Hopes for a united front to tackle education have faded

This year marks the 10th anniversary of the Melbourne Declaration of the Educational Goals of Young Australians, the road map used by state, territory and commonwealth education ministers when deciding policy to drive our school system into the 21st century.

The declaration sits at the heart of our education system and has an overarching aim of improving educational outcomes through better national collaboration.

Endorsed by all education ministers in 2008, it is committed to “equity and excellence” and the opportunity for students everywhere to “become successful learners, confident and creative individuals, and active and informed citizens”.

Based on the past 10 years, it is clear that now is the time for a re-evaluation. Despite the additional billions invested in school education, too many students reveal poor literacy and numeracy skills in national tests and underperform in international assessments of maths, science and reading.

The demonstrable failure to meet the core goals, particularly for indigenous and disadvantaged young people, demands that the declaration be updated — or abandoned. The problems are ­nationwide, and the states and territories have the solution.

Two organisations carry major responsibility for Australia’s education system: the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, and the Australian Institute of Teaching and School Leadership. These bodies provide a national curriculum, national assessment program (dominated by NAPLAN), national reports (My School) and national professional standards.

This infrastructure is designed to work with education authorities to support teachers and school leaders, strengthen interstate co-operation and accountability, and to make better use of limited resources.

There has long been opposition to a national education system. Well before the signing of the Melbourne Declaration, there was movement towards a national curriculum, but state and territory governments have always held fast to their constitutional responsibility for schooling.

The declaration also emphasised the efficiencies that should flow from a truly national commitment; unfortunately for taxpayers, overlap and duplication of effort across states, territories and federally remain the reality.

Australia now has a national curriculum, but this is delivered in its original form by only five of the eight jurisdictions, and it applies only to students in foundation to Year 10. Every state and territory makes different arrangements for the vital years 11 and 12, meaning there is no consensus on academic standards at the highest, most important levels of school education.

This is a major impediment to progress in student performance, curriculum development, professional learning and other essential aspects of school education.

Because the Australian curriculum is still so new, professional learning for teachers in the government and non-government sectors requires significant time and funding, and there is little evidence of national collaboration.

The Australian Professional Standards for Teachers do not refer to the Australian curriculum at all. This compounds the difficulty of pointing students, teachers, parents or policymakers to clear, consistent national academic expectations. Achieving ­acceptance of rigorous national standards is now a matter of ­urgency.

In high-performing systems, such as British Columbia, Finland and Singapore, professional practice and curriculum are closely aligned to enable educators to set standards and undertake effective benchmarking.

The 2014 Review of the Australian Curriculum identifies gaps in meeting the Melbourne Declaration’s goals. Specifically, that Australian education systems must address equity. For example, rural and indigenous students have lower academic results and less access to tertiary education than the national average. There is a clear correlation between distance from cities and academic participation and achievement.

This year’s Independent Review into Regional, Rural and Remote Education exposes ongoing inequity for many students in the bush. School leadership, teaching, curriculum and assessment, technology and the transition into and out of school are identified as specific challenges.

Organisations such as the Productivity Commission have voiced concerns about the knowledge and skills of school-leavers, and local pressure to improve academic performance once again risks the adoption of unproven, experimental approaches.

Rather than tinkering with fads or simply tweaking the curriculum and assessment regimes, national school education policy must be based on an honest summary of problems and aspirations and identify practical solutions that will provide high-quality education underpinned by evidence-based practices.

A world-class education system does not aim to standardise; rather, it draws on local strengths by nurturing the talents and interests of its students and the expertise of its teachers, as seen in high-performing systems including British Columbia and Finland.

Such a model creates incentives to develop local, school-based and system-wide systems for improving teaching and learning, measuring student growth and performance, and reporting on student performance in nationally consistent ways that satisfy parents, employers and all the other stakeholders.

Given that a national education infrastructure is already in place, albeit far from well understood or implemented, the immediate task is to strengthen the commitment and reduce federalist tensions. The current arrangements are not improving student outcomes. In the spirit of the Melbourne Declaration, it just may be time to bite hard on the federation bullet.

Deidre Clary, a former deputy principal, is adjunct senior lecturer in English and education at the University of New England; Fiona Mueller is a former head of the ANU College at the Australian National University. She has been curriculum director of the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority.