Professor Tony Vinson's report to Council

(February 15, 2003)

Few inquiries into social issues in our country have been more transparent than the Independent Inquiry into Public Education. The strengths of the system were identified, as well as its limitations, with the assistance of literally thousands of parents, teachers and students, and scholars working in the education field. The community forums were open, submissions made in electronic form were posted on the web site, and periodic reporting of the issues arising from the inquiry processes was used to encourage debate. The reasoning behind the Inquiry's recommendations was explicitly stated in the report.

What emerged was a balanced recognition of the fundamental assets of the system - to which I would now add the candour of the new Director General in acknowledging areas of the Department in need of improvement - government initiatives, past and current, deserving of commendation, as well as shortcomings that, if not corrected, threaten the wellbeing of the public education system. Unless that quality system bequeathed to us by generations of dedicated teachers and parents is reinvigorated, it could become the system you entrust your child to if you're too poor to afford something better.

To restore public education to strong health 86 recommendations were presented. Some involve considerable additional expenditures, others involve no new outlays. The total cost of what is proposed overall is within the ambit of state expenditures on public education around Australia. However, the Inquiry fully realised that not everything that it recommended could be achieved in one fell swoop. Hence the recommendations have been explicitly framed as a ten-year plan, a plan that fundamentally draws its authority from the experiences and needs of those directly involved in public schooling. Unless that plan or something similar to it is adopted as a framework for re-developing the public education system then the system will simply drift towards second-class status. It's not a case of lacking quality foundations. The public education system is like a somewhat neglected prestige car - the built-in quality and performance are unmistakable but money needs to be invested and a major tune-up needs to occur if the full potential of the vehicle is to be realized. A wax and polish certainly would not go astray either. Nor would some reconsideration of the pay and working conditions of those who keep the vehicle ticking over. But even as things stand there is much impressive strength lying beneath the bonnet of the vehicle. The time for an overhaul is now and further postponement of that course will negatively impact the lives of hundreds of thousands of young people.

The stage of public consultation has passed. We are in danger of substituting talk for corrective action, a dangerous sign in a country where mountains of words are spoken or written on issues of community well being, with little practical outcome, while decisions are taken in double quick time about things like deploying troops, curtailing citizens' legal protections and expanding the penal estate. It's time to stop digging ever-deeper holes and to begin spending our community's resources on socially constructive measures that prevent problems. No other single field of government investment makes as much contribution to the health, sociality and productivity of citizens as sustained, quality school education. When it comes to public education let's heed Elvis Presley's words of wisdom from the grave: "A little less talk and a bit more action, please".

What could reasonably have been expected by this stage? Let me remind you that it's now just under five months since the final section of the Education Inquiry Report was tabled. Given that the report has its genesis in the experiences of thousands of parents, students and teachers and given that the proposals have been progressively revealed since May of last year, it would not be unreasonable to expect the contenders for government to be responding to the overall plan and its interrelated elements. The plan has been devised in a way that invites our political institution to go beyond the politics of incremental placation and chart a course for the longer-term development of one - if not the most important - of its areas of public administration. It should after five months have been possible to identify key reforms that should be implemented and the way in which that implementation should be staged. It would be perfectly understandable if some elements of the plan were tagged as requiring more protracted consideration, while other elements - not too many considering the genesis of the plan - might be argued to be ill-advised or unattainable. The important thing is that a substantial beginning be made accompanied by a strong sense of future directions.

What has been the response so far?

There is not time to deal with each and every recommendation so I will group them under the headings used in the plan presented in the final report. It could be that further announcements are impending in which case I hope my comments will provide a backdrop against which to evaluate the potential of what is proposed.

Teaching practice, professionalism and governance The Inquiry has presented evidence that a good start to schooling has beneficial carry forward effects that can inoculate students against many of the educational and behavioural problems that can set them on a troubled course in life. This is especially true of children from disadvantaged backgrounds and the crucial launch period stretches from pre-school through the early years of schooling. Several factors contribute to a 'good start' but sophisticated long-term research that enables the contributions of different influences to be separated out shows that class size has an independent and significant cumulative effect. The scientific evidence is very strong and cannot be displaced by short-term "pilot projects" lacking the technical design features of the major, long-term studies in the field. These include the random allocation of teachers and students to different arrangements, the replication of the experiments, and treating the findings as hypotheses for re-testing with different data.

To date, the Coalition's policies say nothing about pre-school but judged from the point of view of the Inquiry's findings, the Coalition's position on small class sizes is the strongest feature of its education policies. The undertaking to set K-2 class sizes at an average of 21, beginning with schools serving disadvantaged communities and gradually extending the policy to other areas approximates to the recommendations of the Inquiry.

It is a pity that the final step could not be taken and the recommended maximum of 20 observed. Perhaps more serious is the adoption of the idea of an average for the benefits demonstrated by the rigorous research are based on a definite ceiling, not average teacher/student ratios which could fluctuate from figures well below the prevailing levels to those not far removed from the current norms. A promising policy initiative could become an evidence-supported one - a comparatively rare event in Australian social policy - if a fixed maximum class size were to be stipulated. The ALP has, to its credit, undertaken to increase the number of pre-schools attached to primary schools although the Inquiry believes the scale of that initiative needs to be increased to help ensure that disadvantaged children obtain the benefits of that experience. With regard to the issue of small class sizes, the ALP is this year running what it calls a "Class Size Pilot" with 63 schools getting an extra teacher to reduce the size of approximately 200 classes from kindergarten to year 3. More than 500 schools said to already have "smaller classes" will "participate in teaching and learning and professional development aspects of the pilot".

One hundred schools will be evaluated. There will be a control group of 63 schools.

There may exist a technical protocol setting out the design of this project and it may be that this plan is inadequately reflected in what has been published. However, one can only conclude from the published material that the "class size pilot project" lacks the technical design features that would enable it to make a serious contribution to knowledge of the effects of class size.

The Inquiry found that the quality of teaching in our schools ranges from excellent and innovative to staid and un-involving. Improving the methods of teaching children and young people of varying potentials should be near the top of the list of priorities of an organization whose fundamental business is education. The Inquiry has found that this is not the case in NSW and has indicated ways forward. The local and international evidence shows very clearly that improved teaching practice requires a combination of

i) the promotion of other approaches by the education authority and support for teachers contemplating their use,
and
ii) the exchange of teaching practice information and experience between teachers within and across schools. The Inquiry has recommended particular means of achieving these goals, including the creation of an electronic storehouse of relevant, teacher-friendly information and the means of disseminating home-grown teaching innovations.

As far as I am aware, the ALP has yet to make a policy declaration in this area but a recent Coalition policy release promises an advocate within the education bureaucracy (a Chief Teacher) to champion the cause of teaching and learning in our schools. In terms of the Inquiry's observations, the policy correctly identifies the Department's loss of educational focus and its detachment from what is happening in classrooms, staffrooms and playgrounds as a major concern. In other words, the policy shows awareness of the lack of alignment between the Department and its major purposes and goals. However, the Inquiry sees the correction of this flaw as residing in the reform of the structures and the motives of management personnel across the Department, as well as the provision of necessary funding (especially for professional development which at present is appallingly inadequate). Teacher improvement is not cost neutral. The creation of an advocate or rescuer role, in isolation, would not eradicate existing bureaucratic practices that are likely to sink the best efforts of any advocate, although the Chief Teacher role could be helpful in consolidating a new order once it is established. That new order must have as a cornerstone clearly articulated statements of purpose that make a unity of the endeavours of all administrative units, paramount among which should be supporting teaching and learning. There needs to be representation of frontline teachers and their practical experiences in the Department's top management group. A greatly enhanced capacity to plan and evaluate educational innovations must be created if teaching practice is to be constantly improved. Both contenders for government have yet to comment on these issues.

The Coalition agrees with the Inquiry that the rate of change to curricula has an adverse impact upon the ability of teachers to concentrate on teaching and learning. This rapidity of change is largely in the hands of the Board of Studies. One of our recommendations is to integrate the Board of Studies into the Department of Education and Training so that educational changes and the general management of the system, including the provision of resources to the schools, can be better aligned. Curiously, the Coalition policy speaks of retaining the Board of Studies, which we had not understood to be an issue, but says nothing of the administrative framework in which it should operate.

The Inquiry rates the provision of advanced educational opportunities within comprehensive schools as the single measure most likely to raise the quality of education within the public system and, as a consequence, the image and attractiveness of public schools. The Inquiry has presented a plan for achieving this in the realisation that, for example, comprehensive high schools account for 94 per cent of students beginning their secondary education. It requires almost a belief in the mystical powers of the selection procedures to feel that the most able students find there way into the 6 per cent of Year 7 places within Selective Schools. The statistics on who takes the relevant test, among other things, should challenge that article of faith. It also amounts to a most pessimistic view of our young people to believe that the remaining 94per cent does not contain a large number of students who need to be academically extended in their own and society's interests.

Both the ALP and the Coalition would continue to operate the existing 27 selective high schools with the Coalition proposing an additional six partially selective schools in Western Sydney and one fully selective school in North Western Sydney. The stated motive for increasing the number of selective schools - social equity - is, in itself, commendable. The Inquiry believes that there are sound reasons for continuing to evaluate the gains and losses of the separate schooling of some able students but having once been trampled upon by an enraged sacred cow in full flight is in no rush to repeat the exercise. What we seek to point out is that the Coalition' s plan would probably add another 1-2 per cent of the Year 7 intake attending selective schools and therefore hardly dint the challenge of extending the academic abilities of able students in the comprehensive schools. What is needed is to put aside the mental set that in our state equates enhanced education with segregated schooling. It is the process of educational extension and the body of knowledge that guides it that should be in the foreground, not the merits of a separate venue.

Another teaching issue to command the attention of the Inquiry is the frequent unavailability of a casual teacher when one was needed. The difficulty of securing a suitable casual disrupts student learning with days all but lost or occupied with fill-in activities. We observed that much of the time of many principals is absorbed in making endless telephone calls chasing suitable casuals. The problem is a serious one. So much so that feedback concerning it was provided to the authorities in the early stages of the Inquiry. Therefore, it was pleasing to see measures designed to ease the problem being adopted in 2002 culminating in the recent publication of an ALP Plan. Some of the main elements of the plan include a Call Centre that is intended eventually, upon request, to find casual staff for schools across the state, using computerised records of available casual staff; what are termed 'flying squads' of permanent teachers providing the services of casual staff will be subject to trial in hard-to-staff regions and additional squads will provide a similar service in specialist subject areas; extra teachers in hard-to-staff schools; in-built pools of teachers in schools who agree to take extra periods each week if one of their colleagues is sick or unavailable. In the opinion of the Inquiry, The measures that are now proposed for adoption bear the marks of being a serious response to what emerged in the Inquiry as a serious problem. Nonetheless, it was the view of many teachers, particularly those nearing retirement, that the limit to the effectiveness of the scheme will be the extent to which potential casual staff feel that the broader system is being re-invigorated and problems like student discipline seriously tackled.

Student welfare and discipline

The Inquiry recognised that in the practical world it is necessary to protect and respect the rights of staff and other students by the exercise in some cases of disciplinary sanctions, including suspension and exclusion. However, the experience of teachers and administrators and our own observations confirmed the need for a range of responses additional to traditional discipline if we are to build respectful and productive learning communities and retain young people of school age in education and training. Many student behaviour problems are imported into school and need to be dealt with by:

• 'Circuit-breaker' temporary placements in small behaviour-focused classes,
• Placement in special treatment or 'behaviour' schools,
• Involvement of school counsellors or other community agencies, and
• Mental health consultations and treatment where necessary. Teachers in troubled areas need no reminder of the national psychiatric survey evidence that mental health problems among school-aged young people are at a high level.

The Inquiry has been impressed by what it has seen of existing 'circuit breaker' measures and the behaviour schools, and the work of school counsellors although the number of the latter needs to be greatly increased. To the Government's credit it has already recruited a substantial number of additional counsellors - but I am unaware of any projections concerning the remainder of the recommended 700 to bring the ratio of counsellors to students to approximately 1:1,000. The Inquiry also outlined a set of criteria for selecting additional counselling and community-link staff in particularly troubled schools. A less consistent approach seems to have been adopted but the initiative of providing special support for 40 Priority Action schools at least acknowledges the need to focus support in localities affected by social and crime problems.

With regard to mentally disturbed students, the Director of NSW Mental Health Services lent support to a recommendation that mental health school liaison officers be appointed for a trial project to assist with the management of students whose behaviour lies outside the boundary of teachers' professional competence. I am unaware of any political response to this recommendation. In the absence of a relevant policy the behaviour of many students with mental health problems will continue to bewilder their teachers and the students will simply tread water until they leave school.

In addition to responding to the needs and problems of individual students, many schools previously beset with major discipline problems have been 'turned around' by school level measures detailed in the Inquiry report. The measures do not involve going soft on behavioural expectations but rather invite responsible conduct and student involvement in the maintenance of an effective and considerate school community. We called these measures 'proactive discipline'. No policy undertakings have yet been forthcoming that capitalise on the invaluable experience of schools that have benefited from this approach here in our state, as well as overseas. The Coalition's policy speaks of strengthening school discipline codes and who would take exception to the proposals that swearing at teachers be banned, that distracting items should be confiscated and teachers and principals supported in making clear and strong decisions on discipline. But the inherent limitations of relying entirely on traditional discipline start to become more apparent when the policy declares: "Ensure that all students who are suspended undertake a comprehensive study program whist they are away from school." It is to be expected that public institutions in many realms, including education, will from time to time require the close involvement of the police in dealing with problems for which they have expertise and authority. That is common ground between the contending parties, as evidenced by the Government's statement of 11th February on its "Safer Schools Plan". But the Coalition's notion of posting police on a continuing basis to troubled schools, in the absence of positive discipline policies, ignores the reality that behaviour problems can have a variety of causes. It does little to improve matters while there is a better opportunity to do so than after young people move on from school. For me the most disturbing revelation of the Inquiry was the corralling in a special compound at one school of misbehaving students whom everyone knew required specialised mental health assistance that was not available. A good discipline policy will admit of many possible courses of action, including the involvement of police for specific purposes, but their involvement will be quite secondary to other educational and social measures.

Integration of students with disabilities

Furthermore, a recommendation that the procedures for applying for integration funding be streamlined is now policy. Another of the Inquiry's recommendations acknowledged that some school districts have many more integration students than others requiring, in the view of the Inquiry, local integration coordinators to make the best possible use of local resources (including specialist teachers). An undertaking has been given to explore that possibility further. A recommended increase in the number of appropriately trained specialist teachers to work one-on-one with students with learning difficulties has so far drawn no response from the Government. The Coalition has yet to declare itself concerning the effective handling of the integration of students with disabilities.

Social disadvantage

The Inquiry believes that its proposal would make a significant contribution to improving social equity and the morale of teachers working in the schools in question. But so formidable is the educational challenge that gains considered modest in some quarters would be major achievements within disadvantaged schools. That is why the Coalition's proposed introduction of performance tables to enable parents to assess the performance of government schools is completely at odds with the insights and findings of the Inquiry. It would involve ascribing to school programs outputs that are heavily influenced by the social backgrounds of students and the presence or absence of pro-education influences in their lives. This is not only clear from the Inquiry report but also from the international studies conducted by the OECD. All that would be achieved from implementing the proposal would be the demoralisation of some disadvantaged school communities that stand greatly in need of support and encouragement of the kind implicit in the Coalition's smaller class size policy. The performance tables proposal is so ill advised that the laudable course would be to withdraw it. There are other positive ways of lifting the performance of disadvantaged groups, such as improving the application of Aboriginal Education policy, and the education of children 'in care', outlined in the Inquiry report but as yet to be commented upon by the contenders for office.

One form of educational disadvantage that has attracted the Coalition's attention is that facing regional students and their teachers when it comes to accessing educational opportunities that are taken for granted in metropolitan areas. The proposed course of action - a Rural Education Taskforce - is not what we proposed but that, of course, is the prerogative of the parties. However, in the light of the evidence presented to the Inquiry it will be hard to avoid reaching the conclusion that what the local school managers need to close the urban/rural education opportunity gap is supplementary funding.

Buildings and amenities

Notwithstanding the recent letter by a public school principal to the Sydney Morning Herald (January 29, 2003) declaring that his school has "magnificent buildings", visits to more than 150 schools convinced the Inquiry that that this was frequently not the case.

Sometimes the conditions were disgraceful. The poor environment in which many teachers and students work was described in our report but thinking about the issue the better part of six months later, I wonder whether we erred on the side of under-emphasising the scale of refurbishment needed. With the increased levels of expenditure now occurring on asset replacement and refurbishment the situation should improve over the next decade provided there is no slippage on the current undertaking. What is needed is a simple indicator showing whether the gap between need and provision is widening or closing. Those presently 'making do' need and deserve that information but neither side of politics has yet undertaken to provide it.

Vocationally relevant education

Conclusions

Other areas of concern have attracted more attention from the ALP, for example, pre-schooling, recruiting casual staff, and the integration of students with disabilities.

In yet other matters the two contending parties have both responded to issues but with a major difference of emphasis. For example, with student welfare and discipline, the Coalition places greater stress on restoring traditional means of control while the ALP emphasises extending an already existing range of services intended to deal with the social and personal factors underlying poor behaviour.

Over and above these differences, there remains a formidable list of issues and concerns that were important in the Inquiry but which have yet to draw a response from the contending parties. Meeting the needs of very able students in comprehensive schools is one such matter, others include pro-active forms of discipline, the provision of mental health support to schools, increasing the presence of able, experienced teachers in disadvantaged schools, ways of responding more adequately to disadvantaged groups of students, vocationally relevant education, and the state of buildings and amenities.

The Inquiry has been a highly democratic process. However, its quest of facilitating a society-wide discussion of key issues in public education will be incomplete until that list of matters on which neither side of politics has declared itself, is substantially shortened.

Will that quality vehicle so proudly maintained by previous generations, receive the overhaul it requires and deserves if it is to meet the needs of our most precious asset, our children?

Printable version of full speech

Carr sends Watkins to stall for time

©2000-2002 NSWTF Online is a resource for teachers
provided by the NSW Teachers Federation.
[Authorisation of election comment] [Privacy]

http://www.nswtf.org.au/journal_extras/febcoun.html
Last Modified: 15 Nov 2005