[English] Howard launches Donnelly

Fri Feb 9 20:37:24 EST 2007

Hi all,

It's interesting that when interviewed on Radio National today,
the writer, Donnelly, was at pains to speedily back away from
suggestions of a National Curriculum, (Quote: "one size does
not fit all"). However he was strong about his claims that OBE
(Outcomes Based Education) instead of proscribed Academic
Curriculums is a disaster for Aussie education, and he asserts
that several States are now backing away from, "Outcomes Ed"
apparently because of the difficulty / effort in reporting outcomes.

And you know from 32 years with the Ed Dpt, I must say that one
tends to agree with him. It's much easier to teach to a curriculum
and report thereby, rather than also have to set curriculum guided
by complex lists of hoped-for outcomes, and then ponder if they've
been met and then to also have to ponder to what standard they've
been met, if they were. To me, reporting under OBE is horrendous.

But, which approach is better pedagogically I think is difficult to say.

Apologies if in saying this I step on any strongly held opinion. And if
so, I for one would love to hear your opinions re OBE v Curriculum.

Cheers,
Stephen

At 07:04 PM 9/02/2007, Mary writes:

>I can only feel despair when I read such terrible comments. If John Howard is as ill-informed about other topics as he is about education, roll on Kevin Rudd. This is lamentable as are the ideas of  Kevin Donnelly. What I object to  is the simplistic positioning by Donnelly of critical theory. I have always felt that Literature can be both critically appraised and enjoyed for its values. I might be able to see Lawrence's positioning of women but I can still enjoy and value the wonder of Sons and Lovers and perhaps enjoy it more because it is born out of a human and cultural context. 
>
>Mary Mason
>
>>>> scott.bulfin at education.monash.edu.au 9/02/2007 3:37 pm >>>
>Forgive me folks, but after throwing up all over my letterman sweater  
>and copy of Dumb and Dumber, I did a quick linguistic analysis of  
>this 'advertisement' late last night. A good one for the kids perhaps?
>
>Standards (9)
>
>Choice (7)
>
>Parents (7)
>
>Commonsense (3)
>
>fads (3)
>
>testing (3)
>
>accountability (2)
>
>robbing children (2)
>
>unabashed supporter (2)
>
>
>
>Speeches
>
>08 February 2007
>
>TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER
>  THE HON JOHN HOWARD MP
>DUMBING DOWN BY KEVIN DONNELLY BOOK LAUNCH,
>PARLIAMENT HOUSE, CANBERRA
>
>
>E&OE*
>
>Thank you very much Sandy, Kevin Donnelly, Julie Bishop, my other  
>parliamentary colleagues, ladies and gentlemen. I am delighted to  
>accept the invitation to launch this book, both because I've greatly  
>respected the author as an individual and I've greatly admired his  
>persistent campaign for high basic standards (1) in Australia's  
>education system. For too long, the education debate has focussed  
>exclusively on inputs and quality, on money spent on student-teacher  
>ratios and the like. And this was the territory staked out and  
>defended fiercely by education producer groups, by the state  
>education bureaucracies, curriculum designers and the teacher unions.  
>Now, as a government, we will yield to nobody in defending our record  
>so far as the provision of resources to education is concerned. But  
>the point that Kevin has made and the point I make today has been,  
>and continues to be, to open up the education debate and to focus it  
>more squarely onto quality. And our great challenge as a nation is to  
>improve the quality of Australia's education system.
>
>The high ground of school reform in Australia centres on three key  
>areas. Greater choice (1) and accountability (1), higher standards  
>(2) and greater national consistency. And when you have 80,000 school  
>students a year moving from one part of the country to the other, to  
>use the language of the young, the need for nationally consistent  
>curricula is indeed a no brainer; and those three things are the  
>foundations of a quality education system.
>
>And it's into this realm of education quality that Kevin  
>Donnelly's work * and Dumbing Down is the latest example - has  
>been a beacon of commonsense, exposing many of the fads (1) and  
>politically-correct fashions that have found their way into  
>Australian schools.
>
>Kevin Donnelly's book makes a very big point about the danger of so- 
>called 'progressive' theories and education fads (2). Where Big  
>Brother or a text message jostles with Shakespeare and classical  
>literature for a place in the English curriculum, we are robbing  
>children (1) of their cultural heritage.
>
>By obfuscating the need for teachers to impart (1) specific knowledge  
>and for rigorous testing (1) of student achievement, we are robbing  
>children (2), especially disadvantaged children, of the one proven  
>path to individual achievement and social mobility. And by denying  
>parents clear statements of their child's performance in the  
>classroom we are letting new-age fads (3) get in the way of genuine  
>accountability (2).
>
>As I said in my speech at the 50th anniversary of Quadrant last year,  
>few debates are as vital as those over education, whether it be in  
>upholding basic standards (3) on literacy and numeracy, promoting  
>diversity and choice (2) or challenging the incomprehensible sludge  
>that can find its way into some curriculum material.
>
>I am an unabashed supporter of choice (3) for parents. As many of you  
>know, I am a product of the government education system in New South  
>Wales and I express my gratitude to the quality of that system when I  
>attending school in Sydney, for imparting (2), I hope, a strong basic  
>education to me. I believe therefore in a strong, well-funded and  
>academically rigorous government school system.
>
>Yet I am a staunch defender of the right of parents to send their  
>child to a non-government school and to have the government support  
>them in that choice (4).
>
>Choice (5) has intrinsic value in a free society, especially in an  
>area like education where we are dealing with the most important  
>decision parents have to make about their child's future.
>
>I am also an unabashed supporter of what Kevin Donnelly calls a  
>'conservative approach to curriculum' * competitive  
>examinations, teacher-directed lessons and the importance of academic  
>disciplines.
>
>I make no apologies for the fact that under my government the  
>Commonwealth has played a role in pushing the states and territories  
>on to higher ground on issues like standards (4), testing (2) and  
>plain English report cards in our schools.
>
>High standards (5) can only be achieved if teachers have clear road  
>maps as to the knowledge and concepts to impart. Formal competitive  
>examinations are essential to assessing what a child has learned.
>
>And there is something both deadening and saccharine in curriculum  
>documents where History is replaced by 'Time, Continuity and  
>Change' and Geography now becomes 'Place, Space and Environment'.
>
>Experiments like 'Outcomes-Based Education', as Kevin Donnelly not  
>only argues, not only short-change parents and children, they also  
>put unjustified demands on teachers, with jargon-ridden curriculum  
>statements leaving teachers overwhelmed when it comes to what must be  
>taught and what standards (6) of student achievement are expected.
>
>I would commend to all of you Kevin's work on the way in which the  
>teaching of English has been allowed in some cases to drift into a  
>relativist wasteland, where students are asked to deconstruct texts  
>using politically-correct theories in contrast with the traditional  
>view that great literature has something profound to say about the  
>human condition.
>
>In tackling these issues, often against the grain of self-proclaimed  
>education 'experts', Kevin Donnelly displays both great courage  
>and a tough-minded determination to defend the higher purposes of  
>education, especially in carrying forward the best of the Western  
>cultural tradition.
>
>There is, of course, a degree of irony in some recent comments about  
>the need for an education revolution in Australia, given the sorts of  
>ideological agenda that Kevin Donnelly explores in his book.
>
>The key point is this * the Labor Party, leg-roped as it is to its  
>allies in the teacher unions is very much a 'Johnny-come-lately'  
>to the cause of commonsense education reform in support of parental  
>choice (6), higher standards (7) and sound curricula.
>
>It was this Government's Schools Policy in 1996 * opposed by  
>Labor * which really opened up choice (7) for Australian parents by  
>facilitating the huge expansion in low-fee independent schools.
>
>It was David Kemp more than anyone else who campaigned to put testing  
>(3) of basic literacy and numeracy on the national agenda. It was  
>Brendan Nelson who fought to ensure that Australian parents are given  
>plain English report cards and now Julie Bishop is taking forward a  
>new wave of school reforms in the areas of national consistency,  
>higher curriculum standards, principal autonomy and teacher quality.
>
>Our goal is simple. We don't want uniformity, but we do want nation- 
>wide high standards (8) in schools to ensure every Australian student  
>receives the best possible foundation in core subjects.
>
>Let me again in conclusion congratulate Kevin Donnelly on what is a  
>very thoughtful and important contribution to the debate on the  
>Australian education system. I wish the book well, I thank Kevin  
>Donnelly for his persistent advocacy of commonsense and standards (8)  
>in Australian education, it's a great cause and he deserves our  
>admiration and respect for engaging so energetically in it. Thank you.
>
>[Ends]
>
>
>
>
>-- 
>Message protected by MailGuard: e-mail anti-virus, anti-spam and content filtering.
>http://www.mailguard.com.au/tt 
>
>Click here to report this message as spam:
>https://login.mailguard.com.au/report/1rYHBKsFEs/5MVXFBFWEn8F6afyQQ1ILS/2.135 
>
>-- 
>################################################################################
>This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the person to whom it is addressed.  If you have received this e-mail in error then please notify the sender immediately.  The contents represent the views or opinions of the author only and are not necessarily made on behalf of the School.  The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses; the School does not accept liability for any damage caused by a transmitted virus.
>################################################################################
>
>Message  protected by MailGuard: e-mail anti-virus, anti-spam and content filtering.
>http://www.mailguard.com.au/tt
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>http://www.edulists.com.au - FAQ, resources, subscribe, unsubscribe
>VCE English Teachers' Mailing List