... has been reached with almost every day media releases / apperances by Julie Bishop (federal education minister) and Kevin Donnelly (self-proclaimed education expert of Australi).
'Outcomes-based education', 'politically correct', 'left-wing', 'dumbing down' (mainly Donnelly), 'standards', 'literacy and numeracy', 'failing', 'quality' (both Donnelly and Bishop) are terms that feature over and over again in these diatribes.
The flawed logic expressed in the rhetoric of Kevin Donnelly has truly made it to those with the power to manipulate and instigate education policy in Australia, with John Howard (prime minister for those who don't know) launching Kev's new book today. This saturation point should really become a rallying point for those who know better, and for those who care about the possibility that the concept of education will regress to teaching words and numbers without current context, and without any hint of allowing our students to become critical thinkers.
Very little is heard from those who know there are serious flaws in this logic, and newspapers continue to feature it as if it is the only way of thinking about education. Is it because those who can stand up to these ideologues are unwilling? too busy? feeling powerless?
Come on folks - time to start writing in to newspapers, and having your voice heard. You don't need to be an expert, just a voice of dissent (er, with some good justification, of course).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Too right Mini. Time to get moving on this.
One issue highlighted in the Sydney Morning Herald (www.smh.com.au/letters - go to 9 February 2007) is the way Bishop is using "quality" and "achievement" as catchphrases for "academic results" and linking these results to pay scales.
This is the thin edge of the wedge. Education is not one size fits all. Teachers teach the whole class, while taking account of the different needs of the individual students. Teachers who are *lucky* enough to have a class full of academically inclined students will get those results. That teacher then gets the big bucks.
A teacher in the next room, suburb, city or state; who didn't get that cohort of *good* students but managed to get the kids reading, (w)riting and (a)rithmaticking better than they did the previous year, even if it doesn't meet the "standard" for the year grouping won't get the acknowledgement of that achievement through the pay system envisaged by this government. [note - this long sentence should be edited... but I'd rather just get the post up than be concerned with my writing style today :)]
Howard's Way indeed. Those students who need the most assistance, most dedicated teachers, and good resources, will lose as teachers can't afford to keep teaching them.
Early career teachers, with good ideas but who need help and assistance to implement them will be lost in a system that doesn't support them. As they gain the experience (assuming they haven't fled teaching entirely) they will be snapped up by private or better resourced schools and the cycle repeats.
At last
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21275638-25132,00.html
this is fab - a dumb book
You beat me to it, GIJ! JournalQueen sent this to me, and I had just finished reading it.
A much better story is this:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21436956-2702,00.html
While I don't subscribe to many of Mr Donnellys ideas I do believe that his stance against OBE is justified (particularly to ridiculous WA version).
Thankyou, PJ. I had not read this article before.
Firstly, 'traditional marking methods' have never left the building. Percentages, position in class and class averages have remained a common fixture on reports to parents, even when using outcomes-based reporting. Providing resources for planning and assessing has always been around. Nothing is new here. 'Levels' are usually added as an indication, supported by percentages, rank, etc.
Speaking of 'levels' ... what is A-E reporting?? Is that not indicating 'levels' just as with reporting supported by OBE but using different descriptors?
Anyway, Justine Ferarri thinks that 'what students achieve and learn' (her view of OBE) is separated from content, how and when it is taught (and I might add, Justine's grammar is shocking). The two things are not separate. Anyone adhering to OBE would always consider content, how and when it is taught! This article shows, once again, Justine's shallow understanding of OBE and teaching.
Post a Comment