Tammy-Lynne Moore
Michael F Shaughnessy Senior Columnist EdNews.org

Dr Kevin Donnelly was formerly the Chief of Staff to Kevin Andrews, the Commonwealth Government'sMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations.He was Director of Education Strategies, a Melbourne-based consulting group from 1994-2003, and has now returned as Executive Director. Education Strategies specialises in curriculum research, project management and strategic analysis at the senior management and organisational level.

Before establishing Education Strategies, Dr Donnelly taught for 18 years as an English and History teacher in Victorian government and non-government secondary schools. Kevin has published over 250 articles in the daily media and professional journals, appears on radio, both state and national, and writes regularly for The Australian newspaper.He is the author of Why Our Schools are Failing and an electronic copy of the book can be found at the Menzies Research Centre's site.Dr Donnelly's email address is as follows and he welcomes any comments of feedback: [email protected]

All of the above biographical information is taken from http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=95

  1. First of all, tell us some of the reasons why you wrote the book " Why Our Schools Are Failing".

After many years experiencing curriculum change as a classroom teacher, and also completing post-graduate studies in curriculum, I became very interested in what had happened in Australian education since the cultural revolution of the 1960s and 1970s.Similar to the US, we have had debates about whole language, fuzzy maths and the "dumbed down" and politically correct nature of outcomes-based education.In writing the book, I sought to trace the development of OBE in Australia and to explain how the more traditional, academic approach to curriculum had been subverted.

  1. Secondly, could you tell us, some of the reasons why, in your opinion the schools in your country are not doing well?

For many years, the success or otherwise of Australia's education systems (like the US, we have a federal system of government, education is the preserve of the eight states and territories) was measured by inputs; smaller classes, more teachers and bigger budgets.As a result of some international curriculum benchmarking work, I looked at how well different countries performed in tests such as the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study and discovered that Australian students are consistently outperformed by students in countries like Japan, Singapore, South Korea and the Netherlands.

I argue that the main reason we under-perform relates to Australia's adoption of OBE with its emphasis on inquiry learning, process instead of sound content, lack of rigorous assessment and testing and the impact of constructivism and a child-centered progressive view of education.Stronger performing systems have continued with a syllabus approach to curriculum, as such, teachers are given a clear and succinct, year-level road map of what to teach, there is a strong focus on essential content, understanding and skills, students are regularly tested and there are consequences for failure.Much of the Australian system of education suffers from provider capture, individual schools do not have the freedom to enact their own curriculum as much of the agenda is controlled by teacher academics, centralized bureaucracies, teacher unions and subject associations.As a result, OBE became mandated across the country over the last 10 or so years and standards have fallen.

  1. I have been to Sydney, and traveled in that part of Australia, so I know a little bit about how special education is handled in at least that part of Australia. But nationwide, how do you provide instructions for children with exceptionalities?

Some states, such as New South Wales, have selective secondary schools that have competitive entry and they are very popular with parents with gifted and talented children.In other states, such as Victoria, where there are not as many selective schools, the government supports gifted programs in various schools.Many argue that we are not doing enough for gifted students as the prevailing culture is anti-competition and anti-elitist.Many of our schools adopt a one-size-fits-all approach and the danger is that the curriculum is "dumbed down" and excellence is not promoted or rewarded.Schools do receive special funding for students with disabilities, many of whom have been mainstreamed, but the money involved is considered not enough.

  1. What's wrong (or right) with the drive towards multicultural education in Australia?

The danger with the way multiculturalism is promoted in Australia is that there is too much focus on difference and diversity, instead of emphasizing what we hold in common.While tolerance is a good thing and prejudice is bad, multiculturalism has led to the argument that all cultures are equal – cultural relativism prevails.Our culture, history and political and social institutions have arisen out of Western Civilization and the Judeo/Christian tradition – as such, students should be taught the value of that tradition.

  1. What are some of the problems Australian students and teachers are facing?

Many teachers are overworked and underpaid and, as a result of OBE, the joy of teaching has been replaced by measuring outcomes in a bureaucratic and wasteful way.As all teachers are expected to design their own road maps (OBE only provides a list of outcome statements, teachers have to then design their course outlines) they waste a lot of time and energy re-inventing the wheel.

We have a very centralized wage fixing and promotion system, as a result of strong teacher union pressure, and many good teachers are not properly rewarded.The result is that many beginning, hard working, ambitious teachers leave the profession after 4 to 5 years.Because of fads like whole language and fuzzy maths, many students are illiterate and innumerate.Universities now have remedial classes to teach undergraduates basic Algebra and essay writing skills.The impact of postmodernism on subjects like history and literature, where students are taught that values are relative and subjective, means that many students leave school ethically challenged, not knowing the difference between 'right' and 'wrong'.

  1. How do constructivist and multicultural approaches to teaching history hinder the fostering of critical thinking in Australia's students?

In many states and territories, as a result of adopting an OBE approach to writing the intended curriculum, history as a subject has disappeared to be replaced by what is called studies of society and the environment.This new study embraces traditional subjects like history, geography and politics and gives them a new-age, PC bent.

The focus is very much on 'isms' like multiculturalism, feminism, environmentalism and students get a very jaundiced view of such matters.Instead of students being taught to think independently they are often indoctrinated with a PC interpretation.Lack of critical, independent thinking is made worse because of OBE's promotion of constructivism – teachers no longer teach, they facilitate, and much of what is learned is restricted to what students find immediately entertaining and relevant.Students are no longer taught a grand narrative view of history, linked to the rise of Western Civilization, and the focus is on multiple interpretations.

  1. How does banning the 'f-word' (fail) affect assessment in Australian schools?

One of the characteristics of OBE, especially as advocated by William Spady, who has been a regular visitor to Australia, is the belief, given enough resources and time, that all students can be successful.Competition, where students are ranked one against the other and some actually fail, is no longer acceptable.Formal examinations, normative and summative assessment are replaced by formative and continuous assessment and, as long as the criteria is met, all students can succeed.Unlike stronger overseas education systems, Australian students experience very little high-risk traditional assessment and the first time many face centrally designed, competitive, objective examinations is the final year of their senior schooling.Many students are automatically promoted from year to year without mastering the necessary skills and knowledge.Many enter university as undergraduates with remedial problems and a highly inflated, and mistaken, sense of their ability.

  1. Do you believe in social promotion? (passing students through even though they are failing content)?

OBE promotes a developmental approach to learning, based on the belief that students learn in different ways, at different rates and that it is wrong to expect them to master a minimum amount of learning within each year level.I believe this is wrong and that there must be a clear expectation that students demonstrate they have learned what is required in key subjects and related essential content, skills and understanding.As such, getting rid of social promotion seems attractive, at the same time other options need to be explored, such as streaming and tracking students in terms of ability and interest and having a clear and transparent grading and reporting system that tells parents and students what students have, or have not, achieved.

  1. How does Australia's approach to teaching literacy differ from the approaches of the United States and Britain?

Approaches to English teaching in the US, Australia, England and New Zealand are very similar, in part, because of the work of the international English teachers association and the fact that a small group of teacher academics have influenced how English is taught.Fads like process writing, child-centered pedagogy, critical literacy, the personal growth model and deconstructing literature have impacted on the more traditional approaches in all countries.The whole language approach to literacy, as apposed to phonics and phonemic awareness, has been especially virulent in Australia and Reading Recovery has also had a significant impact.A recent Commonwealth report on literacy, similar to reports in England, New Zealand and the US, argued that the whole language approach is flawed and that the more formal and structured phonics and phonemic awareness model must be employed.Many trainee teachers in Australia have weak literacy skills, themselves, and are not confident teaching more formal approaches to the subject.

  1. What are students learning when they must constantly deconstruct classic and contemporary works of literature?

Over the last 12 months, we have had a national debate about the impact of 'theory' on literature teaching, especially postmodernism, neo-Marxism, feminism and post-colonialism.In the English curriculum, everything, from graffiti to visual images, to Shakespeare's classic plays are considered worthwhile 'texts'.Instead of valuing literature for its moral and aesthetic value, students are taught to deconstruct everything in terms of power relationships.The problem is that the joy of studying literature is lost as students are made to respond in terms of PC theories that they find abstract, dry and empty of meaning.

  1. What questions have we neglected to ask?

As a result of benchmarking intended curriculum documents from around the world, I suggest that there are three models that can be identified: the more traditional syllabus approach, the outcomes-based model and, what in the US, is termed a standards approach. In relation to developing intended curriculum documents, the question of which model is adopted has a significant impact on the curriculum more broadly, for example:

  • whereas a syllabus and a standards approach target learning to specific year levels, an OBE approach specifies learning outcomes across a range of year levels,
  • whereas a syllabus and a standards approach recognize the central importance of the content associated with the established disciplines, an OBE approach emphasizes the process of learning to the detriment of identifying worthwhile content,
  • whereas a syllabus and a standards approach recognize the importance of teacher directed lessons, an outcomes approach defines the teacher as a 'facilitator' and places greater emphasis on group work and individualized learning,
  • whereas an outcomes approach minimizes the place of norm-referenced, summative assessment, both a standards and a syllabus approach adopt testing and consequences for failure,
  • whereas a syllabus approach defines essential knowledge, understanding and skills associated with particular subjects at the beginning of the year or term, giving teachers a clear road map of what is to be taught, an OBE and a standards approach detail what students should know or be able to do by the end of the year or term, and
  • ·whereas the OBE related learning outcomes are generally vague, wordy and difficult to measure, curriculum descriptors associated with a standards approach are concise, unambiguous and measurable.

While the three categories are not mutually exclusive, there are some curriculum documents, such as the Victorian Essential Learning Standards (VELS) and the NSW syllabus model, that contain elements of two or three, as noted above, there are significant differences. Such differences are crucial in explaining the effectiveness of the various approaches both in terms of assisting teachers in their work and also in strengthening learning outcomes.

I argue that OBE is flawed and counter-productive and that stronger performing overseas systems have continued with a syllabus approach.In the most recent benchmarking project I was involved in, the Californian primary English and mathematics documents were rated very highly, certainly better that what we have developed in Australia.The US based standards approach to curriculum also has much to offer Australian schools.