Kevin,
Just because you taught for 18 years does not necessarily qualify you to judge the system old mate, What it qualifies you to do is to be a teacher, and how do we know whether or not you were a good one?

Dear Mr Donelly,

re:
" ... I taught for 18 years and I have spent the last two years looking at all state and territory intended curricula documents around Australia – a book will be published early next year that gives chapter and verse evidence of the ‘left’s’ long march through the education system and my view about what education should entail.
Posted by Kevin D, Friday, 3 November 2006 10:43:13 AM"

(1) It's good to know that you have at some time been a teacher, as it lends you some credibility. But you need to put your experience on a timeline that all of us can read. When were you last in a classroom or a school common room? The 18 years of experience could have ended 18 years ago. And what curricula and syllabi were within your brief?

(2) To which publisher should I write, to request a free review copy of your eagerly awaited book?

(3) Have you not appealed to your own authority in paragraph I quoted above? Is this sufficient for your argument, otherwise lacking the evidence which may be available in your as-yet unpublished book?

What if we consider another way of gathering evidence?
If we look at, say, the Roman Catholic Church, we may assume the presence of committed activists in Catholic schools who are delivering curricula and syllabi within an arguably ideological environment - the "Ethos" of Catholic schools.

Surely, here is a set of schools which can be compared to the schools infested with AEU members.

Both sets of schools, in given states, are subject to the same curricula and teach many of the same syllabi. A cleverly designed instrument should allow you to tease out, measure and compare evidence of impartiality or otherwise, and identify some of the consequences of subjecting students to ideological bias. Even better, you might be able to categorise the Catholic schools, based on strong and weak links to "liberation theology".

A robust, peer-reviewed comparison of states, schools, types of schools, curricula, syllabi, teachers and student attitudes would be a feather in your cap!

BOAZ David,

You stated:
“So this is why we should have a balance between the very valuable 'outcomes based' education approach and the more content and competitive approach that Donnelly seems to be promoting.
“But 'outcomes based' education should be structured in such a way that specific content is also inculcated.”

Outcomes based education does include content. In fact, when it was officially introduced to Victoria by the Kennett Liberal Government, one of the reasons advanced for it was that it would focus on content rather than process. Below is the major part of report I wrote on 20/6/1994:

'MEN IN SUITS

'Last Thursday, Alan and I went to a conference with the advertised title of "Improving Student Learning". We were addressed by a number of men in suits who earn more money than we do on the claimed latest fashion in education - which appeared to me to be LaTrobe Dip. Ed circa 1971 dressed up in new IPA language.

'According to the DSE et al, the new focus in education is on "outcomes", not "inputs" or "free-floating process statements" - on learning not teaching: the DSE is therefore moving from "course advice" to "curriculum support material", and the era of re-inventing the wheel in schools is over.

'The CSF (Curriculum Standards Framework) - all 300 to 400 pages of it - will cause schools to focus on content, the how of learning and the demonstration of learning having taken place…The professional development necessary to implement this initiative will be the responsibility of schools as we all have to operate within budget cuts and executive memos. Schools refusing to implement the CSF will be dealt with.

'The conference was not what I expected. It did not deal with improving student learning at all. Questions had to be in writing, and two vital ones asked by my group regarding teacher time and DSE support to rebuild morale in the profession did not make it through the censoring process to be answered…

Chris, Yes we need improve the focus of our teaching using a variety of diagnostic approaches to building the focus upon of both student and teacher attention to their respective strengths and weaknesses (in teaching and learning) - and developing programs and planning around these approaches will be crucial. Policing new content will deliver zilch. But nor will a demoralised army of teachers arguing for old content, old pedagogy, old and adhoc curriculum frameworks. I don’t know what the answer is but I agree with you in that these ‘suites’ (in their bid to sound globalised and synergised) have left out heaps of important information in regards to the real world of teaching in schools - where being underpayed and over supervised by people who don't really give a sheet is now accepted as 'best practice'. It is not.

Hi Shonga,

In relation to being a good teacher, when I went for promotion, based on 2 evaluations, I was graded 3 out of 3 as an excellent teacher. The more recent evaluation also graded me 2 out of 3 highly recommended for promotion to what was then known as senior teacher.

What is the value of the above? I shall let you decide. The fact is I taught for 18 years, enjoyed it very much and put a lot of effort into being with kids and teaching them something about English.

In the Journal of the Science Teachers of Western Australia (January 2006) Professor Alan Read has this final comment about one of Dr Donnelly’s many hysterical panic- button reports that he is payed handsomely to create for the Howard regime. I rolled around belly laughing when I read this - it still gives me a giggle.

It reads:

The Donelly report -

‘fails to meet basic research standards such as failing to relate the evidence to the results. Many of the recommendations in the report bear no relationship to the analysis of the documents under review.

In places it reads like wish list of the various educational predilections of its authors.

And ironically for a report that purports to be so concerned about falling standards, there is hardly one its 107 pages that does not contain a spelling, grammatical or formatting mistake”

Snip-

So why don't the likes of Doug White, Bill Hannan, Bob Connell, Dean Ashenden, Simon Marginson and Allan Luke take Donnelly seriously?

It’s quite obvious to me. He just doesn't cut the mustard mate. His ambitions are clearly political not educational