 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
SETTING
THE STAGE FOR REAL EDUCATIONAL REFORM By...Brian J. Caldwell |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Education in Australia has been in a state of continuous change for several decades. This change has been profound in many respects. There is a widely held view, however, that there has been much change but little reform. There are enduring concerns about the overall effectiveness of the system of education, especially when international comparisons are made across a range of indicators, including linkages between education and the requirements of a new economy in an era of globalisation. There are major disparities in educational achievement for students in different communities. The system is under-resourced. Conflicts about public and private education have not been resolved. These issues will move to centre stage in 2001 with elections at the national level and in several States. Education is certain to be near the top of policy priorities and the positions taken by different parties may well determine the outcomes. This paper outlines the scope of these landmark debates that will help shape the framework for real reform in the first decade of the century. Judgements about progress in educational reform in any nation should be judged against expectations. Those expectations should take account of (a) the nation's history and heritage, (b) the feasibility of goals and targets, (c) the commitment and capacity of those charged with implementation to deliver the desired outcomes, and (d) the resources available to support the effort. In the case of Australia, the outcomes are admirable when viewed in international context, and much can be learned from the experience, but current achievement falls short of expectations in a number of important areas. That is why so much attention is being paid in this year of national elections to the next stage of educational reform. Hopefully, we are setting the stage for real reform to the extent that what are, by international standards, high expectations will be realised in the first decade of the 21st century. This paper is organised in four parts. The first provides a brief outline of the system of education in Australia. Particular attention is given, here and elsewhere in the paper, to education at the school level. The second outlines the expectations for school education as these are set out in The Adelaide Declaration on National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-First Century. An assessment is made of the extent to which this declaration is consistent with the emerging global consensus on expectations for schools and whether it is consistent with values that underpin a sense of' 'the public good'. The third provides a summary and assessment of policy and performance in bringing these intentions to realisation. Assessment draws on benchmarks for policy settings derived from research in an international study of student achievement. Performance is assessed in terms of the values underpinning 'the public good'. The fourth part proposes an agenda for action if intentions are to be realised. A national perspective is adopted throughout. This may serve as a point of reference in assessing the adequacy of policies that may be proposed in the forthcoming national election in Australia. Illustrations are provided from Victoria in some instances, for it is in this State that education reform has been the most sweeping over the last decade, particularly in respect to decentralisation within a centrally-determined framework, with the author playing a role in designing, implementing and researching those elements of reform that involve self-managing schools (school-based management). The final part also makes reference to a recent project of the Australian College of Education (ACE) and the Australian Council for Educational Administration (ACEA) that led to The National Declaration on Education 2001, announced at the Australian Education Assembly in April 2001, an event organised to mark Australia's centenary as a nation (see Australian College of Education, 2001) . School education in Australia The starting point is a brief account of school education in Australia. The nation is a federation of six States and two Territories that came together a century ago in 1901 as the Commonwealth of Australia. Education is a State responsibility, but the Commonwealth (national) government plays an important role, since it raises most of the funds for the public purse, and these are disbursed to the States and Territories in a series of conditional and un-conditional grants. The structure of schooling is similar to that in many nations, with a year of pre-primary, six years of primary and six years of secondary being the pattern for most students. As far as governance is concerned, there are government schools, owned and operated by State or Territory governments, and these are generally referred to as public or state schools. There are also non-government schools, owned and operated by churches and other private bodies. The majority of non-government schools are organised in systems, with most of these being systems of Catholic schools. Other non-government schools are often referred to as independent schools. As far as finance is concerned, government schools are fully publicly funded and may not charge fees for tuition. However, most raise additional funds through non-compulsory levies and a range of fund-raising endeavours. Non-government schools charge a fee for tuition but also receive government grants on a scale reflecting the resource base of the school's community. The Commonwealth provides most of the public support for non-government schools. Most systematic Catholic schools receive the larger part of their funding from the public purse. In 1998, there were 3,198,655 students in 9,587 schools in Australia's eight States and Territories. Their distribution in government, Catholic and independent schools in 1998 is summarised in Table 1. A noteworthy feature of Table 1 is the declining proportion of students in government schools when levels of schooling are considered The proportion in government schools falls from 73.4% in primary to 63.3% in senior secondary, with most of the shift being to independent non-Catholic schools, increasing from 7.7% in primary to 15.6% in senior secondary. A trend to non-government schools has been under way for some time. A decade ago 72.1% of students were in government schools and 8.4% were in independent non-Catholic schools. The proportion in Catholic schools has remained stable (19.5% in 1991 and 19.7% in 1998). Table 1 Percentage
distribution of students in Australian schools in 1998
There is a national framework for school education in Australia, even though the constitution of the country leaves to the States the power to make laws on the subject. This framework has been shaped in important ways by the financial power of the Commonwealth government that makes grants to the States. States are heavily dependent on these grants. There will be a change in arrangements in the years ahead when the total proceeds of a Goods and Services Tax, introduced by the Commonwealth in 2000, flow to the States. There has also been realisation, gathering momentum over the last quarter century, that it is in the national interest to have a national framework. This, in its own right, is a significant reform. The national framework has been determined by the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) which comprises State, Territory, Commonwealth and New Zealand ministers with responsibility for the portfolios of education, training, employment and youth affairs. The functions of the Council include coordination of strategic policy at the national level, negotiation and development of national agreements on shared objectives and interests (including principles for Commonwealth / State relations) in the Council's areas of responsibility, negotiations on scope and format of national reporting on areas of national responsibility, sharing of information and collaborative use of resources towards agreed objectives and priorities, and coordination with, and collaboration between, related national structures. (MCEETYA, 2000) A significant achievement of MCEETYA has been the formulation of National Goals for Schooling. Agreement was reached at a meeting in Adelaide hence its designation as The Adelaide Declaration. It supersedes an earlier agreement in 1989 in The Hobart Declaration. The intentions in The Adelaide Declaration may be viewed in several ways. First, they are examined in the light of the emerging international consensus on expectations for schools, as espoused in a range of publications of UNESCO and OECD, and statements of national policy in many nations. Second, they are tested against a view of 'the public good' in education that has its foundation in core values. Consistency with international expectations A global consensus is emerging on expectations for schools, 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). That consensus 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 successful and satisfying work in a knowledge society and a global economy. Since all governments are seeking to achieve this outcome, it seems an appropriate contemporary view of expectations for a world-class school system and a world-class school. It is important to stress that this statement summarises the common ground Different nations will, of course, have their own special expectations. It is clear that The Adelaide Declaration is consistent with this international consensus. There are features that reflect the Australian setting, including reference to 'an understanding and appreciation of Australia's system of government and civic life' (item 1.4) and the references to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (items 3.3 and 3.4). As far as globalisation is concerned, intentions are consistent with current thinking about the sweeping transformation of society that is now under way. Kenichi Ohmae, who coined the concept of 'the borderless world', has captured the new reality in The Invisible Continent (Ohmae, 2000), in contrast to the five continents that have clearly defined boundaries, geography that is visible, governments that hold power, and societies with unique cultures. He contends that there are four characteristics that 'help explain why some immigrants thrive on the new continent and others fail to gain a foothold':
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 that '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) MCEETYA (2000) has reflected the global context and the importance of education in its view of knowledge for the learning society. In the information economy, quality education and training is fundamental to the well-being of individuals, communities and nations. Schools, vocational education and training providers and universities all have a key role to play in contributing to Australia's development as an equitable, imaginative and economically strong knowledge society. Education and training will continue to grow in importance as Australia's economy and society become more knowledge-based and globally integrated. Information and communications technologies (ICT) offer the sector a vast array of opportunities to deliver its services better, more accessibly and more cost-effectively, while taking full advantage of the benefits of networked learning communities. These technologies are also exposing the sector, as well as the community generally, to the challenges of global competition. (MCEETYA, 2000) Consistency with values defining 'the public good' The first five words in the emerging global consensus on expectations for schools ('all students in every setting') suggest a place for values in the assessment of intentions for school education. Six are proposed as the basis of a test of the 'public good' in the formulation of policy.
The first five are drawn from a classification proposed by Swanson and King (1997). Three are based on the classic trio of liberty (choice), equality (equity) and fraternity (access). The Adelaide Declaration satisfies the public good test in impressive fashion. One statement in the Preamble is particularly striking: 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. Item 1 in the list of National Goals declares that 'schooling shall develop fully the talents and capacities of all students' while item 3 sets out a range of intentions to ensure that 'schooling is socially just'. A concern for harmony is evident in items 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 in relation to the support of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and the value placed on cultural and linguistic diversity. Policy settings and policy outcomes Efforts to bring these intentions to realisation are examined under two headings: policy settings and policy outcomes. A brief assessment of progress is made in each instance. Policy settings The following summarises the policy settings for the realisation of intentions. Constitutional and funding arrangements ensure that there are national, state and local considerations but there are international elements to the extent that Australia participates in projects such as the Third International Mathematics and Science Study. There is agreement on the national goals of schooling, as set out in the Adelaide Declaration (1999). Reaching such agreement in this and the earlier Hobart Declaration (1989) is a significant new policy setting after more than a century without a national framework. The Commonwealth government provides grants for particular purposes related to the achievement of intentions and, in the case of grants for improvement in literacy, a condition of the award of these grants is participation in a national system of benchmark tests. Each State has adopted a curriculum and standards framework in the eight key learning areas specified in the national goals. There is no national framework of curriculum and standards. Each State has developed its own scheme for assessing student achievement in several key learning areas, most notably in literacy and numeracy. There is public release of state-wide achievement scores but there are no 'league tables' of school performance. Schools receive their own results, often accompanied by outcomes in schools in similar settings. There is now a relatively high degree of decentralisation in systems of government schools, which have traditionally been highly centralised. Schools have more responsibility and authority for budget, personnel and curriculum but must operate within centrally-determined frameworks. This decentralisation, known variously as school-based management, local management or self-management, is most evident in Victoria where more than 90 % of the State's budget for schools has been decentralised to the school level. This has required the development of a funding mechanism to determine the amount to be allocated to each school. Each school has a charter that specifies how it will address centrally-determined expectations and respond to local needs. There are annual and triennial reviews of performance against charter priorities. There is a measure of choice within systems of government schools as students are no longer required to attend the school that is nearest to their homes. There is choice between government and non-government schools, with the latter supported by grants from State and Commonwealth governments in the manner described earlier. There are major concerns about the extent to which these policy settings are enabling the achievement of intentions such as those in The Adelaide Declaration. These are taken up in the next section but a key issue is whether these policy settings are conducive to improvement. The answer is in the affirmative if the findings of a recent international study are taken into account. 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 including the extent of centralisation in examinations, distribution of responsibilities between centre and schools, teachers' and parents' influence in decision-making, extent of competition with independent private schools and incentives for students. Analysis of the performance of more than 260,000 students from 39 countries was undertaken at Kiel University in Germany and reported by Woessmann (2001). Regression analysis yielded interesting findings that are certain to create much discussion and debate.
Woessmann (2001, p. 79) concludes 'the only policy that promises positive effects is to create an institutional system where all the people involved have an incentive to improve student performance'. He suggests that nine features are favourable to student performance: Central examinations
Before commenting on the extent to which arrangements in Australia are consistent with the Woessmann prescription, there are some important observations to make about the list. First, '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 budget, 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. Second, Woessmann is cautious about the findings on the influence of teacher unions. It is important to record his caution because the matter is contentious (see Steelman, Powell and Carini 2000 for findings that suggest unions have a positive impact on educational performance). He notes that the indicator of influence in the study might serve as a 'proxy for the effect of a standard salary scale as opposed to merit differentials in teacher pay' (p. 81). In general, policy settings in Australia are consistent with the preferred characteristics and these may account in part for the nation's strong standing in TIMSS and its improvement in the repeat TIMSS-R. Australia ranked seventh out of 38 countries in year 8 and 9 science in TIMSS-R (behind Taiwan, Singapore, Japan and South Korea among nations in the Asia-Pacific region). It ranked thirteenth in mathematics (behind Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan and Canada among nations in the Asia-Pacific region). Executive Director of the Australian Council for Educational Research Geoff Masters suggested that the results indicate that Australian students are receiving a world-class education and noted that, while there had been significant improvement over five years, 'the challenge is to improve even further' (cited in Yaman 2000). This study provides evidence on an international comparative scale of the efficacy of approaches such as school-based management, local management or self-management that are set in a centrally determined framework. There is now a relatively robust 'theory of learning' that underpins such developments (Caldwell, 2000; Caldwell and Spinks 1998; Cuttance and IBPP Consortium, 2001; Hillier 1999; Wee 1999). It is noteworthy that Woessmann does not consider government schools in Australia to have competition from private educational institutions. The reason is that all 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 a parent exercises choice and chooses to enrol a student in a non-government rather than a government school, that student 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. Policy outcomes It is clear that governments at Commonwealth and State levels have placed a high priority on programs in literacy and numeracy and good progress has been made to the extent that performance in TIMSS-R suggests that achievement is arguably world-class. There is further evidence of progress in a report on national benchmark tests of literacy for year 3 students (MCEETYA, 1999). Across Australia, 86.9 % of students achieved the benchmark. There were, however some differences among groups that are cause for concern. A higher proportion of girls (89.7 %) than boys (84.9 %) achieved the benchmark. Only 66.1 % of indigenous students achieved the benchmark. National priorities in school education, as reflected in the most recent national report (MCEETYA 1998), include literacy, citizenship education, the arts, vocational education and training, and provision for socioeconomically disadvantaged students. In most States there is also concern for the middle years of schooling, in the transition from primary to secondary after 6 or 7 years of the former. A range of indicators point to performance that falls short of expectations. The values that underpin a sense of the public good are not satisfied. 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). A recent review of post-compulsory education and training in Victoria (Kirby 2000) concluded that:
In general terms, the policy settings appear about right in terms of the balance of centralisation and decentralisation. By international standards, as reflected in scores on TIMSS and TIMSS-R, Australian students are doing well at primary and early secondary levels. There is clearly a need for further reform, as indicated by lower levels of achievement in the national benchmark literacy tests of boys compared to girls, and indigenous students compared to non-indigenous students, and the serious disparities in achievement in the later years of secondary schooling when location, gender and socio-economic status are considered. The values of equity, access and harmony in a test of the public good are in serious jeopardy. Setting the stage for real reform The stage is set for a national election before the end of 2001. Public opinion polls and declarations of the major political parties suggest that education will be one of the highest priorities. Whether this will affect the outcome of the election is uncertain, for government at the national level has not been won or lost in the past on the basis of differences in education policy. It may be that a slowing economy and continuing concern about the introduction of the new Goods and Services Tax will, in the final analysis, determine the outcome. There are, nonetheless, signs that this will be an important year for policy that may lead to further reform. Opposition commentator on education Mark Latham notes that 'in recent years it has become popular for commentators and politicians to talk about "reform fatigue". In fact, he argues, we are at the beginning, not the end, of a major period of change' (Latham 2001, p. 104). Debate will range over many issues. These will likely concern resources and building capacity to effect further change. This change will be dramatic, for there is a need to radically transform or re-engineer the system of school education if expectations are to be realised. There will clearly be innovation on a large scale, but this innovation must be balanced by the abandonment of approaches that have been the hallmarks of practice in the past. These issues are addressed briefly in this final part of the paper. A recent broadly based effort to re-define expectations is reported. Resources and capacity The major political parties at the Commonwealth level have recently announced plans for higher levels of funding in education (the governing Liberal-National Coalition policy were released under the title Backing Australia's Ability and the Opposition Labor Party has adopted the broad rubric of Knowledge Nation). There is, however, much debate about the adequacy of current levels of resources. Australia traditionally compares its performance against other nations in OECD. The most recent OECD (2001) data reveal that Australia is performing above the mean on several key indicators, including expenditure per student at primary, secondary and tertiary levels; and ratio of students to teaching staff at primary and secondary levels. Australia performs below the mean on total expenditure as a percentage of GDP, 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. It is performance on total expenditure as a percentage of GDP against the OECD mean and on indices for growth that form the basis for the most critical appraisals, especially when that performance is judged against that of the major developed countries in the OECD group. A recent report to the Chifley Research Centre (Considine, Marginson and Sheehan, 2001) concluded:
This paper is particularly concerned with education reform at the school level. Given the claims to be made for additional support from the public purse for other public sector services, and a slowing economy, it may be that a re-ordering of priorities will be required to focus on students whose achievement levels fall short of expectations. Considerable attention has been given to the matter of class sizes in the early years of primary education, with 20 students now generally the target in Australia. In Britain, New Labour's sweeping educational reforms were based around a target of 30. The focus may be on 'education action zones', as in Britain, where efforts to garner additional resources from the private sector have been moderately successful, along with the forging of new relationships between public and private sectors at all levels in education and across boundaries, within and among the fields of education, health, business and industry. Such an approach was recently introduced in Victoria in the wake of the Kirby Report (2000). Fifteen Local Learning and Employment Networks (LLENs) have been created to help link education at the senior secondary level with technical, further and higher education institutions, and with business and industry. The intention is to improve retention rates and make education and training more relevant. In the final analysis, much depends on the knowledge and skills of teachers, so a high priority on professional development is called for. This was the key to success in early literacy. Some re-structuring of organisational arrangements and the curriculum and standards framework is also suggested in the years of transition, from early childhood to primary, in the middle years across the boundary of primary and secondary, and at senior secondary in the post-compulsory years of education and training. Transformation There is a need to design the transformation of schools for the knowledge economy at the same time that further reforms are made to address issues of equity, access and harmony. Latham (2001) presents this argument in forceful fashion. He asserts that 'the creation of a learning society demands something more substantial than fiddling with institutional structures and shuffling resources between the public and private sectors' (p. 3) and that 'at a time when education needs to match the dynamism of the new information economy, Australia's institutions are locked into the worst habits of the Industrial Age' (p. 5). Governments need not start from scratch in school or post-secondary education:
We will have the opportunity at the University of Melbourne to help create the education revolution. We are a strategic partner in the successful Digital Harbour bid to develop the Commonwealth Technology Port at Melbourne Docklands. This will be part of the new face of the city in the decade ahead. Our strategic partners include Telstra, Australia's largest and now international telecommunications company. We will help design a twenty-first century school that will network in every sense, not only in the utilisation of information and communications technology, but in the partnerships it forms with more than twenty new economy industries that will surround it. New approaches to learning shall focus on creativity, imagination, innovation and problem-solving. Should plans come to fruition, the Faculty of Education at the University of Melbourne will locate part of its operations at the Centre for Innovation in Learning that will be adjacent to and operate in partnership with the school. We are finding that the boundaries are being broken in every possible way as planning proceeds. It seems that all of government and all of the university will have a role to play, and new approaches to public-private partnership will be formed. Beare (2001) contends that schools 'may well be forced into remaking themselves into shapes which bear little resemblance to the patterns of the traditional school'. He offers reassurance, however, by tracing the ways in which schools have changed in incremental fashion over the last century or so, and demonstrating how the major elements of the future school are already evident. Balancing innovation and abandonment Australia, like other nations, will also be challenged to balance innovation and abandonment. Expressed another way, new approaches to resourcing and building the capacity of schools, and the more fundamental transformation of schools for the knowledge society, will involve a host of innovations and new ways of doing things. If those involved in implementation are not to be crushed by the burden of change, there must be as much abandonment as there is innovation. The term is used here in the sense proposed by Drucker (1999) who called for 'organised abandonment' of things:
Re-defining the expectations The Australian College of Education (ACE) and the Australian Council for Educational Administration (ACEA) conducted a joint project over the last 12 months that culminated in The Declaration for Education 2001, formally presented at the Australian Education Assembly in April 2001 to the Commonwealth Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. The declaration is set out in attachment 2. A report of the process and the text of the declaration was published by the Australian College of Education in a special edition of Unicorn in July 2001 (Australian College of Education 2001). A series of community forums was conducted across the nation. Experts with a range of views were consulted. Three questions were posed: 1. What are you proud about in Australian education over the past century? What achievements should we celebrate and cherish, and what things should we preserve at all costs? 2. In what ways does Australia's educational achievement need to be improved? What are schooling's present strengths, inadequacies, and challenges? 3. What strong aspirations or hopes do you hold for Australian education as the nation enters upon its second century? The editorial team noted The Adelaide Declaration on National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-First Century (attachment 1), but concluded that 'helpful though the document is, we were disappointed to find that it is regarded as an expert or in-house document, that its existence is not widely known about among the community members we consulted around Australia, and that even educators, parents and leading citizens know little about its content' (Australian College of Education, 2001, p. 6). The editorial team heeded the advice of Peter Karmel, who has been influential in his own right in shaping much of the framework for reform over the last 30 years. Karmel advised that 'without a statement of priorities, long lists of goals come close to being meaningless' for 'it is inconceivable that all goals can be fully met'. He counselled that any list should 'limit the goals sufficiently to give them practical content and give some indication of priorities' (Australian College of Education 2001, p. 6). The list in attachment 2 is therefore best read as a set of priorities to shape the effort in the decade ahead. Conclusion It is clear that the reform of Australia's schools has achieved much. The Adelaide Declaration is an exemplar. The policy settings seem about right to ensure high levels of achievement as indicated on international indicators such as the TIMSS-R. However, closer scrutiny reveals that at least half of the values that underpin a sense of the public good in school education are not satisfied. A broadly based project has recently re-defined expectations to address these shortcomings. The Declaration for Education 2001 provides a framework for the formulation, implementation and evaluation of policy in the decade ahead. An incremental approach to further reform will not suffice, especially when the requirements for education in a knowledge society are taken into account. This is the field of contest in a national election in Australia's centennial year. REFERENCES Australian College of Education (2001) 'A National Declaration for Education 2001: A Summary of Propositions' and 'A National Declaration for Education 2001: A Report of the Findings', Unicorn, Vol. 27, No. 2, July 2001, pp. 3 - 26. Barber, M. (1999) A World Class School System for the 21st 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]. Beare, H. (2001) Creating the Future School, London: Falmer Press. 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 2. 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. Considine, M., Marginson, S. and Sheehan, P. (2001) The Comparative Performance of Australia as a Knowledge Nation, Report to the Chifley Research Centre, June. Cuttance, P. and IBPP Consortium (2001) School Innovation: Pathway to the Knowledge Society, Report of the Innovation Best Practice Project (IBPP) commissioned by the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Australia, Canberra: DETYA. Delors, J. (Ed) (1996) Learning: The Treasure Within, Paris: UNESCO. Drucker, P. F. (1999) Leadership Challenges for the 21st Century, Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. Hillier, N. (1999) 'Educational Reform and School Improvement in Victorian Primary Schools 1993 - 1999', Unpublished thesis for the degree of Doctor of Education, University of Melbourne. Kirby, P. (Chair) (2000) Ministerial Review of Post-Compulsory Education and Training Pathways in Victoria, Final Report, Melbourne: Department of Education, Employment and Training. Latham, M. (2001) What did you learn
tod@y, Crowsnest NSW: Allen and Unwin. MCEETYA (1999) National Report on Schooling in Australia 1999 Preliminary Paper: 1999 Year 3 Reading National Benchmark Results, Melbourne: MCEETYA. MCEETYA (1998) National Report on Schooling in Australia 1998, Melbourne: MCEETYA. OECD (2001) Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators, Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Ohmae, K. (2000) The Invisible Continent: Four Strategic Imperatives of the New Economy, London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing. Steelman, L. C., Powell, B., and Carini, R. M. (2000) 'Do teacher unions hinder educational performance: Lessons learned from state SAT and ACT scores', Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 70, No. 4, Winter. Swanson, A. D. and King, R. A. (1997) School Finance: Its Economics and Politics, Second Edition, New York: Longman. Woessmann, L. (2001) 'School Resources, Educational Institutions, and Student Performance: The International Evidence', Kiel Institute of World Economics, University of Kiel Presented at the Annual Conference of the Royal Economic Society, Durham, April 9 - 11 [available at http://www.uni-kiel.de/ifw/pub/kap/2000/kap983.htm].. Yaman, E. (2000) 'Classroom worldbeaters find the right formula', The Australian, December 7. Wee, J. (1999) 'Improved Student Learning
and Leadership in Self-Managed Schools', Unpublished thesis for
the degree of Doctor of Education, University of Melbourne. AUTHOR Brian J. Caldwell is Professor and Dean of Education at the University of Melbourne. His interests lie in educational leadership, educational policy, educational finance, and the management of change in education, especially where authority, responsibility and accountability are decentralised to the school level within a centrally-determined framework of goals, policies, standards and accountabilities. His international work over the last decade includes presentations, projects and other professional assignments in 28 countries, including Australia, Bahrain, Canada, China (Hong Kong SAR) , England, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Israel, Kenya, Korea, Japan, Laos, Malaysia, Mauritius, Myanmar (Burma), New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Thailand, United Arab Emirates and the United States, with several assignments for OECD, UNESCO, UNICEF, World Bank and the Asia Development Bank. He is co-author of books that have helped guide educational reform in a number of countries, most notably the trilogy on self-managing schools: The Self-Managing School (1988), Leading the Self-Managing School (1992) and Beyond the Self-Managing School (1998). He is a Fellow of the Australian College of Education and the Australian Council for Educational Administration. He was President of ACEA from 1990 to 1993 and was awarded its Gold Medal in 1994. Professor Brian J. Caldwell e-mail: b.caldwell@edfac.unimelb.edu.au web-site: http://www.edfac.unimelb.edu.au/EPM/StaffProfile/BCaldwell.shtml
Attachment 1 THE ADELAIDE DECLARATION ON NATIONAL GOALS FOR SCHOOLING IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY (MCEETYA 2000)
Australia's future depends upon each citizen having the necessary knowledge, understanding, skills and values for a productive and rewarding life in an educated, just and open society. High quality schooling is central to achieving this vision. This statement of national goals for schooling provides broad directions to guide schools and education authorities in securing these outcomes for students. It acknowledges the capacity of all young people to learn, and the role of schooling in developing that capacity. It also acknowledges the role of parents as the first educators of their children and the central role of teachers in the learning process. Schooling provides a foundation for young Australians' intellectual, physical, social, moral, spiritual and aesthetic development. By providing a supportive and nurturing environment, schooling contributes to the development of students' sense of self-worth, enthusiasm for learning and optimism for the future. 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. Common and agreed goals for schooling establish a foundation for action among State and Territory governments with their constitutional responsibility for schooling, the Commonwealth, non-government school authorities and all those who seek the best possible educational outcomes for young Australians, to improve the quality of schooling nationally. The achievement of these common and agreed national goals entails a commitment to collaboration for the purposes of:
These national goals provide a basis for investment in schooling to enable all young people to engage effectively with an increasingly complex world. This world will be characterised by advances in information and communication technologies, population diversity arising from international mobility and migration, and complex environmental and social challenges. The achievement of the national goals for schooling will assist young people to contribute to Australia's social, cultural and economic development in local and global contexts. Their achievement will also assist young people to develop a disposition towards learning throughout their lives so that they can exercise their rights and responsibilities as citizens of Australia. National Goals 1. Schooling should develop fully the talents and capacities of all students. In particular, when students leave schools they should:
Attachment 2 A NATIONAL DECLARATION FOR EDUCATION 2001
As Australia enters its second century as a nation, we make the following affirmations about Australian education. We are in agreement as a people that action should be taken over the next decade wherever appropriate across the Australian community to ensure that these propositions are true of Australian education. 1. Nation building: Education is crucial for nation building, promoting an informed awareness and critical understanding of our heritage, national identity, societal values and mutual interdependence. Educational institutions have a moral obligation to honour publicly agreed national priorities. 2. State borders: It is time for Australians to move educational provision beyond the artificial constraints caused by state and territory boundaries, and by geography and distance. 3. Remodelled curricula: Curricula will need to be reconceptualised to account for the diverse and expanding needs of students in the knowledge era. 4. An internationalised curriculum: All students in Australia will have the opportunity to enjoy an internationalised curriculum, which includes international experiences, the opportunity to study a language other than English, and subjects like History, Economics and Literature taught from a world perspective. 5. Education and the economy: As the leading world economies become knowledge-intensive, education is now central to building a sound economic base for the nation and will ensure high levels of skill in such areas as information and communications technology (ICT), literacy and numeracy. 6. The post compulsory years: The nation takes pride in the creativity of those working in the practical trades and the Arts, recognises their contribution to the well-being of the whole community and values the functions of the technical and further sector. 7. Wider participation in policymaking: Australia needs deliberative and advisory bodies at national, state and local levels to involve the education's stakeholders - parents, teachers, the community and, wherever possible, students - in formulating educational policy. 8. Balancing individualism and community: Learners are encouraged both to take responsibility for their own learning and to participate actively in their learning communities, avoiding an undue emphasis on competition and individualism. 9. Safe learning environments: Schools endeavour to establish a safe learning environment wherein increasing pastoral care and welfare needs are met. 10. Equity: Australians support the principle of equity, which gives an opportunity to everyone regardless of their background. Choice and levels of achievement must not be dependent on disparities of resourcing. 11. Education as an investment: The Australian community regards the justification for public spending on education primarily as an investment in its future rather than as a cost. 12. Inclusiveness and disadvantage: Schooling is expected to develop fully the talents and capacities of all students. As a consequence, educational disadvantage and areas of systematic underachievement must be identified, located and rectified by properly targeted resourcing, associated with clear accountability requirements. 13. Aboriginal education: Particular attention must be given to the education of indigenous Australians, and their success as part of mainstream schooling must be guaranteed. 14. Teacher characteristics: It is expected that teacher education will produce skilled teachers who take account of change in education; who understand the needs of a variety of learners; who are more than subject specialists; who are equipped to operate effectively across different age levels and educational settings; who are expert in assessment; and who understand the deeply valued dimensions of learning which are not easily measured. 15. Teacher registration: National registration of teachers will promote a national identity for the teaching profession and increase its levels of public esteem. 16. Beliefs and the spiritual: Because a spiritual frame of reference enhances an understanding of the world, and because education is never value-free, schools are expected to cultivate the natural reverence and wonder in young people, to help them explore why they believe what they believe, and to give them the capacity to analyse their own world-view and those of others.
Name: Prof. Brian Caldwell Education Background: Ph. D. University of Alberta, Canada, FACE, FACEA Present Position: Dean of Education Al University of Melbourne Work Experience:
Prof. Brian Caldwell was President of the Australian Council for Educational Administration from 1990 to 1993. He is a Fellow of the Australian College of Education and of the Australian Council for Educational Administration. Award: He was awarded the Gold Medal of the ACEA in 1994 for his contributions nation-aide to the study and practice of educational administration
|
