My response to the 5-year Productivity Inquiry Interim Report.
A time-pressed and "brief comment".
Listen to the podcast segments of Ideology in Education (at 12:12 and 11:28 respectively) based on this blog post for the Teacher’s Education Review below 👇.
If you have been keeping up with education news recently, you will be aware that The Productivity Commission has recently release their Productivity Inquiry Interim Report. Shortly after releasing the report, the Sydney Morning Herald published a piece addressing some of the more provocative reform suggestions that generated some rather heated discussions online.
I should first admit however, that this was brought to my attention by Real School CEO Adam Voigt’s tweet below:
Sounded like something ripe for interrogation.
Unfortunately, it should have been no surprise to me that having just under three weeks to complete a thorough response is not enough time. Therefore, I have had to limit my submission to a “brief comment” due to time pressures.
This post includes my submission in response to Interim report 5 on the 21st of October, 2022 at 11:42pm (with all of 18 minutes left to spare!).
A “brief comment”.
To whom it may concern,
Thank you for your concern for education in Australia and taking the time to consider what possibilities might be available to improve our education system. However, three weeks is simply not enough time to develop a considered response to a 119-page document developed over a period of five years by a large team of individuals. I will limit my submission to a “brief comment” as a result.
I appreciate the way the report acknowledges some of the nuances involved in education (such as the recognition that ‘technology is not a silver bullet’) and that the benefits of education ‘extend beyond improved productivity’ (p. ix). But I do wish to note my concern in relation to one (as this is all I have time for) of your suggestions for reform.
It seems that the only evidence indicating that something is awry with Australia education is that ‘academic results for foundational skills such as reading, writing and numeracy have been flat for over a decade’ (p. ix). Referring to Section 2.5 Disrupting the school model, it is suggested that we ‘reconsider approaches to school’ (p. 38) to ‘arrest and reverse these declines’ (p. ix). Nawarddeken Academy is used as an example of innovation through their curriculum approach ‘which links people’s desire for environmental and social outcomes on their own land with an alternate school education that works for their children’ (p. 39). I agree that these kinds of innovations are valuable and important. However, this whole report is grounded on the belief that education ought to be something that is efficient and yields a suitable return for investment. Innovative approaches such as those highlighted in the case of Nawarddeken Academy are valuable, but it is unclear how it is expected that these approaches will ‘arrest and reverse’ (p. ix) declines in PISA and NAPLAN performance.
Nevertheless, this example is used to justify policy borrowing from the UK and America to incorporate more privatisation to the Australia school system. This is followed by poor evidence regarding the effectiveness of these reforms in raising educational outcomes. Furthermore, if PISA really is valued as an accurate reflection of the quality of our education system, why would Australia look to poorer performing countries such as the United States for possibilities of reform? Furthermore, why not consider the education system reforms of higher performing countries than the United Kingdom, such as Ireland or Canada? There are alternatives that need to be considered.
Regards,
Tom Mahoney