Why the Australian curriculum is failing our schools

Dud policies — generally based on shiny fads and little evidence — are the major reason for the long, sad decline in the quality of Australian school education.

For decades, many of us have expressed scepticism about lax school rules, teaching degrees with low entry requirements and little emphasis on actual subject mastery, weak and overcrowded curriculum, loss of rigour in reading, writing and arithmetic, and report cards full of jargon. All students are disadvantaged by bad policy.

And if, as both PISA and ­NAPLAN results indicate, at least one in five Australian 15-year-olds is functionally illiterate and innumerate, then state and territory education systems condemn at least 75,000 youngsters to minimal opportunities in life and work every year.

Before Australia’s education bosses — the state and territory ministers — and their advisers get together in Alice Springs this week, let’s hope they open their minds to solutions that don’t have the words ‘Gonski’ or ‘funding’ or ‘progressions’ nailed to them.

Most are probably still suffering that well-known global phenomenon of ‘PISA shock’ so it’s important to encourage them as they work through the various stages of grief.

There are solutions — practical, evidence-based, and appropriate in the current Australian context — but they will only work if there is the political will to set all other considerations aside in the interests of our children.

First and foremost, we need a truly independent and forensic analysis of policy failures and successes.

Two key criteria must be met: improvements in student performance and the effective use of taxpayers’ money.

Such an analysis would help to avoid reinvention of dud ideas and practices — and even remove the ­influence of anyone associated with these as we try to address the ­problems.

A simple grid would do. It might be quite illuminating.

Set up national institutions for teacher training — six at most — characterised by high admission standards and rigorous academic programs focusing on STEM subjects, the humanities and pedagogy.

Both instructors and trainees at each institution should contribute to high-quality research in education, ensuring direct and practical connections between the classroom practitioner and relevant research.

There is no need for the expensive Gonski proposal for yet another stand-alone body (the proposed ­national evidence institute) when it is teachers themselves who should be directly involved in such work, making sure the findings get to the sharp end without interference and filtering by those with an agenda.

Minister Dan Tehan, it is time to cancel the expensive educational ­experiments and thought bubbles that are already underway.

For example, we know that there is zero evidence of any high-performing education system using the mix of ‘learning progressions’ and ‘online formative assessment’ currently being investigated by ACARA and its ­partners.

Instead, the national curriculum — which has to be seen as the best ­option given the apparent inability of the states and territories to lift results — must be rewritten as a succinct, clear guide that begins with a clear vision of the school leaver profile.

This refers to Australia’s intellectual and creative essence, the original definition of who we want to be and the skills and human confidence we want to see in our school leavers.

Right now, the Australian Curriculum — an overwrought monster of a document — is taught in variable ways by overworked teachers and only applies up to Year 10 anyway.

There are no rigorous national standards for Years 11 and 12, which is possibly the single greatest curriculum deficit of all.

Students, parents, employers and others have no idea what peak academic achievement looks like, and there is no trickle-down effect for the earlier years of schooling.

Two critical challenges exist in this regard: getting the states and territories to agree on the high standards and finding the right people to review the curriculum.

Finally, let’s introduce some qualifications for Year 6 and Year 12 that give everyone a clear understanding of student performance.

An Australian Certificate of Primary Education and an Australian Certificate of Secondary Education would help with the transition ­between the two major stages of schooling and arm school leavers with a piece of paper that is recognised for its quality.

The states and territories are the heavy lifters responsible for the delivery of education, and they should be free to adapt policies to meet the needs of their students.

But there can be no compromise on expectations.

Proof of the scale of Australian educational decline is now out there for all to see. That rabbit isn’t going back in the hat.