It is no surprise that all the Coalition saw in a 319 page report was a dollar sign, and an opportunity to bang on about their pet subjects… performance pay for teachers, more autonomy for headmasters to hire and fire, an opportunity to criticise teacher quality, and to spread more misinformation about how under-funded the entire non-Government sector is.
It may give some hint of their likely policy position, when they finally release it.
But then facts and the advice of expert panels are not the criteria the Coalition use when developing policy, they already have that finalised and neatly mothballed until the next election is called.
If you haven’t the time or the motivation to trawl the entire document, I can summarise it as follows:
The report concludes:
- Resources alone will not be sufficient to fully address Australia’s schooling challenges
- Continued and renewed efforts are required to strengthen and reform Australia’s schooling system
- Australia’s schools should be staffed with the very best principals and teachers
- Staff should feel empowered to lead and drive change
- Staff need to create opportunities for students to learn in new ways to meet their individual needs
- Classrooms should support innovative approaches to learning through curriculum, technologies, infrastructure, and the culture of the school
- Principals and teachers should encourage a culture of high expectations, continuous learning, and independence and responsibility for all students
- Schools should forge connections with parents and the community, as key partners in children’s learning and attitudes to school
Among the 41 recommendations, the report focusses on:
- Setting agreed standards for goals and outcomes for schools and their students
- Transparency, Accountability and Equity
- Making adjustments for schools and students with additional needs, while also allowing for geographical challenges, and the relative proportions of indigenous, low SES and ESL students
- Adjusting funding to non-Government schools based on the capacity of parents to contribute financially to the education of their children
- Increased focus on and support for disadvantaged students
- An evidence based approach to supporting and educating disadvantaged and special needs students
- The Establishment of an Independent Body to oversee all proposed processes
And the 26 Findings included:
- Schools need to lift their student’s performance at all levels, but especially among the poorest achievers
- The data currently available on achievement is neither sufficient nor broad enough to encompass all the outcomes we seek from our education system
- Our current approach to school funding is not logical, consistent or transparent
- There is no current minimum standard for school facilities (in terms of their educational value), but there needs to be
- Planning processes do not effectively meet changing educational needs. The process should include schools and their communities
- Support for early childhood development needs to be integrated into strategies to deal with educational disadvantage
- Key disadvantages for students include: socioeconomic status, Indigeneity, English language proficiency, disability and school remoteness
- Disabled students are not adequately supported within the Government or Non-Government education systems
- While there is insufficient quality data available in regards to addressing disadvantage, some evidence is emerging from the National partnerships arrangement. This evidence supports building teacher capacity, strengthening instructional leadership and engaging parents and the broader community
The Government has announced that it is delaying its response to Gonski by several weeks. While the Opposition is labelling this as a scheme to fiddle the books, it seems that such a comprehensive report deserves due consideration. While the Coalition has always had a pre-determined position, the open-minded would benefit from the extra time. Better to get it right than get it done quickly and move on.
The Government's response should be judged on its merits, not on the simplistic politicking of a shallow and popularist opposition.
The stark contrast between the two sides of politics on such an important matter is very instructive.
What are your thoughts?