Education: the way forward

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.