, as though his own article wasn't an ideology-driven campaign. As usual he pulls a random selection of items from a variety of educational curricula and waffles about the end of civilization. We can be thankful, I suppose, that at least he hasn't restated his furphy about our "Judeo-Christian culture".

For those interested in the debate on medical education you might check out the 2005 Australian Doctors Fund conference at http://www.adf.com.au/contents.php?subdir=library/2005/med_ed_conf/&filename=PHP_index (apologies for the wretched URL). As usual, the picture is a great deal more complex than the "dumbed down" grab peddled by Kevin. According to Mukesh Haikerwal (Vice President of the AMA) "medicine is about not just the science but the art and it's important to get the balance right." Nobody argues that doctors shouldn't have a solid grounding in science. But a physician deals with people (in case you hadn't noticed).

As for outcomes-based learning, what do you expect? The notion of a liberal arts education (in the classical sense) has gone the way of the dodo. We are in a world of KPIs, performance measures and evaluation. Education has simply followed the trend, and this has nothing to do with postmodernism, feminism or marxism. If this is the expression of any "ism" it is "corporatism".

Kenny: I think you've misunderstood me, but I think that's my fault for not elaborating.

I'm not saying that complex and differing ideas or accounts shouldn't exist in any system, in this case science. However, I think that high school level learning should, in many ways, be about the nuts and bolts of the particular matter, with deep philosophical analysis coming after the ground work has been laid. In an ideal world, there'd be time for both, but given that kids might get about four hours a week for science, or a particular branch thereof, I don't think it's possible for this to happen without the foundations getting seriously neglected.

My comment about Newton and Rutherford was with respect to that, ie. that they'd probably be upset that the groundwork has been completely hijacked by another agenda.

As for my comments about China and India, I wasn't making a comment on their world views and how western science does or doesn't relate. It was anything but a slur on them as I believe the tradition of western science will be carried forward (and expanded upon) by them, and not us. What I was alluding to was that firstly, ironically, I suspect they're more likely to lay a more thorough groundwork in western science than the west does. Secondly, where does Australia's future lie if not in areas such as scientific research? Yet we sabotage ourselves with all sorts of nonsense. They must be laughing at how easily we're forfeiting our own future to them.

As for your last question, I wouldn't know. I know very little about science.

Kev

I had a look at the PLATO site, but was turned off by the (1993) paper at the main page which is as values-laden as the OBE it discourages. I would rather see a more objective argument.

Notwithstanding, reading through the responses to your article, I find all the evidence I need that objective, rather than outcomes-based, education is the foundation of advancement. The absence of quality critique in these responses, coupled with the diabolical spelling and grammar are disturbing. Are these the early effects of OBE? It is some consolation at least that my 17yr old daughter (who is studying both science and humanist subjects for her matriculation) could stage a better argument.

I am not a school teacher however I am an adult educator and my corporate clients are quite precise about the knowledge they want their employees to learn. I also Chair the Board of Directors of a school which I believe does a pretty good job of balancing objective and subjective learning. My observation through this role is that there is a place for OBE, in programs where it is appropriate. For instance, our school includes a Unit for about 20 mildly handicapped (physically and mentally) children, for whom a totally objective teaching method helps little. The other students' experience, spending seven years with and supporting handicapped peers, brings a wonderful development of healthy values and beliefs. You can't 'teach' these things in a classroom, but you sure can learn them in a school.

In much the same way, there is a place for teaching post-modern theory, as a philosophical perspective. There are also places for eastern philosophy and spirituality (also covered at this Catholic school). However they must accompany, and can complement quite well, the scientific method. They can never replace it.

So Kev, ignore the doubters who promote the view that if you persist in something then you must be wrong. If we followed this approach, we would think that if we ignore 'peak oil' then some form of post-modern oil-fields will suddenly materialise just because we believe them to be there.

It is a one eyed view of the changes.... since no-one that I know remembers any of the physics they had been taught in school, "the duty to teach" is a pretty empty argument. In fact it is NOT an argument, it is just an assumption about what teaching is. RELEVANCE and cultural context are important. Should a doctor just pick up the phone and tell someone they are going to die in a month because he KNOWS it?
EH......
SOOOO reactionary!

How did we ever let these trendy weirdo's get control of our curriculums?
None of the public want it.
I do not know a teacher who wants it.
As an employer of young people, I know its an utter failure.
In class assessment is a totally usless tool for judging the suitability of someone for employment.
It also favors the female mind, & technique of working.
How are we going to get rid of it, without bloodshed?

Relevance is important. I had the same problem with maths as an earlier contributor: too abstract at secondary level > non comprendo, but not for lack of ability, as demonstrated before and since. But I saw classmates excel by that approach. Education needs to be responsive to the capacities of learners, and mixed and balanced in methodology according to effectiveness. You can't hope to produce the best possible results (= "I learned something significant and lasting and became a better person") with a one-size-fits-all approach, and that's why it has gone out the window.

It is possible to get so hung up on measurement that you lose the sense of process, but the ultra-traditionalists are kidding themselves if they claim not to be interested in results, or that it will all work out for the best if we stick to the 'fundamentals' and let people work out the rest for themselves (= 'adapt or fail').

It is also possible to become too hung up on context, and there are teachers who retreat into it as a cover for incompetence, but without it you produce not educated people but compartmentalised automotons and artful sociopaths (ideal executive material?)

Study Neighbours instead of Shakespeare, especially because Shakespeare is "irrelevant" or "too hard"? - a recipe for social-intellectual mediocity and ignorance of the evolution of the English language and culture, and in the absence of LOTE/intercultural studies, any language or culture. Shakespeare without Neighbours? - a recipe for education-avoidance and elitism.

As for a voucher system, the parentally favoured would get the goodies, the culturally disadvantaged the crumbs.

I love the way outcomes are blamed for the apparent failure of our education system. I think outcomes are a great idea - they state clearly what we want students to achieve in a particular subject. They force comparability and ensure that all schools have fairly uniform expectations. The trouble is not the concept of outcomes - it is the outcomes themselves. If science outcomes were to relate to science - eg "students use prescribed methods to balance chemical equations" or "students identify the similarities and differences between amphibian and mammal respiratory systems", I doubt people would be whingeing about them.

I don't know what the WA science outcomes are, so I can't comment on their validity. If the WA system is similar to the QLD system, outcomes can't be blamed for bizarre senior subject expectations. In QLD, outcomes are only used in years 1-10. Chemistry and other senior sciences work on the traditional criteria-based assessment schemes.

i was surprised and shocked when reading the points of view displayed on this page. i am a student studying the new english course of study and it is nothing short of laughable. the course and expectations of both the students and the teachers is forever changing and our "marks" give us no understanding of how we are going. they are just a couple of things highlighted on the leveling sheets. You say that outcomes are meant to help us know exactly what we have to do for a task, but they are useless jargon which is extremely hard to interpret and it is impossible to relate to all tasks. All the decisions for our course are being made up on the spot and it is having a detrimental effect on the education of Australias future.

Richard talks of outcomes, but does not say whose.
As a parent I can asure him that the outcomes enunciated by many in the so called 'teaching profession', are not those I want for my children.

In the public education sector, teachers need to realise they are enmployed as public servants - to serve the public, who after all, have little choice but to place their children in the hands of such people for so much of the important developmental years of their lives. They are not there as self appointed social engineers.

Absolutelty bang on the money with that article Kevin.

The one line that is the most important would have to be "At the school level, outcomes-based education is attacked as drowning teachers in hundreds of vague and faddish learning outcomes that are impossible to teach and report on to parents. "

Here are some of these statements from the EARTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE Course of study:

"Level 5
The student: understands models and concepts that explain the interrelationship between Earth resources and quality of life. Explains and assesses reasons for the differing opinions in sustainable practice and how these affect social, environmental and economic management. Explains how particular decisions and actions are deemed ‘responsible’, and can assess their appropriateness for sustainable management in their homes, school and broader community.

Level 6
The student: uses and applies principles to explain the interrelationship between Earth resources and quality of life. Applies an understanding of earth and environmental science to make decisions about practices that affect social, environmental and economic management, and critically evaluates those decisions. Formulates and assesses plans specifically designed for sustainable management of resources in their homes, school and region.

Level 7
The student: analyses systems and applies theories to explain the interrelationship between Earth resources and quality of life. Demonstrates a willingness to rework their own understanding of earth and environmental science as a result of critically and ethically evaluating regional decisions about practices that affect social, environmental and economic management. Analyses and evaluates management plans for sustainable management in their homes, school and region and in terms of achieving policy goals and regional aims.

Level 8
The student; conceptualises sustainable management of resources to interpret and explain balance, cycles and equilibrium in systems as a whole in relation to enhancing quality of life. Applies theoretical frameworks to critically and ethically evaluate global decisions about practices that affect economic, social and environmental conditions. Reflects and critically evaluates real life plans that are designed to ensure sustainable management practices on a global scale. Makes judgments about the effectiveness of those plans in terms of ethics and viability."

Bear in mind their are 4 outcomes for each subject with 8 levels and at least 3 indictators of acievement, that makes 96 ludcrous statements for each subject that a teacher or student must wade through.

How are teachers, students (and their parents) expected to understand any of this convoluted edu-babble?
Education is about learning or understanding and applying concepts (with some evaluation and analysis) not about trying to interpret a bunch of non-sensical outcome statements.
Like most teachers in WA I am completley outraged by these
ill-concieved courses of study.