We are promised an education revolution in Australia. If it arrives, it will be a jubilant day. But will it arrive? The answer is no. We can hope for progress but not for a revolution. To ask for a revolution is almost to ask for the moon. A revolution is a once-only event. It rarely happens. We have experienced one mighty education revolution in Australia. Its effects far exceeded what we can expect if Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard do improve our huge system of education.
Australia's real education revolution came late in the 19th century. Victoria led much of it. The landmark was the introduction of compulsory education here at the start of 1873. It was free and it usually lasted until age 13 or 14. It was a wonderful event in a land where many people could not read and write or could read only with difficulty.
Victoria, South Australia and NSW especially were soon well ahead of most nations in Europe in primary education. This step was also revolutionary because it was virtually a law against child labour. If children were compelled to go to school, they could not work full time in factories and on farms.
The building of new primary schools, mostly in remote places, and the hiring of teachers called for a huge expenditure. In terms of the real cost for each child, it was more expensive than the present stimulus package for schools known as Building the Education Revolution. This education revolution was the real one. It affected most children. But it did not reach most Aboriginal settlements, especially in the outback, until the 20th century. There, by 1970 it was generally effective. Since then, primary education has retreated in many Aboriginal regions. In that sense the real education revolution of the 1870s is still uncompleted. If the Rudd government could succeed in revitalising primary schools for Aboriginal children, especially in remote places, and if it could entice children to attend regularly, that would be a wonderful achievement, it would be great, no matter how much it cost.
It is known, from research in India and other lands, that a reasonable level of education for girls makes them more effective as mothers and more protective of their babies' health. Here is a simple path towards improved health for indigenous children. From the end of World War II there was a great growth in secondary education in Australia. It was not a revolution. It affected a far smaller proportion of the population than did the primary school revolution.
In the past 50 years there also has been a dramatic growth in universities. While impressive, it hardly can be called a revolution. Even today, primary education is the important field, in my view. A lot can be done to help but it will consume much money and thought.
There is another reason we can't expect another education revolution on a grand scale. A vast area of education today is outside the control of educators. Radio, television, cinema, the internet and computer games are educators. The home is, too. These competing educational forces can be stronger than the school room. Sometimes they are harnessed by schools. Sometimes they have favourable effects, sometimes not. Sometimes their effect is anti-educational. In the 1870s, when the real education revolution began, most of these competing educational forces did not exist. The church and the newspaper existed. But newspapers had a low circulation in aggregate.
A revolution will require a huge packet of money. It will mean higher taxes or public debts. Will the voters accept that? If they see value for money they probably will accept it. We will wait and see.
Today's stimulus package of $15 billion mainly for school buildings is bold. It is designed as much to stimulate the economy as to stimulate education. Per capita it is larger than US President Barack Obama's education package, which he announced first. But the Australian special sum is not huge, on my calculation, if spread across three years, and if compared with the national education budget, it is equal to about five weeks' additional expenditure a year. Moreover, it may not be money spent with maximum impact.
What if the leading education authorities in Australia had been given one year's notice to answer this question: "Here is this grand sum, how should we spend it?"
It is doubtful whether these leaders would have spent it in this way.
While impressive, it is just a bucket let down in the educational ocean. Five times the amount of this stimulus package easily could have been spent on school buildings and equipment. But even that grand sum would still not provide anything like an education revolution.
I have sympathy with Canberra's act of crying aloud for an education revolution. It is a confession that something is really inadequate in preschool, primary, secondary and university education in Australia.
But so far the federal government has not indicated how much it will spend and what exactly it will transform in, say, the next five years. And how will it educate and attract the talented people needed? Above all, how will it finance this brave adventure? The phrase education revolution should be quietly buried. It is unrealistic. It is still more a slogan than a blueprint.
Schools and universities are more than buildings. What goes on inside is the heart of education. Teachers, at every level, are all-important. How do we galvanise or renew teachers rather than parts of the building?
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment