Why non-government schools provide the best model - part 1

In her September 3^rd speech to the National Press Club Prime Minister Gillard detailed the ALP government's response to the Gonski review of school funding. At the same time Gillard announced her plans to overcome educational disadvantage, improve teacher quality, make schools more effective and put Australia among the top 5 performers in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) test.

In additional to being unachievable, the major flaw in the Prime Minister's plans is that they represent a continuation of the government's statist, centralised and inflexible approach to education; all roads lead to Canberra. Once again, Gillard refuses to acknowledge autonomy, diversity, competition and choice, best exemplified by Australia's non-government schools, as a more effective and beneficial way to raise standards and strengthen schools.

Gillard's speech also fails to give any details or certainty about the future funding model, post 2013, and her proposals, if implemented, represent a serious threat to the autonomy of independent schools and their ability to best reflect the needs and aspirations of their communities.

While much of the political and public debate centres on issues like the carbon tax, boat people, the economy and the cost of living, it would be a mistake to underestimate education as an issue important to the electorate.

That funding to non-government schools is a political minefield is understandable given that approximately 34% of students attend non-government schools, with the figure rising to over 44% at Years 11 and 12. Many aspirational voters in marginal seats value school choice and the popularity of non-government schools is proven by the fact that over the years 2000-2010 whereas their enrolments grew by 20%, the equivalent figure for government schools was only 1%.

John Howard, when Prime Minister, described education as a real BBQ stopper and as discovered by Mark Latham during the 2004 federal election campaign, when he released a hit-list of so-called wealthy private schools, getting it wrong can have significant political repercussions.

Hence, the importance of Prime Minister Gillard's speech at the National Press Club where she gave the government's response to the Gonski report on school funding and outlined her plans for what she described as a 'National Plan for School Improvement'.

Reminiscent of the ALP's grandiose plans in its first term of government, under the banner of the Kevin Rudd inspired education revolution, Gillard also seeks to stake the high moral ground by announcing that her plans represent a "national crusade" and that educational disadvantage is a "moral wrong" that has to be corrected.

The Prime Minister also promises, as a result of her government's initiatives and policies, that Australia will be "ranked as a top 5 country in the world" in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) tests for 15 year olds with our students eventually equalling students in Shanghai – the top performer in the 2009 PISA test.

Ignored, compared to Australia, is that Asian education systems have a far more academic curriculum with high-stakes tests and examinations, students are often streamed in terms of ability and interest, home background reinforces the benefits of learning and the Confucian ethic values and respects teachers and education.

Compared to Australian children (who have an inflated sense of their ability, are rarely told they have failed or urged to strive and achieve better results) students in places like Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, South Korea and Shanghai believe that they can always work harder to improve their standard of work.

While failing to make explicit details about the quantum of funds available to government and non-government schools, the split between state and federal governments and the rate of indexation, Gillard endorsed the Gonski report's core recommendation that all students attract a base level of funding and that there also should be additional funds to compensate for disadvantage.

The Prime Minister also sought to assuage the fears of non-government schools that they might lose funding post 2013, when the current socioeconomic status (SES) model expires, by stating that her approach "strips away all the old debates about private versus public" and that her intention is that, "funding for all schools (will) continue to rise".

A significant criticism of Gillard's Press Club speech is that even though the government received the Gonski report in December last year and officially made it public in February, those expecting details about the new model were told to wait until the beginning of next year when, hopefully, all will be revealed.

Given that the new funding model is due to begin at the start of 2014 and schools, especially non-government schools, need a long lead time to plan and finalise budgets, most importantly school fees, it is understandable why so many were disappointed with the failure to provide more details.

The fact that in the weeks leading up to Gillard's speech modelling associated with the proposed new funding scheme suggested that over 3000 schools, government and non-government, would receive less funding only adds to the fear and uncertainty.

Gillard's speech is also open to the criticism that while it is high on rhetoric about raising standards, overcoming disadvantage and ensuring that all schools are properly funded, the Prime Minister qualifies her promises by admitting that any new funding model will not be fully implemented until 2020 and that 2025 is the year by which Australian students will, supposedly, achieve world's best results.

Since its election in 2007, even though it does not employ any teachers or manage any schools, the ALP federal government has sought to micromanage schools by implementing a national curriculum, national testing, national teacher registration and certification and national standards for teacher training.

An additional criticism of Gillard's speech, on examining the details associated with her National Plan for School Improvement, is that the new initiative represents a continuation of the government's bureaucratic and inflexible model of education.

As noted in a report on school autonomy by Professor Brian Caldwell, principals are concerned about being denied the freedom and flexibility to best manage their schools. Caldwell writes, "There was consistency in the views across the nation among principals in government and non-government schools that the compliance requirements of the two levels of government were adversely affecting their capacities to serve as educational leaders".

Expect the situation to deteriorate even further; proven by Gillard's intention to make every school develop an annual improvement plan, to force teachers across Australia to undergo an annual performance review and to make teachers develop personalised learning plans for so-called disadvantaged students.

Ignored is that the majority of schools across Australia already undertake such tasks, thus duplicating what is already there, and that adding another layer of red-tape and compliance costs on already besieged schools and classroom teachers will further erode the time and energy needed for teaching.

It should also be noted that many of the education fads mentioned by Gillard in her speech such as personalised learning, a situation where children, otherwise known as digital natives, are at the centre of the process and where teachers, instead of teaching, become guides by the side, are of little educational benefit.

As already suggested, best illustrated by Australia's non-government schools, there is an alternative to the ALP federal government's statist and bureaucratic approach to education. While Prime Minister Gillard always looks overseas when attempting to identify the characteristics of stronger performing education systems and schools, first New York and now Asia, the reality is that Australia already has high performing schools that achieve excellent results.

Australian research concludes that non-government schools consistently outperform government schools in areas like literacy and numeracy tests, Year 12 examinations, tertiary entry and school completion.

In relation to promoting civic virtue and treating others fairly, there is also evidence that non-government schools have a more beneficial and positive impact on students compared to government schools.

International research identifying the characteristics of stronger performing education systems, based on international tests, also suggests that a more market-driven model of education, represented by the autonomy, choice and diversity associated with non-government schools, is more effective in helping students achieve better results than what otherwise might be expected.

As noted in a paper by Ludger Woessmann and Eric Hanushek, "students perform significantly better in schools that have autonomy" and "Looking across all countries, private school management tends to be positively associated with student achievement, with a difference to publicly operated schools of 16-20 per of an international standard deviation in the three subjects in PISA 2000".