Education in Australia?

Is the NSW government the only sensible player in education reform?

Now that the election has been run and won by Tony Abbott, attention is now turning back to three word slogans about boats and the economy. Fortunately, some people are also asking questions about the future of education in Australia too. While debate still rages about the long term impact and effectiveness of Labor’s reforms, commentators are starting to ask what an Abbott Coalition will do with schooling in Australia.

Peter Job has a decidedly broad view about what needs to be done and a clear idea of went wrong for Labor (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-23/job-labors-failed-education-revolution/4975262). Entitled “Labor’s failed education revolution”, he derides Labor’s Gonski/Better Schools Plan as failing because it focused too much on funding. He also accuses the Labor created NAPLAN, MySchool and performance pay policies as leading to poorer quality education. Ironically, he argues for more funding for public schools (can’t see Abbott doing that) and:

• recognising their unique role in addressing the needs of all - the gifted and the disabled, the advantaged and the disadvantaged
•  the adoption of the practices of countries which achieve above us in international measures rather than those which achieve below
• valuing teacher professionalism
• allowing teachers to use their professional knowledge as they judge best to address the diverse needs of their students.

While these are nice statements to address what he sees as the growing inequalities in the system, this doesn’t really address any of the practical aspects of achieving them. Sure the final Gonski package did miss some key aspects but it was better than doing nothing, which was the policy of the Coalition until just before the election when they agreed with Labor. However, his criticisms of NAPLAN and MySchool are genuine and have negative impacts on schools. I have experienced many a concerned parent quoting NAPLAN figures at me during interviews because their child may not have been above standard in all areas. They often fail to see that this is one measure at one point in time and that students improve over the course of the year, often doing better in the second half of the year when the tests are NOT held. Similarly, I have been at schools that have altered curriculum to prepare students for NAPLAN, although we officially do not do that, and thus upset a well thought out program. Finally, the pressure school administrators place on teachers to improve NAPLAN results or ensure certain children are absent on testing days has also been well documented.

Kevin Donnelly is clearly enraptured with the Abbott victory, so much so that he seems to be delusional. In the opening to his piece “Policy challenge: Abbott’s education plans” (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-19/donnelly-abbott-government-education/4967216) he states that: “The Abbott Government has clearly signalled school education as an important policy issue…” Clearly he saw something most of the voting public missed because despite following the election very closely I didn’t see any major announcements by the Coalition on school education. In fact, wasn’t it Chris Pyne that one day said he was dead set against Gonski but the next day agreed it was the best way to go forward then proceeded to not mention the issue again throughout the course of the campaign. That’s ok though, Kevin is often a little confused when it comes to what is best for school children. Having read a few of his books, he would like schooling to be about phonics and the three Rs – that’s it! So it is not surprising that he is in favour of decentralising education control from Canberra and reviewing both NAPLAN and the National Curriculum. It did surprise me though that he was a fan of letting non-qualified teachers into classrooms when he is so focused on improving Australia’s standing in international testing. Maybe he thinks the current lot do such a bad job that amateurs couldn’t do much worse. Apart from that he likes having reviews of everything so he doesn’t need to specify how he would transport education back to the 1950s.

Thus, these two pieces provide a contrast in political stand points but the same lack of clear direction for Australia’s education future. Peter Job may have some nice broad sweeping statements about how it should be but derides the one side of politics that could actually implement his schemes. Kevin Donnelly remains an outlying, conservative educational commentator that will probably have greater sway with Abbott so be ready for your phonics everyone. However, neither spoke of the reduced funding to the university sector, where reform and improvements to teaching can actually occur, or clear plans for improved teacher professionalism and development. Maybe we should start the conversation around the NSW government’s Great Teaching, Inspired Learning policy (http://theconversation.com/nsw-government-makes-a-positive-start-on-reforming-teaching-quality-8549) that actually brings all the aspects together and starts by respecting teacher professionalism.

Regardless of who is in power in Canberra or the states, education is not only about NAPLAN or international testing or funding. A real debate about the role of public funding and curriculum that respects the professionalism of teachers to make the best decisions (we wouldn’t question a doctor’s prognosis with quite the same vehemence we do that of teachers) is needed to address the perceived slide in standards in Australia. This has to begin now as we have already fallen behind and the new century will not wait for us to catch up.