Reform ideal for all classes

As the publication of Going Public: Education Policy and Public Education in Australia suggests, teacher educator organisations such as the Australian Curriculum Studies Association are opposed to opening up the education system to market forces.

The Australian Education Union is also a staunch critic of parental choice in education. The union consistently argues against government funding to non-government schools on the mistaken basis that private schools only serve the elite and that state schools are more effective in promoting social cohesion.

In a paper titled Defend Public Education Against an Arrogant Federal Government, the AEU's South Australian president Andrew Gohl argues that parents should not be allowed to “choose where to send their children and where to spend their education dollar”. Not only is Gohl's argument presumptuous - suggesting that teachers and public servants, and not parents, know what is right for children - but, by stifling innovation, state schools are denied the ability to compete against better performing non-government schools.

Notwithstanding the $33 billion committed to schools (2005-08), Gohl also argues that the Howard Government may want to “eliminate funding to the entire education sector - public and private” and that innovations such as funding vouchers will “create a growing divide between the well off and the poor”.

Ignored is the US experience where community managed charter schools established in low socio-economic areas with high black American populations have been successful in strengthening community ties and raising standards.

Also ignored is the evidence from the US, summarised by Mark Harrison in his book Education Matters: Government, Markets and New Zealand Schools, that vouchers have been instrumental in improving parental satisfaction and student performance among disadvantaged groups.

The AEU appears unaware of the research carried out by the English academic James Tooley, from the University of Newcastle, demonstrating that private education, especially in developing nations, is a key factor in raising standards among the poor.

Tooley has spent some years researching the effectiveness of government and privately run schools in the poorer areas of the world, and he concludes that the research “both from India and from other developing countries, suggests that private education in general is more effective”.

Finally, the Australian situation, where wealthier parents can afford non-government school fees or the cost of buying a house next door to a high-performing government school, is one already characterised by inequality.

If the teacher union and Labor state governments are serious about equity and social justice, then logic suggests that vouchers, where more parents are given the financial ability to choose, and charter schools, where the local community manages the school, should be introduced.

Those opposing change, such as the AEU and many teacher educators, generally characterise as right-wing those pressing for more competition between schools, making school results public and rewarding better performing teachers.

Although the label does apply to some advocates of school choice, such as the American economist, Milton Friedman, the same cannot be said of Andrew Leigh, a Canberra-based economist who served as an adviser to the federal ALP from 1998 to 2000.

At the recent Australia and New Zealand School of Government conference in Sydney, Leigh argued that “progressives in Australia had adopted a conservative approach to reform” and, given the fact that literacy and numeracy scores are falling, that Australia had to follow the reforms introduced in England and the US.

Contrary to the AEU and its argument that any reforms will harm those children already most at risk, Leigh also argues that “if we block innovation in Australian education, those who suffer will be children in the most disadvantaged schools”.