Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Hansard source

In her second reading contribution on the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority Bill 2008, the Deputy Prime Minister said:

This bill is yet another illustration of how this government is getting on with the job of delivering an education revolution to Australia.

The fact of the matter is one year to the day into the Rudd government we have seen the education revolution become a hopeless failure—a 24-hour uprising where the revolutionaries have skived off the barricades to have a good night’s sleep at home. It is a revolution born in spin and propaganda, devoid of substance and lacking in real delivery. The abject failure of these central measures of the education revolution has been a major disappointment to parents, students and teachers alike.

We all remember the election time one-liners: a computer on every desk, a trades training centre in every school. It was one year and 10 days ago at the ALP campaign launch on 14 November 2007 that the Prime Minister promised the following:

Labor will undertake a groundbreaking reform by providing for every Australian secondary school student in Years 9 to 12 access to their own computer at school.

He held up a laptop computer. All of the weasel words in the world cannot get those words out of the public record. If he did not want to promise each student their own computer, he should not have done so. The government has abandoned that promise. After 12 months of Labor, less than 10 per cent of public schools have benefited from the computers in schools program. The target ratio has gone from being a computer for every student to a computer for every second student.

Meanwhile, the computers in schools program is a centrepiece not only of the failure of the education revolution but also of the failure of another of the Prime Minister’s key election promises: cooperative federalism. Cooperative federalism only ever had a hope of working if both parties came to the table with goodwill and reasonable expectations. In relation to computers in schools, the Rudd government went to the COAG table with an election promise and then asked the states to pay for it. The Deputy Prime Minister has spent most of this year arguing with the states over who is paying for the on-costs of the computers in schools: the installation, IT support, the software, the networking, the staff training—everything that makes the computers work. By not meeting these extra costs, the government is providing only 20 to 25 per cent of the funds needed to pay for his election promise, demanding that the states, local schools or even parents find the money to make the computers run once they have been delivered.

It is a nice trick to get elected on a promise of an education revolution and hide in the fine print that someone else is going to pay for it. If only the Howard government had had that opportunity. The member for Higgins might have had a much easier job over 12 years if only we had realised in 1995 that the secret to government is to make somebody else pay. Can you imagine? With the 1996 budget facing a $10 billion black hole and $96 billion of debt, the member for Higgins could have sat back, relaxed and said that the New South Wales Carr government was going to have to take care of it. The tough decisions of government would have been so much easier if only we had asked someone else to pay for them. The expensive business of government comes much cheaper if only you ask someone else to make the tough decisions.

But this fantasy approach to politics only exists for the Deputy Prime Minister. The states are not buying into it and schools are not buying into it. That is why, when round 2 of the computers program closed on 9 October, many schools indicated that they would not be applying because of the additional costs associated with the computers. The New South Wales government instructed its schools not to apply for funding in the second round. Other states are taking the computers but only to replace old ones so as to cut down on their costs. This will do nothing to reduce the ratio of computers to students to the new goal of two to one let alone the election promise of one to one. The states and the schools are not to blame for this state of affairs. They were not the ones making the promise to Australian voters that they would put a computer on every student’s desk.

The computers in schools program is not the only plank in the barricade of Labor’s education revolution that is falling apart under the weight of mild investigation. Labor’s election policy document proudly proclaimed that we would see new trade centres built in all of Australia’s 2,650 secondary schools. One year on, we again find that Labor have shifted their rhetoric, because they cannot deliver on their election promise. As the funding provided to each school is so limited—an average of $900,000 to each school—schools are forced to pool their funds to build something that resembles a trades training centre. The Deputy Prime Minister tells us that every school will have the opportunity to be involved in a trades training centre, but their promise was a centre in each of Australia’s secondary schools—not one in every 10th school.

Meanwhile, the government has withdrawn support for the Australian technical colleges, a program up and running and proving successful in many communities around Australia. One particularly important aspect of the Australian technical colleges was that they were set up to be led by industry. The importance of business being intimately involved in schooling was highlighted yesterday by Rupert Murdoch’s Boyer lecture. It is remarkable that the Acting Prime Minister would laud Mr Murdoch’s speech and put the blame for our school system’s failings on the former government while it is her government that is abolishing the only program that is really operating along the lines suggested by Mr Murdoch.

The former government increased funding for state government schools in every budget, delivering a funding increase of 70 per cent in real terms between 1996 and 2007. It put the interests of Australian children and their parents above those of the state education bureaucracies and teacher unions. It enhanced the capacity for parents to choose between public and private schools for their children. It established a better funding formula for Catholic and independent schools which ensured that Catholic and independent schools drawing students from the neediest communities received more funds. It ended the Keating government’s new schools policy that had placed severe restrictions on establishing new non-government schools. In attaching conditions to Commonwealth education funding to the states, the former government also enabled the introduction of literacy and numeracy testing for all students in years 3, 5 and 7. Literacy and numeracy testing trials were also introduced for year 9 students in 2007.

While the public school system is primarily the responsibility of the state governments, the former coalition government’s record is a proud one of engagement, providing record levels of support for teachers, students and parents alike. On the other hand, Kevin Rudd’s education revolution is creating winners and losers, particularly in primary schools, where Labor has cut funding by abandoning the coalition’s $1.2 billion Investing in Our Schools Program. Schools relied on this funding to make up for state government shortfalls and their failure to invest in school infrastructure. I note the member for Canning is in the House, and he, like I and many other members of the parliament, would have been to many openings of Investing in Our Schools programs, which were very popular and very welcomed, particularly by principals and governing councils in primary schools around the country. It is worth noting that both the trades training centres and the computers in schools policies only benefit secondary schools. Only $800,000 will go to primary schools—the first sector up against the wall in Ms Gillard’s revolution.

In its first budget, Labor cut almost $400 million in specific programs targeted at improving standards in literacy and numeracy. The $700 Even Start tuition vouchers program for students who failed to meet the minimum literacy and numeracy benchmarks has been scrapped, the $70 million Summer Schools for Teachers program has been scrapped and the $50,000 rewards for schools that improve literacy and numeracy test results program has also been scrapped. Far from bringing an education revolution, Labor has increased spending on education by less than one per cent. It has simply replaced successful and popular Howard government programs with new bureaucracies delivering the failing computers in schools and trades training centre programs.

The development of a national curriculum is another endeavour that was begun under the Howard government. However, there are some issues with the direction the curriculum has taken under Labor, which I will come to presently. Earlier this year, Labor appointed an interim National Curriculum Board to work on its development of this legislation as it was being prepared. That board appointed working groups in each of the four subject areas being covered by the curriculum: mathematics, English, the sciences and history. The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority Bill establishes a new Commonwealth body, the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, ACARA, to develop and administer the new national curriculum and collect data, providing analysis and research to governments. The government had initially committed separate funding to develop a new national curriculum board of $20 million and $17.2 million for a new independent national schools assessment and data centre. This bill aggregates that funding and incorporates the intended functions of both proposed bodies within one body, ACARA. This new authority will assume powers over curriculum and assessment that are currently with state governments and it will be further empowered by its secondary role as the primary data analysis and research centre in relation to student assessment.

ACARA’s clearest role is the development of a national curriculum. The opposition supports the concept of a national curriculum, but in the hands of the Acting Prime Minister we are concerned that what should have been a useful framework for teachers, schools, families and students to work within is in danger of becoming increasingly straddled with left-wing dogma. It would be a disaster for Australian students if the Labor Party and its friends in left-wing academia used the national curriculum as an opportunity to hijack schooling in Australia. ACARA has a sincere responsibility to ensure that a truly world-class curriculum is developed free from ideological bias and with a strong foundation in the basics that have been neglected for too many children in recent decades.

Our evidence up to this point on how the curriculum is shaping up is limited to the framing documents released for discussion some weeks ago. I do not wish to dwell on the matter, but the documents have been released for public discussion and the body being established by this bill will be responsible for their further development, so it would be remiss not to make some further observations. Points 10 and 11 of the initial advice document relating to the history curriculum comprise a long list of the key concepts that a national curriculum needs to deal with. The opposition noted at the time the framers’ omission of any recognition of the importance to Australian society of Western civilisation, scientific discovery, the Judaeo-Christian tradition in our community, our commitment to the defence of freedom and the benefits that our British heritage has brought to us, such as our commitment to the rule of law and parliamentary democracy. We are pleased to note that in the framing document released much more recently a number of the opposition’s concerns in this area have been dealt with. I find it odd that these fundamental principles of our history were relegated to secondary importance originally. We will be keeping close watch to ensure their important place in our history is not threatened.

The opposition is also concerned about any move away from a central focus on Australian history incorporating an intelligent balance between both our Aboriginal heritage and the history of European settlement. We will monitor closely the development of the national history curriculum and encourage wide consultation. We cannot allow historical perspective to be captured by a small group of ideologues.

Of equal concern to the quality of the curriculum is that it be sensibly applied, and we are far from convinced of that at the moment. We have seen in the Schools Assistance Bill that the Labor Party wishes to mandate the introduction of the national curriculum before the end of the funding quadrennium in non-government schools as a condition for non-government schools to receive funding from 1 January next year, even though we have little idea yet what the national curriculum will actually look like.

The Acting Prime Minister has repeatedly refused to confirm that schools currently delivering alternative, internationally recognised curricula will be able to continue to do so. This puts at risk curricula that are designed for high-achieving students and special students, and curricula based on educational philosophies that parents may choose as the most appropriate for their children. It also potentially puts at risk those faith based schools that teach faith based components in addition to their current state curricula. The Acting Prime Minister has refused to give comfort to these schools by accepting the opposition’s amendment to her Schools Assistance Bill to remove the mandatory application of the unwritten national curriculum. Alternatively, she could amend her bill to allow application of the national curriculum or an ‘approved equivalent’ or similar legislative language. Instead, in a speech on 10 November, the Acting Prime Minister deferred decisions about whether alternative curriculum based schools will be able to continue under ACARA. This means that under the current government ACARA will have the final say over whether the following curricula are allowed to continue: International Baccalaureate, University of Cambridge international examination schools, Montessori schools, Steiner schools, Christian schools, Islamic and Jewish schools and so on.

There is a further issue of some significance with which the government is yet to grapple, and that is what happens to the substantial areas of curriculum that are not flagged for consideration by ACARA. Geography and languages have been mooted as future additions, but music, drama, physical education, technical education and a stream of other curriculum areas that are vitally important to the health of our education system will not be dealt with by ACARA at all. It would be of great concern if future funding in areas like teacher support and training neglected these important areas because they missed out on inclusion in the national curriculum.

It is also worth noting that for as long as these areas stay outside the national curriculum, the state governments will all have to continue their current frameworks of curriculum and assessment authorities in order to support these subject choices. A national curriculum designed to improve our system must not result in a weakening of the subjects not included in it, or it will have failed. And a national curriculum should not result in increased, unnecessary duplication of resources and endeavour, or else it will have failed. Again I advise that the opposition is sceptical and we will be keeping a very close eye on the government’s progress in this area.

For a national curriculum to succeed, ACARA and the government will need to be able to convince each state education department, each state government, and the non-government sector that the national curriculum will not interfere in those aspects of their present curriculum of which they are most proud and that in all other aspects the national curriculum will be a superior curriculum to their current curriculum. Members may draw their own conclusions as to how successful the government will be in this endeavour.

In relation to the detail of how ACARA has been set up, I will make some observations for the record while indicating that the opposition will not oppose this bill. I draw attention to the list of ACARA’s functions detailed in section 6 which says:

The functions of the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority are to:

(a)

Develop and administer a national school curriculum, including content of the curriculum and achievement standards, for school subjects specified in the Charter (maths, English, the sciences and history to begin with, to also include geography and languages in a second phase); and

(b)

Develop and administer national assessments; and

(c)

Collect, manage and analyse student assessment data and other data relating to schools and comparative school performance; and

(d)

Facilitate information sharing arrangements between Australian government bodies in relation to the collection, management and analysis of school data; and

(e)

Publish information relating to school education, including information relating to comparative school performance; and

(f)

Provide school curriculum resource services, educational research services and other related services; and

(g)

Provide information, resources, support and guidance to the teaching profession; and

(h)

Perform such other functions that are conferred on it by, or under, this Act or any other Commonwealth Act; and

(g)

Perform such other functions that are ancillary or incidental to the functions mentioned in the preceding paragraphs.

The ACARA board will include a representative from each state and territory as well as the Commonwealth, and representatives from the National Catholic Education Commission and the Independent Schools Council of Australia. In addition there will be a chair and a deputy chair appointed by the ministerial council. Members will be limited to a three-year term and maximum aggregated service length will be six years. ACARA will be subject to direction from the ministerial council.

In appointing members of the board, section 14 requires that the ministerial council ensures that members of the board:

… collectively possess an appropriate balance of professional expertise in:

(i)

matters relating to school curriculum; and

(ii)

school assessment and data management; and

(iii)

analysis and reporting in relation to school performance;

(iv)

financial and commercial matters in relation to the management of educational organisations; and

(v)

corporate governance.

Given that none of the five criteria for the make-up of the board will require that anyone who has ever been a teacher should be on the board, it is particularly important that practising teachers should be consulted extensively in the committees and working groups under the ACARA board. I find this omission unfortunate and it is reflective of this government’s lack of appreciation for the central and overwhelming importance of the teaching profession. In my experience, teachers who actually deal with students have a much greater appreciation of what works and what does not than do research academics looking in from the outside.

According to section 40, subsection (1), the data collection and analysis arm of ACARA is able to collect detailed information from schools so long as that information is necessary for, and directly related to, any of the following purposes:

(a)

conducting research relating to the national school curriculum;

(b)

assisting government to formulate policies in relation to education matters;

(c)

formulating national reports consisting of aggregated data on school performance.

This sounds reasonable at face value, but should be considered in light of the government’s move through the Schools Assistance Bill to require additional and unnecessary financial information of non-government schools’ funding sources, and so again we will be vigilant in our close observation of how this body operates in practice.

As indicated, the opposition will support the bill, but in doing so we indicate most clearly that the government is on notice that they have a great responsibility to make this curriculum work. Their record of uncooperative federalism, as seen through the disastrous computers in schools program, does not fill our hearts with hope. Their record of broken promises, as shown by computers in schools, the trades training centres and the very concept of an education revolution, does not fill me with high expectations. It is clear that the education revolution has failed. It is time for the government, and the Acting Prime Minister in particular, to spend less time delivering overblown rhetoric about revolution and instead spend more time delivering on their election promises.

See this speech in context