GrahamY

Lithographic photography used to be part of the Printing industry. Broadly speaking, it photographed line drawn artwork or photographs with stipples so that pictures could be printed in different mediums. i.e. 65 dpi for newspapers etc. It and Block engravers,stereo makers, comp machine operator ceased to be trades in the late 60's. Most printing went offset/high tech.

Your point about science changes is a fair one if you were talking about Maths (advanced arithmetic) Base Chemistry and Physics. Perhaps you missed my clarification when I said science and its consequences i.e. Multiple disciplines Both Botany, Biology, Medicine have advanced exponentially in the last 40 years. Many of the new science disciplines impact average peoples lives and need to be imparted as generalities to children, devoid of the ignorances of the past generations.

Where did you get the 300% bit from I simple said 70% of what children learn today wasn't known is say the 60's. Common sense tells you this is science/technology based.

I posit that your focus on Base Maths, Chemistry Physics is some
some what over done.

In the real world, only a small number of people, in their day today existences need to understand them beyond generality. Science careers are a minority of careers.

I would also point out the obvious, the Nobel Laurent expertise was Chemistry/medical not broad mass education.

Like I keep saying, the polymath scientist greats of 18/19 centuries,
is increasingly less possible, because of the sheer amount of information .

I simply object to some people dismissing environmental science as 'rubbish', an average citizen knows more than they do. Any more than my son can be second guessed by a engineer about helicopters.

In Australia there is a culture of anti intellectualism i.e. Common sense trumps expertise. the bush has seen Floods,fire and droughts thus any theory like AGW is 'been there done that' and can't/unwilling to see the differences.

My point is that scientists are essential to a active society but are they are only part of the equation.
The value of this curriculum depends largely what it's objectives are.

Examinator, you said 300%. You didn't use the figure, I did the conversion, but you did say "My point was clear the amount of *information* children/students today are expected to understand and cope with is several times more than and escalating daily ."

"Several" is generally understood as three, but could be more, but can't be less. And three times converts to 300% when expressed as a percentage.

I don't profess to be cognisant with the biology curriculum. It was one of the soft options when I was at school and I avoided it. But I do know enough to say that they don't teach medicine at any pre-tertiary level. And I'd imagine that biology is probably not that much different, except they have made some advances in DNA and genetic modification. I'd be interested in any feedback from anyone who has a knowledge of biology and what was in the text book 40 years ago.

I disagree that people don't have a need to understand chemistry, physics and maths. A better grounding in those and there would be a lot less shonks getting away with things. I disagree that Australians are anti-intellectual. I think we are practical and can sniff out cant, and a lot of what a number of so-called intellectuals try to do is to push a point of view which is cant.

Just because you are a university professor it doesn't mean that you know what you are talking about.

Graham Y

Point taken I should have said significantly etc.
You are taking phases out of context.
NB I said "only a small number of people, in their day today existences *need to understand them beyond generality*. Science careers are a minority of careers."

Beyond generality means to a year 9/10 level not to year 12. Shop assistants, Bus Drivers, office workers, et al (all essential to make society work) don't *need* to know about opposite spin molecules or what Maxwell proved or the valiance of elements, quadratic equations etc other than in the broadest sense. Would it be good if they did in order to help and encourage the next generation, possibly.

However, people are people, some are bright, some not and everything in between.

There are cornucopia of reasons why some children don't choose/complete the hard science. Some of that is the quality of teachers lecturers et al and the nature of universities.

There are also tiresome list of ticket (degree) holders who are fine in confined areas but useless at the creative end or out of their specialty. And that, is well beyond the capacity of an OP or GPA rating to show or a curriculum to fix on its own. If anything,it's the system that is hopelessly flawed.

In short I revert to what I said the value of this Curriculum depends on what realistic goals you set for it.

An improved set curriculum to set a more overall educated community is preferable that one that deals primarily with the three hard sciences. That does NOT mean we neglect them, they are an integral part of humanity.

Examinator

Working towards practical national curriculum is is a huge task but can't it be done. Clearly there will be bumps and hollows along the way but the consultative approach the government is taking should help smooth the way. Graham wants to see a better grounding in maths, physics and science - that would be good and I don't think the proposed curriculum detracts from that goal.

'Dumbing down' in Australia in the last 10 - 20 years (anti-intelectualism maybe, generational issues maybe). Nonetheless, it is a bigger issue than periodic tables as the following would suggest.

http://www.news.com.au/national/group-of-eight-reviews-sum-of-all-fears-maths-is-in-serious-decline/story-e6frfkvr-1225838924327

Check out the linked report for details

http://www.go8.edu.au/storage/go8statements/2010/Go8MathsReview.pdf

Of course I meant:

Working towards a practical national curriculum is is a huge task but can it be done.