Chalk one up for free school

IN keeping with many readers of The Australian, I look forward to my weekly consumption of The Spectator, which now includes a local section.

One of my favourite columnists is Toby Young, associate editor. Over the years we have heard about his frustrating but tireless travails to help establish a free school in west London.

In addition to the obvious logistical challenges - gaining government approval, securing appropriate premises, engaging staff and the like - Young has faced a barrage of criticism for his efforts, much of it quite personal in nature.

Britain's National Union of Teachers, the Labour Party and a number of the left-wing newspapers - most particularly The Guardian - are implacably opposed to free schools, which are fully government funded but not controlled by Local Education Authorities.

The boards of some of these free schools have even had the hide to appoint staff without formal teaching qualifications - civil engineers, IT specialists, former senior managers and the like. This development is bitterly resisted by the NUT.

The fearless Young and his collaborators have pressed on and the West London Free School is up and running. According to its website, "The West London Free School aims to become one of the best schools in the country, renowned for academic excellence and capable of instilling world-beating ambition in all its pupils, no matter what their background." Perhaps Toby Young even wrote those words.

The underlying motivation for the establishment of free schools, in west London and elsewhere, derives from the failure of government school education in Britain. While the private schools and the few remaining selective grammar schools produce world-class education and outstanding performances by their students, the results for the vast majority of government schools in Britain are unacceptable.

The argument in favour of free schools is that, relieved of the shackles of the education bureaucracy, these schools can provide excellent education and outstanding student results without requiring parents to pay fees.

So have government schools in Britain failed?

Take this result from a recent OECD study on literacy and numeracy. Out of 24 nations, England was ranked 22 for literacy of young adults (aged 16 to 24) and 21 for numeracy. But here is the real kicker - English adults aged between 55 and 65 perform better in numeracy and literacy than young adults. Overall, nearly one-quarter of the population in England has the mathematical skills of a 10 year old.

Just in case you think that poor educational standards are simply a British phenomenon, consider the US.

According to the OECD study, young adults in the US rank 20th in terms of literacy and 24th for numeracy. These are damning results for a country that prides itself on being smart and innovative.

Tyler Cowen of George Mason University notes that the rate of high school completion in the US has been falling for some time, from a high of 80 per cent in the late 1960s.

He also notes "that there is no evidence of convergence of minority-majority graduation rates". Moreover, 20 per cent of high school credentials in the US now come from the passing of equivalency tests, which have no more value in the labour market than non-graduation from high school.

And consider this fact - government school teachers in the US are almost twice as likely to send their own children to private schools compared with the population average.

Are these outcomes in the US the result of lower government spending on schools?

In fact, real expenditure per student rose from $5600 in 1970-71 to $12,500 in 2006-07 - an increase of more than 120 per cent. Cowen observes that spending on education as a percentage of GDP is high in the US by the standards of developed economies.

Where does Australia rank in terms of literacy and numeracy of young adults? Actually, the result for literacy is reasonable - sixth - but in terms of numeracy skills we rank 14th. We also know that our school performance, as measured by international test scores, has been slipping, particularly in comparison with South Korea, Singapore, Shanghai and Finland.

And, lest these results be put down to falling government expenditure on schools, note that over the past decade or so real spending per pupil on government schools in Australia has risen close to 40 per cent.

As the newly elected federal government contemplates how it will modify the Better Schools policy inherited from Labor, it is sensible to take these results into account. Education Minister Christopher Pyne has rightly pointed out that the role of the Coalition is not simply to administer Labor's programs.

In the rush to seal deals with the states, the Labor legacy is a mishmash of concessions and complex side-deals with those states that did sign on. Moreover, some states and the Northern Territory didn't sign on.

The outcome is the antithesis of a new transparent and coherent national funding model for schools.

Before committing to further lifting real spending on schools - and, thankfully, the really big increases do not kick in until the fifth and sixth years, increases to which the government has made no commitment - Pyne really needs to assess what works and what doesn't when it comes to funding schools.

Reducing class sizes is a waste of money. Providing for greater school autonomy looks like a winner, but is in the gift of state governments. Better trained teachers would help, but the universities may be unprepared to join up, as their principal incentive is to increase student numbers rather than raise quality. Getting rid of bad teachers would help.

Imposing strict discipline and expecting high standards of students should be part of the mix. And the dumbed down and politically correct national curriculum will need to be overhauled.

My advice - take your time, Chris. More money may not even be required. Maybe what we really need is a few crusading Toby Youngs.