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.