PLATO

The Education Watchdog


Breaking News: Week of 29 May 2006

Monday 29 May 2006

Tuesday 30 May

Wednesday 31 May

Thursday 1 June

Friday 2 June

Saturday - Sunday 3 - 4 June


Monday 29 May 2006


Tuesday 30 May 2006




Wednesday 31 May 2006


Thursday 1 June 2006

The Fog of 'Math Wars'
by
Jerry P. Becker, Southern Illinois University

"I'm not used to being a cheerleader for the Bush administration. But when I saw recently that the president had convened a National Math Panel to study, in part, the effectiveness of teaching kids so-called "constructivist" math, I stood up, put my hand over my heart and shouted, "Amen."

"About six months ago, The New York Times published a fascinating article about a town of engineers and scientists in Penfield, N.Y., who were gradually waking up to the fact that their kids, educated in a constructivist or "inquiry" program, which emphasized pupils' "constructing their own knowledge" rather than learning math formulas or computational rules, were unable, by junior high school, to make change at McDonald's or multiply two-digit numbers.

"I came upon this article at precisely the time I was trying to get my own constructivist-schooled third-grader to stop adding and subtracting on her fingers, so I read it with great interest - and dismay.

"School officials in Penfield dismissed parents' complaints about the curriculum by saying that math scores had steadily increased since the late 1990's, when teaching constructivist math became the local norm. Yet there was evidence that this improvement had less to do with the school's instruction than the fact that parents were increasingly teaching their kids old-fashioned math methods themselves. Even the town math champion, who'd been paraded around as a poster boy for constructivist math when he'd become the top scorer on his high school math team and earned a perfect 5 on his advanced placement calculus exam, had, it turned out, been "covertly tutored" in traditional math by his parents.

"My whole experience in math the last few years has been a struggle against the [constructivist] program," he told the Times. "Whatever I've achieved, I've achieved in spite of it. Kids do not do better learning math themselves. There's a reason we go to school, which is that there's someone smarter than us with something to teach us..."

Full story in The New York Times, 1 June 2006 http://www.nytimes.com/ or http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/

Friday 2 June 2006

Saturday - Sunday, 3 - 4 June 2006


TV and radio coverage

Govt exaggerating OBE claims, teachers union says
ABC News Online

"The WA teachers union says the Government is exaggerating when it says students at schools which refuse to teach the new Outcomes Based Education (OBE) curriculum will not qualify for admission to university.

"The State School Teachers Union insists its members must be confident in teaching with the new system and the Government should be flexible in introducing it.

"Education Minister Ljiljana Ravlich says she will not back down on the timeframe for the implementation of the new OBE curriculum, which is to commence next year.

"The union's Mike Keely says that more than half of the teachers in the state want more time and he does not believe the Government would want to affect the futures of half of the state's students.

"I do not believe that anybody in this state would agree that 50 per cent of students are going to be wiped off the map as far as certification is concerned," he said.

"That is simply not acceptable."

ABC News online http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1654466.htm





PLATO Media Release

OBE MYTHS AND FACTS

Myth number 1
Minister Ravlich is quoted in today's Western Australian as follows: "Yet she argued that the curriculum - developed on the principles of outcomes-based education - was the way of the future.

Fact number 1
Australia's first attempt at OBE is represented by the Keating Government's national statements and profiles that were developed during the early to mid 90s. Such were the flaws in the national curriculum and the intensity of the public criticism that the meeting of Australian education ministers, held in Perth, July 2, 1993, refused to endorse the OBE based curriculum and each state and territory agreed to go back to the drawing board.

As a result of the Eltis Report in NSW, that could find little evidence in support of OBE or evidence that it had been successfully implemented elsewhere, the NSW Government decided not to implement the OBE based national approach and, instead, developed a curriculum based on a 'syllabus' model. Late last year the head of the NSW Board of Studies, Gordon Stanley, argued that teachers needed a clear and succinct 'road map', represented by a syllabus, of what is to be taught and, especially in primary school, teachers need the right tools to do the job to focus on the basics.

Bruce Wilson, the previous CEO of Australia's leading curriculum body, the Curriculum Corporation, describes OBE as an: "unsatisfactory political and intellectual exercise" (2002, Curriculum Corporation national conference).

Myth number 2
Minister Ravlich is also quoted as saying: "I know it's the right thing to do and I know it's for the right reason, and I can tell you it's a view that is shared by 30 other OECD nations, all of whom are moving towards an outcomes-based education," she said.

Fact number 2
Gita Steiner-Khamsi, an academic at Columbia University and a consultant to the World Bank, argues that OBE has only been adopted by a handful of countries, she states: "During OBE's phase of slow growth in the late 1980s and early 1990s only a few educational systems adopted the reform, notably New Zealand, Australia, England and Wales, Canada and the United States". (South Africa is also attempting to implement OBE.)

OBE was such a failure in America that the expression is no longer in use and all states have moved to what is called a 'standards' approach to curriculum. Compared to OBE, a standards approach: relates to each year level, has a strong academic focus, is succinct and easy to follow, is teacher friendly and has a more traditional approach to teaching and assessment. OBE is the opposite to a standards approach, it is not year level specific, academic content is dumbed down, learning outcomes are wordy and vague, it is not teacher friendly and OBE adopts a new-age approach to teaching and assessment. The father of OBE, the American academic William Spady, acknowledges that OBE failed in the USA.

The adoption of OBE in South Africa, New Zealand, England and Canada has also been open to criticism and public debate. Last year, such were the flaws in the NZ National Certificate of Educational Achievement (very similar t