Rupert Murdoch: 'schools a moral scandal'

This theory of the role of teacher went hand in hand with the “progressive” (aka “constructivist”) theory of learning, in which it was religiously maintained that ALL learning should be self-initiated, discovery-based problem-solving. This was pilloried in a cartoon depicting a teacher as a guide on the side in charge of a bunch of monkeys who were being given the opportunity to bash on their keyboards in the hope that one or two might miraculously produce something equivalent to the works of Shakespeare.

The older system allowed teachers to focus on subject knowledge, to be proud of their ability to actually teach students content that mattered, and to be responsive to the obligation that their students could prove that they had learnt something of value. This produced highly articulate pupils at all levels of society, including for instance, both Ned Kelly and Ronald Ryan, who wrote heart wrenching letters from jail with a facility that would be entirely beyond those currently incarcerated.

We should not dismiss out of hand the teaching methods that allowed students to personally “own” each subject area. Nor are assignments and projects and class reports undesirable. But it is probably true that they only produce good results when used by a knowledgeable teacher who intersperses assignment work with inspirational direct teaching, and expertly framed - rather than desultory - class discussions.

Thus the realisation is finally dawning, that one of the most important keys to improving educational results for Australian (and other) children is “teacher quality”. (It is not, by the way, putting a computer in every high school student’s hands - this a charming extra, not a fundamental necessity.) Focus here and we may be able to at least partially meet Murdoch’s challenge.

What else should be done? Jumping up and down about assessments and test results may help a little. I am sure that our primary grades now have students with a mildly improved knowledge base. They are not the whole story. The greatest advantage of tests and exams and so on and so forth is that they do directly challenge the student to do well. They are an important part of any teacher’s resource tools. Every child likes to do well. Hurdles successfully jumped are a great ego boost. They assure the child that they are indeed able to understand and use the information they have been acquiring. They also rank children by ability or by success. Children who fail a test of any kind need an immediate pick-me-up addressing that failure, and showing how success could have been achieved. Given this, the discussion of the negative effects of tests and exams can be disregarded.

But how do we get children who can leap with joy over every intellectual hurdle put in front of them?

Murdoch’s vision is clear. He wants students who will acquire formal skills, as well as possess “good work habits, the judgment that comes from experience, a sense of creativity, a curiosity about the world, and the ability to think for oneself”.

This is a more rounded set of specifications. But the interesting thing is that neither the narrower nor the broader definition of idealised outcomes from schooling can be ensured by what happens at school. No matter how excellent the teacher, no matter how diligent the student, the fact of the matter is that a child’s future is first framed in the first five years of their lives.  There has been a lot of discussion of this lately, and it is surprising therefore that Murdoch’s analysis does not incorporate some reference to it.

The public discussion has so far been dominated by calls for universal pre-K centres, with Early Childhood trained staff. Rudd’s education revolution includes plans for 15 hours a week in pre-school for all four-year-olds. This is not a bad thing - could be quite nice in fact. But it won’t do very much to change the educational profiles of the high school or university graduate populations. Government has yet to learn that you can’t save children independently of their parents. And while there is a lot of talk about involving parents, it doesn’t amount to much. This is not surprising, given the conflict of interest between professional staffs and families about who really should monopolise the centre of a child’s heart.

Talcott Parsons had a lot to say, an aeon ago, about the constant process of expansion of the role of so-called experts in modern western societies - an expansion matched by the contraction of the private sphere of individuals in family settings. If we wish to halt the deterioration of our schooling systems we have to look to Jewish and Asian families for our guide to high-investment parenting. They have a record of success we should emulate in the key particulars. Chief of these particulars is an intellectually stimulating home environment for little children.

Since the rot set in 50 years ago, we won’t change it by changing superficial factors, and we won’t change it overnight. But if we want change we’d better get going on the fundamentals.