Australian education

[Rorschach]

Here’s why non-government schools work better
Kevin Donnelly
The Australian
December 28, 2016

In 2004, in Why Our Schools are Failing, I argued Australia’s competitive academic curriculum was being “attacked and undermined by a series of ideologically driven changes that have conspired to ­reduce standards and ­impose a politically correct, mediocre view of education on our schools”.

Three years later, in Dumbing Down, I repeated the claim, arguing that Australia’s cultural-left education establishment, instead of supporting high-risk examinations, teacher-directed lessons and meritocracy, was redefining the curriculum “as an instrument to bring about equity and ­social justice”.

At the time the Australian Curriculum Studies Association organised two national conferences involving leading education bureau­crats, professional organisations, teacher unions and like-minded academics to argue all was well and that critics such as the News Corp’s newspapers were guilty of orchestrating a “black media debate” and a “conservative backlash”.

The Australian’s campaign for rigour and standards in education, especially its defence of classic literature and teaching grammar, was condemned by one critic as a “particularly ferocious campaign” that was guilty of wanting “to ­restore a traditional approach to the teaching of English”.

Fast-forward to 2016 and it’s clear where the truth lies. Despite investing additional billions and implementing a raft of education reforms, Australia’s ranking in international tests is going backwards and too many students are leaving school illiterate, innumerate and culturally impoverished.

In the 2011 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study, Australian students were ranked 22nd; in the 2015 Program for International Student Assessment, Australian students were ranked 20th in mathematics; and in the 2015 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, our Year 4 science students were outperformed by 17 other countries.

Australia’s national curriculum, instead of acknowledging we are a Western liberal democracy and the significance of our ­Judeo-Christian heritage, em­braces cultural relativism and prioritises politically correct indi­genous, Asian and sustainability perspectives.

Instead of focusing on the ­basics, teachers are pressured to teach Marxist-inspired programs such as the LGBTI Safe Schools program where gender is fluid and limitless and Roz Ward, one of the founders, argues: “It will only be through a revitalised class struggle and revolutionary change that we can hope for the liberation of LGBTI people.”

What’s to be done? It’s rare that those responsible for failure are capable of choosing the right way forward. Organisations such as ACSA, the Australian Education Union and the Australian Council for Educational Research are part of the problem, not the solution.

Instead of education fads and a command-and-control model mandated by such bodies, where schools are made to implement a one-size-fits-all curriculum, assess­ment, accountability and staffing system, schools must be freed from provider capture and given the autonomy to manage themselves.

As argued by Melbourne-based Brian Caldwell: “There is a powerful educational logic to locating a higher level of authority, responsibility and accountability for curriculum, teaching and assessment at the school level. Each school has a unique mix of students in respect to their needs, interests, aptitudes and ambitions; indeed, each classroom has a unique mix.”

The reason Catholic and independent schools, on the whole, outperform government schools is not because of students’ socio-economic status, which has a relatively weak impact on outcomes, but because non-government schools have control over staffing, budgets, curriculum focus and classroom practice.

In a paper this year — The ­Importance of School Systems: Evidence from International Differences in Student Achievement — European research Ludger Woessmann identifies “school autonomy and private competition” as important factors when ­explaining why some education systems outperform others.

Instead of adopting ineffective fads such as constructivism — where the emphasis is on inquiry-based discovery learning, teachers being guides by the side and content being secondary to process — it is vital to ensure that teacher training and classroom practice are evidence-based.

Not so in Australia, where the dominant approach is based on constructivism.

In opposition, and when arguing in favour of explicit teaching and direct instruction, NSW academic John Sweller states that “there is no aspect of human cognitive architecture that suggests that inquiry-based learning should be superior to ­direct ­instructional guidance and much to suggest that it is likely to be ­inferior”.

American educationalist ED Hirsch and Sweller argue that children must be able to automatically recall what has been taught. Primary schoolchildren, in particular, need to memorise times ­tables, do mental arithmetic and learn to recite poems and ballads.

After citing several research studies, Hirsch concludes: “Varied and repeated practice leading to rapid recall and automaticity is necessary to higher-order problem-solving skills in both mathematics and the sciences.”

Even though Australia has one of the highest rates of classroom computer use, our results are going backwards.

A recent OECD study concludes “countries which have invested heavily in information and communication technologies for education have seen no noticeable improvement in their performances in PISA results for reading, mathematics or science”.

At a time when Australia’s education ministers are deciding a new school funding model after 2017, it is also vital to realise investing additional billions, as argued by the AEU and NSW’s Education Minister Adrian Piccoli, is not the solution. Australia has been down that road across 20 years and standards have failed to improve.

The debate needs to shift from throwing more money after bad, a la Gonski, to identifying the most cost-effective way to use ­resources to raise standards.

As noted by Eric Hanushek and Woessmann in The Knowledge Capital of Nations, the focus must be on “how money is spent ­(instead) of how much money is spent”.

And here the research is clear. Stronger performing education systems embrace competition, autonomy, diversity and choice in education, and benchmark their curriculum and approaches to teaching and learning against world’s best practice and evidence-based research.

Teachers set high expectations with a disciplined classroom environment, students are taught to be resilient and motivated to succeed, there is less external micro­management, and parents are ­engaged and supportive of their children’s teachers.

As argued in the Review of the Australian National Curriculum I co-chaired, it is also vital to eschew educational fads and new age, politically correct ideology and ­ensure what is taught is based on what American psychologist Jerome Bruner describes as “the structure of the disciplines”.

Kevin Donnelly is a senior research fellow at the Australian Catholic University and author of The Culture of Freedom.

[Rorschach]

We know the Progressive Left have been indoctrinating students for decades now, their march through the State education system has been relentless. Teachers Unions and Organisations have clearly shown that their decisions and continuous increases in spending are not creating the results we expect for our children in our schools.

TIME FOR CHANGE...

[Neferti]

Rorschach

Is your name Kevin Donnelly? If not, why are you posting his stuff without a comment about the article except for the bits you HIGHLIGHTED?

What exactly do you want us to comment about? Should we quote the article, para by para, and type in large RED letters what we think about certain paragraphs?

I really don't get what you are trying to do. Sorry.

[Neferti]

We know the Progressive Left have been indoctrinating students for decades now, their march through the State education system has been relentless. Teachers Unions and Organisations have clearly shown that their decisions and continuous increases in spending are not creating the results we expect for our children in our schools.

TIME FOR CHANGE...

Oh, now I see. Time for a change ....

[Rorschach]

Well I'm not YELLING NEF... I just highlight the important parts for people with a short attention span.

If you read the article which includes the article title date author and newspaper name you might have a clue about those things you seem clueless about.

BTW people post articles to create OPs so people can discuss the topic, that's how things work.

[IQS.RLOW]

Rorschach

Is your name Kevin Donnelly? If not, why are you posting his stuff without a comment about the article except for the bits you HIGHLIGHTED?

What exactly do you want us to comment about? Should we quote the article, para by para, and type in large RED letters what we think about certain paragraphs?

I really don't get what you are trying to do. Sorry.

I agree. Rawsack adds nothing except posting stuff with bold type.

He needs to try harder.

[Wayne]

Yet another article that is critical of perceived left wing ideology in the schools, but fails to acknowledge that conservatives have been in government for decades when compared to progressives and have not changed much except to reduce funding! Like the old argument about the ABC being left winged biased, this article is short on fact but high on rhetoric. The Education system needs balance between the two extremes - we need to inform and challenge our Children to be able to look at issues that affect and will affect them as they grow. The bold bits of the article by the OP do nothing but raise the personal bias of both the writer and the OP. Howard for instance, was in government from 1996 to 2007 why did he not act on this so called "leftist" trait in the education system? Why hasn't the current Government acted? The truth is, the problem doesn't exist. Just because our children are now informed of a warts and all world we live in and are educated on contemporary issues facing them doesn't mean it is a "leftist" view. It's more a common sense approach to education to better equip our kids.

Money is ripped out of education left, right and centre by all Governments in Australia. Teachers in our primary and secondary schools are under resourced and overworked. We lag behind other countries in providing resources and encouraging innovation. Governments are constantly tinkering with the education engine room - the last major change was Gonski - which the Coalition are dead against probably because it a Labor initiative. Leave the system alone - fund it - and let it work it's way through. The way we are going now, and have been going for decades is instigating change in the system purely for political purposes - not for valid change we want and need.

[Rorschach]

Really?
Then you think it is ok to forget who made these changes to curriculum and funding federally and statewise...
Oh and it has been proven time and time again that ever increasing funding is not the answer to better education.
Go the blinkered Leftwing progs.

[mantra]

You can't blame any particular party. The education system has been declining for the last couple of decades - probably since most families started using computers which stopped kids from actually thinking. We need to scrap everything and start all over again by learning the basics of education. A lot of teachers haven't got the ability to teach anyone. I know teachers who went to school with my children. Two in particular were seriously dumb kids. They didn't even need a pass in their HSC to get into teaching. Universities take anyone.

[Wayne]

Really?
Then you think it is ok to forget who made these changes to curriculum and funding federally and statewise...
Oh and it has been proven time and time again that ever increasing funding is not the answer to better education.
Go the blinkered Leftwing progs.

Yes, really! Since 1996 till now, who has been in power the most and able to effect change? That would be the conservatives. Gillard at least looked outside the political mandarins in the public service and chose gonski to look at how our schools actually work. All the coalition have done is thrown more money and hoped it worked. Yes, gonski recommended changes in funding, but only after a full and holistic look at how we educate our kids. It was a game changer but of course because it was a labor initiative, it was canned and now, the determination of how our kids get educated and funded is back in the hands of the mandarins in the APS. Like the nbn, the conservatives are reluctant to actually continue something that they did not think of first - a narrow and archaic view of vital policy.

Since coming to power, exactly what major initiatives have the coalition put in place to educate our children. - the answer is - none. All they have done is removed any reference to gonski, his review and timeline for change from the government websites. What they done though is removed Mr Fixit - the idiot Pyne -away from anything to do with education and put him looking at submarine design and operation