That overarching question posed by the ALP’s review of the federal election also should be the starting point in any attempt to improve Australian schooling.
Despite an endless series of education reviews, accompanied by proposals to introduce untested reforms to address dissatisfaction with teaching and learning, the powers that be show no willingness to do the painful work of analysing their policy mistakes.
As with the ALP post-mortem, Australian education desperately needs a warts-and-all inquisition into what has gone so wrong and why.
But there is none of that kind of commitment to deep thinking in the National Schools Reform Agreement and the Review to Achieve Excellence in Australian Schools, also known as Gonski 2.0.
Between 2019 and 2023, new reform directions proposed in these and other documents are supposed to deliver “a high-quality and high-equity schooling system by international standards by 2025”.
However, none of the proposals is backed by any evidence that they will work.
Perhaps the best stated objective of the national agreement is to “have a robust and evidence-based rationale for how national policy initiatives will directly or indirectly improve outcomes through national co-ordinated effort”.
A full list of previous policy debacles would be embarrassingly long.
Let’s just consider a few. Since the 1970s a reduced emphasis on grammar and punctuation, a shift in favour of “creative” writing, inconsistent exposure to great literature, and the near abandonment of debating, research and analytical skills (also associated with the declining status of history study) have combined to produce generations of students who struggle with the demands of basic literacy.
With regard to written English, the most destructive policy is the fixation on text types. This formulaic approach sees the world through “narrative” and “persuasive” texts, with little capacity for students to demonstrate linguistic dexterity.
According to the NSW Education Minister, one way to improve children’s writing skills would be to add “informative” writing to the National Assessment Program — Literacy and Numeracy test. You could hardly be more wrong.
And Australian students’ increasingly woeful reading skills are largely a consequence of the adoption of “whole language” strategies, reflecting the “constructivist” method of teaching that frequently puts unrealistic responsibility on students to determine what they should do next.
Constructivism — designed to change students from learning by traditional memorisation into “owning their own learning” — was marketed as part of outcomes-based education in the 1980s and 90s.
Australia was one of very few countries to take up OBE but the administratively complex approach presented daunting and confusing challenges for teachers as they tried to tick every box in every subject.
That approach is being rebranded “learning progressions”, with so-called “big ideas” setting Australian curriculum directions.
Ironically, this movement is happening at the same time as an increasing demand for a return to more explicit teaching — the supposedly old-fashioned traditional approach.
High-performing countries have avoided education fads, especially by maintaining clear and high expectations of language acquisition and expression. A common strength — as seen in Singapore and Finland — is policy that recognises the well-researched link between high literacy standards and the compulsory study of at least two languages through to Year 12.
In contrast, Australian education policymakers have almost killed that subject area, at best mandating minimal hours of foreign language study across a brief period and having no nationally cohesive strategy.
And when it comes to mathematics, the NSW Curriculum Review has prompted the state government to worry that 400 hours of secondary school maths is not enough to prepare Year 10 students for the 21st century — with a proposal put forward to make the subject compulsory from kindergarten through to Year 12 but with no reference to relevant research that shows the change would be successful.
Without evidence, simply adding a subject here or there — reflecting the flavour of the month or responding to pressure groups — will not improve teaching or learning.
With the NSW review’s author conceding that the main question is whether the proposed reforms are even heading in the right direction, that report epitomises the abysmal lack of clarity, vision and strategy in our education strategy.
Matt Barrie, the tech specialist and chief executive of global online brand Freelancer, recently referred to Australian education as a “basket case” whose graduates are so lacking in knowledge and skills — especially in computer science and engineering — that they will not be able to halt the national slump in productivity.
It’s crunch time for school education. Unless we hit the policy pause button long enough to establish precisely why we are where we are right now, no adoption of shiny new things will ever bring improvement.
Fiona Mueller is director of the education program at the Centre for Independent Studies.
Home > Commentary > Opinion > Crunch time at the chalkface for reading, writing skills
Crunch time at the chalkface for reading, writing skills
Despite an endless series of education reviews, accompanied by proposals to introduce untested reforms to address dissatisfaction with teaching and learning, the powers that be show no willingness to do the painful work of analysing their policy mistakes.
As with the ALP post-mortem, Australian education desperately needs a warts-and-all inquisition into what has gone so wrong and why.
But there is none of that kind of commitment to deep thinking in the National Schools Reform Agreement and the Review to Achieve Excellence in Australian Schools, also known as Gonski 2.0.
Between 2019 and 2023, new reform directions proposed in these and other documents are supposed to deliver “a high-quality and high-equity schooling system by international standards by 2025”.
However, none of the proposals is backed by any evidence that they will work.
Perhaps the best stated objective of the national agreement is to “have a robust and evidence-based rationale for how national policy initiatives will directly or indirectly improve outcomes through national co-ordinated effort”.
A full list of previous policy debacles would be embarrassingly long.
Let’s just consider a few. Since the 1970s a reduced emphasis on grammar and punctuation, a shift in favour of “creative” writing, inconsistent exposure to great literature, and the near abandonment of debating, research and analytical skills (also associated with the declining status of history study) have combined to produce generations of students who struggle with the demands of basic literacy.
With regard to written English, the most destructive policy is the fixation on text types. This formulaic approach sees the world through “narrative” and “persuasive” texts, with little capacity for students to demonstrate linguistic dexterity.
According to the NSW Education Minister, one way to improve children’s writing skills would be to add “informative” writing to the National Assessment Program — Literacy and Numeracy test. You could hardly be more wrong.
And Australian students’ increasingly woeful reading skills are largely a consequence of the adoption of “whole language” strategies, reflecting the “constructivist” method of teaching that frequently puts unrealistic responsibility on students to determine what they should do next.
Constructivism — designed to change students from learning by traditional memorisation into “owning their own learning” — was marketed as part of outcomes-based education in the 1980s and 90s.
Australia was one of very few countries to take up OBE but the administratively complex approach presented daunting and confusing challenges for teachers as they tried to tick every box in every subject.
That approach is being rebranded “learning progressions”, with so-called “big ideas” setting Australian curriculum directions.
Ironically, this movement is happening at the same time as an increasing demand for a return to more explicit teaching — the supposedly old-fashioned traditional approach.
High-performing countries have avoided education fads, especially by maintaining clear and high expectations of language acquisition and expression. A common strength — as seen in Singapore and Finland — is policy that recognises the well-researched link between high literacy standards and the compulsory study of at least two languages through to Year 12.
In contrast, Australian education policymakers have almost killed that subject area, at best mandating minimal hours of foreign language study across a brief period and having no nationally cohesive strategy.
And when it comes to mathematics, the NSW Curriculum Review has prompted the state government to worry that 400 hours of secondary school maths is not enough to prepare Year 10 students for the 21st century — with a proposal put forward to make the subject compulsory from kindergarten through to Year 12 but with no reference to relevant research that shows the change would be successful.
Without evidence, simply adding a subject here or there — reflecting the flavour of the month or responding to pressure groups — will not improve teaching or learning.
With the NSW review’s author conceding that the main question is whether the proposed reforms are even heading in the right direction, that report epitomises the abysmal lack of clarity, vision and strategy in our education strategy.
Matt Barrie, the tech specialist and chief executive of global online brand Freelancer, recently referred to Australian education as a “basket case” whose graduates are so lacking in knowledge and skills — especially in computer science and engineering — that they will not be able to halt the national slump in productivity.
It’s crunch time for school education. Unless we hit the policy pause button long enough to establish precisely why we are where we are right now, no adoption of shiny new things will ever bring improvement.
Fiona Mueller is director of the education program at the Centre for Independent Studies.
• Subscribe
Subscribe now and stay in the loop with our giving appeals, event alerts, newsletters and research updates.
We are always pleased to hear from you. If you have any questions or feedback, please contact us here: