The debate on a new national curriculum is generating a lot of heat but much less light.
While there is always a good argument for trying to do better in schooling, the current disputes are concerned with issues that have little relevance to the kids who most urgently need better schools.
The curriculum inquiry may discover whether the community would like kids to understand the Anzac story better.
There is less prospect of it solving our stagnant rates of literacy and numeracy.
While the minister and his adversaries argue philosophy, independent reports show thousands of kids are struggling to read and count.
The COAG Reform Council provided nonpartisan assessments of all Australian governments’ performance under the National Partnership for Literacy and Numeracy from 2008-09 to 2012-13.
Its latest report covers the full five years’ worth of results. It shows that while national average scores improved in years 3 and 5 reading and Year 5 numeracy, years 7 and 9 did not improve in reading and Year 7 declined in numeracy.
Most states and territories improved in Year 3 reading and Year 5 numeracy.
However, there was little improvement in the proportion of students achieving the minimum standards.
The situation for indigenous kids was more disappointing.
According to the CRC, in five years across all states and territories, only Year 3 reading improved and years 3 and 7 numeracy declined.
It has become common to blame sociological or structural determinants for these results. Which is a way of saying kids are doomed by their parents and postcodes.
Educators increasingly suggest the absence of books, breakfast and bedtime at home is making children unteachable at school. While it’s true these are factors, there is good evidence that better teaching methods can transform a child’s performance even in low socioeconomic areas and even at disadvantaged schools.
The recent Grattan Institute report, Turning Around Schools, shows even very poorly performing schools can be improved with strong leadership, better teaching practice and a rigorous approach to monitoring results. Grattan suggests the real challenge for those interested in education is to commit to the reform of low-performing schools.
Among the successes cited in the Grattan report was Western Australia’s Ellenbrook Primary School, which went from substantially below national averages to slightly above averages between 2008 and 2012.
Ellenbrook principal Neil MacNeill did address the curriculum in driving this change but it had little to do with postmodernism, history wars or the Asian century.
MacNeill’s changes to the curriculum consisted of replacing the children’s textbooks to lift the level of difficulty. Low expectations rather than cultural confusion was the chief defect of the curriculum holding Ellenbrook’s children back.
There are important discussions to be had about culture and history but these are meaningless to kids who can’t read. For kids who can read, the whole of history and philosophy is ready for their discovery. If we fail to teach kids to read, then everyone’s competing histories remain equally invisible.
Research by my Centre for Independent Studies colleague Jennifer Buckingham has shown that when it comes to reading, there are very few unteachable kids but there is plenty of ineffective teaching.
With few exceptions, all kids can learn to read – but not by themselves. The misapprehension that reading can be taught through experiencing the fun of books and stories has left many kids falling behind and feeling stupid.
Like most things in life, when it comes to teaching kids to read, different methodologies get different results.
Reading instruction that is explicit and systematic can improve outcomes for all children. It is particularly effective for children most at risk of falling behind – those from low-SES and indigenous communities.
While some have questioned the need for a new education inquiry while the ink is barely dry on Gonski, one may equally note that recommendations remain outstanding from the 2005 National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy.
That inquiry recommended teachers be equipped with strategies to instruct kids in reading based on rigorous, evidence-based research.
It would be a missed opportunity for Australia’s kids if the important-sounding fights over political bias and culture obscured the urgent need for careful and systematic improvement of teaching methodologies.
Both sides of politics share responsibility for this situation. Fighting about philosophy sounds very intellectual and important but it’s actually less challenging and less urgent than fixing the curriculum where it really matters.
More politics will not help Australia’s kids. Better evidence-based teaching certainly will.
Cassandra Wilkinson works for The Centre for Independent Studies.
Home > Commentary > Opinion > First, let’s teach our children how to read and count
First, let’s teach our children how to read and count
The debate on a new national curriculum is generating a lot of heat but much less light.
While there is always a good argument for trying to do better in schooling, the current disputes are concerned with issues that have little relevance to the kids who most urgently need better schools.
The curriculum inquiry may discover whether the community would like kids to understand the Anzac story better.
There is less prospect of it solving our stagnant rates of literacy and numeracy.
While the minister and his adversaries argue philosophy, independent reports show thousands of kids are struggling to read and count.
The COAG Reform Council provided nonpartisan assessments of all Australian governments’ performance under the National Partnership for Literacy and Numeracy from 2008-09 to 2012-13.
Its latest report covers the full five years’ worth of results. It shows that while national average scores improved in years 3 and 5 reading and Year 5 numeracy, years 7 and 9 did not improve in reading and Year 7 declined in numeracy.
Most states and territories improved in Year 3 reading and Year 5 numeracy.
However, there was little improvement in the proportion of students achieving the minimum standards.
The situation for indigenous kids was more disappointing.
According to the CRC, in five years across all states and territories, only Year 3 reading improved and years 3 and 7 numeracy declined.
It has become common to blame sociological or structural determinants for these results. Which is a way of saying kids are doomed by their parents and postcodes.
Educators increasingly suggest the absence of books, breakfast and bedtime at home is making children unteachable at school. While it’s true these are factors, there is good evidence that better teaching methods can transform a child’s performance even in low socioeconomic areas and even at disadvantaged schools.
The recent Grattan Institute report, Turning Around Schools, shows even very poorly performing schools can be improved with strong leadership, better teaching practice and a rigorous approach to monitoring results. Grattan suggests the real challenge for those interested in education is to commit to the reform of low-performing schools.
Among the successes cited in the Grattan report was Western Australia’s Ellenbrook Primary School, which went from substantially below national averages to slightly above averages between 2008 and 2012.
Ellenbrook principal Neil MacNeill did address the curriculum in driving this change but it had little to do with postmodernism, history wars or the Asian century.
MacNeill’s changes to the curriculum consisted of replacing the children’s textbooks to lift the level of difficulty. Low expectations rather than cultural confusion was the chief defect of the curriculum holding Ellenbrook’s children back.
There are important discussions to be had about culture and history but these are meaningless to kids who can’t read. For kids who can read, the whole of history and philosophy is ready for their discovery. If we fail to teach kids to read, then everyone’s competing histories remain equally invisible.
Research by my Centre for Independent Studies colleague Jennifer Buckingham has shown that when it comes to reading, there are very few unteachable kids but there is plenty of ineffective teaching.
With few exceptions, all kids can learn to read – but not by themselves. The misapprehension that reading can be taught through experiencing the fun of books and stories has left many kids falling behind and feeling stupid.
Like most things in life, when it comes to teaching kids to read, different methodologies get different results.
Reading instruction that is explicit and systematic can improve outcomes for all children. It is particularly effective for children most at risk of falling behind – those from low-SES and indigenous communities.
While some have questioned the need for a new education inquiry while the ink is barely dry on Gonski, one may equally note that recommendations remain outstanding from the 2005 National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy.
That inquiry recommended teachers be equipped with strategies to instruct kids in reading based on rigorous, evidence-based research.
It would be a missed opportunity for Australia’s kids if the important-sounding fights over political bias and culture obscured the urgent need for careful and systematic improvement of teaching methodologies.
Both sides of politics share responsibility for this situation. Fighting about philosophy sounds very intellectual and important but it’s actually less challenging and less urgent than fixing the curriculum where it really matters.
More politics will not help Australia’s kids. Better evidence-based teaching certainly will.
Cassandra Wilkinson works for 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: