The fallacy that resources, facilities and more money are the key to building a successful education system is alive and well in Australia. Opposition Leader Bill Shorten's announcement yesterday that the ALP would fund the final two years of the Gonski package at a cost of $4.5 billion in 2018-19 is proof of that.
Despite our schools crying poor, Australian governments are spending more today on education than they did in 2000.
According to the Grattan Institute, over the past decade expenditure on all levels of education has grown by 48 per cent in real terms. Government spending on school education specifically has grown by 45 per cent in real terms in the past 11 years — expenditure in 2013-14 was $14.1bn higher in real terms than in 2002-03.
While money is important, how it is spent is more important.
Calls for higher levels of education spending by politicians, teachers and unions are justified by saying the money is to lower student-teacher ratios, toughen teacher education standards or increase teacher salaries. The conventional wisdom is that this leads to improved academic achievement.
But the evidence just doesn't stack up. In his research paper exploring the relationship between school resources and student outcomes, The Economics of Schooling: Production and Efficiency in Public Schools, US professor Eric Hanushek found that "there appears to be no strong or systematic relationship between school expenditures and student performance".
OECD analysis also exposes the myth that increased funding leads to better student outcomes. Rather, once a base level of funding is achieved, more spending has little or no impact. A discussion of whether money can buy a strong performance in the Programme for International Student Assessment tests found that "the success of a country's education system depends more on how educational resources are invested than on the volume of investment". Both findings suggest the focus should be on the way money is distributed, not how much of it there is.
Freeing teachers from the old-fashioned industrial relations regime, encouraging innovative practices at all levels and prioritising autonomy, competition and accountability is what will lead to a more dynamic and stronger education system.
OECD research shows that teacher quality is the single most important factor influencing student achievement, and high-performing countries prioritise investment in teachers by offering higher salaries and greater professional status. Yet teachers in Australia are paid according to a one-size-fits-all model, with salaries being determined by length of service rather than the quality of teaching in the classroom. The impact of this system is that a teacher with more experience comes at a higher cost, but this extra cost comes without the guarantee of better results.
This situation does nothing to improve educational outcomes, instead creating the toxic culture of apathy I encountered as a student teacher. Improving the equity of schooling depends on who we have standing at the front of the classroom, not the size of the gym.
The final agreements signed between the federal Labor government and the states, more political than needs-based, were miles away from the original recommendations by David Gonski. Gonski in its final iteration is simply about giving schools more money, as opposed to creating a system concerned with how this money is spent.
The conversation has to move away from a debate over money to a debate about the constraints under which the education system operates and how this stifles student outcomes.
Unless the ALP is willing to explore more fundamental reforms, Shorten's promise to deliver "the largest boost for school funding in Australia in two generations" will be an opportunity lost.
No comments:
Post a Comment