Kevin Donnelly and the left-wing conspiracy ...

Donnelly's latest diatribe:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5225

It's really worth a read!

Donnelly begins his article thus:

"Education has traditionally been an electoral plus for the ALP, but not any more. As a recent Newspoll survey reveals, the Coalition Government has orchestrated an eight percentage point turnaround and is running neck and neck with Labor in terms of positive voter perception.
Jenny Macklin, the federal Opposition education spokeswoman, argues the Howard Government's improvement is the result of cheap populism. She is wrong. As outlined in my book Why Our Schools are Failing, Australian parents are worried about significant issues such as falling standards, schools not being held accountable, the curriculum being awash with political correctness and, with government schools in particular, education failing to inculcate proper values."

Mmmm... I thought this was going somewhere else, but from there Donnelly goes on a somewhat now predictable rollercoaster to cover as many topics as he can in one hit that he feels have the stink of 'left wing' about them (nothing to do with his opening statements).

The main point of this article, as I read it (and I do struggle with Donnelly some times, because he does ramble without making clear connections between one point and another) is criticism of the federal government's initiative to fund religious counsellors in schools. From this point, Donnelly has a go at public figures who have openly expressed their concern over such a move, and tells them to get a reality check.

From there Donnelly gets into the cultural left (the AEU) as promoters of the three Rs - republic, refugees and reconciliation, and then he has a go at those who promote multiculturalism when it is clear that the majority of Australians are Christian, and our nation is built on a Judeo-Christian tradition. I think these points are meant to lead us to the next, which is that the federal government's initiative is to provide a clear and unambiguous moral compass to decide right from wrong and to identify a proper balance between rights and responsibilities. I don't think I get the link, but I can interpret the juxtaposition of these points as saying that the government's move will counter the left wing's ideas about social justice through promoting Christianity. Mmmm... Now doesn't that contradict one of the earlier points, used to discredit public figures' concerns, in which Donnelly says they should get their facts straight because the counsellors could be of any faith?

What's next? Oh, yes, that progressive education deliberately works to ensure that adults don't impose strong moral codes upon children. Ah! so the initiative is to counter progressive pedagogy!

But wait ... his sights move to be set on the appalling replacement of classic texts by popular texts, and so postmodernism is the evil that fails to instill viable moral codes, the belief that there is no right or wrong as all values are relative and truth is simply a socio-cultural construct. Oh, so it's multiple interpretations that these counsellors are fighting against, and that it must be a left-wing thing to notice that people have different ways of knowing, thinking, and that what we know, think and do is influenced by the socio-cultural!

And then we move to a quote from the Pope only to finish with a statement about educational debate in the past, and that John Howard DOES, apparently recognise that there is a cultural significance in education.

Paying teachers for 'quality'

How do we measure the 'best' teachers?? While this may seem an easy question to answer for some, further thought reveals that it is an extremely difficult one to answer.

Insight (SBS Television) recently ran a debate on this very topic with part of the transcript as follows:

"JULIE BISHOP: It depends very much on the merit-based system you introduce. It could be from incentives or bonuses through to AWAs. But the point is these competencies can be assessed as in any other profession. You can tell who are the people who deserve more money.

"JENNY BROCKIE: So who will be deciding? Will it be the principals?

"JULIE BISHOP: You ask any parent, any student, any other teacher, and they can tell you who the good teachers in the school are. You'd have a combination of criteria, specified measures. It could be student performance, it could be contribution to the wellbeing of the school, it could be peer review, references from parents and other teachers and students. So you could have a combination of criteria that would lead to performance-based pay. "

So, here we have the federal Education Minister, and therefore spokesperson for the Federal Government, which would like to see such a system introduced, not knowing how on earth it can be measured. Julie Bishop's dancing around this issue is evidence that while the Howard Government would support such a move, it has no idea how to go about it. The minister has never mentioned research which has already gone some way to measuring this.

All the way throughout this program, Bishop had her shoulder rubbing against Kevin Donnelly's. There's a pretty open relationship here about who is Bishop's consultant, and so, I will quote ...

"DR KEVIN DONNELLY: Just very quickly, my daughter Amelia, when she was in Grade 4, my wife and I discovered she couldn't read. Now, I wasn't really interested in the teacher giving her self-esteem or that care, share grow approach, I wanted my daughter to be able to read, to write, to do arithmetic. She couldn't read - we had to teach her at home. So I'd argue that you need to look at teaching not just in terms of these more effective domains. At the end of the day, parents want their children to be taught, they need to, especially if they're going on to Year 12 to tertiary, they need to be properly equipped. "

I'm suspecting there may be some credibility lost when 'an expert' advocates for measuring the quality of teachers but at the same time claims to have a child who 'can't read' at Year 4 and places the burden upon their child's teacher ... This is from someone who says he is a quality teacher ("I've been teaching [English] for 18 years", he says at the end of every one of his columns. And, he's partial to letting people know he has received teaching awards ...).

Kevin Donnelly & Outcomes-Based Education

I must confess I find Kevin Donnelly's analysis and opinions of and about education worrying. He seems to be motivated more by emotion than logic, and whilst I acknowledge his dedication, I find it misplaced. One of the main issues I have with him is over Outcomes Based Education. He repeatedly labels it as "dumbing down". His publications on this issue are found at Online Opinion (www.onlineopinion.com.au). More than that, he tells his readers that it is part of a left-wing plot to take over education.

Outcomes-based education (OBE) is essentially about identifying which outcomes education is meant to achieve in terms of students' knowledge, understanding and dispositions. It involves identifying meaningful 'end-points', and working towards achieving those 'end-points'. Different groups on society have different ideas about what these end-points might be.

To quote Bill Spady (arguably the 'father' of OBE), outcomes are “high quality, culminating demonstrations of significant learning in context”. The words 'high quality' are important and point AWAY from 'dumbing down'!; the words 'culminating demonstrations' point not only to the end-point, but to the idea that students actively show their understanding; the words 'significant learning' point to learning which is meaningful and useful, and important; and the words 'in context' point to connections to the outside world, and learning which is NOT separated from context.

I challenge anyone to argue that the very bases of OBE are not those of good quality education.

Kevin Donnelly refuses to acknowledge these bases of OBE. He does so by either ignoring them, or by explicitly refuting them. 'Dumbing down' is actually the opposite to what a clear focus on important learning is all about. I propose that the type of education Kevin proposes is more like 'dumbing down' when he calls for a back-to-basics approach. This equates not to students demonstrating a 'deep understanding' but to students learning skills, and repeating them so that the teacher can mark how many are right/wrong. The back-to-basics approach also removes significance and context from learning.

Spady lists four principles of OBE. These are:

•Clarity of focus
•Designing back (or designing down)
•High expectations
•Expanded learning opportunities

The first means idenifying the important learning and keeping clear focus upon the end-point (what is that my students will achieve?).
The second means working from this point to identify and construct the learning experiencs of students in such a way as to ensure that outcome will be met (how are my students going to achieve this?).
The third means expecting the best of ALL students, and supporting them to achieve their best (how well are my students going to learn?).
And the fourth means providing students with more than one way to learn what it is they need to (because different students will learn in different ways, and may need alternative explanations in order to achieve).

Again, I really don't see how Donnelly could possibly have a problem with this by either calling it 'dumbing down' or by labelling it 'left-wing'!

What Donnelly should really be doing is criticising how some people understand and use OBE, NOT OBE itself.

[see Killen (2003) Effective teaching strategies: Lessons from reserach and practice. Katoomba: Social Science Press.

Spady (1994) Outcome-based education : critical issues and answers. Arlington, Va. : American Association of School Administrators.]

Welcome

Welcome to our site! This 'Blog' has been created in order for people to discuss current issues in Australian education. It is hoped that this site will generate deep and substantive discussion relating to current (and even past) discourses of education, and has been inspired by continuing debate in issues such as Outcomes-Based Education and quality of teaching.

I must confess, from the outset, my inspiration here ... It is none other than Kevin Donnelly. NO, he is not our friend. In fact, Kevin's opinions have motivated us to create a space where his (and others') views can be discussed and debated.

This is not a 'true' blog, but rather a blog site to be used for discussion. In that case, it is not about I, myself, posting my opinions (although I will!) and waiting for others to respond. I see my role more as a conversation starter on specific topics. If you want to start a discussion that has not yet been set up, make sure to let me know, and I will do so.

We hope you join us in debating about what really matters.