 |
Background Paper 1 1995-96
The Schooling Revolution: Too Much, Too Fast?
Greg McIntosh
Social Policy Group
2 November 1995
Contents
Major Issues
Introduction
An Overview of Change in Schools
Funding Changes
Devolution/Autonomy
The Vocational 'Push' and the National Curriculum
Technological Change
Teaching Issues
Conclusion
Endnotes
Whilst the majority of inputs into schooling in Australia come from
the States and Territories, the Commonwealth does provide significant
resources in this field. The Commonwealth's commitment to schools comes
not only from the approximately $3b provided for specific schools programs
every year but also from the substantial resources provided for vocational
education and training. Given the current emphasis on achieving value
for money and increasing productivity across all sectors of the economy,
it is timely to briefly assess the effectiveness of many of the changes
occurring in the eight State and Territory schooling systems.
Change in Australian schools (as in many other parts of society) is
occurring on many fronts - funding, curriculum, locus of responsibility
and power, technology, workplace reform and a rapidly ageing teacher profile
are just some of these. There are clear signs that teachers are experiencing
'reform/change fatigue'. For example, the 1995 annual conference of the
NSW Teacher's Federation passed a motion calling for a moratorium on change
in NSW schools. Similarly, the Executive Director of the Australian Teaching
Council has called for the rate of change in schools to be slowed down.
It would appear that the changes are occurring on too many fronts and
happening too fast, with, in many cases, too little co-ordination or thought
being put into the implementation phase of the change/s. This is not to
say that change should not occur. In many cases change is necessary and
inevitable. However, many of the benefits of change will be negated or
set back if the way in which it is initiated and implemented fails to
take into account the realities of what is, and can happen, at the grassroots
level.
Much of the change (particularly in the fields of curriculum, devolution
of responsibility, technology, vocational education and training and teachers'
working conditions) is happening at a time when the teaching force is
least capable, able or willing to sustain and implement such change. The
teaching force is ageing rapidly (the average age of teachers is now 43
years), morale is low and salaries (in a relative sense) have been declining
for a long time. If these elements are combined with funding cuts, constant
chops and changes in government policy and a general societal environment
that is no longer as supportive of teachers as it used to be, then perhaps
it is time to take stock of what is occurring with a view to ensuring
that change, where it is necessary, is well thought through and implemented
in a manner that is likely to enhance its success.
Change, however well intentioned, will not succeed if the major participants
and stakeholders are either not involved or do not feel that they have
some ownership and control over what is happening. An ageing, increasingly
demoralised and 'change fatigued' teacher workforce is, on all present
indications, saying that the time is ripe to consolidate and reflect on
the role and purposes of schooling in Australia. The last thing they want
is more change.
Specific Commonwealth policy initiatives that could help alleviate some
of the negative affects of rapid change in our schools include:
- that the Commonwealth Minister for Employment, Education and Training
request the major policy making and advice forums (most notably the
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs,
the National Board of Employment, Education and Training and the Schools
and Curriculum Division of the Department of Employment, Education and
Training) to take account of the complexity of the eight schooling systems
and to fully consider the nature and extent of changes occurring at
the State/local level before recommending or implementing change from
the national level;
- an urgent review of teacher training institutions in Australia and
their capacity to provide an adequate supply of teachers over the next
decade. If current predictions are correct there will be a shortfall
of 5000 teachers Australia-wide by the turn of the century;
- an examination of the effects on schools of their increasing reliance
for funding on sponsorship and voluntary fees and levies. Such an examination
should include equity considerations to ensure that, where possible,
students and schools are not disadvantaged by this trend towards an
increasing reliance on private funding;
- a national review of the introduction of Information Technology into
schools with a view to assessing the equity implications, both within
and between schools, associated with the widespread use of such technology;
and
- an examination of possible strategies/policies that will help alleviate
low teacher morale and 'change fatigue' in the teaching profession.
Such strategies and policies could include: additional teacher exchange
programs, better career paths for teachers and allowing teachers the
option to take 'sabbatical' leave after a certain period of service.
This latter option could be provided at little cost by, for example,
allowing teachers to take a slightly reduced salary for 3 or 4 years
which would then entitle them to 3-6 months leave on full pay. A Commonwealth
program (similar to the existing National Professional Development Program),
specifically designed to encourage the States and Territories to undertake
such initiatives, may be one way of improving teacher morale and lessening
'change fatigue'.
Government schools in Australia are currently experiencing rapid change.
Throughout the eight State/Territory school systems a host of changes,
initiatives and trends are occurring, or have occurred, the effects of
which are radically altering not only the way in which schools and systems
operate, but also the way in which educational services are determined
and delivered.
A key feature of the education debate and related policy development
in the last decade has been the emphasis on economic imperatives and the
need for education to be responsive to the economic, and increasingly
the international economic environment. By the mid to late 1980s the emphasis
on economic imperatives in the education system was manifesting itself
through exhortations(1) to schools to help restructure the economy to
become more internationally competitive and improve the skills base of
the economy. At the same time the 'economically rationalist' view of how
public institutions, including schools, should operate came to dominate.
As a consequence a range of changes and reforms under the guise of 'productivity
improvements', 'efficiency' and 'market outcomes' were instituted. A key
thrust emerging in this context has been the vocational training agenda.
Schools have also been increasingly asked to deal with a host of social
imperatives and to be key conveyors of social 'messages' to their student
populations. Almost every day there is a public call via the media for
schools to incorporate a new area (or upgrade an existing one) into their
curricula.
If general societal change, such as in the field of technology, is added
to the 'school specific' changes mentioned above, then it can be argued
that schools are undergoing a process of revolutionary change. Just how
this revolutionary change is managed and implemented is of critical importance
to our schooling systems and society in general.
This paper examines some of the main changes and trends occurring in
the government school systems, emphasising those which are common to all,
or most, of those systems. The main issues dealt with include an overview
of the degree and rate of change being experienced in the schooling systems,
funding reductions/volatility and its consequences; the trend towards
devolution and autonomy; the vocational push and national curriculum initiatives;
the rate of technological change and the looming teacher shortage and
related matters. The paper also discusses some of the possible implications
of these changes and canvasses appropriate policy responses.
Change has occurred in all aspects of schooling including curriculum,
administration, funding, accountability, the teaching workforce and how
schools relate to the wider community.
According to the Australian Teaching Council :
the pace of reform and change in education has been volatile
and relentless [and shows] no sign of...slowing down.(2)
Some of the main changes that the schooling systems have experienced
include :
- funding reductions, or at a minimum funding volatility, in most States
and Territories that has had wide ranging implications for the functioning
and management of schools. Even in jurisdictions where schools funding
has increased or been maintained in real terms, there are still likely
to be funding shortfalls due to the rapidly increasing cost of educational
inputs and in particular the costs of information technology - in 1995
the computer is what the chalk box was in 1975;
- far reaching administrative/organisational change (including devolution
and more school based management resulting in an increased workload
for teachers, parents and administrators at the school level) ;
- increasing retention rates (requiring broader educational provision
at the senior levels of school);
- the push for additional vocational type courses to be incorporated
in mainstream school offerings, including the Key Competencies (eight
agreed competencies, for example, solving problems, using technology
and collecting, analysing and organising information, that all the States
and Territories have agreed to incorporate into their school syllabi);
- a range of national curriculum initiatives that all States and Territories
have embraced which require substantial effort and commitment to implement
(for example, the trialing of the National Statements and Profiles which
cover eight broad learning areas including Maths, Science, the Arts
and Languages other than English, outcome based assessment methods and
the inclusion of the Key Competencies in the curriculum);
- the increasingly 'crowded' curriculum, exacerbated not only by national
curriculum and vocational initiatives but also by the tendency over
the past decade for a host of educators, academics, politicians, organisations
and groups to call for schools to 'teach' a particular course (for example,
drugs education, sex education, driver education, manners and deportment
education, AIDS education, industrial relations education, civics education
and parenting education. In fact, in one case familiar to the author,
one prominent member of the school community called for the compulsory
teaching of ballroom dancing because 'he did it when he was young and
he never got into any trouble!') to help overcome a perceived social
problem. There is a tendency for commentators and 'experts' to look
to schools when wishing to discourage a particular social 'evil' or
indeed to promote a particular social 'good';
- ever increasing calls for schools to get back to 'basics' and improve
their teaching of literacy and numeracy, even when there is little (or
often misleading) evidence provided to substantiate claims that such
'standards' are declining. For example, it is often quoted in the media
that a House of Representatives Committee found that 25% of primary
students cannot read and write properly. In fact, the Committee report
referred to ('The Literacy Challenge' - House of Representatives Committee
on Employment, Education and Training 1992) stated that :
There is no firm evidence that standards of achievement have
either declined or increased over time.(3)
A Dissenting Report at the back of the main Committee Report did say
that the numbers of students that could not read and write properly 'could'
[my emphasis] be as high as 25%, but that this could not be determined
with any accuracy due to the lack of basic skills tests in the State and
Territory systems(4);
- a rapidly changing technological environment (most notably in the
field of computers and information technology) that many teachers, parents
and administrators, due to time and funding constraints, are unable
to keep up with. The impact of the Internet and the Education Network
Australia (EdNA) are examples in this context;
- an ageing, and often demoralised, teaching force (not the least due
to rapid policy changes, funding volatility and the substantial lack
of career paths in teaching) that is increasingly cynical of the changes
that are, and have, occurred ; and
- a societal environment that no longer holds teachers and government
schools in the same esteem that it did in earlier times but that increasingly
is calling for schools to deal with and help solve a host of social
problems.
As well as these largely 'education specific' changes and reforms there
has also been rapid change in society generally. The last 20 years has
seen dramatic technological, economic and social change across all sectors
of society. According to Hugh Mackay:
The story of Australia between the early Seventies and the
early Nineties is the story of a society which has been trying to cope
with too much change, too quickly, and on too many fronts...The story
of the 1990s will be the story of Australians' attempts to learn to live
more comfortably...It will be the story of how we choose to avoid the
ravages of anxiety and how we managed to get our stress levels back under
control.(5)
The net effect of all these changes and the dominance of the economic
forces driving them is summarised as follows :
it appears that almost everything is 'up for grabs' - structures,
practices, ideas and interests. Even the language in which reforms are
cast and pursued is changing, with the term 'restructuring' itself just
one of the many linguistic insurgents, along with 'skills agenda', 'managerialist',
'workplace reform' in the interests of 'productivity', to name only a
few. These terms are all attempts to find ways of describing a rapidly
changing educational landscape.(6)
The consequence of this rapid rate of change is that school systems
have been placed under great stress and it can be argued that much of
the reform and change has been ineffectual or not as effectual as it could
have been if the rate of change had been slower and more carefully thought
through.
The following sections of this paper deal with the main changes listed
above in more detail.
Volatility
The majority of the eight State/Territory schooling systems have undergone
either funding reductions or funding volatility over the past decade.
Referring to the funding changes of recent years one study maintains that
:
The expansion in budgets which had been characteristic of Australian
education since the mid -1960s has halted and in some cases reversed.
These 'budget restraints' are having a substantial impact on many aspects
of schooling. For many people their effects are the most direct and dramatic
form of 'restructuring' of all - lost jobs and arrested careers. Not surprisingly
the resources squeeze has a profound influence on the way in which other
elements of the restructuring agenda are perceived forming strong convictions
of the real reasons for proposed changes. In the 1950s, '60s and '70s,
'change' was expansionary and additive - more students, more resources,
more schools, more curriculum, more positions, more years of schooling.
Now, change is concerned with setting limits, curtailing, re-allocating,
re-designing, re-thinking.(7)
The Commonwealth provides approximately 12% of the total funds needed
to run Australia's government schools, the rest of the funding being provided
by State/Territory governments. A brief analysis of the statistics indicates
that the Commonwealth has 'pulled its weight' with respect to specific
funding of government schools over the past twenty years - except for
1979-80 and 1986-87 the Commonwealth has provided ongoing funds to the
States/Territories in excess of both inflationary growth and the growth
in student numbers.(8) However, it has been argued that the Commonwealth
has reduced the level of general financial assistance grants to the States
thus putting pressure on them to cut spending in areas such as education.(9)
Nevertheless, given that the States/Territories are responsible for about
90% of the total funding for government schools it is with that level
of government that the prime responsibility must rest for the provision
of resources to allow schools to function effectively.
According to the Schools Council there has been a 4.5 % decline in State
government expenditure on school education between 1987 and 1992 (10)
and that, between 1986 and 1992, spending by the States on school education
as a proportion of total outlays fell from 20% to 15%. (11) The current
Federal Minister for Employment, Education and Training, Simon Crean,
maintains that between 1992-93 and 1993-94 the Victorian Government cut
funding to government schools by almost 10 per cent in real terms and
that in their 1994-95 budgets South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania
and the Northern Territory cut their schooling budgets by 4.5 per cent,
4.5 per cent, 3.3 per cent and 5 per cent respectively.(12)
In all these jurisdictions cuts have had implications for the general
functioning of schools, with unions, parents and others in the education
community generally emphasising the downside of the funding reductions
and the governments, departmental officials and others (usually from outside
the education sector) tending to downplay the effects and in some cases
arguing that the cuts have had no impact on educational provision. For
example, official budget figures released by the Victorian Government
show that budget sector outlays on education as a percentage of total
budget outlays have dropped from 26.8% in 1989-90 to an estimated 18.2%
in 1993-94.(13) Both the Victorian Minister for Education and senior education
bureaucrats have argued that funding cutbacks have been made without any
consequent drop in the quality of educational provision. However, a report
released in early 1994, which was compiled after surveying 148 schools,
found that approximately 70% of government schools had scaled down some
of their programs because of the cuts and that class sizes had gone from
being the best in Australia to among the worst.(14)
Perhaps the greatest difficulty in terms of analysing the effects of
funding cuts on educational provision is the apparent lack of a clearly
demonstrated nexus between inputs (expenditure) and outputs (standards)
in the educational environment. Until a number of comprehensive, acceptable
and effective measures that will enable better comparisons to be made
between educational expenditure and outcomes are developed, the schools
funding debate will continue to be characterised by an over reliance on
anecdotal evidence.
However, one of the observable consequences of funding reductions has
been an increasing reliance by schools on voluntary fees and levies and
outside sponsorship. According to the Victorian Council Of School Organisations
Inc :
The money received by schools no longer enables the provision
of a basic education. The responsibility for provision of a broad education
program is forcing schools to constantly increase the amount of locally
raised funds.(15)
Of fundamental concern in this regard is the likelihood of the development
of 'resource rich' and 'resource poor' government schools as the proportion
of private/outside funding grows relative to that provided by governments.
Schools in the more affluent areas of Australia will be more likely to
withstand government funding cuts because of their enhanced ability to
levy fees and raise private funds compared to schools in less affluent
areas. One of the strengths, if not the main strength, of government funding
is that, by its nature, it tends to distribute educational resources more
equitably than does funding provided from a private source. If a higher
proportion of school funding is to come from non-government sources, as
would appear to be the trend at present, then it can be expected that
there will be a growing gap between the standard of resource provision,
depending on the location of a particular school and the socio-economic
background of its students.
Voluntary Fees and Levies
Under their education Acts, State and Territory governments are required
to provide free tuition for students. However, there is no legislative
impediment to prevent schools from imposing fees or levies for general
purposes or for specific purposes such as textbooks, for particular subjects
or for the use of computers. Fees and levies vary across the eight schooling
systems. For example:
- in Victoria primary schools levies vary between $40 and $75 per annum
per child whilst secondary school fees range from $200 to $300 depending
on what subjects are chosen.(16) Information provided to the author
by a primary school in Victoria indicated that school fees and levies
make up approximately 11% of that school's total budget with a further
6% coming from the fund raising efforts of the student body. Recently
it was reported that one school in Victoria had imposed a $160 fee for
a plastic library card. Without the card students could not borrow books.
Incidents such as this have led the Victorian Secondary Teachers Association
State Council to call for an urgent inquiry into school funding.(17)
- in Western Australia average fees for 1994 were $209 for primary students
($200 for camps and excursions and $9 for a basic fee) and $415 for
secondary students ($200 for camps and excursions and $215 for the basic
fee). Added to these fees, where applicable, were charges for textbooks
and subject levies - for example, in Years 11 and 12 the fees and levies
varied between $250 and $600 depending on subject choice.(18)
- in the Australian Capital Territory a Council of Parents and Citizens
Associations' survey found that, in 1993, parents, on average, contributed
$68 per primary student and $109 per secondary student. The parent contributions
took three forms - general voluntary contributions, subject and material
levies and fund raising by P and C Associations. The survey also found
that the general voluntary contributions varied considerably from school
to school - from $35 per primary student and $40 to over $100 per student
in secondary schools.(19)
In the past few years considerable parent dissatisfaction has been aroused
with respect to the payment of 'voluntary' fees and levies. Many schools,
feeling the effects of funding cuts, have been putting substantial pressure
on parents to pay the set fees/levies, including in one State, the use
of debt collectors in an effort to enforce compliance.
Sponsorship
The increasing use of sponsorship as a means of raising additional revenue
has also become an issue in education circles recently. As a response
to some of the concerns expressed about the dangers of schools becoming
too reliant on sponsorship, the Australian Education Council, in 1993,
released a national code of practice for sponsorship and promotion which
outlined a set of key principles to apply to schools, school systems and
sponsoring organisations. Whilst over 50,000 copies of the Code have been
distributed to schools throughout Australia, a perusal of the guidelines
shows that they are very general (for example, 'sponsorship and promotional
activities should be compatible with good educational practice') and can
be interpreted in a variety of ways. Moreover, they are not in any way
binding on either schools or sponsoring organisations. Some of the State/Territory
school systems have their own guidelines on sponsorship and promotion,
but again they tend to be very general in character. This fact, combined
with the across the board move towards autonomy, means that controls on
sponsorship are very much a local school matter.
An overview of what some of Australia's largest companies are doing,
or have done, in terms of sponsorship indicates that it is a growing source
of funding support in schools, particularly from the large fast food and
beverage chains. For example, over the past few years in Victoria, Coles
has provided schools with $30m worth of computer equipment in exchange
for supermarket dockets and Mars have been providing schools with sports
equipment kits worth $1200 if they can provide 20,000 Mars bar and associated
company wrappers. Similar schemes are operating in most of the States
and Territories and if current trends are any indication, there will be
an increase in the number and type of sponsorship programs being undertaken.
While in many cases commercial sponsorship will be beneficial and help
schools in the provision of resources in times of economic restraint,
there is a danger that some of the schemes could see private companies
directly marketing their products to school students (and parents) in
a way that may be seen to be of negative education value. The difficulty
for school systems and schools is where to draw the line at such sponsorship.
Moreover, if it means that the 'rich' schools get richer relative to the
less well off schools then the whole question of such funding may need
to be questioned.
Examples of very dubious schemes in Canada and the USA should act as
a warning to educators in Australia:
In Canada, a budget shortfall persuaded the Toronto Board of
Education to accept $1m from the multi-national food and beverage conglomerate
PepsiCo, in return for exclusive vending rights to the city's 115 schools
and their 87,000 students. Pepsi promised to throw in student-of-the-month
plaques and Pepsi T-shirts and caps as prizes. In the United States, businessman
Chris Whittle established the TV outlet Channel One, which feeds students
12 minutes of daily news, plus two minutes of commercials. In exchange
for the students' viewing time, schools agreeing to air the program get
a satellite dish and video equipment. An estimated 12,000 schools with
six million children now watch the programs , including advertisements
supplied by Pepsi Cola, Mars and Proctor and Gamble - each of which pays
$300,000 for a 30-second spot.(20)
Concern has already been expressed about the type and level of sponsorship
being undertaken in Australian schools and some Victorian school principals,
have in fact refused to allow any form of sponsorship in their schools.
However, the growing pressure on schools to raise additional funds is
forcing some schools in the opposite direction. For example, the Grange
Secondary College in Melbourne has invited companies, including a local
hotel, to promote their products directly to the school community and
erect signs on campus. In exchange the school is hoping to raise $30,000.
The School Council President, Rona Harold, claims that such a move is
necessary because of poor government funding. Ms Harold maintains that
the school would prefer not to undertake such a scheme but 'free education
is a thing of the past.'(21)
Directly related to the issue of sponsorship is the so called market
approach to education. According to one observation of recent changes
in education in Australia:
A pivotal concept in many of the proposed changes is the
market. This concept is central to a number of discourses which constitute
the current policy agendas of governments, both State and Commonwealth,
and educational institutions. Education is currently being thought of
in market terms and markets of various sorts are guiding priorities and
funding...the movement towards market models represents a policy shift
of some magnitude...In the view of many, it signals the end of an era
in which the state was expected to work towards equal and universal provision,
and the beginning of a period of considerable dislocation, uncertainty
and injustice placing many worthwhile and equity values at risk...(22)
It may well be that the end result of the market/economic rationalist
orthodoxy that is currently prevailing in the schooling systems will result
in more 'efficient' and 'productive' schools, as measured in pure economic
terms, but from a social equity point of view the opposite may result
with a wider divergence between the resources available to individual
schools. Schools that are unable to effectively tap the corporate dollar
or raise substantial private funds may well fall behind the 'resource
rich' schools and enclaves of educational disadvantage could become entrenched.
A major role of government schools in the past has been that of helping
unify very disparate ethnic/religious groups and if the distinctions between
rich and poor schools are further exacerbated, then this unifying role
will be undermined. Unless the level of government funding is sufficient
to allow the schools to do all the tasks they are now being asked to do,
or unless the number of tasks is reduced, then notions such as universal
provision and equity in education will cease to be important. Professor
Judith Chapman says:
In a competitive environment, it is claimed market pressure
will work to force the school to use its resources in the most economically
efficient way and to develop the educational product in accordance with
consumer preference.[However] the ideology of the market has led to certain
conclusions. Chief of these is the notion that the responsibility for
the resourcing of education services should move away from the state and
towards individuals functioning as buyers in the education market. If
the ideology of the market prevails, tendentious differentiation and adverse
discrimination will start to be made between schools on the basis of academic
and other criteria..[and] some of these discriminations have become socially
divisive.(23)
Chapman warns that if the trend towards the ideology of the market and
managerialism is not modified by social justice and equity considerations
then we are likely to see bankrupt schools and impoverished school communities.(24)
Associate Professor of Education at Deakin University, Jane Kenway,
who has undertaken extensive research on market education says:
We are seeing the emergence of a market culture in schools,
but what are the implications? Overseas research indicates that market
practices put schools educative purposes at risk. They blur the line between
education and advertising. They privilege image over substance, convert
the role of the principal from an educational leader to a marketing entrepreneur,
divert scarce resources to non-educational purposes and create for students
and teachers moral and ethical dilemmas. Also at stake are : the purposes
of education and the sorts of people schools will produce, the survival
of the best of what is public about public education, the ethic which
says that all children, no matter what their class background, should
have equal access to a good education.(25)
The introduction of market mechanisms into education could lead to the
creation of 'winners and 'losers' and it has long been acknowledged that
there are market failures - areas of the economy/society where the market
mechanism does not provide adequate resources - and the provision of education
is one area where market solutions will, in all likelihood, cause severe
dislocation and inequities.
The counter view to the market approach to schooling and calls for reduced
government expenditure on education is put by Australian National University
academic John Quiggin
The economic evidence consistently supports the view that investment
in education yields monetary returns as high as, or higher than, those
of investment in physical capital. Since education also has substantial
cultural and social benefits that cannot be easily accessed in monetary
terms, the conclusion that more investment in education is socially desirable
is a compelling one. Governments, driven by short-run fiscal stringency
and an ideological focus on the size of the public sector, have, since
the middle seventies, sought to constrain and even reduce spending on
education. As a result, the progress that has been made in educational
provision and educational attainment over the past twenty years has been
almost exclusively dependent on the policy initiatives of the Whitlam
era, a period when education was consistently viewed by both the electorate
and government as one of the most important concerns of policy. Further
progress in educational achievement requires a renewed willingness to
finance investment in education.(26)
The move towards decentralisation of decision making and responsibility
in Australia's schooling systems gained momentum in the mid to late 1980s
and is now an entrenched feature in all the States and Territories.
Whilst the theory behind devolution may be attractive, or at least superficially
attractive, it needs to be considered not only in terms of its practical
implications but also in terms of the degree of change that is occurring,
or has occurred, in other areas of schooling.
The theory behind devolving more responsibility and decision making
to the school level is appealing and is one answer to some of the problems
that have occurred when the majority of power has been concentrated in
the hands of a central bureaucracy. However, as with other change, devolution
will only succeed if sufficient resources and backup and training are
provided to those affected at the school level - the implementation phase
is critical. Moreover, overseas experience has shown that some of the
claimed benefits of devolution may be overstated:
Despite the claims, there was little research evidence to suggest
that decentralisation leads to improved student outcomes and increased
parental involvement. Instead, a growing body of research in the UK, Canada,
New Zealand, USA and Australia of self-managing, self-governing or grant
maintained schools suggests first, that devolution, particularly since
the late 1980s has been an economic and political as much as an educational
strategy, initiated by governments of all persuasions with different intent
and effect. Most governments have been able to 'pass the financial crisis
down the line' to reduce educational expenditure. More conservative governments
have actively sought to dismantle the welfare state (for example, Sweden,
New Zealand, England and now Victoria) through privatisation by shifting
educational costs to the individual through user pays (for example, curriculum
fees) and to the community through sponsorship and voluntary administrative
work on school councils whilst simultaneously disempowering teacher unions
by excluding them from policy making and undermining work conditions...
[Moreover]...evidence in New Zealand, England and Scotland suggests, competition
between schools in a system framed by the market increases inequality
between schools and between individuals...(27)
Arguably, the State pursuing devolution with the greatest vigour is
Victoria. There, the Schools for the Future program is radically changing
the way schools operate. According to official statements, the Schools
of the Future Program:
stems from a simple philosophy...The idea is that each school
community knows best what their students need, so that it makes sense
to put each school community in charge of important decisions. The Schools
of the Future philosophy encompasses everything in schools, from curriculum
to budgets, and hiring teachers to staff professional development. The
benefits of greater flexibility are immense. Each School of the Future
now has its own income called a Global Budget. Up to 90 per cent of education
funding goes directly to Global Budgets giving schools the freedom to
spend money on resources they need most. Another hallmark of Schools of
the Future is the School Charter, written by the school and its community
to clearly set out goals and future directions. At the end of each year,
all schools will publish an Annual Report to show their communities how
things are going.(28)
Whilst there is evidence of support for the general concept of devolution
(for example, the Australian Education Union has agreed that the general
thrust in this direction has been popular), (29)the key problem appears
to be with the implementation phase and that it is one among a number
of changes and reforms affecting the schooling systems. As well, there
are concerns that there is a hidden agenda in the trend towards devolution.
For Roy Martin, Federal Research Officer with the Australian Education
Union:
The biggest problem is not that decentralisation is so bad
that it must be resisted at all costs...But that it is being advocated
with uncritical fervour by some people with dubious motives...The challenge
is to find a path towards better more community-owned public education
without falling down the hole of privatisation and markets...(30)
In the Victorian case many of those directly affected (most particularly,
principals, administrative staff and teachers) by Schools of the Future
have complained about the additional workloads that have resulted from
the program. In June this year administrative staff, bursars and technical
aides in Victorian government schools imposed a series of work bans as
a protest at the excessive workloads generated by the Schools of the
Future Program. This action coincided with the release of a
study of the workloads of school principals' - a study that found that
some of them were working up to 100 hours a week to cope with the demands
of the program. (31)The Victorian Principals Federation has advised its
members that it is preparing a 'crisis management strategy' to help them
preserve their physical and mental health under the pace of change.(32)
The Schools of the Future Program is another example of significant
change to work practices, administration and how schools operate that
does not appear to have been fully thought through, and as a consequence
is likely to exacerbate the already high level of resistance to change
that is evident in many schools.
The late 1980s also saw two parallel developments in school curricula
across Australia. The first was moves towards a national curriculum, that
gathered pace in 1988 - with the release of John Dawkin's 'Strengthening
Australia's Schools' which called for increasing co-operation between
the State and Territory schooling systems - and 1989, when the Australian
Education Council (which included all State and Territory education ministers)
agreed to ten national common goals for schooling. Further developments
in the early 1990s saw the Australian Education Council endorse eight
National Curriculum Framework development areas. These Framework development
areas (and associated statements and profiles) are currently being trialed
in the States and Territories with varying degrees of enthusiasm.
The second development as a general 'push' towards having schools become
more vocationally orientated, not only in the types of courses they offered,
but also with respect to developing better links with industry and other
vocationally geared educational institutions. The release of the Finn
Report (which dealt with employment related competencies) in 1991, the
Carmicheal Report (which dealt with entry level training) in 1992 and
the release of the Mayer Report (which linked the Australian Education
Council National Statements and Profiles with Key Competencies) in 1993
all emphasised the moves towards more vocationally orientated curricula
in Australia's schools.
The training reform initiatives include the development of vocational
education and training (VET) based on competencies; more flexible training
arrangements, including flexible pathways between education and training;
a national system of courses and qualifications recognised across Australia
and an Australian Vocational Training System (AVTS) including apprenticeships
and traineeships leading to nationally recognised qualifications under
the umbrella of the Australian Qualifications Framework. The AVTS will
allow school students to study vocational subjects and be involved with
work placements whilst at school.
These parallel developments in curriculum have had far reaching implications
for the schooling systems and much debate has been generated as a consequence.
Much of the debate has centred around issues such as: just what is an
appropriate role for schools in preparing students for the world of work
and to what extent should there be a national curriculum and how do reforms
in these areas fit in with reforms in other areas (for example, the moves
towards devolution). Underlying all this though has been the concern of
teachers and parents already expressed earlier with respect to other areas
of change in schooling, about the rate of change and way it is being implemented.
As mentioned earlier one of the problems faced by many schools is finding
space on an already crowded timetable to fit all the subjects and courses
that schools are increasingly being asked to cover. The curriculum was
already 'crowded' before the advent of the National Statements and Profiles
and the vocational 'push' and has been further exacerbated by increasing
retention rates at years 11 and 12. It is possible that, unless priorities
are clearly determined, developments in these fields could threaten to
overwhelm the curriculum; the danger being that a vast array of courses
and areas is offered with none of them being taught properly. In trying
to satisfy all the agendas and programs, schools may end up far worse
off than if they specialised or settled on an agreed 'core business' which
acknowledges that a school cannot be all things to all people. With respect
to the vocational field this may mean, for example, a return to the situation
that existed in Victoria prior to the late 1970s where there were both
vocational (technical) and general (high) secondary schools operating
from different premises. The general stigma that used to be attached to
technical schools when compared to high schools (ie. a general view that
the less academically able student or even the more disruptive student
should go to a technical school) is, from the anecdotal evidence, not
as relevant today and should not preclude such an approach to course offerings
at the secondary level. This may be particularly the case if the new and
emerging technologies and the types of careers that are associated with
them are an important part of the courses offered to those opting for
the 'vocational' stream.
Another option would be for schools, particularly small schools, to
specialise in the type of vocational training that they do, for example,
one school may offer hospitality courses and another may offer automotive
studies. Unless it has an abundance of resources, a small school will
find it exceedingly difficult to offer all the subjects that society is
asking it to offer - its only sensible option is to specialise and teach
what it considers to be its 'core business' and this may vary from school
to school. Trying to cover all areas from general education to vocational
training will, in all likelihood, mean that nothing is taught well. Close
links with other institutions, credit transfer and dual recognition of
qualifications will all help enable most students with varying needs and
interests to be catered for, but not necessarily all on one campus.
Another related concern with respect to adding courses with a vocational
emphasis to school timetables is that of funding:
Schools risk being burdened with the training responsibilities
previously undertaken by employers, without any significant transfer of
funds. Government secondary schools, particularly those serving socio-economically
disadvantaged areas, are already under pressure from the increased pressure
from the increased retention of students into year 11 and 12. The introduction
of vocational courses requires considerable additional human and other
resources. It is not sufficient for the Commonwealth to claim, as it is
doing, that the scheduled $5.1 million CPI adjustment to school funding
in the next financial period will cover these costs. This money is required
to enable school funding to keep pace with the escalation of existing
costs and rising community expectations - it will not stretch to cover
new initiatives.(33)
The Victorian Council of School Organisations (VICCSO) is also concerned
with aspects of the way in which vocational courses are being developed
by the key body responsible for vocational education in Australia - the
Australian National Training Authority (ANTA)
it is generally recognised that the ANTA vocational training
modules require substantial modification to be suitable for school students.
However, ANTA has the legal responsibility for this curriculum and it
is not required to develop more suitable courses for schools, nor to involve
school authorities, parents and teachers in their work. With the introduction
of a larger component of vocational/training courses, our schools (their
teachers, their communities, and school education departments) will lose
their capacity to directly influence a significant proportion of the curriculum
that is taught to senior secondary students.(34)
Rapid technological change has affected all sectors of society, including
schools. Not only are schools faced with the cost of providing new and
evolving technology in a fluid funding environment, but they are also
faced with the question of how best to use and implement the benefits
of this technology. There is no doubt that there are many benefits associated
with the new technologies and as we move into a new information society
based on the convergence of telecommunications, computer and television
technologies, it is important that school students are availed of the
opportunities offered. However, how these opportunities are grasped and
utilised is the fundamental issue. According to the Chair of the Schools
Council:
the educational issues surrounding the applications of new
technology are complex and it is important that they are fully debated.
The strong message from educators who are experienced in the use of technology
in the classroom is that the starting point has to be knowing what educational
purpose is to be fulfilled. The Schools Council believes that the issues
that the new technologies bring to the fore require careful consideration
at the school level, the systems level and nationally. We cannot afford
to leave matters such as access to be resolved in the market place of
consumerism and competition. The decisions to be made are too complex
and the ramifications too far reaching.(35)
The effects of the new technology may be far reaching and have the potential
to revolutionise the classroom as we know it. For example, one observer
predicts that:
the information superhighway will create virtual classrooms
where students study on-line, using the full range of interactive technologies,
without needing the daily presence of a teacher.(36)
Whilst there may be some advantages with this approach to teaching and
learning, it also raises some fundamental questions about the role of
schools, teachers and students in the educative process. Just what effects
might such virtual classrooms have on the social learning and behaviour
of students? Will the various skills and benefits that students now obtain
via spontaneous interaction with other students and teachers in classroom
situations be lost in these technologically driven virtual reality classroom
situations? What effect might these new technologies have on language
and speaking skills? What effect will less personal contact and interaction
have on non-social learning skills? How will teacher training need to
be modified to fit this new approach? Who decides on the extent and scope
of this type of teaching - State governments, education bureaucracies,
individual schools, parents, the wider community?
These and other questions need careful consideration and need to be
addressed if we are to avoid the danger of having a technology driven
education policy rather than having the policy first and adapting the
technology to suit the policy needs. Another danger is that poor schools
and their communities will miss out on the new technologies and thus get
further behind. In this sense the new technologies can be very divisive
and the schooling systems will need to carefully consider strategies to
ensure that this does not happen.
There is no shortage of proponents of the new technology and its attendant
benefits for schools. In such a climate it is important to highlight the
need for thorough analyses and cost-benefit studies to be undertaken before
new technologies are introduced. It is vital that these new technologies
fit the needs of the students, teachers and schools and that their adoption
is planned, well thought through and does not unnecessarily drain resources
that are needed for other educationally worthwhile projects. Rapid adoption
of the new technologies in a 'blind' and unprepared way may be just as
detrimental as taking a Luddite approach and resisting their adoption
altogether. At present it appears that the use of the emerging technology
(in particular, computers, pay TV, teleconference links and the 'information
superhighway') is occurring in an ad hoc manner and in a way that suggests
there is widespread use of the technology without the attendant effort
being put into well considered implementation policies. Already there
are calls for detailed policy plans (for example, the Schools Council)
for the use of new technology in schools and some are questioning the
'gee whiz' approach that some schools are adopting with respect to use
of new technology.
A recently published book (37) by an 'Internet insider' strongly questions
the educational value of the Internet and the extensive use of computers
in schools in the USA. Whilst his comments may not be directly applicable
to Australia, some may provide a portent of the future here given current
trends in our schools, particularly the trend towards devolution.
Gideon Haigh in a review of his book refers to Stoll's concern that
computers discourage the development of independent logic:
Up and down the line, computer programs feed us someone else's
logic, instead of encouraging us to develop our own. When confronted by
a quandary, we're fed someone else' rubric rather than creating our own
assaults on the problem.(38)
Stoll goes on to ask:
How well does new technology fit into the classroom? Our schools
have serious problems, including overcrowded classrooms, teacher incompetence
and lack of security. Local education budgets hardly cover salaries, books
and paper. Computers address none of these problems. They're expensive,
quickly become obsolete and drain scarce capital budgets...Both [computers
and TV] are pervasive, expensive and encourage children to sit still...Both
display animated cartoons, gaudy numbers and weird random noises. Both
encourage passive acceptance of a medium that will follow them for the
rest of their lives. Both give the impression that by sitting at a screen
you can acquire information without work and without discipline...I disagree.
Learning isn't easy. It's often not fun. It takes work and discipline.
Dancing numbers and singing frogs can't teach arithmetic. Glitzy computer
programs can't teach children to treat others as they would themselves.
I'd discount such high-tech mumbo jumbo except that there are so many
believers...Parents walk away from schools satisfied if they merely see
computers in the classroom. Principals plead for budgets large enough
to bring interactive media into their schools. Many teachers are cowed
by consultants sporting fancy degrees. School board members apply for
grants to bring networks into local districts. Lost in this promotion
are students.(39)
With regard to the introduction of the new technologies across industry
as a whole (including education) some professionals in the computer industry
itself are questioning the 'allure of the new technology'. Mr Charles
Wang, in his twentieth year as Chief Executive and Chairman of Computer
Associates, argues that:
as technologists we haven't always used technology responsibly...I'm
talking about all of us - vendors, service providers, technology users,
the press, every one. We've treated new technology as a toy. And overhyped
it to the point where the expectations could never be met. We've ignored
the significant investments businesses have made in existing technology
- chasing the new stuff with wild abandon. The cost of this abuse has
been astronomical. In the past 10 years, the US Department of Commerce
estimates, US businesses have spent $US 3 trillion ...on IT [Information
Technology]...as much as a third of this has been wasted...[As well there
has been]...the fear, uncertainty and doubt that if you don't get the
latest technology, you will be left behind. It is the worst possible reason
to buy new technology because the decision is based on hype and promises,
and not on real business requirements...In many cases these so-called
[IT] experts are put up on a pedestal and treated as heroes. And they're
worshipped as though they have all the answers. What's scary is that they're
not challenged. The assumption is that they're experienced and impartial...Many
of them have not even had technology careers...They are often too insistent
on their own pet technology-de-jour or the latest industry darling instead
of looking for what is best for a business... the lesson was to embrace
the new technology but do it well...the focus should be on the business
needs rather than the new technology.(40)
The points made by Wang should not be lost on those involved in Australian
schooling. For Australia's eight schooling systems the critical need in
terms of the new technologies is well planned implementation strategies
that place the interests of students first.
Of fundamental importance is also the funding issue. As mentioned earlier
'the chalk box of 1975 is now the computer of 1995' and, in a situation
where funding is barely maintained in real terms, schools are having to
make difficult choices as to just what resources are provided. The new
technology is much more costly than textbooks, chalkboards and the like
and if it is introduced on even a relatively modest scale, schools are
likely to be faced with funding problems. For example, the ACT Council
of P&C Associations recently criticised the lack of both computer
equipment and teachers trained to teach computer skills in ACT schools.(41)
This call could equally be echoed in most of the other State and Territory
schooling systems. A key danger is that valuable resources will be needlessly
diverted to 'gee whiz' gadgetry that need not necessarily be of educational
benefit to schools. In the words of the Schools Council:
It is...vital that technology does not prove to be the bottomless
pit that drains resources from school budgets or indeed from government
funding sources at the expense of other priorities.(42)
Already there are examples of schools being tempted to outlay enormous
sums of money for technology that has not been proven in terms of its
educative value, to say nothing of the opportunity cost that such purchases
entail. A computer assisted learning program for Maths, English and Science
currently being trialed in some Victorian schools has been estimated to
cost each school up to $15,000 for one year for equipment etc and more
than $300,000 over three years in software licensing fees.(43) With reference
to this computer program, Dr Chris Bigum, a senior lecturer in education
at Deakin University claims that:
computer -assisted learning programs were originally designed
for military training in the United States and their relevance today needed
scrutiny.(44)
There is no doubt that teaching has become a much more stressful and
demanding career. Over the last 20 years not only have the administrative
structures of schools become much more complex but there has been a proliferation
of roles that teachers must perform. Devolution, a much more complex curriculum
framework, the increasing 'social welfare' demands placed on schools,
the increasing use of the new technology and the increasingly complex
meshing of vocational and general educative roles are all examples of
changes that have contributed to this situation. One of the side effects
of these and other changes has been a general lowering of morale across
the teaching force.(45) One commentary argued that there are four key
reasons as to why morale was low amongst teachers and why teaching as
a career is losing its appeal - increasing discipline problems, a reduction
in the prestige associated with teaching, the increased difficulty of
teaching and poor pay and working conditions.(46)
With respect to the latter point a Western Australian study has found
that the relative position of teachers' salaries has fallen dramatically
since 1971:
Teachers with four-year university degrees and 12 years experience
get only 53 per cent of an MP's salary (1971: 73 per cent), 33 per cent
of the minister's (1971: 43 per cent) and 26 per cent of the director-general's
(1971 : 40 per cent).(47)
Whilst most teachers have received modest pay gains over the last two
to three years, it is in the mid to late 1980s that the profession as
a whole appeared to lose ground with respect to many others in the workforce.
According to Australian Bureau of Statistics figures the average income
for all occupations grew more quickly than that of primary and secondary
teachers over the period 1985-86 to 1989-90:
The average income for male and female teachers increased by
27.9 and 22.1 per cent respectively over that period while the average
income for all occupations rose 34.8 per cent.(48)
If comparisons of teacher salaries are made with some of the more technically
advanced countries of the world it is obvious that teachers are certainly
not 'overpaid' in Australia. In 1992 the average maximum annual salary
for a teacher in Australia was $39,000 - a figure that was only slightly
higher than that for teachers in Sweden, Italy, the UK and the USA. However,
the comparable figure in Switzerland was $70,000, in Hong Kong it was
$58,000, in Canada it was $47,000, in Japan and the Netherland's it was
$45,000 and in Germany it was $43,000.(49)
According to Bagnall:
teaching has never offered great rewards but salaries of experienced
teachers (the top income is $42,770 a year paid by the ACT government)
are increasingly falling behind the money earned by other professionals.
Job security can no longer be taken for granted...(50)
Low morale, low pay and a general perception that teaching is no longer
a rewarding career are probably the key reasons why fewer young people
are choosing teaching as a job option. Already there are predictions that
there will be a shortage of qualified teachers in Australia by the turn
of the century, if not before - the Australian Council of Deans of Education
estimates that at least 15,000 new teachers will be needed by 2000 but
that only 10,000 will be graduating from university.(51) As well, there
is an impending problem with respect to the supply of experienced teacher
educators. By one calculation(52) the average age of teacher educators
in Australian universities is now 53 years of age. Many of these will
retire or resign over the next five to ten years. This means that by the
turn of the century not only is it likely that there will be a significant
shortage of teachers, there is also likely to be a shortage of experienced
teacher educators. Policy makers need to urgently address these looming
shortages if we are to avoid the teacher supply problems that characterised
the late 1960s and early 1970s. It takes at least four years to train
a teacher, so strategies aimed at attracting young graduates into teaching
need to be put in place now.
From across Australia there are increasing calls from teachers to slow
the rate of change. The latest detailed survey of teacher attitudes undertaken
by the Australian Teaching Council (ATC) clearly shows that teachers have
had enough of the turmoil and change that has characterised the past two
decades. According to the Executive Director of the ATC, Greg Smith, research
in five States had found that teachers were:
confused, angry and concerned about the changing context in
which they have to operate.(53)
The two largest States, New South Wales and Victoria, were found to
have the lowest morale. A general feeling amongst teachers was that they
were not being given the means or the time to introduce all the things
expected of them by the community and politicians. There was also a strong
feeling that they were not being consulted. The survey, which the ATC
says is the first systematic Australia wide research into teachers' views,
clearly showed that teachers feel they are being overwhelmed by constant
change and as a consequence the Executive Director of the ATC has called
for the pace of reform in schools to be slowed.(54)
Firm evidence of 'change fatigue' amongst teachers comes from the NSW
Teachers Federation President Denis Fitzgerald:
the work of teachers is now carried out in a situation that
is filled with contradiction and contending forces...As a result, in recent
years, teachers have tended to 'bunker down' either within their school,
or indeed within their classrooms...The recent years of political experimentation
in education have come at a cost...the circumstances of schooling are
now characterised by continuing community disputation about schools, along
with an expanding and unreal set of expectations about what our schools
are supposed to provide. Added to this has been the application of a regime
of consistent change that has destabilised parts of our schooling system
and the teaching profession.(55)
Reflecting the depth of concern amongst teachers about the rate of change
and the disruption it is causing schools the NSW Teachers Federation,
at its 1995 annual conference, passed a motion calling for a moratorium
on change in NSW schools:
we want the rate of educational change to slow considerably.
We believe that our public system and the profession both want and need
breathing space between now and the end of 1996. We require this time
for teachers to be able to focus on the business in their schools and
classrooms - the business of teaching and learning...We are saying that
between now and the end of next year any major programs that would involve
teachers in significant changes in work practices, and whose implementation
would cause anxiety and stress will be rejected.(56)
From the other side of the continent similar calls from 'reform weary'
teachers indicate that all schooling systems are feeling the effects of
rapid change. Referring to the situation in Western Australia a contributor
to a school journal, Pam Nixon, says that:
Teaching is harder than it was 20 years ago. Many old hands
say there's less resources now, greater community expectations but less
recognition, less financial reward and even less satisfaction from the
children. Children now face less certain futures, have more unstable families
and live in a more conflict-ridden world. Students are bringing these
societal problems inside the school gates and teachers are expected to
contend with them. Authority relationships have also changed throughout
society - men/women, boss/workers etc. Students no longer accept authority,
teachers cannot simply expect obedience...The curriculum is being stuffed
with extras eg. AIDS education, Stranger Danger, environmental awareness
etc. Society seems to expect that educational standards will keep increasing
to produce students who can cope with an increasingly complex world...These
factors make teaching in the 90s a tough enough job without introducing
a reform agenda as well yet in the past eight years there have been three
major government reports all recommending sweeping changes. It's not surprising
that many teachers are suffering from reform fatigue, say the critics
of change. They claim these reports have all recommended changes which
have impacted directly on teachers, resulting in increased workloads and
without bringing any benefits to their students. Some teachers view reform
with cynicism, seeing it as a political exercise in cost-cutting or as
a mere managerial reform rather than genuine educational reform...They
are also questioning the need for change, saying there is no evidence
that students aren't doing well or that standards are falling...The conclusion
from all this is: Schools are doing well in difficult circumstances. They
should be left alone to get on with the job without more change being
imposed on them.(57)
An educator from the ACT highlights the situation in this way:
Today's teacher has to be a mixture of actor and song-and-dance
performer, stern disciplinarian and kind listener, social worker and psychologist.
On top of all that they are expected to be modestly expert in some academic
discipline and up-to-date with the latest educational trends. The modern
teacher deals with students who know their rights...Parents also have
educational rights. So do politicians and public representatives and school
principals and curriculum gurus. These last demand obedience to new, albeit
benign, versions of social engineering under titles such as Key Learning
Areas or Cross Curriculum Perspectives. And in recent times, employers
have decided to exercise their right to demand that students emerging
from schools have the grandly named Key Competencies so that they can
go straight into factories without any further training. Somehow, as the
teacher tries to enthuse his or her class about poetry or quadratic equations,
he or she has to make sure that all these rights are balanced.(58)
It is not only classroom teachers that are lamenting the rate of change
and the ever increasing demands for schools to 'teach everything'. Dr
Steve Dinham, Head of the Department of Curriculum Studies at the University
of Western Sydney, argues that teachers and schools are increasingly expected
to solve all of society's problems. He believes that, because schools
are being treated as 'waste paper baskets' for society's ills, teachers
are being forced to become social workers and de facto parents. As a consequence,
teacher stress levels are high and their health and relationships are
suffering. Dinham maintains that teachers need to be relieved of much
of their administrative work so that they can focus on the core business
of teaching - the very aspect of their work that generally gives them
the most satisfaction.(59)
As well, the NSW President of the Parents and Citizens Federation, Ros
Brennan, when commenting on recent changes to the education system in
NSW, stated that:
the changes had created confusion among parents and teachers
and many were unsure of where they fit in schools and the education department...The
education system didn't need this shake up. If it ain't broken, don't
fix it. Parents are sick to death of having things changed.(60)
Given the plethora of changes that are occurring in Australian schools
at present, the danger is that teaching staff (and parents) will increasingly
experience 'change/reform fatigue'. Already there is evidence to suggest
that such 'change/reform fatigue' is setting in and as a consequence a
fundamental problem arises - many of the new initiatives and policies
in education, whether they emanate from the national, state or local level,
are not going to be, or are not being, implemented as effectively as they
could be. Change, however well intentioned and necessary, will only be
effective if the key conveyors of change, in most cases classroom teachers,
are able and willing to undertake the necessary actions and measures.
Entrenched 'change/reform fatigue' will result in an overburdened teaching
force turning inwards and resisting even the most necessary and worthwhile
reforms.
It would appear that there is an obvious need for the major policy making
and advice forums (including the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment,
Training and Youth Affairs, the National Board of Employment, Education
and Training and the Schools and Curriculum Division of the Department
of Employment, Education and Training) to be more aware of the complexity
and complementarity of the eight State/Territory schooling systems and
to fully consider the nature and extent of changes occurring at the State/local
level before recommending or implementing change themselves.
Other Commonwealth initiatives that may help alleviate the adverse impact
of too much change and 'teacher fatigue' could include:
- an urgent review of teacher training institutions in Australia and
their capacity to provide an adequate supply of teachers over the next
decade. If current predictions are correct there will a shortfall of
5000 teachers Australia-wide by the turn of the century;
- an examination of the effects of schools becoming increasingly dependent
on sponsorship and voluntary fees and levies to finance their activities;
- a review of the introduction of Information Technology into schools
with a view to assessing the equity implications, both within and between
schools, associated with the widespread use of such technology;
- an examination of possible strategies/policies that will help alleviate
low teacher morale and 'change fatigue'. Such strategies/policies could
include: additional teacher exchange programs, better career paths and
allowing teachers the option to take 'sabbatical' leave after a certain
period of service. This latter option could be provided at little cost
by, for example, allowing teachers to take a slightly reduced salary
for 3 or 4 years which would then entitle them to 3-6 months leave on
full pay. A Commonwealth program (similar to the existing National Professional
Development Program) specifically designed to give incentives to the
States and Territories in this area may be one way of improving teacher
morale and lessening 'change fatigue'.
Finally, it is worth re-emphasising that for meaningful change to occur,
the 'troops on the ground' (in most cases the classroom teachers themselves)
must be fully consulted and be given a feeling of ownership, or at least
part ownership, over the changes as they are developed. Without this,
the effects of even worthwhile reform will be blunted. A lecturer and
researcher in teaching measurement, evaluation and research methods at
Edith Cowan University, Russell Waugh, encapsulates what needs to happen
if change is to be effective:
For change to work administrators must not be seen as imposing
their ideas on the schools - change coming down from above to plague the
lives of already overstressed teachers, parents and students, and put
undue strain on both schools and communities. Administrators need to work
within these groups and, while demanding flexibility from them, be prepared
to give back the same flexibility to ensure that changes benefit everyone,
not just the interests of politicians and bureaucrats.(61)
- For example, see Dawkins, J Strengthening Australia's Schools,
AGPS Canberra 1988
- As quoted in The Bulletin, 14 February 1995
- p. v
- ibid p. 63
- Mackay, H Reinventing Australia:The Mind and Mood of Australia
in the 90s, Angus and Robertson, Sydney 1993, p. 17-18, 20
- Milligen, S with Ashenden, D and Quin, R, Women In the Teaching
Profession, National Board of Employment, Education and Training,
Commissioned Report No. 32, August 1994:11
- ibid:11
- For a full analysis see Commonwealth Funding for Schools, Greg
McIntosh, Background Paper No. 14 1994, Parliamentary Research Service
- For example, see Marginson, S. 'Public Education : leaping the abyss'
in The ACT Teacher, 13 May 1994
- The Age, 9 February 1994
- The Australian, 25 February 1994
- Speech, Equity and Fairness for Australian Teachers, delivered
at Kew High School, 18 July 1995
- Victorian Budget Paper No. 2, 1993-94:13
- The Age, 17 March 1994
- School Bell, Volume 49, No. 7 August 1995:1
- The Age, 13 February 1995
- ibid
- The West Australian, 24 January 1995
- The Canberra Times, 8 February 1995
- Maslen, G Australian Educator, Autumn 1995, p. 15-16
- The Melbourne Sun, 22 September 1995
- Kenway, J, Bigum, C, Fitzclarence, l and Collier, J, Marketing
Education in the 1990s:An Introductory Essay, in The Australian
Universities Review, Volume 36, No. 2 1993:2,5
- The Age, 11 January 1994
- ibid
- The Responsibility of Marketing Your School, Centre for Democratic
Education, Pamphlet 7, August 1995
- Should We Be Investing More in Education ?, Canberra Conference
on Efficiency and Equity in Education Policy, September 1995 p. 18
- Blackmore, J Devolving Equity, in Education Australia, Issue
28, 1994 p. 8-9
- The Age, 20 June 1995
- The Sydney Morning Herald, 6 July 1994
- ibid
- The Age, 19 June 1995
- The Age, 17 June 1995
- School Bell, Official Journal of the Victorian Council of School
Organisations, Volume 49, No. 4, May 1995:6
- ibid:6
- Morrow, A ACE News, March 1995 : 4
- Bantick, C The Canberra Times, 16 August 1995
- Stoll, C Silicon Snake Oil Doubleday 1995
- Stoll, as quoted in The Australian, 17-18 June 1995
- ibid
- The Australian, 25 July 1995
- The Tuggeranong Valley View, 14 June 1995
- Morrow, op cit : 5
- The Age, 2 May 1995
- ibid
- see Bagnall, D 'Crisis In the Classroom' in The Bulletin 14
February 1995
- Education Monitor, Autumn 1990:2
- The West Australian, 8 March 1995
- The Canberra Times, 19 November 1992
- Education Monitor, Summer 1993-94, p. 14
- Bagnall, op cit
- The Sydney Morning Herald, 12 August 1995
- Adey Professor, A Professional Matter, Speech to the Australian
College of Education, Adelaide October 4 1995
- The Australian, 3 April 1995
- ibid
- Education, 31 July 1995:8
- ibid
- Nixon, P in School Matters (WA), 2 February 1995
- The Canberra Times, 1 February 1995
- Education, 31 July 1995:2
- AAP News, 12 September 1995
- Education Australia, Issue 27 1994:17
|
 |
