Pursuing national school system improvements

Limited media attention followed a policy statement by Mr Tony Abbott that if elected his government would instigate an indigenous advisory council to examine issues of indigenous disadvantage involving education, employment and social interaction.

Noted Cape York indigenous leader Mr Noel Pearson would join former ALP president Mr Warren Mundine and WA mining magnate Mr Andrew Forrest on the council as well as the former head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet Mr Peter Shergold.

Commenting on the education efforts of the Cape York Aboriginal Academy Mr Pearson said a staged intervention in school improvement would: "put a poor-performing school on the trajectory to become a good school, and a good school to become a great school, and break the cycle of low performance."

Mr Pearson's terminology regarding school classifications - 'Poor' to 'Good' and thence 'Good' to 'Great' – raises critical issues involving student and system outcomes. His vision foreshadows improving indigenous schooling will help 'close the gap' between indigenous and national education performance.

Mr Pearson's vision raises another broader consideration for all Australian schools.

If teaching innovation will improve indigenous learning could equivalent principles and system analysis apply across Australia's entire school structure?

Positioning Mr Pearson's proposals into a broader national context incorporates concepts outlined in a 2010 international school system review by management consultants McKinsey & Company.

Improving school system performance from 'poor' to 'good' to 'great' was extensively examined by McKinsey which extended this classification to include an 'Excellent' whole system outcome. According to McKinsey only Finland achieved that pre-eminent classification.

The McKinsey study did not closely evaluate Australia's school but ranked it as a 'Good' system outcome along with Japan, Belgium, Netherlands, France, Germany, England and the United States although Australia ranked below these countries within this system category.

The Abbott government could evaluate the McKinsey study to develop broader national targets for school and student improvement by examining and applying the review's classification criteria, a markedly contrasting approach from the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd government's comparatively narrow terms of reference for the Gonski review of school funding initiated in April 2010.

The McKinsey review identified that 'whole system' evaluations should constitute the basis for system analysis and schooling change, a strategy broadly espoused by noted educationalist Professor Michael Fullan.

This system approach differs from assessing student measurements determined by international performance criteria alone which may be less relevant to Australia's education structure noting that 34.6% of all students attend a non-government school.

International private sector attendance percentages include Denmark – 10% of students attend independent schools, England – 7%, New Zealand – 4%, USA – 6% and Canada – 6%. Virtually no private schools operate in Finland.

The McKinsey analysis of education performance includes contributory factors that dilute reliance on quantitative measurements embraced by Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) (compiled by the OECD) or Trends in International Maths and Science Study (TIMSS) (prepared by an international consortium of research institutes).

PISA-published results placed Australia 27^th out of 48 countries in literacy and reading ability for Year 4 students. International TIMSS learning comparisons reveal Australia's Year 8, 2011 maths and science outcomes are weaker than the majority of leading education systems including (in descending achievement order) South Korea, Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Japan, Hong Kong, England, USA and Finland.

Jennifer Buckingham, Centre for Independent Studies refutes slavish observance of these international comparisons by noting many sociological, cultural and systems differences exist between PISA excelling 'tiger economy' schools (notably in south-east Asian countries) and learning and teaching in Australia. Fundamental structural differences exist between Australia's and Finland's school systems.

McKinsey adopted an international school systems approach that lists a universal scale score measurement evaluating five performance criteria: Poor, Fair, Good, Great and Excellent in accord with a cross section of scaled national results.

While McKinsey indicated only Finland's education system achieved an 'Excellent' system status six countries and/or education systems – Switzerland, Ontario, Hong Kong, Singapore, Estonia and South Korea – were designated as 'Great' system achievers.

McKinsey also provides international comparisons regarding nation's per capita student spending. USA (the largest per capita spender), Luxemburg, Denmark, Switzerland, Belgium, Austria, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Ontario, Ireland, Netherlands, Italy and Cyprus allocate more per capita towards schooling than Australia.

It is postulated Australia's 'Good' system rating actually represents an amalgam of three separate classifications – 'Poor', 'Fair" and 'Good.' 'Poor' indigenous or disadvantaged schools exist alongside better 'Fair' school outcomes while many 'Good' public and private institutions would be classified as 'Great' school learning environments under the McKinsey criteria.

Australia's 'Good' overall classification documented by McKinsey misconceives the reality that significant system differences exist across Australian schools, between regions and within sectors.

Applying the McKinsey system analysis could more accurately classify all Australian schools and sectors generating different methodologies and response approaches to move Australian education towards a higher overall system achievement.

Determining the conditioners influencing such differentiation is critical if overall system improvement eventuates from Mr Pearson's vision to improve indigenous schooling.

Transitioning system development should become a national education goal where teaching and learning improvement is as much conditioned by changing teaching attitudes and teacher professionalism as it is with structural changes within the system design itself.

The noted Canadian educationalist Dr Michael Fullan  identifies this change process as 'whole-system reform' that relies on a strategy: "to mobilise and engage large numbers of people who are individually and collectively committed and effective at getting results relative to core outcomes that society values. It works because it is focused, relentless (it stays the course), operates as a partnership between and across layers, and above all uses the collective energy of the whole group. There is no way of achieving whole-system reform if the vast majority of people are not working on it together".

If Fullan's 'whole system approach' were adopted for Australian schools it is problematic McKinsey's 5-6 year time-lines applicable to Hong Kong and Singapore transitioning from 'Fair' to 'Good' systems could be achieved in Australia because of entrenched educational dogma to resist change, a situation challenged by Labor governments seeking to consolidate differing state/territory education objectives and address sector funding fragmentation.

According to McKinsey transitioning school systems from 'Good' to 'Great' has taken 10-15 years for many Asian nations, an improbable timetable goal for Australian schooling.

Prof Fullan maintains school system change can only occur when a strong leadership imperative exists to implement reform and follow through whole system improvement processes.

Strong leadership orientation occurred in certain Boston regional school districts which moved from 'Fair' to 'Good' in three years according to McKinsey. Not surprisingly Prof Fullan was instrumental in driving many of those Boston school reform measures.

It will be similarly unsurprising if the personnel and professional qualities comprising the indigenous advisory council could not generate renewed leadership direction for disadvantaged education communities.

Extending the system analysis across specific regional or sectional schooling centres could provide evidence-based support to expand positive teaching and learning outcomes nationally.

It will be a measure of the Abbott government's commitment to school improvement if such strong leadership can generate bipartisan political commitment towards system improvement that enables legislation to be enacted through consultative state/federal co-operation to improve all Australian schools.

It is hoped improving schools has not disappeared off the Abbott government's radar.