Back to PLUTO
PLUTO says....
“Choice
of Schools
Would you send your children to
learn tennis at a coaching school that teaches all students the same
tennis course at the same level, and then grades them A to E at the end
of the course?
Or would you send your children to
a school that assesses the levels of the various skills they already
have (backhand, forehand, serve, etc.), and then teaches them in a way
that lifts their skills up to a higher level? This is what 'outcomes
education' is all about.”
As quoted above from your website, PLUTO insists on pushing your
analogy of learning strategies and trying to emphasise the benefit of
OBE. This example, if anything, highlights some of the fundamental
problems with OBE.
The ‘one size fits all’ philosophy for all learning areas is an
immediate cause of concern. As an educator I recognise two different
types of subjects each requiring 2 fundamentally different teaching
strategies.
Subjects like English, Maths, Music, Sports, Languages, Typing, the
Finer Arts and yes Soccer are skills based subject. Here a student
learns skills by practising and repeating those skills until mastery
occurs. This is a learning continuum that starts in junior school and
makes its way to the upper secondary school for most subjects. Some
students are accelerated because of natural ability others by their
dogged determination and a lot of hard practice. Reading a book does
not help.
Knowledge based subjects are those where we, as educators, pour
information into our students using various strategies. These subjects
include the Sciences, Geography, History, P&L Studies, Economics, S
& E, Accounting, Business Studies and IT. Certainly there are some
grey overlaps, History without sound English essay skills and
Accounting without Maths skills would prove a deterrent. Generally
however a student could succeed in these subjects by picking up a book
and swatting before an exam or test (often in spite of the teacher’s
involvement).
PLUTO would have us believe that OBE allows the teacher to “assesses
the levels of the various skills they already have” and then
individualise a programme for all of the students in the class “that
lifts their skills up to a higher level”. Here is a reality check....
Maths teachers have recognised this years ago by attempting to stream
students by assessing them as soon as they arrived in the secondary
school and placing them in appropriate learning levels. English has at
times tried this but it was considered ‘politically incorrect’ to
stream these classes by ability in the middle school, by years 11 &
12 the truth hits home and we stream in English with the subjects
Senior English, English and English Lit. Other skills based subjects
given the resources would have loved to stream as well. Once upon
a time students were held back a year or placed in remedial classes if
they did not reach an acceptable level, but this too is now considered
‘politically incorrect’. In fact you are chastised to even mention the
word ‘fail’ today.
Lets look at what actually happens under OBE. All students get placed
into the one class with one teacher. They work through the same
programme, get assessed with the same assessment tools and finally get
‘levelled’. Because of the incredibly subjective grey overlap of the
outcome descriptors a poorly skilled Yr. 9 student will be levelled as
a 2, and advanced Yr. 9 student will probably achieve a level 4. In the
next year the same students in Yr. 10 without necessarily advancing in
skill or knowledge will probably get a Level 3 and Level 5 respectively
only because this is where Yr. 10s should be working and the
descriptors are so vague, anyone’s interpretation will fit. Students
are not asked to repeat a class if they don’t reach the expected
outcomes for that year level. Students, irrespective of whether they
are in a strong academic school or not, will end out with the same
range of levels as there is little opportunity to compare schools when
using subjective outcomes as the assessment tool.
If we really want good learning to occur the government needs to cut
down class sizes, develop good programmes to teach, give every student
and teacher a laptop and introduce a simple assessment tool that
measures learning success without ambiguity. Certainly reintroduce
streaming in all skills based subjects but also recognise that some
students, because they may be late developers or just lack the ability,
may not be able to reach certain levels in all subjects.
Finally to quote PLUTO “Levels are comparable across all
subjects. A Level 5 in Science is equivalent to a Level 5 in any
other subjects. This means that employers and parents can make direct
caparisons (sic) between subjects results, and between students.”
Give me a break! To say that a student who gets a level 5 in soccer can
be described as achieving the same as one who gets a level 5 in science
is like saying cheese tastes like chalk because they both start with a
‘C’. Ridiculous! “One size fits all” is a sloppy fit.
regards
Eugene de Gouw
Editor's Note: Soccer is not
a 'Course of Study'. Physical Education Studies is a Course of Study.
See link below:
http://www.curriculum.wa.edu.au/pages/pcreview/stagetwo/COS.html