The author of this article makes some good points, especially in terms of rewarding the best teachers, however shies away from another fundemental reform which would have an enormous impact. The author correctly notes "moving towards a national curriculum" as beneficial, but why is education still administered at the state level?

If we're going to have a national curriculum which is effectively funded at the federal level (afterall, this is where the states get their money from), they why isn't education fully managed at the federal level? Why have a national curriculum but have it adminsitered via 6 states and 2 territories (in spite of the ACT not actually having an "Education Department")?

This is a fundemental reform which would reduce duplication and would free up a whole bunch of money which could then be reinvested in education.

Why is everyone so afraid of tackling this concept?

There are many questions that need to asked of a national curriculum.

Its justifications seem largely to be economic, but this only follows if we assume that centralisation will lead to the elimination of positions in the States. In other words, there will be fewer people in direct contact with districts, schools and teachers, but plenty of documents promulgated from Canberra. Is this progress?

Another issue is the dangers of centralising education decision making at a level of bureaucracy which has become so politicised in recent years that it is hard to have confidence in the system being run with any kind of balanced view. However inefficient, decentralisation has a greater chance of delivering a diversity of views and a more balanced outcome. The wall-to-wall Labour governments at present do not contradict this, as their differences on education policy indicate.

The tools of a centralised administration tend to be crude, as evidenced by the reliance on testing to drive improvement. Consultation and engaging the people who actually have to deliver the policies will be more difficult and less likely to happen.

Rudd's honeymoon may lead some to think that these dangers will not happen, but this can't be guaranteed, and we should remember that it is possible that Labour will be replaced by the Coalition in less than three years time, whereupon we could find that the intrusive, arrogant, confrontationist and rough-shod strategies of the past will return in an even more powerful position. The formation of a national curriculum board is no protection against this, as examples of the ABC board stacking and the overruling of ARC decisions show.

Seeing education as a national priority can only be a good thing, and a genuine broad based decision making process could well lead to better quality at the level of policy, though it would be naive to think that this is inevitable. However, this will need to be combined with a very consultative approach which does not suck resources away from the places that really count - the support for curriculum, teaching and assessment in classrooms and schools.

re: but who knows what occupations are going to exist in 20 years time? Our Asian competitors are learning that the most important attribute is the ability to adapt creatively to a changing world;
I wrote the following to the Howard Government in 1998 and was brushed off.
"An education policy based on fitting students for future employment is short sighted; who knows what type of skills the workplace will require thirty years from now?
Our education system should be aimed at teaching students to think, to use language and mathematics effectively and to understand the importance of science, ethics and politics in their daily lives. Of course many of the established groups in our society would oppose an enlightened education but any thinking person should not be afraid of encouraging an enquiring mind in the next generation."
Children can learn to be creative and to think analytically and at the same time class behaviour will improve dramatically. These results will be achieved if 'Philosophy for Children' is introduced early in primary school (to six year olds). To do so present open ended questions to them and let them discuss these questions between themselves with only minimum guidance from the teacher. The teacher will also need to ensure polite behaviour during the discussions. About one hour per week is required and existing curriculum material can be covered.
This approach is catching on in Clackmannan, Scotland and Nottinghamshire and in NZ. Why not here? And soon!

Ian,

There is nothing wrong with the fact that “after just ten years working as teachers the pay of these outstanding teachers plateaus”. Victorian teacher salaries used to plateau after only seven years – at more than $100,000 in today’s comparative terms. Now it takes longer to reach the plateau, but it is only around $65,000. Increasing the amount is more important than increasing the number of years to reach it.

I agree that a “teacher should be able to remain in the classroom and be financially rewarded for doing so” but there is a reason that the “only way they can get financial recognition is to leave the classroom and take up administrative positions”. I quote from my letter to The Australian:

“The debate on merit-based pay has developed a dismissive attitude to those teachers who are promoted into leadership positions which require them to have reduced teaching loads. It should be obvious that subject coordinators, level coordinators, timetablers and the like contribute to the learning of students by the way in which they do their jobs.

“As the timetabler for Hampton Park Secondary College until the end of 2004, I organised that school with a maximum teaching load of just under 18 hours a week, the capacity for decent time allowances (deductions from teaching loads for leadership responsibilities) and an even balance of classes between the two weeks of the fortnightly cycle. These conditions, the best in the state, helped classroom teachers to teach well by providing them with adequate preparation and correction time and thus aided the learning of every student in the school.

“The subject coordinator who provides intelligent curriculum leadership and the level coordinator who provides strong discipline also help classroom teachers be more effective. The pay of these leaders, whose influence extends throughout the school, should not be downgraded below that of a classroom teacher whose effect, no matter how outstanding, is confined to a single classroom.” (19/1/2008)

State authorities, such as the Victorian Institute of Teaching, accredit teacher training courses and should be ensuring that they are of high quality.

The idea of a national curriculum is a good one and would make education a national priority with uniform standards and rules. Why not take education away from the States to be administered by the Commonwealth Department of Education? The States would of course administer the policies developed by the Commonwealth and the fundamentals of administration like recruitment, HR, maintenance etc.

Teachers should be paid more for staying in the classrooms. I am not convinced about bonuses for 'good' teachers as it is too difficult to quantify or qualify the outcomes, especially when comparing between schools in different socio-economic areas.

Funding for special needs is desperately needed and the money allocated for Chaplains could be used for this purpose.

Yeah centralise the education system to Canberra.

Take it away from the states.

All those duplicated bureaucrats would be freed up to return to the class room. There would be a huge glut of teachers and with the resultant competition we'd soon see education standards rise, more able teachers in longer tenure in remote communities and outcomes would improve overall.

Ban education unions too, there'd be even better outcomes.

Most of what has been suggested so far is so simple it's almost as stupid as my suggestions.

But there was one who made the most telling point.

'Our education system should be aimed at teaching students to think, to use language and mathematics effectively and to understand the importance of science, ethics and politics in their daily lives. Of course many of the established groups in our society would oppose an enlightened education but any thinking person should not be afraid of encouraging an enquiring mind in the next generation."'

I agree wholeheartedly with this concept. I'll add some meat.
English, Maths B, Maths C, Physics, Chemistry and Latin provide the basis to teach kids to think and our whole education processes should be aimed at ensuring all kids are pointed in this direction and before matriculation must have competence in those subjects.

I am realistic enough to know few kids will attain that objective ... but those that don't will have had a very good grounding in the basics of arithematic, reading, writing and comprehension. There are many kids these days who cannot do the common trades because of a lack in these basic skills.

Now watch the silence or condemnation.