Left can't really help any class

Julia Gillard and Peter Garrett

WHILE all agree that overcoming disadvantage is a good thing and that the Gonski report's focus on improving equity in education is worthwhile, the question arises: what is the best strategy?

One approach is represented by the Gillard government's National Plan for School Improvement: a proposed funding model that involves giving schools additional millions of dollars to address the needs of disadvantaged students.

The second approach involves fostering competition and recognising meritocracy in education, and realising that one of the best ways to overcome disadvantage is to reward and support at-risk students.

Under Julia Gillard's national crusade, disadvantage is defined as "students with disability, from a low socioeconomic status, non-English-speaking or indigenous background, or attending a regional, remote or small school".

In addition to the base level of funding, set at $9271 for each primary and $12,193 for each secondary student, schools will be entitled to additional funds based on location and the number of disadvantaged students enrolled.

Under a sliding formula, depending on the number of low SES students enrolled and the level of disadvantage, schools are promised additional funding beginning at $1391 and rising to $3477 for each primary student, and $1829 to $4572 for each secondary student. When it comes to non-English-speaking students the government is offering $927 for each primary student and $1219 for each secondary student.

While the figures for students with a disability have yet to be decided, schools with indigenous students, depending on the number enrolled and whether primary or secondary, will be entitled to $1854 to $14,631 a student.

According to a government information sheet the additional millions can be spent on "more teachers and better resources", introducing "personalised learning plans", "more teachers, teacher aides, support staff", "better resources and equipment, like SMART Boards, computers, iPads and tablets" and "new and better ways of teaching".

The flaws in such an approach are manifest. The assumption that simply by giving schools more resources and more staff disadvantage will be overcome and standards will improve is incorrect.

Research here and overseas consistently shows increased spending is not the solution; that's why the US,

Also of concern is that the definition of disadvantage is a cultural-left one that categorises the usual victim groups. Ignored is the high number of migrant non-English-speaking students, especially from Asian backgrounds, who outperform students born in Australia.

No matter how much cultural-left groups such as the Australian Education Union want to believe, low SES is not the principal cause of underperformance. Working-class kids, with effort, ability, application and effective teachers and a rigorous curriculum, can do well. Such students are not destined to failure because of postcode.

It doesn't take a cultural-left view to recognise that the main reason Australia's standing in international tests has flatlined or gone backwards is because we have fewer high-ability students performing at the top of the table.

If the Prime Minister is serious about getting Australian students to be among the top five performing countries in literacy and numeracy tests by 2025, then one of the most cost-effective and efficient ways is to better support gifted students.

Promoting competition and meritocracy in education represents an alternative to Gillard's cultural-left, Fabian-inspired approach. Those old enough will remember the Commonwealth Secondary School Scholarships introduced during the 1960s that ensured many students from disadvantaged backgrounds could go on to university.

Instead of wasting millions on education fads and employing more teachers, let's introduce scholarships for academically able students who otherwise might not be able to complete secondary school and go on to tertiary studies.

It's no secret that during the 70s and 80s, when the cultural Left took the long march through the education system, that meritocracy became a dirty word.

Left-wing academics and teachers unions argued that competition was elitist and ideologically unsound as it reinforced inequity in education.

Not unexpectedly, as a result education became dumbed down, all became winners and standards declined.

In addition to scholarships, schools need to better promote and reward excellence and ability. Many of the countries that outperform Australia in international tests - for instance, Singapore, South Korea and Japan - regularly examine students and have streamed classes in terms of ability and interest at key stages.

It's also true that teachers in such countries have a more rigorous and clearly defined method of assessment. Students are generally graded A to E, where E means fail, or numerically, and students are ranked in terms of ability.

This is unlike Australian classrooms where students no longer compete against each other and where gifted students coast along as they are rarely pressured to do better.

As reported in The Australian in the past few weeks, one of the success stories in indigenous education is the work of the Australian Indigenous Education Foundation and its scholarship program. The idea should be extended to non-indigenous students: a scholarship, much like a voucher, that can be cashed in at government or non-government schools on the basis that competition between schools is also a sound way to promote better outcomes and higher standards.

Kevin Donnelly is director of the Education Standards Institute and author of Educating Your Child: It's Not Rocket Science.