Editorial
- 25 February 2001
Problems with Primary Education? Rubbish – Flexibility,
That's All You Need
"Double-speak is language designed to evade
responsibility, make the unpleasant appear pleasant, the 
unattractive appear
attractive. Basically, it's language that pretends to communicate, but really
doesn't. It is language designed to mislead, while pretending not to."
That's the definition William
Lutz, editor of the Quarterly Review of Double Speak, gives to the
phrase originated by George Orwell, first in his essay Politics in the
English Language and then more vehemently in his novel 1984. In 1989
Lutz published Double-Speak:
From "Revenue Enhancement" to "Terminal Living" -- How
Government, Business, Advertisers and Others Use Language to Deceive You. It
may well still be required reading for all government ministers and/or those
aspiring to the cabinet (inner or outer).
Witness the latest pronouncement by the Federal Minister
for Education, David Kemp. "Schools need more flexibility, says
Kemp" was the headline in the February 23rd Sydney
Morning Herald.
Dr.
Kemp is then quoted as saying during an ABC interview,
"We've
consistently made the point that we believe that the state systems (our
emphasis) need to give the schools a greater level of independence and
autonomy.
And the principals are then able to better meet the needs of the community.
The best thing that we can do at the moment I believe is to show that we're
prepared to give that flexibility and to match that with accountability for
outcomes and results.
And that's what we're doing."
This declamation refers to the $1.4 billion of
discretionary funds Dr. Kemp's department already has at its disposal.
To make sure the listeners (which presumably included
the primary school principals) got the message he went on to say, "On
Monday we're introducing regulations into the parliament to put into law the
national literacy standards.
"And if the states agree to make those the basis
of Commonwealth funding then we're going to have much more flexible funding for
students in need as a result of that." [Please refer
to the paragraph at the top of the page.]
What the primary school principals are being told in
plain Anglo-Saxon English is you've got all the money you're going to get out of
us and all the money you need, just get your states to reapportion it properly.
This is the equivalent of telling a patient just admitted to hospital with a
spurting severed jugular that he doesn't need a transfusion, it's just a matter
of redirecting the blood flow.
In their media
release the Australian Primary Principals Association (APPA) states,
"Over the past decade we have seen billions of dollars invested into
secondary education through Vocational Education Training programs, also into
Middle Schooling and most recently the Tertiary sector with the Prime Minister's
release of Backing Australia's Ability. All
these investments were necessary and are to be applauded.
However, now it is time to make the billion dollar investments into
primary education, particularly the early years.
This investment will not only address the significant challenges raised
in the Report, but also lessen the current levels of costly corrective
educational, social and judicial strategies required in later life.
As research constantly reminds us, a dollar invested in the early years
saves eight times that in later years." While The Funneled Web would
take issue on the matter of adequate resourcing of secondary and tertiary
education compared with our cohort nations, there is no argument with regard to
the woeful inadequacies of teaching in the primary public schools.
The problem is multifaceted, and as Tony Misich, President
of APPA, writes in their media release, " 'Our Future' is not about
pointing the finger of blame. Rather, it is about painting the real landscape,
as perceived by primary principals. It is about raising issues of need, equity
and ethos that must be addressed and actioned over the years to come. It is not
about 'quick fix' or 'quick top up' remedies, but rather long term investment
into the most vital of all education areas – that of primary education."
The close typed sixty
page report "Our Future"
written for the Australian Government Primary Principals Association (AGPPA)
by Professor Max Angus and Harriet Olney of Edith Cowan University opens with,
"This report examines the views of government primary school principals
about the adequacy of school resource levels and the future of public
education." One of the points made is that on average, "A school may
receive up to 40 per cent more for each student in Year 12 than for a student in
Year 3."
Now it is reasonable to ask in the light of Dr. Kemps
statements on the ABC if the "flexibility" he alludes to means that
funds should be redistributed so that year 12 gets less while year 3 gets more.
The President of APPA may have already known (or guessed) Dr. Kemps views when
he wrote in the Media release, "[One concern is] the capacity to deliver
desired outcomes effectively – [e.g.] while outcomes based education
and technology are prime focus areas, schools feel they have not been afforded
the required investment levels to do so effectively and [they] 'rob Peter to pay
Paul' as they rationalise internally to compensate." The report itself
states, "[Principals] also indicated that the low levels of funding in the
government primary school sector require them to 'rob Peter to pay Paul'.
They are concerned about the detrimental effect of under-funding on
school programs and the time that they waste juggling the limited resources
available for maximum value."
There is a certain arrogance in Dr. Kemp's posture, almost
like throwing scapes to the hoi polloi and having them squabble over
them. The reality of the matter is that there are inadequate resources for the
appropriate training of primary and secondary teachers; their stipends are non
competitive; their social status and self-esteem are low. All the flexibility in
the universe is not going to cure the crucial problems affecting Australia's
educational systems at all levels.
"Our Future" specifies that "Two key
questions arise. The first is whether current funding arrangements provide
schools with the platform they need to equip future generations of Australians
for the challenges ahead. In the event that the funding arrangements fall short
of what is required, the second question follows: How might the current
situation be improved? This report deals with both these important
questions."
Below are just a sample of the well defined concerns voiced
in the report with specific exemplary comments from respondents.
"For many teachers and principals, a mandated
curriculum defined by outcomes serves to bring their frustration into focus.
I am sick
of hearing that outcomes are all that matter.
Without adequate resources I cannot improve outcomes for students.
"They face real difficulties in responding
meaningfully to the changes. Outcomes-based
schooling effectively represents a paradigm shift in education; the impact of
this in the classroom is huge."
"Information communication
technologies"
"Information communication technology has created a
huge additional expense for primary schools.
In many cases computers were given to schools or purchased from
technology grants. Having accepted
the 'gifts', the schools are expected to take responsibility for the costs they
bring with them.
We
estimate the recurrent costs for maintaining the IT program to be in excess of
$20,000 per annum. With a total
curriculum budget of not much more than that, we're scratching to see where it
will come from. [5006]
"Maintenance is just one cost.
Developing staff competence can also be very expensive.
The cost of installing computer networks can be prohibitive in old school
buildings.
"For many schools, it is not possible to absorb extra costs
if there are other financial imperatives.
Constant
computer problems mean that computers often remain idle for months at a time.
[2803]
"Country schools also have the added burden of the
cost of transporting equipment to the nearest repairer. One principal said that the minimum cost of transporting each
computer to the nearest service facility is $160."
And later
"Principals used terms such as 'cobbling', 'scraping'
and 'hustling' to describe their budget processes. They claim that the level of resources allocated is not
adequate for their schools' needs.
Global grants have not increased in real terms
for years, however, costs have gone up: utilities, consumables and casual
teacher salaries. Each year,
less money can be devoted to educational programs.
[2727]
"The result of this is that many schools can fund only
their highest priorities.
We spend all our lives
robbing Peter to pay Paul. We
are always broke. The lack of
resources stops innovation as it cannot be cost neutral.
[7058]
The full implications of this are that, at times, real cuts
to programs will be made."
One of the most disheartening comments reported we might
term the, thems as has gets syndrome. Schools in middle class or upper
middle class areas can obtain additional funding through parental contributions.
That in turn can attract governmental bonus payments. In low income areas – no
such luck. So of course the facilities' gulf widens.
What becomes patently evident when reading the report is
that the principals don't believe the bureaucrats or the politicians are really
listening. Dr. Kemp's comments on the ABC would suggest that they have a point.
Nevertheless we live in hope. The current fast track
revamping of the conditions governing the lodgment of the Business Activity
Statement shows that our government is capable of accomplishing the impossible.
Comparison of statements made by the Federal Treasurer over the past month has
clearly demonstrated this fact.
Just imagine what might happen
if we became as adamant about the decrepitude of our educational system as we
are about the cost of petrol or the difficulties incurred by implementing the
GST.
Alex
Reisner
areisner@bigpond.com