Peter. Although I am a Godless person, your metaphor makes perfect sense to me.

If it were possible to begin one's education with a certain attitude of mind (no brainwashing) - then the process of learning would also become the gathering of wisdom. That is always a personal journey and quite beyond the scope of the gatekeepers who measure progress with yardstick and compass.

To me, it's a case of heading off into the trackless bush. It's no good if we are given a bitumen highway. The point has been missed and the beauty will never be appreciated.

With a basic grounding in English comprehension, math and ethics, a child will make his/her own way through the bush. These things are akin to warm socks, stout boots and a nutricious lunch. Never give them a map and compass, or they will all arrive in Sydney.

Being an old miner, I appreciate the metaphor of the alchemist. The alchemists knew that the effort to produce gold required a transmutation of the self. Isaac Newton was an inverterate alchemist. He produced no gold, but his personal transmutation shines as a beacon for us all.

In a way, our education system has lost it's faith in our children's latent abilities.

ChrisShaw;

You seem to be able to rationalize things, a bit. Can you expand, though?

You finished by saying that the 'system' has lost faith in the kids. That obviously cant be right. A system has no conscience, no living force per-se.

So, it needs to be looked at in real terms. What part of the 'system' has actually lost faith? Keeping in mind that the system is populated by humans, could you explain which bits of the 'system' are incorrect.

'If we know what the student is expected to learn then we can assess it.' 'Free, that is, from the ideology that is bound to creep into any attempt to sum up a learning outcome.'

thus

'If we really want to know what is wrong with education then we must look at the hopelessness of contemporary culture.'

Is this correct?

I am fairly sure the writer can not distinguish between competency based education (CE) and outcomes based education (OE) so the article is probably opinion without content. It is CE that starts with " after completing .. you will be able to.." or some such

OE and CE are opposite ends of a spectrum. OE is broad, ie using diferent disciplines together rather than doing maths, english chemistry as separate quite distinct subjects. CE is based on learning a skill. TAFE type subjects are all so described.

I think it worthwhile for a little research before sounding off. Various keywords would be "competency based" and "outcomes based" but I would recommend research into "transfer of learning" as that is the main problem OE seeks to address

There is very interesting debate about these different philosohies but I always have found it quite strange that CE has been adopted, without debate, for some years - to education's detriment- but OE has a very stormy passage. I suppose competencies fit with the right wing agenda whereas I guess OE is more left. Who knows? But I would hate to see OE blamed for CEs failings

Trust Peter S to come at things from a different direction! Where most people criticise OBE (wrongly, in my view) for being too woolly, unaccountable and unmeasurable, Peter S sees it as rail-roading students into a pre-determined, ultra-rationalist, managerial view of learning.

Thanks for the thought-provoking essay Peter, but I think your criticisms miss the mark.

Here is a small taste of the outcomes for “by the end of this course, the student will be able to …” from the current NSW Japanese HSC course…
---
- applies knowledge of language structures to create original text.
- describes, narrates and reflects on real or imaginary experience in the past, present or future.
- structures and sequences ideas and information.
- identifies and conveys the gist, main points, supporting points and detailed items of specific information.
- summarises, interprets and evaluates information.
- understand aspects of the language and culture of Japanese-speaking communities.
- recognises and employs language appropriate to different social contexts.
----
And so on, in this vein, for about a dozen more such points.

I think these points throw down a challenging, rigourous and sound set of hurdles for learners to clear (are you OBE critics listening?), but I don’t agree that anybody embarking on a “sermon” addressing these points would be heading for a pre-determined or managerialist outcome. These outcomes leave enormous room to maneuver, and allow the teacher to tailor their lessons to the level and needs of their class.

Peter, I’m also unconvinced that a sermon is a good analogy for what teachers do, or should do, nowadays. By conceptualising the teacher as delivering a sermon from a pulpit, are you not simply repeating the old transmission-based, fill-up-their-empty-heads model of teaching?

And Chris Shaw, our current curriculum places enormous faith in children's latent abilities. That’s why we don’t deliver “sermons”, and why the current paradigm of teaching is to “start where the learner is at”.

Thanks for the stimulating discussion.

Richard,
I am chastened by your comment. I had some idea that I would come up against educators who knew much more about the current teaching philosophies. Of course competence based methods are important otherwise we would have bridges falling down and bad diagnosis. This article was written from outside of the profession with the sneaking idea that there was something amiss. If I have got the nomenclature wrong I apologise but I think that my point about the essential nature of education, particularly in the arts, holds.

Mercurius.
I can see your point about the Japanese language class. However, you miss my point about the nature of sermon writing. Unfortunately preaching is vastly misunderstood, it is not simply the imposition of one person’s ideas on another. The point that I am trying to make is that about the freedom of the intellectual exercise. This applies just as much to research in natural science as it does in writing a sermon. One does not know where one is going to end up. It is that openness that must be guarded. We must be open to accepting what we find and have the courage to discard or preconceptions.

Mercurius writes, "I think these points [OBE syllabus] throw down a challenging, rigourous and sound set of hurdles for learners to clear.

Hmm. I'm sure there's a lot more to the Japanese language instructional specification referred to above than is presented here - at least I really hope so - but what's missing is the height of the hurdles. How high does the learner have to jump to clear the bar? What's missing are the standards. Who sets the height of the bar? Individual teachers? Student ability and their personal needs?

Without specified standards, teachers will have different ideas of what constitutes satisfactory completion.

And finally, how are the outcomes tested for successful achievement?

I have read many such lists of so called outcomes and far too many of them are a lot of waffle without specific targets defined. Do any standards exist for this course?

Thank you Maximus for taking an interest and your sincere and worthy questions.

The answers to your specific queries about the Japanese syllabus are here:

boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/syllabus_hsc/pdf_doc/japanesec_syl.pdf

You will also find in those folders the prescribed vocabulary, grammar structures and kanji required for HSC.

And the answers to your more general questions are all on the transparent, publicly-accountable NSW Board of Studies website:

www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au

Including HSC standards, performance measures etc. And there are both external standards set by the board of studies, and internal standards set by the school and the teacher. At the end of year 12, the teacher's and school's internal standards are then offset against the state benchmarks, and "normed" to the overall state's performance to provide a common ground. For example, if one teacher has given all their students 100% in-class, but their exam performance reveals they're really only average students in the statewide exam - then the internal assessment scores are adjusted to reflect this.

Now, if you are as sincere as your questioning suggests, you will glance through these documents and quickly realise that there's more to this edu-macation business that meets the eye and hey, guess what, there actually are some specialist technical needs that teachers are trained in, in order to interpret and implement such documents.

Who would've thunk it?

But if you're like most insincere critics of education, you won't even take make the minimal effort required to give them a cursory examination, since it's much easier to carp on upon something than to make even a cursory attempt to understand what one is criticising.

The editors of The Australian hope you choose to do the latter, because this issue sells them a lot of newspapers, and if people had a good understanding of it, they'd realise there's a whole lot less to the "schools crisis" than meets the eye.

The choice, as always, is yours.

I think that there is a crisis in education. I have intellectually gifted children in the education system and they are just so tired of being 'educated' to think and sound the same and having to constantly compete to get access to the education that they need. They just want to enjoy their childhood and learn.

My children tell me that alot of their peers feel the same way and that many dont even know how smart they are because school just keeps focusing on where they dont measure up and not allowing them to excell and move forward in their areas of need.

The curriculum is stifling because they squeeze students in to age/grade barrells every year. The range in any group can be as much as 3 years and that is just chronologically, that doesn't include mentally. Then they aim to educate in the middle. For the vast majority it is a bad fit.

When school is boring or you dont understand school becomes a real chore and a pain and generally that leads children to being unhappy and often that leads to no good.

Mercurius,

Many thanks for your challenge - wink, wink. And by the way, I'm still gob-smacked by your brilliant name, I really love it. Salute.

But yes, I fear we on are different sides of the divide. Hopefully that shall not affect our dialogue on this most genuine and serious issue that this topic of education is.

I must tell you that when I read that you were referring me to "NSW Board of Studies", a chill ran down my spine and for me, credibility flew out the window - I have no respect for that lot of trash whatsoever.

Unfortunately at this time of night, I must attend to my domestic duties and cook the evening dinner - meat and 'tatoes, you understand, but with some gourmet sauce I am yet to assess and determine. It all depends upon what ingredients the resident matron has purchased for me and stocked in the pantry. However, I am enthused by your post and shall respond to it gracefully in the fullness of time.

And oh yeah, if you want your links to work on this site, paste the full URL into the text, like this - http://www... (accompanied with rest of address)

Look forward to further engagement tomorrow. All the very best mate. Respect.

Has anyone heard of the Barrows and Tamblyn (1982) Problem Based Learning Model (PBL) as taught at the Universiy of Newcastle Medical and Nursing Faculties?

I have taught PBL at four university nursing programs. Discovery learning - yes. Prescriptive - no. Outcomes based - yes - insofaras essential skills must be assessed and attained at an excellent level, for example: mental health assessment.

Cheers
Kay

I don't mean to offend those that have commented that their children complain about the limitations of the curriculum, indeed I find that a more non linear, post-modern approach to education curriculum would encompass the needs of the individual student, but you must realize the heart attack that would cause in parliament, considering the political rigor that Howard condemned the post colonial views of history recently. Neither do I want to take away from the concerns of the idealistic teacher, who feels the ‘outcomes’ based rubric hinders student academic exploration. I most exclusively want to highlight instead, for my own clarification (yes that means correct me if I am wrong) what this education row is really all about. As a recent school leaver (the class of 2002) and final year university student, I am finding this 'education crisis' debate to be rather unprogressive, tedious and recurrent of 1950s politics in this country. I am referring to John Howard’s comments concerning his concerns over left wing ideological influence.

Sorry, but before I do that, one point I do want to mention is the need to defend the use of outcome based education. I will concede that my experiences do not equal that of Mr. Sellick (occupational or generational) but my view as a former secondary humanities student does hold a contextual significance.

During my final years in secondary school, I was an avid student of English, modern history, ancient hist. I also was studied extra units in English and (dare I say it) studied post modernism for my HSC. The curriculum rubric for us students was like a Bible (bad use of simile) but it was an essential blueprint of the subject at hand, and a reference for our conceptualization of key themes and issues. As we would learn a new key theory, we would religiously highlight or tick the outcomes and be academically content.

(cont)

(cont)
These guidelines were never perceived as being restrictive, from a students point of view every point on the page represented an acquisition of ‘new’ information, new thoughts and questions. The rubric was how students were able to identify and self- assess their preparation for final exams and assessments. Personally I felt that it gave us a sense of autonomy as we could clearly make out the ‘beginning’ point and the ‘end’ point and see all the expectations in between. Like most things approached in a linear fashion, (teaching history in a modernist perspective) there was room for students to become disillusioned with the limitations imposed by these outcomes, they could also visibly perceive where they were falling behind. This only meant that it was clear to determine how much work was needed to get themselves back on ‘track’, more significantly so could the teachers.

The outcomes approach is but a small aspect of the larger more recent concern within the ‘education debate’. In his infamous Quadrant speech last week Mr. Howard attacked the Board of education for their role in creating and influencing a leftist ideology in Australia. Well ok, he didn’t specifically say the education system, just the ‘universities’ and the ‘communistic’ academic intelligentsia. He tried to downplay this ideological condemning by placing it in ‘the-way-history-is-taught’ context, once again taking up the battle in support of Windschuttle and Blainey and their conservative interpretations of Australian history.

If this is the real issue then Mr. Howard you really should come right out and say it. At least your Education Minister made it clear the other night in a vox pop outside parliament house, ‘...Students are being made to read Macbeth through a Marxist and feminist perspectives'... she was outraged and continued to point out how the curriculums were being completely distorted to represent the specific ideological beliefs of those in charge of creating them

Outcomes based education is GOOD......but...one cannot apply the same approach to all spheres of education.

E.G. SCIENCE & MATHS should be VERY outcomes based. Get your science or maths wrong and the next space shuttle goes down in a screaming heap.

I think 'outcomes' based education is better described as 'training'.
I did a course on this once, and the idea of having an educational goal for 'training' purposes is pretty much the ONLY way you can approach it.

At the end of this session, you will be able to:

a) Draw connecting tracks on a screen joining components.
b) Modify and create library symbols for new components
c) Transform the created connectivity into manufacturable art work.
d) Create a bill of materials.

ASSESSMENT
You will be deemed to have attained this goal if:
a) You can do it correctly.
b) You can do it within a specified time period (based on a standard model/schematic)

There is no other way to go with training for real world activity.

SELLS SAID:

"The educational process is subverted because our destination has already been set. So it does not matter how well the teacher excites the interest of the class or what the members of the class bring to the classroom, the destination will be the same"

errrr...YES.. the destination had jolly well BETTER be the same.. of we will be building an Eiffel tower instead of the Sherman Tank we were intending to make !

SELLS ur reading too many of dem liberal theology works :)

There is Education
-to perform specified tasks' (training ?)
-to approach problems from many angles and arrive at valid conclusions.
(the power of observation and critical thinking ?)

It seems to me that a different approach is needed for the Sciences and Humanities/Arts.

If we applied 'training objectives' approach to Art appreciation, we would probably end up with a blinkered graduate.
If we applied 'critical thinking' to science in a subjective way, some of our planes would fly.....into the ground

Gadget and Mercurius, you have fairly caught me out speaking "from the gut". Since G W Bush has discredited this approach forever, it seems that I must make the effort to substitute grey matter for brown matter.

- fair enough.

Thanks for the explanation of OE vs CE.

I will do what I should have done in the first place:

- wait until the argument develops and get an education from your comments -

Thankyou.

Outcome based education is only good if it is pitched at the right pace and level appropriate for an individual students need.

When my daughter started Kindergarten she was already reading fluently she has a measured IQ of 161. The school used an outcome based curriculum and taught her phonics and, at the end of the year they gave her the phonics outcome test. She was reading novels for goodness sake, my daughter felt humiliated! Nobody saw a problem with that?

In Kindergarten the teacher sometimes gave her some extension because it was obvious that she was extremely gifted and she could already read but blending sounds instead of phonics when the child can already read fluently doesn’t make a difference.

Outcome based education stops the system from identifying those that beyond stage outcomes and/or are gifted and doesn't allow for individuality or growth.

The next year they taught her blending sounds, she had been assessed at high school level with 95% comprehension (she hit the ceiling of the test). The school outcome based curriculum didn't allow her, not just to learn, but to show what she knew. Surprise, surprise she got full marks again. She couldn’t enjoy her results because it was so easy that it was embarrassing. School was so boring and a total waste of time. My daughter became unhappy, depressed and sick.

Outcomes based curriculum work only if the students are graded on the basis of ability and not age. They are stifling our children. The early years cause the most damage and that is where outcome based education is doing the most harm.

Children should be encouraged to progress through education and a level and pace that is beneficial to them in the different subject areas as everybody is different, even if they are the same age.

Jolanda,

Agree. Outcomes (sic. Competency) Based Education can be effective in its own niche. CBE is more relevant to vocational educational education than higher education. A read of the Australian Quality Framework gives some good guidlines. Just the same, when pedagogy becomes andragogy things change. Adults need a sense they are partipating indendently and going beyond the textbook.

At university the best business studies classes are when academics (often with little pactical experience)and senior managers (with little theoretical knowledge) come together.

As for the teaching of religion, it is often the case the priest, minister or rabbi, is looked up to as have special insights, possibly reinforced by indoctrination from theological college. This is poor andragogy. That pastoral figure is often patriarchal and it would be bad form to rigourously challenge that person, on pain of being alienated from the reference group. For example, if one told Father O'Reilly in front of a congregation that Christian church had thirteen Jewish bishops before Christianity emerged, the historically accurate facts would put aside. The whole nature of a sermon places congregation in the position of patients. When did you last hear a congregation member verballyinteract with a priest at the alter in the middle of mass or a minister ask for dissenting questions from the pulpit, as might a university lecturer?

Jolanda,

Again, I agree with you, regarding streaming students. A selective school is an option, but she would need to deal emotionally with perhaps not always coming fist in the class. An 161 IQ is unusual given that psych. tests used by psychologists, tend to measure to three standard deviations (plus) based of fifteen raw scores.

There are also social factors to consider and depedence/independence matters [related to being child and nor an adult]. Because cognitive abilities can mature "early" in some children and IQ is MA/CA, some differentials can tend to narrow over time. Just the same, I guess it is best to give her an advanced start, before she becomes too bored. Also, bear in mind, she could be a much smarter than her teachers: A potential problem in high school.

It might be an idea, if have not done so already, to check for specific abilities, such as, verbal comprehension and manual dexterity, in insolation. It is good she has developed sound reading abilities. Reading ability is not genetic: Some superiorly gifted can be poor readers [Einstein, Darwin]

Oliver, my daughters aim has never been to come first. Her aim has always been to enjoy her childhood and grow up happy, confident and strong.

Yes IQ 161 is unusual. She was tested by the UNSW on the SB4. Apparently only a handful of people have ever scored that high on that test. It is essentially the ceiling of the test and extremely difficult to obtain. There is no doubt that my daughter is exceptionally to profoundly intellectually gifted. It was also across the board, in math’s, writing and in every single area. She is also extremely sensible and mature and excells in sport.

The system tried it’s best to cut her down and hold her back. They totally neglected her and it needn’t even have taken any money. They could have just given her the work from a few years up.

Next year she will be going to Year 11. She should be going to University that would be the best place for her to be to meet her needs.

The problem about being smarter than the teachers and being able to ‘read between the lines” has caused my children so much grief and has even resulted in hostility from some teachers towards my children

Jolanda,

It sounds like you have loads of common sense. With my post I had WAIS in mind which if memory serves generally measures the third standard (plus) deviation at 145 (99.97%). General scales tend to produce bigger numbers with genius (gifted) at 150 (WAIS, 130?). At 161, I would assume your daughter is superiorly gifted (top 5% of gifted?). Had you tested her when she was say 5 or 6 years old you might have found her IQ even higher on tests. Overtime other people can catch-up, a bit to do with brain maturation and a bit to do with the Math involved in calculating IQs. An IQ of over 160 on a General Scale (140, WAIS) is truly exceptional.

Teachers (TER 70%?) can be a problem. What does one do if I child points that Plasma is a fourth state of matter, when the teacher is instructing Solids, Liquids and Gases?

Oliver, it's good to come across somebody who understands. It hasn't been easy, my husband and I are not highly educated and we have 4 extremely gifted kids.

Then to make things worse after waiting for 5 years in the Public School system to finally get to Year 5 Opportunity Class were they hoped that things would be better, they didn't get in. In my daughters case her General Ability score was 17/20 on the test on the day and that represented an IQ of over 160 even on the Departments' IQ scale but they said that apparently she got a low mark for English and they didn’t offer her a place. She said no way that she scored that low for English, something is wrong!

We appealed the decision and they had her IQ test before them, all her school reports and basic skills tests in which she achieved the highest level possible for her year. All her University competition results in all subjects all in the high 90's. Her music results - all honours. She lost her appeal for a place in the schools that are supposed to be designed for gifted children despite having and identified and recognised need.

There is something seriously wrong.

I've said this previously where ......... I suspect that we humans share many unconscious yearnings and that the freedom to follow and control our perceptions, our intellectual curiosities and hence our behaviour is one of the greatest as well as one with the greatest benefit. If we can assume that perception refers to the world as we experience it, then its nature indicates each person's uniqueness ..... hence individuality. So what a blessing and doesn't this suggest that at the centre of education there can only be the learner where education refers to a modern English word, educe, meaning to bring out, elicit or evoke or ........... simply to help people to realise themselves with their innate talents and qualities extracted. I just wonder, like Peter expresses, how a prescriptive outcomes education system can be anything else but product oriented with identical products and value free. This is target training "education".

I'm reminded of my old (.......like fifty years ago) primary school motto of "Aim High" where I remember sincerely saying to a number of my good teachers that if you aim high you will obviously miss the target. Outcomes based education systems miss the target.

Jolanda,

Sorry to learn that your daughter lost her appeal. You seem to have good support your case, and placing so much weight on one assessment instrument does seem logical to me. IQ tests are standardised when developed but can be subject to cultural influences and prove disadvantagous to some test takers.

Your daughter and other kids should enjoy university, especially after the first year foundation subjects.

Also, as you say, The Happinesss Quotient is important too :-).

TYPO (ABOVE):

"... placing so much weight on one assessment instrument does NOT seem logical to me."

This is a very worthwhile discussion. Well done, Peter.

Some issues for me are as follows:

1. Are all subjects the same? If I am teaching car maintenance at school or TAFE, I want the students to be able to pull apart a car and put it together so that it keeps running efficiently.

If I am treading in Manning Clark's footsteps teaching history, I might ask his famous question:
"Well, Miss Jones, and what do you think of Australian history?"
Of course, there is no correct or single outcome for such a discussion, except provoking students to think. I am guilty of provoking, challenging, amusing and at times confronting my students at school and university. When I taught the rise of Nazi Germany to high school students at Marayong some years ago, I confronted them witrh a horrific fact. Adolf Hitler was a monster who set up a horrifying State. Yet he was voted into power by ordinary, decent men and women. Confronting, yes? But I would be unable to get an "outcome" or "competency" out of this teaching.
For me, then, all subjects are not the same. [I would wonder about medicine and graphic design] My examples are very different.

2. Are students all the same? I once taught a subject in which students learnt about history by doing it. They could pick almost any historical project in the long history of Western Sydney that interested them. They investigated, interviewed, puzzled, got fruiustrated and created a mini history. All learnt ABOUT history by DOING history, but their journeys were different.

3. Political correctness has killed off many worthwhile debates. My students are scared of being anti-Aboriginal, antifeminist, etc etc. We have pushed students into a corner. They no longer tell us what they are really thinking.
These days in many educational settings one is almost scared to talk about God the Father. Sorry, fathers are no good these days. Could you make Him into a woman, please? [No blasphemy intended]

4.I am not a Christian but it's good to see someone nailing his colours to the mast.Bravo.

Bondi Pete. My children don't want to even think about thinking, they just want to remember what they have been told as they are concerned about making mistakes because they know that all the attention will be placed on the mistakes and their marks. I just despair when I see what the system has done to thier brains, confidence and potential.

Oliver, if my children had of been happy I wouldn't be complaining thats for sure, I would be praising the system.

Jolanda and Bondi Pete,

There is a difference between pedagogy and andragogy. Young chindren need instruction,adults don't. There is a middle ground in my experience 16-22 years, as adolescents become adults, mentally and with regards independence.

At undergrad. university, I often set exams 30% rote, 70% critical/independent thought, but it does depend on whether it is a 101 or 301 subject. One does need to know the rudiments and also to apply their undestanding in a variety of novel situations.

Outcomes based education has many meanings. In one sense, it is nothing new, as teachers have always taught to outcomes. In WA, it seems to be disaster in the making. In Victoria, it was the result of a plot by the Right to undermine public education by falsely claiming that prior to the Liberal election victory of 1992 teachers had been teaching processes instead of content, that spending money on education is just 'throwing money' at education and that teachers were a privileged and pampered elite. Thus, its introduction was used to provide rhetorical cover for the disposal of 9,000 teachers, the tearing up of previously legally enforceable contracts setting out teaching and learning conditions and a whole host of other absurdities.

Victoria still has OBE. Among the outcomes are specific requirements for traditional skills such as correct grammar and vaguer less assessable items. The danger in it is, as Peter Sellick points out, is that what cannot be measured is discounted and the teacher's role as a developer of minds becomes narrowed to what can be measured: nothing has meaning unless it can be turned into a number.

It is difficult for teachers to resist this pressure because their profession is under sustained attack from the Right whose claims about what teachers do in schools are false but repeated ad nauseam

Peter ,For school students, there was no indifference to todays problems with their inspired winning performance of ST COLUMBA'S COLLEGE in the Rock Eisteddfod .They loved getting their message over about the methods of political control used by our and other governments .
They will make good citizens well aware of the politics of fear .
No wonder Howard wants to take the Education curriculum away from the States.For Australians, his would be a very different and "whitewashed" History.