Is Labor’s Education Policy a 'revolution'?

Based on an assessment apparently obtained from the Department of Finance, a recent article in The Australian reported that the Rudd initiative could cost up to $11 billion over the next four years on top of the $11 billion already estimated to be expended under the existing child care program. The Prime Minister’s failure to consider the budgetary implications before floating the idea bodes ill for both responsible government and for the development of education policies.

Some of the other proposals give the impression of being advanced because they seem “good ideas” and attractive politically.

The national curriculum proposal, previously tried with no success but now revived, has appeal in regard to basics such as literacy and numeracy. But attempting to have a common agenda beyond that would risk the establishment of inappropriate curricula for the teaching of subjects such as history and English and the external testing of the same. The education establishment in academia and the States, including teachers unions, would undoubtedly push so-called “modernist” views. Indeed, although the appointments by the Rudd Government to its new National Curriculum Board do not include union representatives, they appear to largely comprise education establishment types unlikely to favour changes most conducive to higher standards when their report is presented in early 2011.

Again, the idea of increasing from 75 per cent to 90 per cent the proportion of students who stay until year 12 sounds sensible on the surface. But it does not address the question of whether such additional students are likely to have the capacity to benefit. Recent research by the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) finds that low ability students are better off in terms of employment and earnings if they leave after year 10 and get a job or an apprenticeship.

Just as it would be absurd to think of 90 per cent of the population getting university degrees (less than 40 per cent do), so is it wrong to have a policy based on the idea that 90 per cent are cut out for year 12 schoolwork. As with most other revolution proposals, the impression is that the solution (sic) to lifting standards is simply to increase expenditure and/or add to the numbers experiencing some form of education.

There is an additional-spending-numbers thrust to the proposal to phase out full fee paying university students and increase Commonwealth supported places. Before the election Rudd was reported in The Australian as claiming that children from working class families are being prevented from going to universities by the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS). This runs counter to evidence indicating that the proportion of students from low socio-economic-status have actually increased as tuition costs rose; similarly, census data indicates the number of children of blue-collar parents has increased since 1996. The fact that repayments of student loans are contingent on subsequent earnings means the government takes the risk of education being unsuccessful.

The case for using taxpayers to fund this proposal has already been criticised by university vice-chancellors, with one describing it as “expensive actions of no direct benefit to the universities”.

The assertion by the Prime Minister that because of the declining financial contribution by the federal government “our universities are in an unfolding state of crisis” fails to take account of a wide recognition that, with the benefits of individual investments in university education flowing primarily to those individuals and with the financial assistance provided for such investment under the HECS arrangements, the role of government should be reduced over time.

For the moment the supposed “crisis” is being handled by the government by establishing a review that will report at the end of the year.

Overall, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Rudd government proposals far from constitute a “revolution” and reflect a highly questionable resort to taxpayer funding. A genuine revolution would start at the school level by pressing the states to ensure individual government schools have similar powers to act as non-government schools in regard to the hiring, firing and payment of better performing staff, and that they have substantial independence from head office direction. Victoria has already moved in this direction.

Even better would be the introduction of school vouchers allowing parents the choice of which school to send their children. At the same time, university students and their education would benefit from an increase in privately run universities.

The basic need is to establish an environment in which a market for education is allowed to operate by giving parents (and older students) greater choice. In his important book, Education Matters, Dr Mark Harrison spells out in some detail the reasons for this and answers criticisms of the competitive approach. His research indicates that an education system that is established and operates under competitive conditions, rather than from head office, is more likely than a quasi-monopoly state system to have greater involvement of parents and a strengthened role of families. Parental involvement is key and a market system encourages that. But it also encourages good teaching, raises productivity and benefits consumers, especially for the poor who have the fewest alternatives and the greatest need for more choice.