Recent reports suggest that international comparisons of student performance
in reading, science and mathematics for year 4 and Year 8 students put
Australia's performance in a bad light.
I would be interested in comments on whether there is a real problem, and if
so what the causes of it are from a practical educator's viewpoint.
Some 'expert' views on the causes of problems in Australia's education system
follow:
(Corrigan D.
Are we headed for an educational disaster? Hardly:
The Conversation, 12/12/12)
International literacy, numeracy and science
tests should be cause for alarm. Victoria’s minister (Martin Dixon) has claimed
that spending has increased, and that a lack of funding is not the problem.
However money is clearly not going where it is needed. Most federal funding goes
to private schools, whereas most state / territory funds go to government
schools. Canberra now gives more money to private schools than it gives to
universities, and many times more funds to high-fee private schools than to
disadvantaged schools. Official data do not support claims by Victoria’s
minister about increased government funding of education. International
comparisons show Australia has a relatively low government funding of schools as
a percentage of GDP (though some countries have little or no private funding to
complement this). Government education spending has been falling as a percentage
of GDP. There has been a drift (now a flood) from public schools for 20 years.
In conservative states $1bn has been taken from public schools over the last two
years, while private education has been maintained / increased. Claims of
increased government spending on education need to be backed by evidence. Only
full implementation of Gonski recommendations can channel resources to schools /
children that need it most. (Zyngier D., ‘
Test shock: is our education system failing students?’,
The Conversation, 13/12/12)
Badly designed curricula, low standards in
primary teacher education and whole language methods for teaching reading are
seen as responsible for poor test results. Sivanes Phillipson (Monash) blames
poor curriculum. Ben Jensen (Grattan Institute) agreed that schools set low
standards. A new national schools’ curriculum is being devised, but this is not
lifting standards. Peter Sullivan (Monash) said that national curriculum is set
at right level in maths but: students need more challenging tasks; parents need
to be engaged in educating children; and teachers raised in status in community
eyes. Universities should stop lowering standards for primary school teaching
degrees. Kevin Wheldall (a literacy expert, Macquarie University) advocates
phonetics based rather than whole of language methods. The problem, he suggests,
lies in teacher training (Dodd T., ‘Blame
starts for school results’, Financial Review, 13/12/12)
Geoff Masters (Australian Council for Educational Research) expressed shock
and disappointment about poor test results. This parallels the warnings that
others have given for years - though in 2006 (at the height of debate about `the
dumbed-down Outcomes Based Education curriculum model) Masters argued that
concerns about falling standards were misplaced. At that time there were:
quotable statistics showing that performance remained strong; concerns about
problems in Western Australia and Tasmania; and federal government concerns
about literacy and the teaching of history. But those responsible did not react
to emerging indications of problems - but rather suggested (eg Alan Reid,
Australian Curriculum Studies Association) that a sense of crisis was being
unfairly manufactured. Problems are also indicated by: (a) universities' need
for remedial classes in algebra and essay writing; (b) primary students entering
secondary school ill-equipped; and (c) flat-lining of literacy / numeracy
standards (according to Andrew Leigh, ANU and now federal member for Fraser).
Federal government's approach is highly centralised, statist and inflexible -
while overseas research suggests that autonomy, diversity and competition is
better. By imposing a national curriculum, national testing, national teaching
standards and its National Plan for Schools Improvement the government is
limiting schools' ability to manage themselves, and drowning teachers in red
tape. Those responsible for the poor state of Australian education are the same
'experts' who advise the Commonwealth's agenda. The alternative is demonstrated
by Australia's Catholic and independent schools - which often achieve world's
best. The best way to raise standards is to properly resource such schools and
to give parents a choice (eg by providing education vouchers). (Donnelly K., 'Writing
is on the wall as standards trend down', The Australian, 14/12/12)
Australia's education system has failed to deliver an acceptable standard in
the basic building blocks or reading, science and mathematics - as shown by a
2011 survey of year 4 students in 44 countries through Progress in International
Reading Literacy Study. A mathematics and science study (TIMMS) for year 8
students reported relatively better news. The core of the problem lies in
teacher performance and resources. More than half of all students are in schools
affected by resource shortages 9ie by under-qualified teachers). This supports
Gonski's proposals for additional resources for less advantaged schools. Results
for indigenous students were worse than for others. The federal government's
goal of lifting Australia to a 'top five' status by 2025 does not look
promising. Sue Thompson (Australian Council for Education Research) points to
dramatic improvements in maths and science performance in Hong Kong and
Singapore (and also in the US and South Korea) - while Australia's performance
stagnated. Geoff Masters (CEO ACER) says that solution lies in training and
performance (ie an emphasis on teacher training and skills). Difficulties lie in
community attitudes, school system structure (including many disadvantaged
schools), and teachers' status. Models exist in Finland and Asia. Grattan
Institute (in Catching up: learning from the best school systems in east Asia)
provided a blueprint for improvement - suggesting that attention be paid to
Shanghai, Honk Kong, Korea and Singapore - which focus on things that matter
(according to Ben Jensen). This includes a culture of 'diagnosing learning and
building a culture of teacher collaboration through classroom observation, peer
feedback, mentoring and modelling good teaching'. This implies a
relentless focus on classroom improvement. Australia's politicians are however
obsessed with trivialities. Australians were once described as the 'white trash'
of Asia - and 'uneducated' could be added to this (Walker T.
'Failing grade a shock to the school system', Financial Review,
15/12/12)
There is a need for a plan to ensure that all children learn to read
proficiently in the first few years at school. The three tier Response to
Intervention model could achieve this. The first tier includes tha implicit
model of reading instruction, complemented by phonological awareness / phonetics
/ fluency / vocabilary / comprehension. This would be followed by other tiers
for those who are found to be not coping. (Wheldall K. 'The
three-tier model will turn children into proficient readers, The
Australian, 22/12/12)
A decade ago a group of literacy researchers warned about poor teaching of
reading, and again yesterday wrote an open letter about this because of poor
reading ability of 25% of year 4 students shown by international tests (Ferrari
J.,
'A decade of lost action on literacy', Australian, 22-23/12/12)
Australian students have been subjected to haphazard experiments in all
aspects of education for years - so poor outcomes are to be expected. The poor
position of boys was recognised in 2002 - and in some quarters this has been a
cause for celebration. Education has been skewed towards the psychological and
physical development of girls (Shanahan A., 'Education system is biased towards
girls', Australian, 22-23/12/12)