Education: the way forward

Should non-government schools be autonomous or do governments have the right to control how such schools are managed? The question is more than academic. Within Australia some 30 per cent of students attend such schools and at years 11 and 12 in Victorian schools the figure rises to 41 per cent.

Such are the perceived weaknesses of government-controlled schools, including values-free education and politically correct curricula, that many parents are seeking the independent alternative.

One answer, given that non-government schools receive public funding and given that education is such a vital ingredient in economic success and social cohesion, is that governments must be involved in registering and holding independent schools accountable.

As stated by the Victorian Minister Lynne Kosky: “Clearly, with non-government schools responsible for the education of so many students - their performance is crucial to achieving better learning outcomes in Victoria … The non-government sector needs to be directly aligned with Victoria’s overall school education policy.”

A number of recent reports dealing with the relationship between government and non-government schools echo Minister Kosky’s sentiments: The report Governments Working Together, by the Allen Consulting Group, suggests the current education system is flawed and too many students are at risk.

The solution is to establish a “new integrated school education system” that, for the first time, would embrace government, Catholic and the majority of non-government schools.

Arguments in support of the above include that a properly funded integrated system would provide greater equity, improved standards and increased innovation and choice. The report also suggests Australian non-government schools, compared to overseas equivalent schools, are only moderately regulated.

Given the heated debate over school funding during the recent federal election campaign, it is also of interest to note the Allen Report argues so-called wealthier independent schools and schools wishing to remain outside a unified system should be denied any public money.

The Victorian Review of the Registered Schools Board (the Falk Report - pdf file 430kb) also recommends an increased role for government in regulating non-government schools. Reminiscent of the New Schools Policy, the report states before any new school could be established, existing schools would be notified and asked for their response.

The Falk Report, while stating it accepts the right of parents to choose non-government schools and it does not wish to overly interfere in how such schools are managed, also recommends a highly bureaucratic and intrusive accountability system.

Non-government schools are to be independently reviewed at least every 6 years and, unlike the current situation with government schools, there are explicit and tough sanctions against under-performing schools.

Sanctions include telling parents about school failure, naming and financially penalising schools and, as a last resort, de-registration. The Falk Report also suggests that non-government schools follow state sponsored curricula represented by the eight key learning areas and senior certificates like the VCE.

Of course, while many argue non-government schools should be held accountable, many also argue that the strength of such schools is their independence and increased government intervention will simply undermine their appeal and effectiveness.

Unlike the highly centralised and bureaucratic government school system, the non-government sector is made up of schools that, if they are to succeed, have to respond to parental demands and community expectations. The flexibility and diversity of such schools is strengthened by their freedom to employ and dismiss staff.

In relation to curricula, it is also true that many non-government schools - because they are independent - are able to, if not escape, then certainly ameliorate, the worst effects of state sponsored curriculum fads like whole language and fuzzy maths.

Since the introduction of outcomes-based education centred on the national statements and profiles, government schools have been forced to adopt an approach to education that has, as outlined by the NSW Vinson Report, overwhelmed teachers with its unnecessarily complicated, cumbersome approach.

Many independent schools, instead of adopting an integrated approach represented by SOSE continued with individual subjects like history and geography. Many also continued with competitive, graded assessment based on year levels instead of following the assessment regime endorsed by state sponsored curricula.

A further example of how independent schools are able to escape government initiated failures is the Kirner Government’s VCE. Such were the concerns about standards that some independent schools introduced the International Baccalaureate. Government schools were denied this choice.

This is unlike the situation in New Zealand where Auckland Grammar, a government funded school, was able to introduce courses associated with Cambridge International Examinations in opposition to the locally designed National Certificate of Educational Achievement.

The New Zealand example offers a refreshingly different approach to ensuring more effective schools. Instead of governments gaining more control over non-government schools, government schools should be given the freedom and flexibility to become more independent.

In a discussion paper commissioned by the ACDE (pdf file 252kb), entitled Adding Value to Public Education, the current state managed, highly centralised system is described as obsolete. Instead of enabling flexibility, choice and innovation at the local level, the state system is criticised for delivering a standardised approach.

The situation in Australia is unlike what is happening to equivalent education systems overseas. Whether it is public-private initiatives like the UK’s city academies or the USA-based charter schools, the intention is to empower communities at the local level and to innovate with different forms of educational delivery.

Instead of constraining non-government schools, which if market share is any measure of success, are doing exceptionally well, the way forward is to give government schools the freedom, flexibility and resources to best meet the needs of their communities.

Government schools should be allowed to hire and dismiss staff, instead of a one size fits all approach they should be allowed to specialise in particular curriculum areas and new forms of governance and funding should be allowed.

While both government and non-government schools should adhere to minimal requirements, for example endorsing the National Goals for Schooling and being held financially accountable, they should also be free to experiment and seek solutions outside those mandated by the state.