caldwell

It is a pleasure to be invited to set the scene for this important program on school culture. The approach in the different sessions is exemplary, namely, to explore the links between culture and school performance, as reflected in outcomes for students. A particular feature is the opportunity that the program provides to share insights and experiences, with a marvellous mix of presenters and perspectives.

I will adopt a strategic approach to the topic, taking the view that what can be accomplished in schools can be helped or hindered by a culture that transcends the school. At its broadest, I explore the extent to which there is a culture in the nation that supports the achievement of high performance in schools. Does it help your efforts or does it hinder them? What are the significant issues that have to be addressed?

My approach is to adopt an international perspective, examining aspects of the Australian culture in school education in the light of what is occurring in other nations.

A study of education in other nations is important for several reasons. First, to the extent that systems of education have common aspirations, strategies that have led to success in other places may be adopted or adapted in the local setting, and strategies that have proved unsuccessful elsewhere may be set aside in the search for solutions. Second, problems that appear intractable in the local setting may be the subject of fresh enquiry leading to possible resolution when approaches in other nations are critically examined. Third, knowledge of approaches in other places may suggest possibilities for critical scrutiny in the search for alternatives. Fourth, local policy and practice can be affirmed with knowledge that others have adopted similar approaches and have achieved success. In each instance it is acknowledged that a nation should not adopt an approach from another setting in the absence of evidence that it suits the local scene.

I have selected 12 issues for your consideration. An issue may be defined as ‘an unresolved matter of concern’. Issues are often expressed in the form of a question, the answer to which suggests a course of action or a line for further investigation. This paper is organised around a series of 12 such questions. The first question is ‘How well are Australian students achieving compared to counterparts in other nations?’ The final question is ‘What should be the major elements in a new policy framework for schools?’ I believe such a framework will help enhance the climate wherein all schools can be aided in their efforts to achieve the best possible outcomes for all students in all settings. The importance of supporting these efforts is evident in a collection of articles in The Australian on March 4. I was invited to contribute to the collection (Caldwell, 2002) (see attachment). It briefly comments on five of the 12 issues raised in the pages that follow.

I was in Singapore recently to help plan a visit to Melbourne by the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Education in that country, Mr Chiang Chie Foo. He gave the Occasional Address at the Melbourne Education Awards at the University of Melbourne on Tuesday March 12 on the topic ‘The Transformation of Learning’. We extended this invitation to Mr Chiang because Singapore is an exemplar among all nations in the culture that has been created to support efforts in all schools to achieve the best possible outcomes for its students. Every leader, including the Senior Minister and founder of modern Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, the Prime Minister, and the Minister for Education – indeed the whole of Singapore society – have made a commitment to the creation of an outstanding school system.

Writing in the first volume of his memoirs, Lee noted that ‘It had taken some time to see the obvious, that talent is a country’s most precious asset. For a small resource-poor country like Singapore, with 2 million people at independence in 1965 [now 4 million], it is the defining factor’ (Lee, 2000, p. 135).

The theme ‘Thinking Schools, Learning Nation’ was adopted in 1997 and announced by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong in opening the 7^th International Conference on Thinking (Goh, 1997). Mr Goh stressed that it was not a slogan: ‘it is a formula to enable Singapore to compete and stay ahead. . . . And to the individual, it offers satisfaction in being able to exercise innovation, demonstrate initiative and freedom to participate in improving his own life as well as his community and nation’ (Goh, 1997, p. 3).

That a transformation in learning is intended for Singapore is clear from the vision for Thinking Schools, Learning Nation’: ‘a holistic learning environment that puts the passion back into learning; accommodating young and questioning minds and encouraging non-conforming but creative thinking individuals’ (Thinking Schools, Learning Nation, 1999).

During my three-day visit, the nation celebrated the achievements of its students. The front-page story in the Straits Times on March 1 was about the outstanding performance of students in O-level examinations. About 80 per cent of students obtained five O passes. Moreover, there had been substantial improvement from already high levels. The improvement came for students in particular schools or particular communities where some had not attained success in the past. The story highlighted the changes in culture at the level of community and school, and referred to early identification of good students, additional coaching and remedial classes, and pep talks to parents (Davie, 2002, p. 1).

Teachers are central to the culture of high performance in Singapore. In his Teacher’s Day Rally Speech in 2001, Prime Minister Goh declared that ‘Teachers are the heart and soul of education’. Minister for Education Teo Chee Hean observed that ‘the teacher is central to everything we do in education. . . The continued strength of Singapore will therefore depend on our ability to produce good teachers, with the passion and commitment to inspire young minds and souls’ (Prime Minister Goh and Minister Teo are cited in National Institute of Education, 2002).

Singapore students have demonstrated their prowess for many years in international tests of student achievement, most notably in the two phases of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). They were at or near the top in each component of the study. The existence of a national culture that supports high performance was highlighted in a recent report:

Do nations differ in the extent to which education is valued as a means of social mobility, and, if so, is this related to differences in national levels of student achievement? In Singapore, for example, does the high value placed on developing human capital for the ‘knowledge-based economy’ serve to motivate students and educators alike to produce high levels of achievement in mathematics and science? To the extent that cultural values and traditions are important factors in producing this achievement, then such desired outcomes may well lie beyond the influence of educational policy governing schooling’. (Erling E. Boe ’Foreword’ in Toh and Pereira-Mendoza, 2002, iii)

This statement provides a starting point for the exploration of 12 issues that shape the culture for the achievement of high performance in schools in Australia. It is my view that educational policy governing schools can be changed to provide a framework for a more favourable climate at the local level.

1. How well are Australian students achieving when compared to counterparts in other nations?

The achievements of Australia’s schools are cause for celebration, if headlines in newspapers around the land in December 2001 are taken as a guide. Its students are among the very best in the world judging by the performance of 15 year-olds in tests of their capacity to apply knowledge and skills in reading, mathematics and scientific literacy to real life problems. A total of 265,000 students from 32 nations participated in the landmark Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) conducted by the OECD. Australia ranked fourth behind Finland, Canada and New Zealand in reading; fifth behind Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, and Finland in mathematics; and seventh behind South Korea, Japan, Finland, United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand in science. Australia also achieved high rankings in the two phases of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS and TIMSS – R) conducted in the mid- to late-1990s.

However, a more sombre mood took hold when deeper analysis revealed that the disparities among different groups of students were wider in Australia than in most other nations, favouring girls over boys, urban over rural communities, high socio-economic over low socio-economic settings, and non-indigenous over indigenous students. Geoff Masters, executive director of the Australian Council for Educational Research (cited by Ketchell, 2001) observed that ‘While it is true that on average we’ve done very well, Australia has one of the widest spreads of student scores’.

A range of indicators point to performance that falls short of expectations. Rates for retention to Year 12 differ in important ways. Nationally, 72 % of girls continue compared to only 60 % of boys. In urban settings, 67 % of students continue compared to 60 % in rural settings. Retention rates in urban areas have declined in the 1990s, falling from 71 % in 1994 to 67 % in 1998. The disparity for socio-economic status is marked, with only 60 % of low SES continuing compared to 76 % of high SES (MCEETYA, 1998).

The Kirby review of post-compulsory education and training in Victoria concluded that:

Victoria’s and Australia’s education and training for young people is mediocre, by international standards. Our levels of participation are poor, and the patterns of outcomes are too strongly skewed against certain groups and geographical regions. The linkages between education and training, employment and industry, and other support and safety net resources are weak. There is a lack of coordination between parts of the education and training systems, and there is a need for stronger and clearer vision. The system lacks accountability for all young people: many ‘fall through the cracks’. (Kirby, 2000, p. 7)

Some might contend that the wide disparities in student achievement indicated in the PISA project are inevitable, given that Australia has a greater diversity of cultures than most other nations, and the geographical dispersion of the population has few counterparts. They are unacceptable if Australia is serious in its policy intent, as set out in the Adelaide Declaration on National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-first Century (MCEETYA, 2000):

Governments set the public policies that foster the pursuit of excellence, enable a diverse range of educational choices and aspirations, safeguard the entitlement of all young people to high quality schooling, promote the economic use of public resources, and uphold the contribution of schooling to a socially cohesive and culturally rich society.

There is evidence that these and other disparities are becoming greater. Is such a trend sustainable? Not so, according to some scenarios, as illustrated in two of three outlined below. Each scenario is written in the future tense, describing an outcome in 2010 if certain events come to pass. It is stressed that these are not the only scenarios, but they are examples of credible constructions that commence with current circumstances.

Scenario 1: Government schools are safety net schools

It is 2010. The disparities among schools in terms of outcomes and resources that were evident in 2002 have widened, especially but not exclusively at the secondary level. About 60 per cent of secondary students attend private schools, reflecting a steady increase from about 40 per cent at the turn of the century. Parents became increasingly dissatisfied with education offered by schools owned by government and other public authorities. They left the system, prepared to invest ever-larger proportions of personal resources to assure their children success in a knowledge society, with access to the individual care and attention and the increasingly rich range of technologies necessary to achieve these ends. Most government schools are now simply safety net schools.

Scenario 2: The decline of schools

It is 2010. Schools are rapidly disappearing. A range of educational, technological and social developments overtook the institution that dominated the 20th century. Schools became increasingly dangerous places to be, a perception fuelled by media accounts of frequent violence and the prevalence of drugs. Combined with advances in information and communications technology, home schooling gathered momentum in the early years of the century. Support for secondary schools, in particular, fell dramatically when traditional approaches to curriculum, teaching, learning and organisation proved impervious to change. Innovative learning centres steadily replaced them, with many operated in public-private partnerships as government, parents and the wider community lost patience with the existing system.

Scenario 3: The transformation of schools

It is 2010. The disparities among schools in terms of outcomes and resources that were evident in 2002 have narrowed. There is agreement on expectations for schools and the values that should underpin the endeavour. Governments concentrate their efforts on creating a climate in which the whole community provides resources to support schools, with a demanding regime of accountability in the use of a steadily increasing pool of public funds. There is a range of innovative approaches in community-based learning centres and in the use of information and communications technology. There is still a place called school, but that place has been transformed after a decade of creative leadership.

Scenarios along these lines are not the daydreams of an idle academic. A conference on ‘Schooling for Tomorrow’ in Rotterdam in November 2000 led to the presentation in April 2001 to OECD Ministers of Education of a set of six scenarios (Istance, 2001). Two were described as ‘status quo’ (‘bureaucratic school systems continue’, ‘teacher exodus – meltdown’); two were described as ‘re-schooling’ (‘schools as core social centres’, ‘schools as focused learning organisations’); and two were described as ‘de-schooling’ (‘learning networks and the network society’, ‘extending the market model’). That OECD is prepared to contemplate such a range of scenarios is evidence that education, especially public education, has reached a watershed, and that transformation is inevitable if expectations are to be realised.

Kenichi Ohmae has captured the new reality in The Invisible Continent (Ohmae, 2000). Compared to continents that have clearly defined boundaries, geography that is visible, governments that hold power, and societies that celebrate unique cultures, the invisible continent has these characteristics.

4. The new continent draws on ‘highly individualistic values. Communities and families, or old-style establishment connections, do not determine worth in this world’.

Ohmae is in no doubt about the place of education. He states that ‘The most fundamental lever for success in the new continent is education’ and ‘education is the first and foremost priority for any nation’.

Preparing youngsters to comprehend the invisible continent and compete in its endeavours and explorations is the best investment that a government (or parents, for that matter) can make. (Ohmae, 2000, p. 227 – 229)

Agreement is emerging on what the returns on that investment should be, if documents from key international institutions, such as UNESCO and OECD, and the espoused policies of governments, are taken as a guide (Barber, 1999; Chapman, 1997; Chapman and Aspin, 1997; Delors, 1996; MCEETYA, 2000). This agreement amounts to a global consensus on expectations for schools and it may be summarised in these words:

All students in every setting should be literate and numerate and should acquire a capacity for life-long learning, leading to success and satisfaction as good citizens and productive workers in a knowledge society.

It is important to stress that this is just the common ground. Different nations, schools systems and schools will have their own special expectations. For Australia, these are evident in the Adelaide Declaration on the National Goals of Schooling for the 21^st Century adopted by the Ministerial Council for Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs adopted in 1999 (MCEETYA, 2000). The features that reflect the Australian context include reference to ‘an understanding and appreciation of Australia’s system of government and civic life’ (item 1.4) and to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (items 3.3 and 3.4).

4. What trends are occurring in other places as far as self-managing schools are concerned?

In relation to self-managing schools, it seems that Victoria continues to set the pace in Australia, with 94 per cent of the state’s recurrent budget for schools decentralised to the local level, an even higher level under Bracks Labour than under Kennett’s Coalition. It is the largest system of public education anywhere to have decentralised to this degree. There are important developments in other states, notably South Australia, with its Partnerships 21 project now attracting international attention (Spring, 2001).

There are, however, some aspects of the concept of self-management that need to be affirmed at this time, especially the importance of a centrally determined framework (Caldwell and Spinks, 1988, 1992 and 1998).

A self-managing school is a school in a system of education to which there has been decentralised a significant amount of authority and responsibility to make decisions related to the allocation of resources within a centrally determined framework of goals, policies, standards, and accountabilities. Resources are defined broadly to include knowledge, technology, power, materiél, people, time, assessment, information and finance. (Caldwell and Spinks, 1998, pp. 4 – 5)

We stressed that ‘a self-managing school is not an autonomous school nor is it a self-governing school, for each of these kinds of schools involve a degree of independence that is not provided in a centrally determined framework’ (Caldwell and Spinks, 1998, p. 5).

Evidence that a balance of centralisation and decentralisation is required comes from recent analysis of student achievement in 39 nations. The Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) was the largest international comparative study of student achievement ever undertaken. Information was gathered on a range of factors as part of the project, including student and family characteristics, resources and teacher characteristics, and institutional settings. Analysis of the performance of more than 260,000 students from 39 nations was undertaken at Kiel University in Germany and reported by Woessmann (2001a).

Among the policy settings that are favourable to student performance are the following:

· An intermediate level of administration performing administrative tasks and providing educational funding

· Individual teachers having both incentives and powers to select appropriate teaching methods

It is important to note that ‘centralised control mechanisms in curricular and budgetary affairs’ refers to centrally determined frameworks, not to the manner of implementation at the school level. In the case of budgets, this refers to the existence of a funding mechanism that specifies how funds shall be allocated to schools; schools then determine how these funds are deployed at the local level.

The connection between self-management and improved student learning is now becoming clear, with research at the University of Melbourne by Wee (1999) mapping the links. Indeed, there is now a relatively robust ‘theory of learning’ in self-managing schools (Caldwell, 2000; Caldwell and Spinks, 1998). Interest in self-management is now extending to developing nations, with a UNESCO forum in February 2001 sharing international experience of success with strategies that link self-management, enhanced professional development for teachers, community support for schools, and making learning for students more active and joyful.

The concept of autonomous schools has moved to centre stage with the release of a White Paper that contains the plans of the Blair Government for its second term (Department for Education and Skills, 2001a). Self-management, or local management, was one of several thrusts in the 1988 Education Reform Act of the Thatcher Government, extending to all schools in Britain a practice that had been successfully pioneered in several authorities as local financial management. The Blair Government went further by requiring local education authorities to decentralize a larger part of their education budgets to the school level (now approaching 90 per cent across all authorities). The Blair Government had previously abandoned the contentious reform of the Thatcher Government that created a number of grant-maintained schools, moving beyond self-management to self-government. These schools had a degree of autonomy and higher levels of funding that could be secured on the majority vote of parents in favour of a change in status.

Announcing the intentions of the Blair Government, Paragraph 5.5 in the White Paper (Summary Document) declares that ‘the best schools will earn greater autonomy’. The following excerpts illustrate how the process will work.

We propose to free the best secondary schools from constraints which stand in the way of yet higher standards. We will legislate to allow them to opt out of parts of the National Curriculum, for example to lead the development of thinking about Key Stage 4. And we will allow them flexibility over some elements of teachers’ pay and conditions, for example to allow schools to agree to a more flexible working day and year. Important elements of pay and conditions will remain common to all teachers. (paragraph 5.5)

But schools also need freedom to rethink the teacher’s role. Qualified teachers need to be allowed to concentrate on using their professional skills to raise standards, delegating other tasks to support staff where this is practicable. We will therefore legislate to give schools more freedom to innovate – sharing good teachers, for example. (paragraph 7.7)

Central to achieving higher standards is the confident, well-managed school, setting its own targets and accountable for its performance. Within the framework of accountability we have established, we want schools to have as much freedom as possible. (paragraph 8.1)

We want to reduce and simplify regulations that schools find burdensome. For example, we will make it easier for governors to provide childcare and loosen legislative constraints so that schools can more easily share resources and expertise, for example sharing an excellent team of subject teachers. (paragraph 8.2)

Prime Minister Tony Blair summarized intentions in these terms: ‘Deregulation will give all successful schools greater freedom and less central control. New freedoms over governance, the provision of community facilities, and engagement with external partners, will enable them to meet the needs of pupils and parents more effectively’ (Blair, 2001).

It is evident that the Blair Government is not creating autonomous schools. The outcome will be a higher degree of autonomy within a system of self-managing schools. A centrally determined framework remains but there is a degree of deregulation for schools deemed to be successful. There is an expectation that greater autonomy will improve outcomes for students.

5. Are competition and choice helpful or harmful in efforts to improve learning outcomes for students?

The analysis of TIMSS data by Woessmann (2001a) reported above included ‘competition from private educational institutions’ as a factor associated with high student achievement.

It is noteworthy that Woessmann does not consider government schools in Australia to have competition from non-government schools. This runs counter to the popular view that there is competition between government and non-government schools, and among government schools, since attendance zones for government schools were abandoned more than a decade ago. It also runs counter to the criticism that market forces have been unleashed to the detriment of the public interest with the introduction of self-managing schools and per capita funding in Australia.

Woessmann considers that there is an absence of competition because non-government schools in Australia receive substantial funding from the public purse. It would take many of the largest and wealthiest non-government independent schools to reject public funding before this condition would be satisfied.

The voucher option is often canvassed as a means of increasing choice and competition among schools in Australia. In reality, however, Australia already has a voucher scheme far more comprehensive than any found or proposed in other countries. The student is, in effect, the voucher. Whenever parents exercise choice and enrol their child in a non-government rather than a government school, that child carries several thousand dollars of public funds to the non-government school, and the government school loses funds under enrolment driven school-based resource allocation mechanisms.

A key issue is defined by the question: ‘Is competition helpful or harmful in efforts to improve learning outcomes for students?’ There is no research on the issue in Australia but recent studies in Britain and the United States suggest that there are benefits for students in communities where there is competition among schools. A study of competition among secondary schools in Britain in the late 1990s (Levacic, 2001) found that schools perform better, as indicated by the proportion of students achieving high grades in the GCSE examinations, in communities where there are a number of perceived competitors. It appears that this outcome is not determined by unfair ‘rivalrous’ conduct but by the greater stimulus to improve and maintain the school’s position and by the taking up of opportunities for cooperation in matters that may improve outcomes for students. The finding in relation to cooperation is interesting, suggesting that competition and cooperation are not mutually exclusive.

Experience in the United States also yields an unexpected finding in relation to competition. Nearly 2000 publicly funded charter schools have been established in a number of states in recent years. Many are owned and operated privately but are fully publicly funded. In some states, notably Florida, a quasi-voucher scheme has been established, providing funds for students in consistently failing schools to enable them to attend a private school of their choice. Studies have generally shown that there are few gains in student outcomes, except for students in low socio-economic settings. However, there is evidence that publicly owned and operated schools have ‘lifted their game’ in response to real or perceived competition.

A related issue is the impact of school choice on student achievement. The most significant study in the international setting is one carried out in Britain, with data from every secondary school in England and Wales from 1989 to 2000. The authors seem justified in their claim that is the largest study of school choice in publicly funded schools ever conducted.

Our finding, in contradiction to some smaller studies reported previously, is that the socio-economic stratification of school students declined after the introduction of choice policies. We also show that standards in publicly funded schools rose relative to those of private schools over the same period. (Gorard, Fitz and Taylor, 2001, p. 18)

The authors conclude that ‘the school system in England and Wales is certainly fairer than it was in 1989’ but properly reject the argument that the findings are solely an outcome of government policy on parental choice. On the other hand, they conclude that ‘market forces in education clearly do not lead, necessarily, to the kind of increasing stratification that we had feared’ and that choice ‘is certainly no worse, and probably a great deal better, than simply assigning children to their nearest school to be educated with similar children living in similar housing conditions’ (p. 22). Among a number of possible explanations:

Market reforms have worked insofar as they have allowed poor families to attend schools in areas they cannot afford to live in and encouraged schools to concentrate on improving examination scores. Out-of-catchment (out-of-neighbourhood) enrolment has thus increased among poor families. (Gorard, Fitz and Taylor, 2001, p. 21)

Most states in Australia have allowed out-of-catchment enrolments since the 1980s. While there are no counterpart studies to that reported by Gorard, Fitz and Taylor, it is likely that similar conclusions can be drawn. The evil often attributed to choice and market is no more likely to be found here than it is in Britain.

There was agreement during the recent federal election campaign that education was important, for each of the three major political parties and the majority of voters placed education near the top of their policy priorities. However, deep division over the funding of government (public) and non-government (private) schools surfaced once again. While Commonwealth funding for both sectors has increased in real terms in recent years, there was resentment among some interest groups that the increase had been greater for non-government schools, even though there had been a steady shift of students to that sector for several decades. Resentment was also directed at a new funding mechanism that resulted in significant increases for the most exclusive of private schools.

In Australia, battle lines are drawn at every election between those who see ‘public’ as synonymous with ‘government’ – public schools must be built, owned, operated and funded exclusively from the public purse – and those supporters of non-government schools who believe that their exercise of choice should not require them to pay two sets of taxes – one to the government which distributes only a portion to the school of choice and another to the school in the form of a fee.

International observers from Britain, Hong Kong, the Netherlands and New Zealand would be puzzled, for in these places there are few distinctions in approaches to public funding on the basis of who owns and operates schools. In Britain, most schools classified as non-government in Australia are part of the public system, administered by local education authorities. They are described as ‘maintained’ schools, with most funded on the same basis as publicly owned schools. In Hong Kong, only 8 per cent of students attend schools owned by government. The remaining 92 per cent attend schools owned and operated by churches, foundations, trusts and private entities but funded from the public purse on the same basis as government schools. In the Netherlands, it is unconstitutional and therefore illegal to differentiate funding on the basis of who owns the school. New Zealand took up the opportunity that was lost to Australia in the mid-1970s after the Whitlam Government accepted recommendations in the Karmel Report in 1973 that led to much higher levels of funding for non-government schools. In New Zealand, the Private Schools Integration Act of 1975 led to the voluntary integration of most private schools into the state system. Divisive debates about public and private schools have largely disappeared in these other nations.

7. Can the conflict over the roles of the Commonwealth and States be resolved?

International observers would, however, feel at home in other matters. Those from countries where there are national and state or provincial levels of government would be familiar with discourse in Australia, where education is constitutionally the responsibility of states or provinces, as it is in United States and Canada, respectively. In each of these countries the national government plays a role, for it is in the national interest that it do so, but it is also a necessary role, given the limited capacity of states and provinces to raise revenue for the public purse.

In Australia, it is only the Commonwealth that has the power to levy an income tax. The outcome is a perennial complaint from the states that the Commonwealth does not return sufficient funds to ensure a satisfactory level of service in fields such as education and health, which are state responsibilities. Whether the goods and services tax, levied by the Commonwealth but delivered to the states, will yield sufficient growth in revenue to counter the complaint remains to be seen. The field of Commonwealth-State Relations is complicated, and confusing to the community. For tertiary education, Commonwealth-State agreements have led to the Commonwealth providing the funds and mechanisms of control, even though the sector is constitutionally a state responsibility. For non-government schools, the arrangements for schools allows for gross distortions in headlines at election time, for it is the Commonwealth that provides the major share of public funds for non-government schools while the States provide the major share of funds for government schools.

There is no such confusion in nations where there is a unitary system of government, as in Britain, New Zealand and Singapore. Given that Australia is demographically a relatively small nation compared to, say, Britain, it would be in the national interest if constitutional arrangements were changed to make education a Commonwealth responsibility, administered through a network of local support for self-managing schools. In the absence of such arrangements, it is likely that confusion will continue, but it may be minimised if the revenue from the goods and services tax is high enough to allow states to take full responsibility for the funding of government and non-government schools, with agreement among the states on curriculum, standards and accountability frameworks.

8. Is there a counterpart in other nations to the perennial concern about levels of funding for schools?

A common concern in all countries is the level of resourcing for government (public) schools. While this is a perennial issue, it has been accentuated by the increasing costs of schooling as expectations have soared for state-of-the-art information and communications technology; smaller class sizes, especially in the early years; and buildings and other facilities to replace those clearly beyond their use-by date.

The commitment to free and compulsory education was made in the 19^th century when schools consisted of large classes, few professional staff other than teachers, blackboards and slates, and little equipment apart from a few maps and globes. There was considerable community commitment to and ‘in kind’ support of the local school. Public expectations could be met to the full without a financial contribution from parents, voluntary or otherwise. A similar situation applied to hospitals. In the early 21st century, expectations are rapidly outstripping the capacity or willingness of the community to meet through taxation the full cost of education and health.

Many believe more funds from the public purse will solve the problem. Australia ranks 12 out of 28 among OECD nations in expenditure as a percentage of GDP (McGaw, 2000, p. 19). The most recent data reveal that Australia is performing above the OECD mean on several key indicators, including total expenditure as a percentage of GDP; expenditure per student at primary, secondary and tertiary levels; and below the mean on the ratio of students to teaching staff at primary and secondary levels. Australia performs below the mean on indices for growth from 1995 to 2000 in public and private expenditure, and expenditure per student at tertiary level; but above the mean on indices for growth over the same period in expenditure per student at the primary and secondary levels.

Referring again to results in the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), Woessmann (2001b, p. 70) concluded that ‘no strong positive correlation exists between spending and student performance’ High spenders achieving high results include Japan. Low spenders achieving high results include Singapore, South Korea and Hong Kong. Australia was a mid-range spender achieving mid-range results. More fine-grained analysis led Woessmann to the conclusion that ‘per-pupil spending and smaller class size do not have positive effects, while having decent instructional materials and experienced, well-educated teachers do show positive results’ (Woessmann, 201, p. 71).

Against international benchmarks, then, it is a mixed picture. However, given the increasing costs to meet higher expectations and competing demands for limited funds in the public purse, it is certain that a re-ordering of priorities will be as important as additional funds.

We will continue to be challenged by issues of public and private investment in education. Tom Bentley, director of Demos, the independent think-tank in England calls for ‘shifting the way we see education from a separate sector of society to a culture that infuses every sector’ (p. 187). The implications for funding are profound, including ‘releasing ourselves from over-dependence on taxation and public spending . . . filtered through an expensive and slow-moving bureaucratic system’ (p. 180). However, as shall be shown later in connection with education action zones (EAZs) in Britain, increased support from business does not necessarily result in improved outcomes for students.

Interest is growing around the world on a needs-based approach to the resourcing of schools, and there is now a sturdy methodology for costing the various elements. The International Institute for Educational Planning of UNESCO published a report on needs-based resource allocation in education (Ross and Levacic, 1999; see also Goertz and Odden, 1999).

It seems that a parent contribution according to means is inevitable if expectations are to be realised. Tax incentives to encourage private support should be introduced. Innovative arrangements for more effective and efficient delivery of services should be fostered.

9. Can a national consensus on the need for and nature of reform be forged in Australia?

A high level of harmony among all with an interest in education will provide the best policy environment if there is to be long-term success in the project. Expressed bluntly, in strictly political terms, it is desirable that the framework be assembled through bipartisan effort. Ideological interests that have been preserved in partisan political platforms through decades of debilitating debate must be abandoned.

A notable example of such abandonment on the international stage is the approach of the two major political parties in Britain. Until the mid-1990s, Labour had taken the view that a public service should be provided by a public authority with public funds and that these arrangements should be exclusive. An ironclad commitment to comprehensive schooling offered by the publicly owned and operated schools of local education authorities was the prescribed policy. In contrast, the Conservatives, especially in the Thatcher years, had expressed their unbridled faith in the market, with a preference for the abolition of local education authorities and the creation of freestanding self-governing schools. These were positions based strictly on the old ideologies of Left and Right. Prime Minister Tony Blair articulated the alternative with his advocacy of absolute adherence to core values, but being ‘infinitely adaptable and imaginative in the means of applying those values’. There should be ‘no ideological pre-conditions, no pre-determined veto on means. What counts is what works’ (cited by Midgley. 1998, p. 44).

New Labour policy has reflected this approach. On assuming office in 1997, Blair kept most of the Conservative policy framework assembled in the 1988 Education Reform Act. While it abandoned the self-governing approach that had attracted only five per cent of schools under the Conservative’s opt-in scheme, it maintained national curriculum frameworks and encouraged a higher level of decentralisation of funds to the local level, being content with self-management rather than self-government. Significantly, however, it privatised services previously provided by public authorities in the London boroughs of Hackney and Islington, and opened the way for private management of failing public schools. Successful public schools can now be granted almost total autonomy while remaining publicly owned and publicly funded.

There has also been dramatic change in some aspects of public education in the United States. The most notable has been the willingness of public authorities in charge of some large city school systems to hand the management of part or all of the system to a private company in an effort to raise the level of student achievement. A noteworthy example (Steinberg, 2001) is in Philadelphia, one of the 10 largest urban systems in the nation. Despite a number of well-conceived reforms in recent years that led to modest gains, more than half of the city’s students failed to achieve a basic level of comprehension in state tests of literacy and numeracy. With the blessing of the mayor of the city (a Democrat), responsibility for the system has now been handed to the state governor (a Republican) who set up a five-person panel to run the system. It is expected that the management of up to 60 of 260 schools will be handed to a private company, probably Edison Schools, in an endeavour to lift performance.

These examples from Britain and the United States are offered as illustrations of the approach advocated by Tony Blair that ideologies must be set aside in favour of ‘what works’ in the achievement of expectations, underpinned by an ‘absolute adherence to core values’.

An example of thoughtful and constructive advocacy along these lines is presented in Don Edgar’s recent book entitled The Patchwork Nation: Re-thinking Government – Re-building Community (Edgar, 2001). Edgar served as Foundation Director of the Australian Institute of Family Studies. His first career was in classroom teaching. He balances the needs of the individual and the needs of the nation in these terms:

Clearly, the processes and structures of education in Australia will have to change. Though the global economy seems to be the main driving force, my argument is that education is the key to a more active democracy, a more civil society in which individuals can achieve their own goals while not forgetting the value of the community which supports them. (Edgar, 2001, p. 188)

We have had a century or more of largely successful effort in the public sector with responsibility in the hands of discrete government departments each reporting to a particular minister. What happens at a government or public school is largely a matter for the department and a responsible minister. Yet the problems to be addressed in closing the gap are complex and demanding of attention of those who work in different departments, or elsewhere, outside government and in the private sector.

While inter-department cooperation and freewheeling boundary spanning have been evident, it is only in recent times that signs of a major shift in culture that fosters even higher levels have been seen. That shift has resulted from a backward-mapping approach, starting from a focus on people and a problem, then selecting a strategy to address the problem, then designing and delivering a constellation of services and resources, without consideration of organisational boundaries except where the public good test is not satisfied. This linear process is made more complex because there is rarely a single problem to address and rarely a single solution. Governments that have taken this approach now speak of ‘joined up solutions to joined up problems’ and advocate breaking down organisational boundaries. They use the metaphor of a silo to describe the isolation of a government department.

On 31 January 2001, the Hon Lynne Kosky, then Minister for Post Compulsory Education, Training and Employment in Victoria announced the creation of 15 Local Learning and Employment Networks (LLENS) as a further response to the Kirby Report. The following summarises the nature of the new partnerships and how they are consistent with global trends.

The Victorian Government is committed to the development of strong partnerships with industry, local government and the community. Partnerships in which each of the partners contributes expertise and resources, based on shared understandings about such things as transparency, priorities and respect for the different roles of each partner. The Government expects that these partnerships will provide more integrated and responsive policy development and service delivery.

This is consistent with global trends in the relationship between governments, industry and civil society. Increasingly governments are establishing broad frameworks for the delivery of government-funded programs and services, to be delivered by a range of organizations through diverse approaches. (from Introduction and Policy Overview to statement on LLENs available on http://www.deet.gov.au).

LLENs call for higher levels of boundary spanning than ever before in Victoria, and this will mean new roles for principals in networking with leaders in a range of public and private organizations and agencies. Many principals have had experience in boundary spanning of another kind through full-service schools, with a recent evaluation (James, St Leger and Ward, 2001) finding a powerful impact on learning and the support of learning.

Intentions for LLENS are impressive, but the challenge lies in implementation because of the complexity of the linkages and the difficulty of breaking the silo culture. The challenge should not be under-estimated if progress in 73 education action zones (EAZs) in Britain is taken as a guide. There are similarities between LLENS and EAZs and other initiatives that have been taken under New Labour. However, despite several significant achievements, the Blair Government will not continue with EAZs beyond the statutory lifetime of five years from the date of their establishment.

More than 2000 schools have joined an EAZ. Links have been made with more than 1000 businesses. Additional cash and in-kind support is likely to exceed £300 million over the course of the project. However, the impact on learning outcomes was mixed. School standards Minister Stephen Timms reported that:

The most significant impact has been made in primary schools, where achievement continues to rise faster than the national rate. The challenge for zones now is to bring about comparable improvements at secondary level. Some zones are matching or outpacing the national improvement rate, but considerable work remains to be done, particularly at Key Stage 3 [equivalent to years 7 to 9 in the Australian setting] where the rate of improvement is still not matching the national figures’ (cited in Department for Education and Skills, 2001b).

The Blair Government plans to combine EAZ schools with its flagship Excellence in Cities initiative.

The lesson from the EAZ experience for Australian initiatives such as Victoria’s LLENs is that, while the establishment of innovative networks and partnerships is desirable and feasible, the challenge lies in making an impact at the level of the learner, and this challenge is greater at secondary than at primary levels.

11. Will education reform prove to be an unbearable burden for the profession?

There have been many positive developments in the profession in recent times. For example, the numbers of people seeking to become teachers are increasing. On the other hand, the numbers who leave the profession are also increasing, and at a faster rate in some places. Internationally, at least among several western nations, there is a crisis in these matters, and a failure to resolve it is one of the six OECD scenarios referred to earlier (‘teacher exodus – meltdown’) (Istance, 2001). In the United States, there is evidence that the nature of teachers’ work is at the root of the problem. The data show ‘that the amount of turnover accounted for by retirement is relatively minor when compared to that associated with other factors, such as teacher job dissatisfaction and teachers pursuing other jobs’ (Ingersoll, 2001, p. 499).

For many, the burden of seemingly endless change, may be a cause for dissatisfaction. A key issue, then, is the extent to which further reform will add to that burden. If the integrating theme in education reform is innovation, and if there is not to be an accretion of new tasks on old, it follows that a capacity for systematic abandonment is as important as a capacity for systematic innovation. Drucker (1999) calls for ‘organised abandonment’ for products, services, markets or processes:

The resolution or management of every issue addressed in this paper calls for abandonment of one kind or another, regardless of the scenario. Abandonment applies to attitudes and ideologies as much as it does to policies, priorities and practices.

12. What should be the major elements in a new policy framework for schools?

Several reasons were stated at the start of the paper for gaining a knowledge and understanding of developments in other nations. First, to the extent that systems of education have common aspirations, strategies that have led to success in other nations may be adopted or adapted in the local setting, and strategies that have proved unsuccessful elsewhere may be set aside in the search for solutions. Second, problems that appear intractable in the local setting may be the subject of fresh enquiry leading to possible resolution when approaches in other nations are critically examined. Third, knowledge of approaches in other nations may suggest possibilities for critical scrutiny in the search for alternatives. Fourth, local policy and practice can be affirmed with knowledge that others have adopted similar approaches and have achieved success.

What is reported in this paper suggests that the following policy intentions are worthy of close examination.

These are statements of policy intention. They form the basis of policy, the formulation of which calls for the determination of guidelines for action. Policies, in turn, form the basis of legislation, with implementation through regulations, funding arrangements and agreements between the different levels of government.

The outcome is intended to be the transformation of schools along the lines of the third scenario set out in consideration of issue 2: ‘What may occur if current disparities are not addressed?’

A policy framework along the lines proposed here calls for innovation that may lead to overload for the already stretched professional. Innovation must be balanced by abandonment. Abandonment applies to attitudes and ideologies as much as it does to policies, priorities and practices.

Above all, there should be frank acknowledgment that the issues addressed in this paper are serious enough, in some cases centred on seemingly intractable problems, that a new policy framework is required for schools at the start of the 21^st century. Transformation in nations like Singapore demonstrates that dramatic change is possible within a relatively short period of time. Such a framework will help create a culture in support of schools as they seek to fulfil their commitment to achieve the highest levels of achievement for all students in all settings.

Barber, M. (1999) A World Class School System for the 21^st Century: The Blair Government’s Education Reform Strategy, No. 90 in a Seminar Series of the Incorporated Association of Registered Teachers of Victoria (IARTV), December [ISBN 1 876323 31 0] [reprint of a paper presented at the Skol Tema Conference in Stockholm in September 1999].

Bentley, T. (1998) Learning Beyond the Classroom: Education for a Changing World, London: Demos.

Caldwell, B. J. (2002) ‘No resting on our laurels, schools need a shape-up’, The Australian, March 4, p. 2.

Caldwell, B. J. (2000) ‘Local management and learning outcomes: Mapping the links in three generations of international research’ in Coleman, M. and Anderson, L. (Eds) Managing Finance and Resources in Education, London: Paul Chapman Publishing, Chapter 3, pp. 24 – 40.

Caldwell, B. J. and Spinks, J. M. (1988) The Self-Managing School, London: Falmer Press.

Caldwell, B. J. and Spinks, J. M. (1992) Leading the Self-Managing School, London: Falmer Press.

Caldwell, B. J. and Spinks, J. M. (1998) Beyond the Self-Managing School, London: Falmer Press.

Chapman, J. (1997) ‘Leading the learning community’, Leading & Managing, Vol. 3, No, 3, pp. 151 – 170.

Chapman, J. and Aspin, D. (1997) The School, the Community and Lifelong Learning, London: Cassell.

Davie, S. (2002) ‘Schools’ Success Strategies Pay Off’, The Straits Times, March 1, p. 1 (http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/education/story/0,1870,105612,00.html)

Department for Education and Skills (2001a) Schools Achieving Success, White Paper, London: DfES.

Department for Education and Skills (2001b) ‘Continued support for Education Action Zone schools’, Report of School Standards Minister’s Address to 7^th EAZ Conference, November 14.

Drucker, P. F. (1999) Leadership Challenges for the 21st Century, Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.

Edgar, D. (2001) The Patchwork Nation: Re-thinking Government – Re-building Community, Sydney: HarperCollins Publishers.

Goertz, M. E. and Odden, A. (Eds) (1999) School-Based Financing, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Goh, C. T. (1997) ‘Thinking Schools, Learning Nations’, Speech by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong at the Opening of the 7^th International conference on Thinking, Singapore (06/02/1997).

Gorard, S., Fitz, J. and Taylor, C. (2001) ‘School choice impacts: What do we know?’ Educational Researcher, 30, 7, pp. 18 – 23.

Ingersoll, R. M. (2001) ‘Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis’, American Educational Research Journal, 38, 3, pp. 499 – 534.

Istance, D. (2001) The OECD Scenarios and their Implications for Management, Leadership and Governance, Occasional Paper No. 73, IARTV (Incorporated Association of Registered Teachers of Victoria), December. (This paper is available from IARTV, 82 Jolimont Street, Jolimont, Victoria 3002).

James, P., St Leger, P. and Ward, K. (2001) Making Connections: The Evaluation of the Victorian Full Service Schools Program, Melbourne: Department of Education, Employment and Training.

Ketchell, M. (2001) ‘Teen reading skills up with world best’, The Age, December 5.

Kirby, P. (Chair) (2000) Ministerial Review of Post-Compulsory Education and Training Pathways in Victoria, Final Report, Melbourne: Department of Education, Employment and Training.

Lee, K. Y. (2000) From Third World to First: The Singapore Years: 1965 – 2000, New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

Levacic, R. (2001) An analysis of Competition and its Impact on Secondary School Examination Performance in England, Occasional Paper No. 34, National Centre for the Study of Privatisation in Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, September.

National Institute of Education (2002) Moulding Lives, Shaping Tomorrow, Singapore: NIE.

McGaw, B. (2000) ‘International comparisons of expenditure in education’, Unicorn, Journal of the Australian College of Education, Vol. 26, No. 2, July, pp. 18 – 23.

MCEETYA (2000) The Adelaide Declaration on the Goals of Schooling and other documents of the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs may be obtained from the MCEETYA website at http://www.curriculum.edu.au/mceetya.

MCEETYA (1998) National Report on Schooling in Australia 1998, Melbourne: MCEETYA.

Midgley, S. (1998) ‘Third Way: A challenge for all in education’, Times Educational Supplement, 26 June, pp. 44-45.

Ohmae, K. (2000) The Invisible Continent: Four Strategic Imperatives of the New Economy, London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

Ross, K. N. and Levacic, R. (Eds) (1999) Needs-Based Resource Allocation in Education via Formula Funding of Schools, Paris: UNESCO.

Spring, G. (2001) Frontline Services and the New Economy: Schools as the Units of Innovation, Presented at the Policy Network Education Workshop on the theme ‘Frontline Services: Unleashing the Energy’, British Council, London, September 2001, published as No. 109 of the Seminar Series, IARTV (Incorporated Association of Registered Teachers of Victoria), December. (This paper is available from IARTV, 82 Jolimont Street, Jolimont, Victoria 3002).

Steinberg, J. (2001) ‘In largest schools takeover, State will run Philadelphia’s’, New York Times, December 22.

Toh, K. A. and Pereira-Mendoza, L. (2002) The Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) – A Look at Singapore Students’ Performance and Classroom Practice, Singapore: National Institute of Education.

Woessmann, L. (2001a) ‘School Resources, Educational Institutions, and Student Performance: The International Evidence’, Kiel Institute of World Economics, University of Kiel (available at http://www.uni-kiel.de/ifw/pub/kap/2000/kap983.htm). Presented at the Annual Conference of the Royal Economic Society, Durham, April 9 – 11, 2001.

Woessmann, L. (2001b) ‘Why students in some countries do better: International evidence on the importance of education policy’, Education Matters (an international journal available on the internet at http://www.edmatters.org), Summer, pp. 67 – 74.

Wee, J. (1999) ‘Improved Student Learning and Leadership in Self-Managed Schools’, Unpublished thesis for the degree of Doctor of Education, University of Melbourne.

The achievements of Australia’s schools are cause for celebration if headlines around the land in December 2001 are taken as a guide. Its students are among the best in the world judging by the performance of 15 year-olds in tests of their capacity to apply knowledge and skills in reading, mathematics and scientific literacy to real life problems. Students from 32 nations participated in the OECD Program in International Student Achievement (PISA). Australia ranked fourth in reading, fifth in mathematics and seventh in science.

Deeper analysis, though, revealed that disparities among students were wider in Australia than in most other nations, favouring girls over boys, urban over rural, high socio-economic over low socio-economic, and non-indigenous over indigenous. This is a serious situation for a nation that seeks to make its way in a knowledge economy, and an indictment of efforts to achieve the goals of schooling in the 21^st century, as agreed in the 1999 Adelaide Declaration by ministers of education who resolved to set policies that ‘safeguard the entitlement of all young people to high quality schooling’.

The policy framework for school education in Australia has remained unchanged for decades. The disparity revealed in PISA is one of five seemingly intractable problems. Dramatic change is required.

The first problem of endemic disparity must be addressed with unrelenting policy priority on achievement for all students in all settings. A rigorous regime of accountability is required in the allocation of commonwealth funds to states and, within states, in the use of resources at the school level.

The second problem concerns the distribution of authority and responsibility. It is nearly fifty years since distinguished educationalist Freeman Butts observed the extraordinary level of centralisation in Australia’s school systems. While a generation of modest change followed the landmark Karmel report of 1973, it is only Victoria, and to a lesser extent South Australia and Tasmania, that has created a system of self-managing schools. Important decisions, including the selection of staff, must be made locally if the needs of each school’s unique mix of students are to be addressed. Decentralisation of decision-making was an important factor accounting for differences among nations in PISA and the earlier Third International and Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). The commonwealth should require states to empower schools in this fashion as a condition of its grants.

Australia continues to be divided on the matter of funding government and non-government schools, and this constitutes the third problem to be addressed in a national agenda. Battle lines are drawn at every election between those who see ‘public’ as synonymous with ‘government’ – public schools must be built, owned, operated and funded exclusively from the public purse – and those supporters of non-government schools who believe that their exercise of choice should not require them to pay two sets of taxes – one to government which distributes only a portion to the school of choice and another to the school in the form of a fee. Observers from Britain, Hong Kong, the Netherlands and New Zealand would be puzzled, for in these places, there are few distinctions in public funding on the basis of who owns and operates the school. In the Netherlands, for example, it is unconstitutional and therefore illegal to do so. In Britain, most schools classified as non-government in Australia are part of the public system. Divisive debates about public and private schools have largely disappeared in these nations, and there should now be a determined effort to achieve the same outcome in Australia.

A range of alternatives warrants attention. Following the lead of other nations will require non-government schools to cease charging tuition fees in return for full public funding, with the same regime of accountability as government schools. Non-government schools that do not choose to be integrated in this fashion would not be funded from the public purse and would be truly independent. Tax credits for tuition fees warrant closer examination. At the very least, new partnerships of government and non-government schools should be encouraged and a private role in the ownership of public schools should be initiated. Interestingly, it is the Bracks government in Victoria that is taking the lead in these matters, after extending the achievements of the Kennett government in self-managing schools.

A related fourth problem is the ambivalence in Australia about competition and choice. Conventional wisdom suggests that competition is harmful and choice leads to ‘sink schools’, drained of top students who congregate in schools of choice by parents able and informed enough to exercise it. Recent findings in Britain confound these views. Secondary schools perform better in communities where there is competition. This outcome is not achieved by unfair rivalry but by the greater stimulus to improve and maintain the school’s position, and by taking up opportunities for co-operation in matters that may improve outcomes for students. Socio-economic stratification of schools has declined over 12 years of school choice. Market reforms have allowed poorer families to choose schools in communities they could not afford to live in.

The enhancement of teaching is the fifth problem. In the final analysis, achieving better outcomes for all students is dependent on the quality of teaching. Governments must invest in programs for the continuing professional development of teachers on a scale that has not been contemplated in the past, with expectations for accreditation and re-accreditation to match those in the medical profession. A national college for school leadership to match that created in Britain by the Blair government warrants serious attention. Initial teacher education is seriously under-resourced. It is extraordinary that universities and their faculties of education receive no funds from the commonwealth to meet the costs of internships in schools. This would not be countenanced in the funding of faculties of medicine. The best teachers should be encouraged to stay in the profession by improving the conditions of work, in school buildings and with technology that are suited to the 21^st century.

The vision is of a national system of self-managing schools in a new partnership of commonwealth and states, abandoning the divide between government and non-government schools, with a well-prepared profession that is comfortable in a challenging framework of accountability, securing high levels of achievement for all students in all settings.

[1] Brian J. Caldwell is Professor of Education and Dean, Faculty of Education, University of Melbourne. This paper was presented as an Invited Keynote Address at the Principal and School Development Programs on the theme ‘Developing a Positive School Culture’, Geelong, March 3 and 20, 2002.

[2] Brian Caldwell is dean of education at the University of Melbourne.

A STRATEGIC APPROACH TO SCHOOL CULTURE IN AN ERA OF TRANSFORMATION IN LEARNING

Scenario 1: Government schools are safety net schools

Scenario 2: The decline of schools

Scenario 3: The transformation of schools

There are, however, some aspects of the concept of self-management that need to be affirmed at this time, especially the importance of a centrally determined framework (Caldwell and Spinks, 1988, 1992 and 1998).