Category: Updates & Debates

Are Australia’s curriculum wars heating up again?

Are Australia’s curriculum wars heating up again?

In Re-imagining Schools and School Systems I declared that “It is likely that the various curriculum wars, along with interventions by ministers, will ebb and flow in the years ahead, as they have in the past” (Caldwell, 2023, p. 82). The context at the time of writing was the recent adoption by ministers of a revised Australian Curriculum for implementation across the country from 2023, with the next revision due for implementation from 2029 (ministers had confirmed an earlier decision to revise every six years, apart from minor refinements from time to time). The vigorous debate in the years leading up to the 2023 version, including interventions by ministers, had largely centred around history, reading, mathematics and the length of the curriculum. In mid-2023 the federal minister regarded the matter was now “settled”.

Science curriculum

Revisions are now underway in several states, notably New South Wales and Victoria, and it is likely that ACARA will not be able to wait until 2027 and 2028 to get things underway for a new national curriculum in 2029. An impetus for more urgent action was given in November 2023 by Melbourne-based consultancy Learning First that benchmarked Australia’s science curriculum against several nations, including some high-performers, releasing a detailed report on the outcomes (Jensen, Ross, Collett, Murnane & Pearson, 2023). Led by Ben Jensen, Learning First has extensive experience in consultancy in school systems in Australia and internationally. Countries in the benchmarked science study were Canada (Alberta and Quebec), England, China (Hong Kong), Japan and the United States. Canada, Hong Kong and Japan have high-performing school systems.

While acknowledging that many factors explain success, the report placed curriculum near the top. The report is recommended for detailed reading, but the headline findings are that Australia’s science curriculum to year 10 has half the content of the average of other countries, lacking breadth – 44 topics compared to 74, and lacking depth – 5 topics in depth compared to 22. The Australian version was considered to be poorly sequenced and poorly specified.

Learning First generalised the benchmarking of science to the national curriculum as a whole and urged a complete rewrite of the latter, even suggesting that the “rollout of the latest [2023] … may have to be halted”. The report was careful to acknowledge that there is association rather than causation in connecting curriculum and achievement, but the evidence supporting re-consideration of the science curriculum is compelling.

The results of PISA 2022 were released less than two weeks’ later in early December 2023, and my next post in January 2024 sets the Learning First study in this broader context. It is worth noting, however, that Geoff Masters, CEO of the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER), that conducted the Australian component of PISA, attributed Singapore’s outstanding success in PISA 2022 (it topped the rankings in all three categories – reading, mathematics, science) to the capacity of teachers/schools to tailor their teaching to students’ performance in earlier assessments (Masters, 2023). He noted that Singapore is working on ways to do this without formal streaming. While noting the relevance of curriculum, Masters did not single out curriculum as the reason why Singapore’s school system is “beating ours.” [More on PISA 2022 in January]

‘Behaviour curriculum’

Another proposal for change to the “curriculum” is, at first sight, far less compelling, although it is immediately relevant to pedagogy, classroom management and the social context of schools. I refer here to the interim report of Australia’s Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment. The committee was addressing the issue of increasing disruption in Australian school classrooms, responding in particular to Australia’s ranking of 69 out of 76 countries/economies on the PISA 2018 index of disciplinary climate. Indeed, only four countries (Australia, Canada, Finland, New Zealand) did not report a favourable climate. One of the interim report’s recommendations was “The committee recommends that the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority strengthen the focus on behaviour within the Australian Curriculum by specifically introducing a ‘Behaviour Curriculum.’” (Standing Committee on Education and Employment, 2023).

The reference to “curriculum” proved a distractor because the flurry of responses in the media often referred to the already overcrowded curriculum. Such perceptions, if not experiences, are broadly based so one can expect many responses on these grounds as stakeholders respond to the interim report. However, it is clear that the committee did not place behaviour on the same plane as existing subjects (hence the quotation marks around “Behaviour Curriculum”). Teachers and their leaders should welcome the work of the committee which is addressing issues of wide concern.

Some responders asserted that the foregoing concern would have been evident if teachers had been consulted. In fact teachers were consulted! There was a call for submissions to all stakeholders and there were many responses from teachers including one from the Australian Education Union. There were 83 submissions and three public hearings. While all members of the committee were senators, it is clear that it had substantial support in its work. The interim report is substantial and well-written. It makes links to other reports and other sectors such as health. However, the committee should make clear what it means by “curriculum” or replace the term. The final report is due on 7 February 2024 and I will post a response when it is made public.

References

Caldwell, B.J. (2023). Reimagining schools and school systems. Victoria, BC: Tellwell.

Jensen, B., Ross, M., Collett, M., Murnane, N. & Pearson, E. (2023). Fixing the hole in Australian education: Australian Curriculum benchmarked against the best. Collingwood, VIC: Learning First. https://learningfirst.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/FULL-REPORT-COMBINED.pdf.

Masters, G. (2023). ‘Why Singapore’s school system is beating ours. The Age. 6 December 2023, p. 18.

Standing Committee on Education and Employment (2023) Recommendations in Interim Report. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Education_and_Employment/DASC/Interim_Report/List_of_recommendations.

Quality Use of Research Evidence in Education: A Recommendation

Quality Use of Research Evidence in Education: A Recommendation

“Evidence-based practice” has become an over-used mantra in education, as it has in most fields. The Australian Education Research Organisation (AERO) was established to provide teachers and school leaders with evidence to guide their practice based on research in areas of priority. There is an assumption that school personnel know how to use research. The good news is that a five-year project at Monash University (Q Project) has been designed and implemented to illuminate the matter and that a highly-readable book has been published to highlight the findings. I recommend it. In my view, as contained in a post on the back cover of the book, is that it “heralds a new generation of knowledge about the use of research in schools. As such it is an indispensable guide for policymakers, practitioners and scholars who seek fresh perspectives and scalable examples. It goes beyond seemingly endless publications of why and how research is used, or not used, to inform us about how to use it well.”

 

Rickinson, M., Walsh, L., Gleeson, J., Cutler, B., Cirkony, C. and Salisbury, M. (2024). Understanding the quality use of research evidence in education: What it means to use research well. Oxford and New York: Routledge.

Is a strategic plan necessary if a school is to be transformed?

Is a strategic plan necessary if a school is to be transformed?

The Australian Education Research Organization (AERO) has released in four parts its evidence-based guide to strategic planning in schools (available on the AERO website). AERO worked with Learning First to develop the guide. A review of literature accompanied it (Chiong & Pearson, 2023). AERO notes on its website that “These guides were developed with input from school leaders, school system and sector officials, a principal peak body and a school strategic planning expert.”

This paper provides a summary of key features of the AERO guide; identifies errors in the review of literature; highlights the need for agility in strategic planning; and illustrates how studies of transformation demonstrate the importance of a broader view of strategic planning than described in the guide, referring in particular to leadership and context. I conclude that the question posed in the title of this paper should be answered in the affirmative.

Review of literature

The review of literature contains two helpful definitions/descriptions, each of which suggest that the focus of a strategic plan is school improvement:

School strategic plans refer to multi-year and annual plans produced through regular school review cycles. These plans communicate a school’s intentions for improvement and are often created in consultation with the school community and, where relevant, system‑level staff who work directly with the school in a support role. Following their creation, school strategic plans can then be shared with key stakeholders (such as students’ parents or carers).

An effective school strategic plan (or school improvement plan or agenda) is a critical part of school improvement. School strategic plans refer to multi-year and annual plans produced through regular school review cycles.

The template for strategic planning in the guide is in five parts:

  1. Compelling mission and vision statements
  2. Specific, sharp, and select goals, approaches and practices
  3. Content of goals, approaches and practices that is aligned with the evidence base
  4. Defined processes for monitoring and evaluation
  5. Coherence within and across documents

Of 30 references in the review, four are from Australia, with three from New South Wales where, along with most other references, the focus is on school improvement, and one is from the Grattan Institute, which reports findings of a survey of the working conditions of teachers in Australia. For research on schools, there is reference to a 2011 study in Clark County, Nevada (Los Vegas) and a 2022 study of developments in Portugal.

The authors wrote a short article for ACEL’s Australian Educational Leader (Pearson & Chiong, 2023) drawing from their review of literature. Their only reference to research on strategic planning in school settings was to the aforementioned studies in Los Vegas and Portugal and the first author’s experience as an assistant principal in one school in Melbourne. They acknowledged that they drew on conversations with school leaders in AERO’s work on school improvement. They reproduced the five-part template.

The AERO guide is indeed a framework for school improvement. This is evident in the titles: 1. Setting goals and targets for student learning, 2. Prioritising approach to achieve each goal, 3. Selecting practices to deliver improvement, 4. Evaluation for continuous improvement. The guide connects strategic planning to two items in the Australian Professional Standard for Principals: Leading improvement, innovation and change and Leading the management of the school.

I am concerned about the reference in the review to a paper (Mintzberg, 1994) by a critic of strategic planning. The list of references indicates that the title of that paper is “The fall and rise of school strategic planning.” However the paper was not concerned with developments in schools, indeed, school was not in the title. This error is compounded in the text where the authors state that Mintzberg “argues that school strategic plans simplify reality and form a tick-box exercise that hinders true innovation.” There is no such statement in the paper. I drew the attention of the CEO of AERO to these errors.

Mintzberg suggested that the label “strategic planning” should be dropped.

While certainly not dead, strategic planning has long since fallen from its pedestal. But even now, few people understand the reason: strategic planning is not strategic thinking. Indeed, strategic planning often spoils strategic thinking, causing managers to confuse real vision with the manipulation of numbers. And this confusion lies at the heart of the issue: the most successful strategies are visions, not plans. Strategic planning, as it has been practised, has really been strategic programming, the articulation and elaboration of strategies, or visions, that already exist. (Mintzberg, 1994)

Mintzberg referred to programming but it is in fact planning, if planning is determining what is to be done, how it is to be done, who is to do it, and with what resources, along with a specification of how success in implementing the plan is to be assessed.

The review cited recent studies that reported an association between strategic planning and organisational performance in public and private sectors and in US and non-US settings. These well-researched studies suggest that strategic planning, variously conducted, is practised widely so, in this respect, Mintzberg’s critique has not held up. He considered strategic thinking to be essential to the formation of strategy, a position that has held up. The review does not deal with strategic thinking and the guide does not illustrate how good leaders practise it.

Mintzberg (1995) described strategic thinking as “seeing.” I paraphrased his description in the approach I took in Caldwell (2023):

[The process of strategic thinking] involves describing what has occurred in the past (seeing behind); reviewing what policymakers have designed and implemented (seeing above); exploring the impact of policies at the level where intended outcomes were or were not achieved, or how they were experienced (seeing below); noting what other countries or systems are doing or have achieved (seeing beyond); and identifying how favourable outcomes have been sustained, or proposing how this may be done (seeing it through). (p. v)

Mission and vision

Critically important is the foundation of strategy in the mission and vision of the school and this is made clear in the AERO template. Determining these and their underpinning values should not start when a decision is made to construct a strategic plan –  they should already be in place. The mission should be known, understood and embraced when the school was established or when transformation or reimagination is intended.

AERO pairs the concepts of mission and vision, defining the former but giving little attention to the latter. A school can have an enduring mission, but vision is important – a mental image manifested in various ways of what the school will or should be like some time in the future. The strategic plan specifies the strategies that will help the school realise the vision, consistent with its mission. Different visions may be articulated at different points in time or for different functions even though the mission may not change.  These may be an outcome of the successful implementation of strategies in its strategic plan.

Incorporating an agile approach

A strategic plan can be a static document that may not be sensitive to changes in the context of the school. David Loader and I called for “strategic navigation” in a more agile approach to determining strategy that calls for responsiveness, adaptability and sustainability:

For the school’s leaders and their colleagues it is the very core of their daily work, and the essential lens through which they evaluate and prioritise … what schools need is a community of leaders who understand the social and political trends, who share a desire to deliver an agreed possible future and who are therefore able to be responsive and innovative within a strategic framework. The goal of strategic navigation is to engage the whole community, including those partnering with the school, in a continuous ongoing process that will address complexity and manage uncertainty. (Caldwell & Loader, 2009, p. 48)

Strategic navigation is one manifestation of strategic thinking in action. Examples of the need for navigation include the emergence of data that show the school falling far short of intended levels of achievement; the availability of new technologies that have the potential to lighten the work of teachers, or provide new opportunities to enrich the learning of students; the loss of or unexpected availability of new sources of funds; or a new system-wide expectation in respect to the curriculum.

Illustrations of strategy in transforming a school

An update on this book’s website was titled “A classic case of reimagining a secondary school.” The case is Albert Park College (APC) in Melbourne, opened in 2010, now with over 1,500 students on five sites, and Australia’s School of the Year in 2021. It replaced a failed school of the same name that was bulldozed. These illustrate the importance of mission, vision and values.

The school has strategic plans for three-year periods that are consistent with the AERO template but are more complex than illustrated in the four-part guide. They describe how APC has/will address the range of learning outcomes that are consistent with its mission and vision, for example, acquiring five sites that deal in different ways with how a range of curriculum priorities have/will be delivered. How the school has done this is described in From the ground up (Cook, 2023) written by foundation principal Steven Cook. Cook explained the role of the principal and other leaders in the school’s community. Leadership is not considered in the AERO guide, nor are differences in scale and scope.

Other examples of the relationship between strategy and mission and vision are contained in the case studies in Caldwell (2023, pp 143-153), each of which involved transformation or reimagination. For example, Templestowe College (pp 145-146) was transformed from a failing secondary school through the adoption of a new sense of mission and a vision of what it would be like if that mission were honoured in policy and practice. The role of the principal and other leaders is explained by transforming principal Peter Hutton in Turning around a troubled school (Hutton, 2022). The school’s current website contains the following:

Our new strategic plan sees the school looking to build on our strengths, identifying what an empowered learner is and using this as a framework, as well as focusing in on new assessment measures that go beyond the narrow measures of test scores and grades. These are our Expanded Measures of Success.

The AERO guide deals with “measures of success” in its template. Aspects are well-known in many schools and school systems in Australia. For example, there is reference to targets that are SMART, that is, specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, timely. A “traffic light” approach in reporting progress is described and illustrated: green, amber, red. As recognised by AERO in its publications, some system-generated documents describe well how school improvement can be achieved, for example, the Framework for Improving Student Outcomes (FISO) in Victoria.

The importance of context

The guide provides illustrations that are targeted almost exclusively on measures of student achievement. It is correct to expect that strategic plans have such a focus in  honouring a school’s mission and vision. These plans should also deal with matters that contribute to or enable this goal; as evidenced in approaches in successful schools in different contexts. There are, for example different approaches in large schools in urban contexts that have been turned around, successful small primary schools in regional settings, and schools that are now improving the achievement of Indigenous students in remote settings. Good leaders and others in a school’s community engage in strategic thinking in formulating strategy, drawing on evidence that AERO is assembling so well.

While I conclude that strategic planning is necessary for transformation, I hope that AERO will correct the errors in the review of literature and illustrate in the four-part guide a broader view of the process in different contexts and for different functions, highlighting the importance of strategic thinking and the role of leaders.

References

Caldwell, B.J. (2023). Reimagining schools and school systems. Victoria, BC: Tellwell.

Caldwell B.J. & Loader D.N. (2009).  Our school, our future. Book and workshop package. Melbourne: Education Services Australia.

Chiong, C. & Pearson, E. (2023). The features of an effective school strategic plan: Literature review. Australian Education Research Organisation. https://www.edresearch.edu.au/resources/features-effective-school-strategic-plan-literature-review

Cook. S. (2023). From the ground up. Melbourne: Black Inc.

Hutton, P. (2022). Turning around a troubled school. Published by Peter Hutton.

Mintzberg, H. (1995). The rise and fall of strategic planning. New York: Free Press.

Mintzberg, H. (1994).The fall and rise of strategic planning. Harvard Business Review. January-February.

Pearson, E. & Chiong, C. Strategic plans shape the future. Australian Educational Leader. Vol. 45, No. 3, pp. 52-53.

A stronger case for re-imagining Australia’s schools and school systems: NAPLAN 2023

A stronger case for re-imagining Australia’s schools and school systems: NAPLAN 2023

The results for 2023 of the country-wide NAPLAN (National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy) were released on August 23. Conducted by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA), tests were administered early in the school year for all students in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9. I built part of the case for re-imagining schools and school systems (Chapter 1 in Caldwell, 2023) on the declining or flatlining of past NAPLAN results.

A different approach to testing was adopted in 2023 so that comparison with results in previous years is not possible. Results for each student  in 2023 were reported in four categories: Needs additional support, Developing, Strong, Exceeding. Those in the first two categories fell below national standards; those in the last two categories fell above national standards.

Results were reported for each year level, each of several dimensions of literacy and numeracy, each state and territory,  each sub-group among demographic characteristics, and rate of student participation in the tests. There was a wide range of results for each of these. Participation rates were high, on average in the mid-90s, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island students and those in remote settings had the largest percentage of students falling below national standards.

It is not the purpose of this short commentary to report the results in the various categories. These are set out in detail, with accompanying commentary, on the ACARA website. The following is a general commentary:

  • Newspapers tended to report that one in three students “failed” the tests, this being roughly the proportion of students who achieved below national standards. Editorial comments invariably stated that there was a national crisis despite years of efforts to improve and large increases in funding.
  • Comments from ministers for education often praised the efforts of teachers while expressing concern about overall levels of achievement. Some looked forward to targeted funding in the next National School Reform Agreement between the federal government and states/territories.
  • The most frequently-mentioned strategies for improvement were small-group tutoring for students who need additional support and adoption of explicit teaching. There was no acknowledgement that the value of the former has been known for years, for example, it has been a feature of high levels of achievement and high levels of equity over several decades in Finland, especially, and for the latter, a feature in schools in high-performing nations.
  • AERO (Australian Education Research Organisation) has reported evidence on the aforementioned strategies. ACARA and AITSL (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership) have provided many case studies of recommended strategies; universities have been exhorted to address the same in the most recent review of Initial Teacher Education (Scott Report, as summarised in another entry on this book’s website under Updates and Debates); and institutes and academies have given priority to programs for building related capacities of teachers and school leaders.
  • Teacher unions tended to call for higher levels of funding, smaller class sizes and more support for teachers.
  • Professional comment tended to come from think-tanks, for example, the Grattan Institute and the Centre for Independent Studies (CIS). Few academics commented. One called for less autonomy for schools in Victoria and a detailed “road map” to guide teachers in the delivery of a national curriculum.
  • Other proposals independent of responses to NAPLAN 2023 have been made for lifting levels of achievement, for example, a high-quality knowledge-rich curriculum (Ben Jensen of Learning First in Jensen, 2023) and reports of interest in closing/ceasing construction of open-plan classrooms (studies of the Grattan Institute and University of Melbourne in Grace, 2023).
  • Those not working in education have weighed in; for example, Gottliebson (2023) who offered a business perspective .
  • Media reporting and public commentary had ceased within a week. There is an element of “kicking the can down the road” as faith is placed on priorities and funding in the next National School Reform Agreement. There have been mixed outcomes of current and past NSRAs as well as of state and territory initiatives.
  • No minister or other leader referred to the need for new strategies at the system level. Proposals for re-imagining school systems were included in the book (Chapter 10 in Caldwell, 2023, especially Table 3 on p. 182). It seems that schools will carry the burden and it will be a school-by-school effort if re-imagination at scale is to be achieved (as described in Chapters 9 and 11).
  • The case for re-imagining is even stronger when information on school refusal is considered. Data for Australia indicate that this is at record levels following the pandemic (Precel, 2023). A Senate inquiry found that the percentage of Years 1-10 students attending school at least 90 percent of the time had fallen from 71.2 to 49.9. In the United States, more than 30 percent of students in some states are absent for more than 10 percent of the school year; for example, Alaska, New Mexico, Michigan, Oregon, and Nevada (The Economist, August 26-September 1, pp. 25-26).

There are so many “moving parts” in proposals/recommendations/reports that it will take many years for alignment to occur and significant improvement to be realised. There may be a bigger issue in respect to policy/politics/governance, as observed by Paul Kelly, editor-at-large at The Australian:

How much longer do we persevere with inadequate public policies as revealed in multiple reports year after year,   an underperforming skills and education system and insufficient investment for our needs? It’s time to begin a         new conversation that accepts the status quo needs major revision and addresses the major reform components       for  a new order. Or is that too hard? (Kelly, 2023)

Caldwell, B.J. (2023). Reimagining schools and school systems. Victoria, BC: Tellwell.

Gottliebson, R, (2023). NAPLAN: Australia’s education problems and solutions. The Australian. August 24.

Grace, R. (2023). Calls to close door on open-plan classrooms. The Age. July 24, p. 3.

Jensen, B. A bridge in the classroom. The Australian. July 29-30, p. 23.

Kelly, P. (2023). New order reform our one shot against “status quo future.” The Australian. August 23.

Precel, N. (2023). Call for action as school refusal rises. The Age. August 10.

The AI imperative: We must engage

The AI imperative: We must engage

The debate on the educational merit of Artificial Intelligence (AI) was heating up as Reimagining Schools and School Systems went to press. ChatGPT had made its appearance and I took the opportunity to try it out. I noted on page 190 that “An unknown known had suddenly become a known known. I had no difficulty receiving a short well-written essay comparing approaches to learning and teaching in Finland and Singapore.” I concluded that “The year ahead will find schools coming to terms with a potentially transforming technology.” The potential was acknowledged for the management of information about student progress and achievement as well as the removal of much of the routine paperwork that is the bane of teachers: “It would be a paradox if teachers felt threatened if [AI] served to eliminate many of the things that teachers find difficult or tiresome.”

The debate continues to rage as I write this update, so what follows is likely to be the first of many. Without canvassing the various positions that have been taken or the concerns that have been raised, I simply note that we cannot duck the issue. One public school system in Australia signalled that schools should not proceed to adoption, but then backed off. On the other hand, some schools could not resist the temptation to “try it out,” and this was especially the case among private schools. A survey by the Association of Heads of Independent Schools of Australia (AHISA) found that in responding schools, 24 percent of primary teachers, 34.5 percent of middle school teachers and 39 percent of secondary teachers had used generative AI by mid-2023. The top five teacher-assisted tasks were concerned with lesson plans or learning designs, learning resources, ideas for curriculum unit outlines, discussion questions, and rubrics for assessing student work.

One would expect that universities and organizations such as the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) and the Australian Education Research Organization (AERO) should take the lead in addressing the issue. Internationally, the Education University of Hong Kong (EdUHK) has research capacity in the field and now has a Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Artificial Intelligence and Educational Technology, building on existing capacity in its eight “next generation classrooms” that address virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR) and AI (see pp. 125-126 of my book).

Public schools cannot cede territory to private schools and Australian institutions cannot do the same to international counterparts. To do so would exacerbate existing inequities and further build the case for reimagination.

More broadly, academics around the world moved quickly to explore the potential of AI for schools. Scores of thoughtful articles had been written and summarised in a comprehensive review published on August 23 (Fullan, Azorin, Harris & Jones, 2023) who concluded:

Paradoxically AI could turn out to be the most powerful force ever known that could dramatically increase the wherewithal for humans to work together … But traditional school structure and culture are not conducive to teachers and students working collectively over time to make a significant and profound difference in the lives of all students.

The power of AI could be used to reduce much of the mechanical load of teachers and even to provide some basic support for students under the direction of teachers who would be freed to work with each other, with students, parents, and others in the community to maximise support and learning for all students. (p.6)

Herein lies the case for a well-implemented approach to enhance the professional role of teachers and contribute to equity in learning. It is also a case for re-imagining structure. The future in these matters is likely to be shaped by what unfolds in schools, leaving academics to research the impact.

Reference

Fullan, M., Azorin, C., Harris, A. & Jones, M. (2023), Artificial intelligence and school leadership: challenges, opportunities and implications. Editorial. School Leadership & Management. pp. 1-8. DOI: 10.1080/13632434.2023.2246856.

Scott report and a revolution in teacher education

Scott report and a revolution in teacher education

An important recommendation in my book Reimagining schools and school systems was that there should be ‘Urgent and full implementation of recommendations in Australia’s latest review’ of teacher education (p. 182). This statement was made in an assessment of Australia’s schools systems against eight international benchmarked characteristics, one of which was “Teaching staff are carefully selected and educated.” Singapore provided an exemplar. The ‘latest review’ has now reported , generally referred to as the Scott Report, named for the chair of the review panel, Mark Scott, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sydney, former Director-General of Education in NSW and before that CEO of the ABC (he began work as a teacher). The review had not been completed at the time I wrote my book,

The review was to address long-standing concerns about initial teacher education and training and especially the selection and retention of able teachers. It followed recommendations in reports of TEMAG and QITE (summarised in pages 101-105 in my book). The report offered 14 recommendations, all of which were accepted unanimously at an Education Ministers Meeting in July 2023. There is bi-partisan political support at the federal level and in the media. I repeat my strong endorsement.

I make a few observations here on key recommendations rather than provide a summary. A genuinely national approach is recommended. Core content is prescribed: the brain and learning, effective pedagogical practice, classroom management, responsive teaching.  Among prescriptions are phonics and explicit teaching. The idea of multiple intelligences is rejected. The new curriculum is to commence in 2025. Universities can draw on a fund to support the transition. Outstanding practice is to be financially rewarded. Program closure in the event of failure to comply is anticipated.  Students who cannot demonstrate knowledge in university subjects and capacity in teaching rounds will not be employed. Education ministers in states and territories accepted responsibility for adoption of each recommendation, but there are important roles for AITSL and AERO. There shall be an Initial Teacher Education Quality  Assurance Board that shall report annually to ministers on quality and consistency.

If implemented, this could well be the most far-reaching change to initial teacher education in Australia’s recent education history. I can find no counterpart in comparable or high-performing nations, except for Singapore, notably in respect to the national prescription of core content. I agree with Paul Kelly who wrote in The Australian on 12 July 2023: ‘Australia’s universities are about to be pulled into line over one of their greatest acts of betrayal. In an encouraging step — perhaps a breakthrough moment– federal and state education ministers have endorsed principles to redesign the university training of teachers.’ I wholeheartedly support the recommendations but anticipate their implementation with much trepidation. Universities have a high degree of autonomy even though they are established in state legislation (see note on the governance of universities on page 99 of my book). There  will likely be intense resistance in some faculties. It is optimistic to say the least to expect new courses to be ready by 2025. There is modest incentive in the report to attract more people to teaching, It will take many years for there to be impact on school students. Nevertheless, a start must be made and ministers should take up their roles with a sense of urgency. It is to a large extent the reimagination of initial teacher education.

 

Reference: Commonwealth of Australia (2023) Strong beginnings. Report of the Teacher Education Expert Panel, Mark Scott (Chair). Canberra: Department of Education.

Note: I offered the above reflections in the context of my experience in the review of teacher education in a Faculty (La Trobe), University (Auckland) and State (Queensland) and as dean of faculties of education (Tasmania and Melbourne).

A classic case of reimagining a secondary school

A classic case of reimagining a secondary school

This update refers readers to what I consider to be a classic case of reimagining a public secondary school. It is consistent with the definition of transformation given on page 4 of Reimagining schools and school systems: “Transformation is significant, systematic and sustained change that secures, or has the evidence-based potential to secure, success for all students in all settings through integrated and aligned action in the major domains of school education. The school is Albert Park College (APC), a government school in Melbourne, Australia. A narrative is provided in a book that was not available at the time of writing Reimagining … and readers are referred to it for the full story. It is written by the Foundation Principal Steven Cook under the title From the ground up: How a community with a vision and a principal with a purpose created a thriving state school  (Collingwood VIC: Black Inc, 2023). What follows is a short summary of the major themes in the transformation of APC.

APC opened in 2010. It started from scratch and now has about 1,600 students. It was Australia’s School of the Year in 2021. Its predecessor on the same site was closed and then bulldozed, with few students enrolling from feeder primary (elementary) schools; it was no longer viable. The community had lost confidence in the school and were sending their children to private schools. Steven Cook was appointed principal and spent 2009 consulting widely with the community to established its values, philosophy and educational design. He moved into the school’s attendance zone.

The school now has five campuses that cater to different specializations that cohere around the APC motto of Lead Create Inspire. Needs, interests and passions can be met for all students. APC performs well on national tests of student achievement (NAPLAN). Consistent with the model for reimagination in Chapter 11 of my book, Steven Cook believes in a high level of school autonomy and a lower level of control by the school system. The school is outward-facing, future-focused and has an outstanding program of professional development to build the capacity of staff.

Further information can be gathered from the APC website  at albertparkcollege.vic.edu.au and, of course, Steven Cook’s book, which is the best by a principal I have read this year. Much of the book provides guidelines that will prove valuable for principals of all schools. It should be read by leaders at the system level.

 

 

Reimagining the funding of public and private schools

Reimagining the funding of public and private schools

The funding of public (government) and private (non-government) schools has been a contentious issue in Australia for more than fifty years. This contrasts with its non-contentious nature in many other countries, including some of the world’s top performers. The issue surfaced again on 21 April 2023 with a proposal to fund all schools on the same basis, but under strict conditions.

The proposal was advanced by Tom Greenwell and Chris Bonner under the title Choice and fairness: A common framework for all Australian schools. The authors were commissioned to prepare the proposal by Koshland Education Innovation Ltd to be presented as the 2023 Australian Learning Lecture (ALL). ALL was established by philanthropist Ellen Koshland who has been a strong supporter of school education for many years. The first ALL was delivered by Professor Sir Michael Barber, former head of the Prime Minister’s Delivery Unit at 10 Downing Street.

Greenwell and Bonner proposed that public and private schools be funded on the same basis providing the latter did not charge fees and accepted all-comers without entrance examinations. Schools that did not accept these conditions would receive no public funding. Readers of the proposal will be surprised on two counts. First, how the authors have progressed their thinking. For many years they have generally opposed the public funding of private schools, rejecting  one of the core values in the Karmel Report of 1973 that led to the systematic and substantial federal funding of private schools. Second, the international examples cited by the authors have been well known for decades, notably New Zealand, where most private schools accepted the conditions set by the authors as far back as 1976. I recounted in Reimagining Schools and School Systems my experience in top performing Alberta, Canada where such schemes had been in place for a long time, and were broadly accepted. Indeed I could direct my property taxes to a system of choice, either public or non-public (Catholic).  In addition to countries named in the proposal, one could add England, where fewer than ten percent of schools are independent, receiving no public funding, and Hong Kong, where fewer than ten percent of students attend schools owned publicly (the others attend schools owned by churches and charities).

It may be too late, politically at least, to make a change in Australia. More than 35 percent of students now attend fee-paying private schools (Catholic or Independent) (more than 40 percent in secondary schools). It may be that a very large majority would choose the private sector if they could pay the fees, which are relatively low in some independent schools. It is likely that the debates of the 1960s and 1970s will resurface should a new public debate transpire. I give detailed attention to these matters in Reimagining Schools and School Systems.

Is Australia lowering its expectations in school education?

Is Australia lowering its expectations in school education?

The OECD released on 10 April 2023 its Education Policy Outlook in Australia. It is the most detailed, comprehensive yet concise document on the state of education in Australia, but there is one telling statement that raises a serious concern about expectations for schools, namely, that Australia is described as a high performing country. This is contrary to the generally-accepted meaning of that term, and despite numerous statistics that indicate that there are many shortcomings. It is important to first describe the significance and the many strengths of the report that is recommended reading for all who want a trustworthy account of the “state of the federation.”

The OECD publishes education policy outlooks for many of its members and this is the second for Australia. I made extensive use of those from several countries when I wrote The Alignment Premium in 2018. The reports are prepared by OECD staff on the basis of desk-top reviews of reports from each country, augmented by interviews with senior officials. In the case of Australia these officials were from the Commonwealth as well as the States and Territories. It is reasonable to assume that they helped interpret the various reports and indicators, including the appellation of Australia as a high-performing country.

The basis of the aforementioned assessment was that Australia performed above the OECD average on certain criteria, including the results in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) for 15-year-olds in literacy, numeracy and science. However, it is not only the mostly rich OECD member countries who participate in PISA; about 70 nations/economies do so. For Australia to perform above the average is nothing to boast about, especially as performance has steadily declined over the last two decades. Australia was in the top ten earlier this century when the decline started. Leaders then aspired to regain this ranking. Now it seems that “above average” is the best that can be reported. I am concerned that we may never again be really a top performer, a possibility raised on page 191 of Reimagining Schools and School Systems: “Australia may have to content itself to be a second-tier nation in school education because the top performers will continue their quest to be the world’s best.”