Pursuing national school system improvements

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.