23,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Bildung
- Sprache: Englisch
- Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2017
BEST PRACTICES FROM AUSTRALIA'S HIGH-PERFORMING SCHOOL SYSTEMS Empowered Educators in Australia is one volume in a series that explores how high- performing educational systems from around the world achieve strong results. The anchor book, Empowered Educators: How High-Performing Systems Shape Teaching Quality Around the World, is written by Linda Darling-Hammond and colleagues, with contributions from the authors of this volume. The authors of Empowered Educators in Australia take an in-depth look at the policies and practices surrounding teaching quality in two different states: New South Wales (NSW) and Victoria. NSW offers significant support for government schools in areas such as staffing and teacher professional development. Victoria operates a highly devolved school system. Each provides a contrasting view of how federal and state policies combine to shape learning outcomes for students in Australia. The interplay between state and federal policy characterizes an intriguing "centralizing decentralization." Initiatives to create national curricular, teaching, and teacher education standards all sit in balanced tension with a movement towards greater devolution of authority to schools. Together the NSW and Victoria case studies provide insights into policies that can support high-quality teaching in a federal education system. Australia's current educational reforms place increasing emphasis on issues of teaching quality, reshaping teaching as a standards-based, evidence-informed profession, and one that seeks to foster collegiality and professional exchange. These reforms encompass many aspects of a system that supports teaching quality, and highlight: the way teachers are trained, how they are inducted into the teaching profession and supported with mentors, the professional learning they receive, how they are appraised on their work, and the career pathways for teachers.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 449
Ähnliche
Empowered Educators in Australia
How High-Performing Systems Shape Teaching Quality
Dion Burns and Ann McIntyre
Copyright © 2017 by The Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education (SCOPE). All rights reserved.
Published by Jossey-Bass
A Wiley Brand
One Montgomery Street, Suite 1000, San Francisco, CA 94104-4594—www.josseybass.com
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400, fax 978-646-8600, or on the Web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, 201-748-6011, fax 201-748-6008, or online at www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor author shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Readers should be aware that Internet Web sites offered as citations and/or sources for further information may have changed or disappeared between the time this was written and when it is read.
Jossey-Bass books and products are available through most bookstores. To contact Jossey-Bass directly call our Customer Care Department within the U.S. at 800-956-7739, outside the U.S. at 317-572-3986, or fax 317-572-4002.
Wiley publishes in a variety of print and electronic formats and by print-on-demand. Some material included with standard print versions of this book may not be included in e-books or in print-on-demand. If this book refers to media such as a CD or DVD that is not included in the version you purchased, you may download this material at http://booksupport.wiley.com. For more information about Wiley products, visit www.wiley.com.
ISBN: 9781119369646
ISBN: 9781119369677
ISBN: 9781119369707
Cover design by Wiley
Cover image: © suriya9/Getty Images, Inc.
CONTENTS
Foreword
Acknowledgments
About the Sponsoring Organizations
About the Authors
Online Documents and Videos
Chapter 1: A National Framework to Support Teaching Quality in Australia
Australia, Its Constitution, and Federalism in Education
About Australia
Australian Education in International Comparison
Professional Teaching Standards and the Role of AITSL
Role of ACARA
Education Funding in Australia and Gonski
Summary
Notes
Chapter 2: From Policy to Practice: Teacher Quality in new South Wales, Australia
About New South Wales (NSW)
The NSW Education System
Students in NSW Schools
Teachers in NSW Schools
Portraits of School Practice
Curriculum and Assessment in NSW Schools
Teacher Quality in NSW Schools
Conclusion
Chapter 3: Building Teacher Capacity and Collaborative Cultures: Teaching and Teacher Quality in Victoria
Characterizing the Victorian System
Overview and Context
Education Policy Context
Education Governance in Victoria
Recruitment
The Teaching Career and Stages
Preparation
Induction, Mentoring, and Teacher Registration
The Organization of Schooling in Victoria
Professional Learning
Appraisal
Leadership
Summary
Notes
Conclusion
Theme One
Theme Two
Theme Three
Theme Four
Theme Five
Appendix: Methodology
References
Eula
List of Tables
Chapter 1
Table 1.1
Chapter 2
Table 2.1
Table 2.2
Table 2.3
Table 2.4
Table 2.5
Chapter 3
Table 3.1
Table 3.2
Table 3.3
Table 3.4
List of Illustrations
Chapter 1
Figure 1.1 National School Education Policy and Reporting Framework.
Figure 1.2 Population Density of Australia.
Figure 1.3 Teacher Salaries Relative to Other Occupations.
Figure 1.4 Quality and Equity of Performance in Mathematical Literacy Internationally.
Figure 1.5 Mean Scores and Distribution of Students’ Performance on PISA Mathematics by Geographic Location.
Figure 1.6 Conceptual Framework for the Australian Professional Standard for Principals.
Chapter 2
Figure 2.1 Population Density of Australia.
Figure 2.2 Language Diversity in NSW Government Schools 2014.
Figure 2.3 Achievement Distributions for Indigenous and Non-indigenous Students.
Figure 2.4 Indicative Guidelines for Time Allocation to Learning Areas.
Figure 2.5 Professional Learning Aligned to Professional Standards in NSW DEC.
Figure 2.6 Feedback Informing Teaching Practice.
Figure 2.7 Australian Teacher Performance and Development Framework.
Figure 2.8 NSW Teacher Performance and Development Cycle.
Chapter 3
Figure 3.1 Map of Victoria.
Figure 3.2 Dimensions of Well-Being.
Figure 3.3 Retention Rates for Indigenous and Non-indigenous Students to Year 12.
Figure 3.4 Proportion of Indigenous Students Enrolled in Early Childhood Education in Victoria.
Figure 3.5 Student Resource Package Funding to Government Schools.
Figure 3.6 Proportions of Teachers and Principals in Government Schools, by Age, Victoria 2001–2013.
Figure 3.7 Out-of-Field Teaching in Selected Secondary Subjects, Australia, 2010 and 2013.
Figure 3.8 Timperley Cycle of Teacher Inquiry and Knowledge Building.
Figure 3.9 Percentage of Beginning Teachers with Mentors.
Figure 3.10 Provisionally Registered Teachers’ Agreement That the Evidence-Based Process Has Increased the Likelihood They Will Stay in Teaching.
Figure 3.11 Timetable of Specialist Subjects at RGLPS.
Figure 3.12 Curiosity and Powerful Learning Framework Schematic.
Figure 3.13 Example of a Balanced Scorecard Approach.
Figure 3.14 Australian Professional Standard for Principals Leadership Lenses.
Guide
Cover
Table of Contents
Chapter
Pages
vi
vii
viii
ix
xi
xii
xiii
xiv
xv
xvii
xviii
xix
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
172
173
175
176
177
174
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
In loving memory of Dr. Paul Brock, educator, researcher, mentor, and friend.
For Melissa, Aramaia, and Anika with love and gratitude.
FOREWORD
FEW WOULD DISAGREE THAT, among all the factors that affect how much students learn, the quality of their teachers ranks very high. But what, exactly, do policy makers, universities, and school leaders need to do to make sure that the vast majority of teachers in their jurisdiction are literally world class?
Perhaps the best way to answer that question is to look carefully and in great detail at what the countries whose students are performing at the world’s top levels are doing to attract the highest quality high school students to teaching careers, prepare them well for that career, organize schools so teachers can do the best work of which they are capable, and provide incentives for them to get better at the work before they finally retire.
It was not hard for us to find the right person to lead a study that would do just that. Stanford professor Linda Darling-Hammond is one of the world’s most admired researchers. Teachers and teaching have been lifelong professional preoccupations for her. And, not least, Professor Darling-Hammond is no stranger to international comparative studies. Fortunately for us and for you, she agreed to lead an international comparative study of teacher quality in a selection of top-performing countries. The study, Empowered Educators: How High-Performing Systems Shape Teaching Quality Around the World, took two years to complete and is unprecedented in scope and scale.
The volume you are reading is one of six books, including case studies conducted in Australia, Canada, China, Finland, and Singapore. In addition to the case studies and the cross-study analysis, the researchers have collected a range of videos and artifacts (http://ncee.org/empowered-educators)—ranging from a detailed look at how the daily schedules of teachers in Singapore ensure ample time for collaboration and planning to a description of the way Shanghai teachers publish their classroom research in refereed journals—that we hope will be of great value to policy makers and educators interested in using and adapting the tools that the top-performing jurisdictions use to get the highest levels of teacher quality in the world.
Studies of this sort are often done by leading scholars who assemble hordes of graduate students to do the actual work, producing reams of reports framed by the research plan, which are then analyzed by the principal investigator. That is not what happened in this case. For this report, Professor Darling-Hammond recruited two lead researcher-writers for each case study, both senior, one from the country being studied and one from another country, including top-level designers and implementers of the systems being studied and leading researchers. This combination of insiders and external observers, scholars and practitioner-policy makers, gives this study a depth, range, and authenticity that is highly unusual.
But this was not just an effort to produce first-class case studies. The aim was to understand what the leaders were doing to restructure the profession of teaching for top performance. The idea was to cast light on that by examining what was the same and what was different from country to country to see if there were common threads that could explain uncommon results. As the data-gathering proceeded, Professor Darling-Hammond brought her team together to exchange data, compare insights, and argue about what the data meant. Those conversations, taking place among a remarkable group of senior policy actors, practitioners, and university-based researchers from all over the world, give this work a richness rarely achieved in this sort of study.
The researchers examined all sorts of existing research literature on the systems they were studying, interviewed dozens of people at every level of the target systems, looked at everything from policy at the national level to practice in individual schools, and investigated not only the specific policies and practices directly related to teacher quality, but the larger economic, political, institutional, and cultural contexts in which policies on teacher quality are shaped.
Through it all, what emerges is a picture of a sea change taking place in the paradigm of mass education in the advanced industrial nations. When university graduates of any kind were scarce and most people had jobs requiring only modest academic skills, countries needed teachers who knew little more than the average high school graduate, perhaps less than that at the primary school level. It was not too hard to find capable people, typically women, to do that work, because the job opportunities for women with that level of education were limited.
But none of that is true anymore. Wage levels in the advanced industrial countries are typically higher than elsewhere in the world. Employers who can locate their manufacturing plants and offices anywhere in the world and who do not need highly skilled labor look for workers who have the basic skills they need in low-wage countries, so the work available to workers with only the basic skills in the high-wage countries is drying up. That process is being greatly accelerated by the rapid advance of automation. The jobs that are left in the high-wage countries mostly demand a higher level of more complex skills.
These developments have put enormous pressure on the governments of high-wage countries to find teachers who have more knowledge and a deeper command of complex skills. These are the people who can get into selective universities and go into occupations that have traditionally had higher status and are better compensated than school teaching. What distinguishes the countries with the best-performing education systems is that: 1) they have figured this out and focused hard on how to respond to these new realities; and 2) they have succeeded not just in coming up with promising designs for the systems they need but in implementing those systems well. The result is not only profound changes in the way they source, educate, train, and support a truly professional teaching force, but schools in which the work of teachers is very differently organized, the demands on school leaders is radically changed, teachers become not the recipient of a new set of instructions from the ”center,“ but the people who are actually responsible for designing and carrying out the reforms that are lifting the performance of their students every day. Not least important, these systems offer real careers in teaching that enable teachers, like professionals in other fields, to gain more authority, responsibility, compensation, and status as they get better and better at the work, without leaving teaching.
This is an exciting story. It is the story that you are holding in your hand. The story is different in every country, province, and state. But the themes behind the stories are stunningly similar. If you find this work only half as compelling as I have, you will be glued to these pages.
MARC TUCKER, PRESIDENT
NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATION AND THE ECONOMY
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
WE WISH TO ACKNOWLEDGE and thank the many individuals and organizations who so generously donated their time and energy for helping us with the planning and implementation of the study, and who shared with us their knowledge and experiences in the preparation of this book.
Firstly, we’d like to thank Marc Tucker and Betsy Brown-Ruzzi at the National Center on Education and the Economy, as well as Barry McGaw, Tony Mackay, and advisers at the Center on International Education Benchmarking who provided their feedback and suggestions in the preparation of the draft. We also thank the Center for Teaching Quality and their network of teachers, several of whom contributed to this project. We also offer our thanks to Barnett Berry and the Center for Teaching Quality, whose teachers contributed their experiences and perspectives to this work.
We would like to give our sincere appreciation to the study’s principal investigator, Linda Darling-Hammond, for the opportunity to be involved in such a valuable project, and for her guidance throughout. And we thank the members of the project team—Jon Snyder, Sonya Keller, Maude Engström—as well as the other country case authors—Misty Sato, Carol Campbell, Ann Lieberman, Pamela Osmond-Johnson, Ken Zeichner, Lin Goodwin, and Ee Ling Low—for their communication, advice, and feedback.
We’d also like to thank the many educational experts with whom we spoke. We acknowledge the faculty and staff of the Universities of Melbourne, Sydney, and Wollongong, and of La Trobe University. Among these, we are particularly thankful to Stephen Dinham, Robyn Ewing, Patrick Griffin, John Hattie, Larissa McLean-Davies, Field Rickard, Sharon Tyndall-Ford, and Roger Wander.
We are grateful to the many individual policymakers who gave their time to this project. We acknowledge the Victoria Department of Education and Training and the NSW Department of Education and Communities for their assistance in conducting this research, and to the many senior staff who provided important information on the context and goals of policy reforms. We are particularly thankful to Michele Bruniges at the NSW Department of Education and Communities, Ross Fox at the National Catholic Education Commission in Sydney, Don Paproth and Fran Cosgrove at the Victorian Institute of Teaching, Patrick Lee at the NSW Institute of Teachers, and Bruce Armstrong and Chris McKenzie of the Bastow Institute of Educational Leadership for their generosity with their time and very thoughtful perspectives.
We would also like to thank the members of the federal and Victorian branches of the Australian Education Union, and the NSW Teachers’ Federation. Particular thanks to Angelo Gavrielatos, Denis Fitzgerald, Susan Hopgood, Maurie Mulheron, and Justin Mulally, and to Michael Victory of the Teachers Learning Network.
Special thanks go to the many schools, principals, teachers, staff, and students who so generously opened their doors to us, provided us with information and materials, and allowed us to enter and observe their classes. In New South Wales, we thank Principals Joanne Jarvis, David Smith, Estelle Southall, and Annette Udall, Assistant Principal Ian Casey, and teachers Antonella Albini, Rachel Clapham, Heather Crawford, Jeff Debnam, Samson Fung, Steven Holz, Roxanne Marnios, Daniel McKay, and Michelle Tregoning. In Victoria, we add our thanks to Sara-Kate Allen, Seona Aulich, Mary Dowling, Tania Ellul, Olivia Ha, and Aaron Vreulink.
Finally, we particularly acknowledge the late Paul Brock who sadly passed away before the publishing of this book. Paul introduced the two study authors and provided important feedback that informed the work. We thank him for his friendship, and his nearly 50 years of work dedicated to the betterment of education in NSW and Australia.
We are grateful to all those who contributed their time, energy, and expertise towards this research. Ultimately, any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the authors.
This study has been designed to gather evidence regarding the systems that create opportunities to promote excellence and equity in educational outcomes. We trust that this study will inform future policies to enable teachers to have the greatest impact on their students’ learning.
DION BURNS AND ANN MCINTYRE
ABOUT THE SPONSORING ORGANIZATIONS
THIS WORK IS MADE possible through a grant by the Center on International Education Benchmarking® of the National Center on Education and the Economy® and is part of a series of reports on teacher quality systems around the world. For a complete listing of the material produced by this research program, please visit www.ncee.org/cieb.
The Center on International Education Benchmarking®, a program of NCEE, funds and conducts research around the world on the most successful education systems to identify the strategies those countries have used to produce their superior performance. Through its books, reports, website, monthly newsletter, and a weekly update of education news around the world, CIEB provides up-to-date information and analysis on those countries whose students regularly top the PISA league tables. Visit www.ncee.org/cieb to learn more.
The National Center on Education and the Economy was created in 1988 to analyze the implications of changes in the international economy for American education, formulate an agenda for American education based on that analysis, and seek wherever possible to accomplish that agenda through policy change and development of the resources educators would need to carry it out. For more information visit www.ncee.org.
Research for this volume was coordinated by the Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education (SCOPE) at Stanford University. SCOPE was founded in 2008 to foster research, policy, and practice to advance high quality, equitable education systems in the United States and internationally.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Dion Burns, M.Ed, M.IR, is a senior researcher with the Learning Policy Institute and Research Analyst at the Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. With a background in policy and quantitative analysis, his research has focused on international education policies, particularly those that promote high-quality and equitable learning opportunities.
Over the past 20 years, Dion has variously worked as a teacher in Japan, a higher education policy analyst in New Zealand, and an education diplomat with roles in Latin America and the Republic of Korea.
Ann McIntyre, MLitt, BA, DipT, GDipOLCD, FACEL, FACE, is recognized for her work in quality teaching, leadership, and school and system improvement. She provides powerful professional learning that draws together research, policy, and school practice.
Ann’s work explores the power of the alignment of teacher, leader, and school and system learning, and their impact on student outcomes. As the director of Professional Learning and Leadership Development in NSW she led the development of professional frameworks, programs, and research.
As superintendent of schools and school principal, she received numerous excellence awards, and while principal received a school quality assurance report stating “this school is on the leading edge of best practices in teaching and learning.”
As a result of her contribution to educational leadership, Ann has been recognized through many awards including the Churchill Fellowship, the Sydney Leadership Award, and national Australian Council for Educational Leaders and Australian College of Educators Fellowships.
ONLINE DOCUMENTS AND VIDEOS
Access online documents an videos at http://ncee.org/empowered-educators
Link Number
URL
Title
1–1
http://ncee.org/2016/12/national-declaration-on-the-educational-goals-for-young-australians/
Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians
1–2
http://ncee.org/2016/12/australian-professional-standard-for-teachers/
Australian Professional Standard for Teachers
1–3
http://ncee.org/2016/12/australian-professional-standard-for-principals/
Australian Professional Standard for Principals
1–4
http://ncee.org/2016/12/students-first-temag-report/
Students First (TEMAG Report)
1–5
http://ncee.org/2016/12/review-of-funding-for-schools-gonski/
Review of funding for schools – Gonski
2–1
http://ncee.org/2016/12/nsw-5-year-strategic-plan/
NSW 5 Year Strategic Plan
2–2
http://ncee.org/2016/12/video-michele-bruniges-on-teacher-quality/
Video: Michele Bruniges on Teacher Quality
2–3
http://ncee.org/2016/12/review-of-funding-for-schools-gonski/
Review of funding for schools – Gonski
2–4
http://ncee.org/2016/12/great-teaching-inspired-learning/
Great Teaching, Inspired Learning
2–5
http://ncee.org/2016/12/students-first-temag-report/
Students First (TEMAG Report)
2–6
http://ncee.org/2016/12/professional-teaching-standards/
Professional Teaching Standards
2–7
http://ncee.org/2016/12/australian-professional-standard-for-teachers/
Australian Professional Standard for Teachers
2–8
http://ncee.org/2016/12/video-daniel-mckay/
Video: Daniel McKay on Supporting Teacher PD
2–9
http://ncee.org/2016/12/video-steven-holz/
Video: Steven Holz on Teachers in Schools and Communities
2–10
http://ncee.org/2016/12/nsw-performance-and-development-framework/
NSW Performance and Development Framework
2–11
http://ncee.org/2016/12/video-gonski-funding-model/
Video: Gonski Funding Model
3–1
http://ncee.org/2016/12/deecd-principals-for-health-and-well-being/
DEECD Principals for Health and Well Being
3–2
http://ncee.org/2016/12/victorian-early-years-learning-and-development-framework/
Victorian Early Years Learning and Development Framework
3–3
http://ncee.org/2016/12/blueprint-for-government-schools/
Blueprint for Government Schools
3–4
http://ncee.org/2016/12/deecd-2013–17-strategic-plan/
DEECD 2013-17 Strategic Plan
3–5
http://ncee.org/2016/12/towards-victoria-as-a-learning-community/
Towards Victoria as a Learning Community
3–6
http://ncee.org/2016/12/from-new-directions-to-action/
From New Directions to Action
3–7
http://ncee.org/2016/12/education-state-schools/
Education State – Schools
3–8
http://victoriancurriculum.vcaa.vic.edu.au/
The Victorian Curriculum F–10
3–9
http://ncee.org/2016/12/roles-and-responsibilities-of-teaching-service/
Roles and Responsibilities of Teaching Service
3–10
http://ncee.org/2016/12/victorian-government-schools-agreement-2013/
Victorian Government Schools Agreement 2013
3–11
http://ncee.org/2016/12/remuneration-teaching-service/
Remuneration Teaching Service
3–12
http://ncee.org/2016/12/recruitment-in-schools/
Recruitment in Schools
3–13
http://ncee.org/2016/12/guide-to-the-accreditation-process-of-ite-programs/
Guide to the Accreditation Process of ITE Programs
3–14
http://ncee.org/2016/12/course-map-monash-2015/
Course Maps for Monash University, 2015
3–15
http://ncee.org/2016/12/pre-and-post-test-zpd/
Pre- and Post-Test ZPD
3–16
http://ncee.org/2016/12/team-meeting-minutes/
Wilmott Park Primary School Grade 4 Team Meeting Minutes
3–17
http://ncee.org/2016/12/deecd-school-accountability/
DEECD School Accountability
3–18
http://ncee.org/2016/12/professional-learning-in-effective-schools/
Professional Learning in Effective Schools
3–19
http://www.bigandsmallmedia.com.au/DEECD/?view=featured
Evidence Based Professional Learning Cycle
3–20
http://ncee.org/2016/12/wpps-improvement-goals/
WPPS Improvement Goals
3–21
http://ncee.org/2016/12/professional-learning-reflections/
Professional Learning Reflections
3–22
http://ncee.org/2016/12/developmental-learning-framework-for-school-leaders/
Developmental Learning Framework for School Leaders
1A NATIONAL FRAMEWORK TO SUPPORT TEACHING QUALITY IN AUSTRALIA
Dion Burns and Ann McIntyre
THE MOST SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT influencing teaching quality in Australia over the past decade has, without question, been the establishment of nationally agreed policies for education. The wide-ranging policies, influencing what is taught, how it is taught, and who teaches it, have occurred under the auspices of two national organizations: ACARA (the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority), and AITSL (the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership).
In the first chapter of this volume, we look at each organization, their policies, and how they are intended to frame improvements in the quality of education in Australia. We also look at the issue of educational funding—a third plank of national reforms. In particular, we survey the Gonski reforms, which aims to equalize funding across states and school systems, and which is influencing states’ approach to the more equitable resourcing of education.
Preceding this, we discuss the context for education in Australia, including its school system in international comparison. We also highlight some of the challenges, in particular those related to achieving an equitable education for all students.
We begin however by briefly looking firstly at the governmental arrangements for education, and then the Melbourne Declaration—the statement that sets the long-term vision of a high-quality and equitable education for young Australians, and which has provided the impetus for powerful national reforms in a federal education system.
Australia, Its Constitution, and Federalism in Education
Education policy in Australia is formally the responsibility of the governments of each of its six states and two territories. Originally a series of independent colonies, the states federated to became the country of Australia with the establishment of a federal constitution in 1901. The states and territories retain constitutional independence from the parliament of the federal government over many important policy functions, including responsibility for education.1 Thus each state in Australia operates its own set of government schools, and trains and registers its own teachers.
Federal influence over state policy is however permitted under the federal constitution’s Section 96:
During a period of ten years after the establishment of the Commonwealth and thereafter until the Parliament otherwise provides, the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit.
(Section 96, Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1901)
This allows the federal government to provide funding to states, and tie it to specific initiatives, including in education. Successive federal governments have made use of this provision for the past 40 years, such as the assumption of responsibility for the funding of Australian universities in the 1970s. Its use as a legislative tool in school education has also grown, particularly over the past decade. This effectively means that where federal funds are provided, federal policy applies.
The increasing influence of this provision is facilitated by the nature of taxation and funding in Australia. Income and general taxes (such as GST—a value-added tax on goods and services) are collected by the federal government and subsequently dispersed to state governments in order to fund their agendas. Funding may also be directed towards school systems and specific activities. Policy matters in states and territories are thus both directly and indirectly funded by the Australian government.
Despite constitutional independence, this imbalance in funding power (known as a vertical fiscal imbalance) discourages states from declining federal funds, particularly in expensive policy areas such as education, and gives the federal government an influential voice in policy. Agreement between state and federal governments has predominated in education policy in recent years, but at times during 2003–2007, the Australian government used the specter of a reduction of funding to move states towards national policies, a period described as “coercive federalism” (Harris-Hart, 2010; Reid, 2009).
Although center-right governments have in general tended to favor a states-based approach to education policy, attempts to create national policy in areas such as curriculum over the last 40 years have been led by both Liberal (center-right) and Labor (center-left) parties. The discourses and stated rationales for national-level policies in education have thus shifted over time. These have included equity issues, national identity and cohesion, the inefficiencies of misalignment between states (the so-called railway gauge phenomenon),2 and human capital and economic growth imperatives (Gable & Lingard, 2013; Harris-Hart, 2010).
More recently, flagging international education competitiveness and the risk of “losing the education race” has been articulated as a primary driver (Franklin, 2012; Reid, 2009). Gable and Lingard (2013) have contended that Australia’s increased participation in international organizations, such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), have led it to increasingly accept a knowledge economy and productivity growth rationale, and thus to focus on education governance centered on addressing systemic issues through national level policies, rather than local issues of instruction and learning.
The most significant developments in federal education policy occurred following the election of a center-left Labor party to the federal government in 2007. The Rudd-Gillard government sought to enact its reform agenda in three key areas:
“Raising the quality of teaching in our schools.
Ensuring all students benefit from schooling through strategies based on high expectations of attainment, engagement and transitions for every student, especially in disadvantaged school communities.
Improving transparency and accountability of schools and school systems at all levels.” (Rudd & Gillard, 2008)
The success in achieving national-level policies has largely been achieved through a “co-operative federalism” (Harris-Hart, 2010). With the signing of the Melbourne Declaration in 2008 (described below), the Australian government pursued national policies largely through a series of National Partnerships agreements between federal and state governments in areas including numeracy and literacy, and teaching quality. This took place through two main organizations, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) (representing both Commonwealth and state governments) and its related body, the Education Council.3 The process has relied on consensus, and although now well-entrenched, with subsequent changes of leadership at state and federal levels, its success is still potentially subject to political forces. The challenges in implementing national funding reforms (discussed later in this paper) provide one such example.
The Australian government has established several national level bodies—most prominently the Australian Institute of Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) and the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA)—to develop and promulgate national policies in specific areas, the majority of which are enacted at the state level. The federal government’s role in education takes the form of policy leadership, the establishment of standards, recurrent school funding (including to nongovernment schools), funding specific initiatives for innovation and change, and assessment monitoring and reporting (Gable & Lingard, 2013; Zanderigo, Dowd, & Turner, 2012). A schematic of the key documents and organizational relationships is shown in Figure 1.1.
Figure 1.1National School Education Policy and Reporting Framework.
Reproduced from ACARA, 2014.
A Pivot Point—The Melbourne Declaration
A key transition point towards the adoption of national-level policies in education was the signing in 2008 of the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (Link 1-1). Issued by the then Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA), and signed by all eight federal, state, and territory education ministers, it came at a time when both the federal government, and all but one Australian state, were led by center-left Labor governments.
The two broad goals of the Melbourne Declaration are:
Goal One: Australian schooling promotes equity and excellence
Goal Two: All young Australians become:
successful learners
confident and creative individuals
active and informed citizens (MCEETYA, 2008)
Endorsed by all Australian education ministers, the MCEETYA plan outlines key strategies and initiatives that Australian governments will commit to in eight interrelated areas in order to support the achievement of the educational goals for young Australians. These eight areas are:
developing stronger partnerships
supporting quality teaching and school leadership
strengthening early childhood education
enhancing middle years development
supporting senior years of schooling and youth transitions
promoting world-class curriculum and assessment
improving educational outcomes for indigenous youth and disadvantaged young Australians, especially those from low socioeconomic backgrounds
strengthening accountability and transparency
Building on the earlier Hobart and Adelaide declarations (1989 and 1999 respectively), which established a framework for national cooperation, the Melbourne Declaration represents an important and symbolic pivot point in increasing the influence of national-level education policy, and its effects are dramatically shaping teaching quality in Australia.
In particular, the Declaration drew important attention to issues of educational equity. This includes disparities in education experienced by indigenous students, by students with disabilities, and by students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. It also brought attention to differences in educational provision between states, and between the government and nongovernment school sectors. The document thus provided important context and momentum for developments in teaching standards and curriculum, and highlighted the need for funding reform.
As a consequence, there has been increased federal engagement and cross-state collaboration on educational issues. Key amongst these are: the Schools Assistance Act (2008), providing funding to Catholic and independent schools; the National Education Agreement, with a student performance and assessment measurement framework (Council of Australian Governments, 2010); the Smarter Schools National Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality (Council of Australian Governments, 2013); new initiatives in initial teacher education (ITE) programs; and the Gonski report (Gonski et al., 2012), recommending an increased federal role in education funding; and the Australian Curriculum.
These were further strengthened by the Australian Education Act 2013 that took effect from 1 January 2014. The Act made Commonwealth funding to states and territories contingent upon the implementation of the Australian Curriculum and participation in the National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN). It is focused on improving teacher quality through the adoption by states and territories of the Australian Teacher Performance and Development Framework and the Australian Charter for the Professional Learning of Teachers and School Leaders, each of which is underpinned by the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers(APST) and the Australian Professional Standard for Principals.
About Australia
A look at Australia’s geography and demography provides useful insights to key developments in education policy. Australia is a vast country, with a comparatively small population. It has a land mass of around 2.9 million square miles, comparable to that of the United States, yet its total population is around just 23.5 million. Australia’s population distribution is heavily skewed towards the south-east of the country. The two most populous states, Victoria and New South Wales, account for over half the national population, and with two-thirds of these people living in the cities of Melbourne and Sydney. As described by one of the authors of this report: “If you considered Australia to be a house, everyone would be sitting on the front verandah.”
The country has a very diverse population. Among its 23.5 million residents, around 1 in 4 was born overseas, and nearly 1 in 5 speak a language other than English at home. The most common non-English languages are (in order) Mandarin, Italian, Arabic, Cantonese, Greek, and Vietnamese. A little over half a million Australians, around 3%, identify as being of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin, the largest proportion of which live in New South Wales (32%) and Queensland (28%). Although just 10% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders live in the Northern Territory, they comprise 27% of the territory’s population (see Figure 1.2, ABS, 2012b).
Figure 1.2Population Density of Australia.
Reproduced from ABS, 2014b.
This combination of geography and demography gives states and territories different characteristics and contexts for learning, and provides challenges for the development of nationally consistent education. For example, NSW is the most populous state, has around one third of Australia’s indigenous population, a large proportion of rural and remote schools, and around 30% of its students speak a language other than English at home. The Northern Territory is sparsely populated, with a median age lower than that of the national median, and the largest indigenous population per capita. Western Australia comprises a third of the land mass of Australia, and has a mix of petroleum, mining, and agricultural interests, and many small remote communities. By contrast, Victoria has an immigrant population much greater than that of the national average, with greater than one-third born abroad, very small remote and indigenous populations, and a diverse economy largely dominated by the services sector.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders tend to face greater challenges and fewer opportunities than their non-indigenous counterparts. For example, unemployment among indigenous Australians is considerably greater than among the non-indigenous population (17.2% versus 5.5%), while labor force participation is 20 percentage points lower (ABS, 2014d). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are also twice as likely to report fair or poor health (23.1% versus 11.8%), and face higher rates of mortality, heart disease, and other serious illnesses.
Remoteness plays a role in this. Around one-third of Australians live in regional and remote areas, which offer less diverse labor markets and access to fewer resources. In regional and remote areas, indigenous people make up a relatively large percentage of the population. Of all people who live in very remote areas, almost half (47%) are indigenous people while of those living in remote areas, 15% are indigenous (AIHW, 2014). However, this is less the case in NSW, where the great majority of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders live in cities or regional towns.
Education is viewed as playing a very important role in increasing opportunities for indigenous Australians. For example, the Australian Bureau of Statistics found that closing the education gap would decrease the gap in labor force participation by half (ABS, 2014c). This is particularly important given that Aboriginal people make up a higher proportion of Australia’s children and young people with a median age of 21, compared to that of 38 for the non-Aboriginal population.
Social Democratic Systems in Australia
The Melbourne Declaration reflects the importance placed on education in building and sustaining a democratic, equitable, and just society that is well placed to contribute to the global knowledge economy. The focus on developing students who are “successful learners, confident and creative individuals, and active and informed citizens” (MCEETYA, 2008), is a key role of education but there is also a strong awareness that the well-being of the whole child is essential and is a fundamental requirement of social policy.
Core national services that are designed to provide a safety net to underpin child well-being in Australia include health and social security support services. The nation has a system of legislation, policies, regulation, and funding to enable all people to access quality health services. Since the 1970s, the Australian government has funded a universal public health insurance scheme to provide free or subsidized health treatment (DHS, 2014). The program is supplemented by social welfare arrangements, such as smaller out-of-pocket costs and more generous safety nets for those who receive certain income-support payments (AIHW, 2012).
The Australian government also provides a range of social security payments and services, including income support payments, disability support, age pension support, youth allowances and study allowances, and rental assistance. Together, Australian social welfare contribution in 2014 represented 19% of GDP.
Australian Education in International Comparison
Schooling in Australia
Education in Australia is publicly funded, with all students having the right to a free education. Schooling is comprised of both government and nongovernment schools, the latter being further divided into Catholic and independent schools. Unlike many countries, all three systems receive public funding. The majority of students (65.1%) attend government schools, while around 20.6% and 14.3% attend Catholic and independent schools respectively (ABS, 2013). The percentage of students in nongovernment schools is higher at the secondary level.
Education in government schools is administered at the state level, and thus there is policy difference, such as the degree of centralization, that occur between states and territories. Nongovernment schools are also typically affiliated to systems administered at the state level. For example, Catholic schools in NSW are connected to the Catholic Education Commission of New South Wales, and are administered through 11 state level dioceses. Many independent schools in NSW have an affiliation with the Association of Independent Schools of NSW.4 This organization of schooling facilitates the dissemination and implementation of policy and dispersion of funds across the systems.
Teaching and Teachers’ Time in Australia
International data suggest that teachers in Australia work hours that are longer than average when compared to other OECD countries, but that this time favors greater involvement with colleagues in teaching and planning, and school management. The Teaching and Learning International survey (TALIS) found that Australian teachers worked an average of 42.7 hours a week, slightly longer than the TALIS average, but that the number of teaching hours was slightly fewer, at 18.6 a week. Australian teachers spent nearly twice the average number of weekly hours participating in school management (3.1 hours), and considerably more weekly hours than average working and in dialog with colleagues (3.5 hours) (OECD, 2014c, p. 387). Perhaps as a consequence, the TALIS report found that teachers in Australia were more likely to incorporate active teaching strategies—small group problem-solving, the use of ICT, and projects of longer than a week—into their teaching practices (OECD, 2014c, p. 155).
TALIS also surveyed teachers’ views of the teaching profession. It found that nationwide, just 38.5% of lower secondary teachers thought that the teaching profession was valued in society (OECD, 2014c, p. 408). While this was greater than the TALIS average (30.9%), it shows that there is much that can be done to raise the attractiveness of teaching in Australia. Many of the national reforms outlined later in this report are intended to contribute to the professionalization and raise the status of teaching.
Teachers in Australia are paid reasonably competitively for their work. When compared with other countries, their salary is above the OECD mean, on a level comparable with teachers in Canada and the United States. However, the range of possible salaries is much narrower than in these countries. It takes as few as eight years to reach the top of the teacher salary scale in Australia, compared with an OECD average of twenty-four, and the ratio of the top-of-scale to starting salaries is just 1.44 in Australia, lower than the 1.68 in Canada, and 1.52–1.61 for teachers in the United States (OECD, 2015).
When compared with other occupations, overall, the teaching profession in Australia is paid slightly less than other professions with similar levels of education (around 90%) (OECD, 2015), a level similar to teachers in Canada and Finland, but above that of the OECD average. Teachers are well paid at the start of their careers, a factor which has helped maintain high levels of recruitment of teachers into the profession. A government-supported survey of occupations in 2012 found that new graduate teachers ranked 7th among 27 professional occupations in their level of compensation, behind several medical fields and engineering, but ahead of law, sciences, and accounting (Graduate Careers Australia, 2013).
However, the low salary ceiling means that teacher salaries have tended to fall behind those of other professions later in the career, with overall, teaching paid at around 90% of that of similarly qualified professions. This is a rate similar to that in high-performing countries such as Canada and Finland, and above the OECD average (see Figure 1.3). In response, several states have recently revised their salary structures to significantly increase the pay of veteran teachers who meet standards of accomplishment aligned with professional teaching standards.
Figure 1.3Teacher Salaries Relative to Other Occupations.
International Educational Performance and Comparisons
Australia’s relative education performance has had an important bearing on educational policy discussion. As a nation, Australia’s performance on international assessments such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) has been comparatively strong. In PISA 2012, Australia scored well above the OECD average, placing it among the top 20 jurisdictions in each of mathematics, reading, and science. It had an above average share of top performers, with 14.7% scoring in Bands 5 and 6 on PISA mathematics (c.f. OECD mean of 11.9%), and a smaller than average share of low performers, with 19.6% performing below Band 2 (c.f. OECD mean of 26.0%) (OECD, 2014b, p. 298).
However, Australia’s performance on PISA has also declined over time. From 2003 to 2012, the mean score in PISA mathematics dropped by 20 points. This included a decrease in the proportion of top performers (Bands 5 and 6), and an increase in low performers (those scoring in below Band 2) (OECD, 2014b; Thomson, De Bortoli, & Buckley, 2014).
Furthermore, within Australia, there are important differences in performance across states and territories. In PISA Reading, five states (the Australian Capital Territory, Western Australia, Victoria, New South Wales, and Queensland) scored statistically significantly higher than the OECD average, while Tasmania and the Northern Territory scored significantly lower. The spread of reading scores was especially large in the Northern Territory. At 413, the difference between those of the 5th and 95th percentiles was nearly 100 points wider than that for Australia as a whole. (See Table 1.1).
Table 1.1PISA 2012 Mean Scores and Spread: Mathematics and Reading.
Country/state
Mean score
Difference 5th–95th percentile
Ranking within Australia
Country/state
Mean score
Difference 5th–95th percentile
Ranking within Australia
Shanghai-China
613
331
Shanghai-China
570
259
Singapore
573
344
Hong Kong-China
545
281
Hong Kong-China
561
318
Singapore
542
329
Finland
519
281
Australia Capital Territory
525
339
1
Canada
518
293
Finland
524
309
Australia Capital Territory
518
319
1
Canada
523
305
Western Australia
516
303
2
Western Australia
519
307
2
New South Wales
509
336
3
Victoria
517
302
3
Australia
504
315
New South Wales
513
332
4
Queensland
53
305
4
Australia
512
318
Victoria
501
299
5
Queensland
508
317
5
OECD average
494
301
South Australia
500
301
6
United Kingdom
494
312
United Kingdom
499
320
South Australia
489
299
6
United States
498
303
United States
481
295
OECD average
496
310
Tasmania
478
317
7
Tasmania
485
329
7
Northern Territory
452
368
8
Northern Territory
466
413
8
Thomson, De Bortoli, & Buckley, 2014.
Educational performance over time has also varied by state. Victoria was the only Australian jurisdiction in which scores did not decline from 2000 to 2012. Although PISA mathematics scores from 2003 to 2012 fell for all Australia jurisdictions, these declines were less precipitous in Victoria and NSW than in most other Australian jurisdictions (Thomson, De Bortoli, & Buckley, 2014).
Concern regarding flagging international education competitiveness has provided impetus to federal policy initiatives in Australia (Patty, 2013), including a renewed focus on teaching quality and standards (Dinham, Ingvarson, & Kleinhenz, 2008). Raising its performance on international assessments such as PISA have become a national education goal, embedded both in the rationale for, and the wording of, the Australian Education Act 2013 (see also Box 1.1.), as noted by then Prime Minister Julia Gillard:
Box 1.1 Goals of the Australian Education Act 2013
3. Objects of this Act
The objects of this Act are the following:
to ensure that the Australian schooling system provides a high quality and highly equitable education for all students by having regard to the following national targets:
for Australia to be placed, by 2025, in the top 5 highest performing countries based on the performance of school students in reading, mathematics and science;
for the Australian schooling system to be considered a high quality and highly equitable schooling system by international standards by 2025;
lift the Year 12 (or equivalent) or Certificate II attainment rate to 90% by 2015;
lift the Year 12 (or equivalent) or Certificate III attainment rate to 90% by 2020;
at least halve the gap between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, and other students, in Year 12 or equivalent attainment rates by 2020 from the baseline in 2006;
halve the gap between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, and other students, in reading, writing and numeracy by 2018 from the baseline in 2008;
to acknowledge the matters referred to in the Preamble;
to provide a needs-based funding model for schools applied consistently across all schools which includes:
a base amount of funding for every student; and
additional loadings for students and schools who need extra support;
to implement the National Plan for School Improvement.
Source: Australian Education Act, 2013.
This is why I announce today that before the end of this year, I will introduce a bill to our Parliament: To enshrine our nation’s expectations for what we will achieve for our children, our vision of the quality of education to which our children are entitled and our preparedness to put success for every child at the heart of how we deliver and fund education.
By 2025, I want Australian schools to be back in the top five schooling systems in the world.
By 2025, Australia should be ranked as a top 5 country in the world in Reading, Science and Mathematics—and for providing our children with a high-quality and high-equity education system.
(Gillard, 2012)
[T]he Australian schooling system is [defined to be] highly equitable if there is a limited relationship between a student’s socioeconomic status and his or her educational performance, as measured by the Programme for International Student Assessment.
(Commonwealth of Australia, 2013)
PISA and TIMSS (together with Australia’s NAPLAN assessment) were specifically listed as performance and assessment requirements in the National Education Agreement (2010) between the Australian government and the states.
Comparative performance has also influenced policy discussions at the state level. In Victoria, lack of growth in international scores despite investments in capacity building during the same period informed the state’s thinking in making the case for increasing school autonomy, identifying central direction inhibiting local decision-making around teaching practice, curriculum, assessment, and reporting as factors hindering growth in student outcomes (DEECD, 2012c). Interestingly, this movement in Victoria towards further decentralization at the state level occurred simultaneously with a countertrend towards centralization of policies at the national level in key areas of curriculum, assessment, and teacher registration, discussed later in this chapter.
Education and Equity
Australia is regarded as a high-equity country by some measures. The country has lower than average between-school variance, and the strength of the relationship between students’ socioeconomic background (SES) and mathematics performance on PISA is relatively low. Nationally, SES explained just 12.3% of the variation in PISA mathematics scores, lower than the 14.6% average for all OECD countries. Among states, the strength of relationship in Victoria was weakest, with SES explaining just 9% of the variation in mathematics scores, placing it line with other high-equity jurisdictions, such as Canada, Finland, and Hong Kong (Thomson, De Bortoli, & Buckley, 2014). See Figure 1.4.
Figure 1.4Quality and Equity of Performance in Mathematical Literacy Internationally.
Reproduced from Thomson, De Bortoli, & Buckley, 2014.
However, these data mask important equity challenges that exist across five principal axes: school sector, indigenous status, immigrant status, remoteness, and socioeconomic status. Students in Catholic and Independent schools, for example, tend to perform comparatively better on international assessments than their counterparts in government schools (Thomson, De Bortoli, & Buckley, 2014), although analysis of PISA data indicate this is largely attributable to the higher SES of private school students (Mahuteau et al., 2010). While first-generation students, interestingly, tend to perform better than those from nonimmigrant backgrounds, there is also wide variance across subgroups (ACARA, 2013a; Thomson, De Bortoli, & Buckley, 2014).
The greatest disparities in educational outcomes occur across indigenous status. Despite recent improvements in retention and achievement—the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students completing Year 12 or higher qualifications increased from 30% to 37% from 2006 to 2011 (ABS, 2012a, 2013; ACARA, 2013a)—PISA data show a 90-point difference between indigenous and non-indigenous students, estimated to be equivalent to more than two-and-a-half years of schooling (Thomson, De Bortoli, & Buckley, 2014). Remoteness contributes to these gaps. Students in metropolitan areas had significantly higher mean scores than those in provincial or remote areas, and there was a much wider distribution of scores among students living in remote areas. (See Figure 1.5).
Figure 1.5Mean Scores and Distribution of Students’ Performance on PISA Mathematics by Geographic Location.
Reproduced from Thomson, De Bortoli, & Buckley, 2014.
Thus addressing educational gaps for indigenous students and those in remote areas is a focal point for national educational policy. Different emphases may be placed on their implementation at the state level, given the great differences in indigenous populations and remoteness among states and territories. For example, just 2% of students in Victoria identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, compared with over 40% in the Northern Territory (ABS, 2013).
The Melbourne Declaration underscores the need to address both excellence and equity, and emphasis over the past decade has been on nationally agreed policies. Yet within each state the diversity of student needs and educational priorities influences the way these policies become manifest in the state-based education systems across Australia. These national and state policies are addressed in the remainder of this volume.
Professional Teaching Standards and the Role of AITSL
Much of the emphasis of education policy to achieve the goals of the Melbourne Declaration, and address the above challenges, has been directed at improving teaching quality. The formation of AITSL (the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership), and with it the introduction of the national professional standards for teaching (Link 1-2), is perhaps the most significant development shaping teaching quality and the nature of the teaching profession in Australia.
