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?