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

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.