The 'Education Revolution' redact

What Gillard doesn’t point out, and what Pearson ignores, is Hattie’s important caveat that there may be out-of-school influences more important than teacher quality, but which he chose not to look at in his study: his book isn't about "what cannot be influenced in schools - thus critical discussions about class, poverty, resources in families, health in families, and nutrition are not included - this is NOT because they are unimportant, indeed they may be more important than many of the issues discussed in this book. It is just that I have not included these topics in my orbit”.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/maori/news/article.cfm?c_id=252&objectid=10582708

Regrettably, Victorian education minister Bronwyn Pike has already indicated that she will introduce the use of NAPLAN test results to identify teachers deserving of bonus pay. This is based on a belief that it will provide incentives to improve teacher quality. Almost to a person, teachers reject this type of performance pay, trusting in a collegiality and sharing of resources that sits easily within their profession but is simply not understood at all by corporate ideologues.

Behind all of these possibilities for Stage 2 lies the belief in turning education over to market forces. Addressing the National Press Club in August 2008, Rudd stated that “it’s time to move beyond the outdated divisions between Commonwealth and State responsibilities and between public and private provision”. But it was in his post-address session with reporters that Rudd elaborated on what his “transparency agenda”, putting “readily comparable data” on schools for parents on the ACARA website, would really mean: “if some walk with their feet that’s exactly what the system is designed to do.”

If choice is predicated on competition, then competition is enhanced by a diversity of traders in the market place. The phenomenon of low-fee faith-based private schools has been driven by market fundamentalists. It has expanded the range of choices between public and private systems. But what about choice within a system? That’s where the charter school operators of the US and the Academy operators of the UK add a new dimension to choice and allow a further retreat by governments from their responsibility to provide quality public education within easy access of local communities. The characteristic of both charters and Academies is publicly funded privatisation: the closing of “failing” public schools and their operational transfer to any range of corporate “charities” or for-profit educational providers. This is an issue on which the teacher unions and Professor Brian Caldwell part ways. He favours charters and Academies. Yet the research indicates they have high staff turnover and do not deliver academically (PDF 29KB). How many hostages to neo-liberal ideology do we need?

It is a sad reflection on Rudd and Gillard that they offer nothing that is progressive or improving as a compensation for the damage in the offing from the MySchool website and league tables.

Like Teach for Australia appointees, they believe they are the “best and brightest” and can breeze in for the tenure of their parliamentary terms and effect a “turnaround” without touching the factors that cause educational disadvantage, and disaffection and disengagement in marginalised youths and their communities.

Their sycophantic admiration for failed overseas policies frustrates the creation of a genuinely progressive Australian roadmap towards the improvement of public education.