Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Quality Education
(Option 3)
The Australian public has long held a preoccupation with what constitutes quality education, with
major state or national enquiry becoming the annual average for the last 30 years (Dinham, 2013).
This is also reflected in academic research, with investigation into influencing factors on student
achievement. Much of this research attributes teacher quality as the single, largest, in-school
factor (Jenson 2010; Barber & Mourshed, 2007; Hattie, 2003, 2009). However, there are other
studies that argue that school socio-economic status is also greatly linked to student outcomes
(Perry & McConney, 2010, 2013). Thus there has been much political and media debate about how
best to improve the quality of education in Australia: through improving teacher quality, or through
funding and resources. In this essay I will discuss the NSW Government's Great Teaching,
Inspired Learning reform (Bruniges, Lee, & Alegournarias, 2013), Stephen Dinhams (2013)
article The quality teaching movement in Australia encounters difficult terrain: a personal
perspective, and David Gonski et al.s (2011) Review of Funding for Schooling: Final
Report. Furthermore, I will argue that quality education is best achieved through both of these
means, through adequate and equitable funding to support the improvement of teacher quality and
quality teaching.
The NSW Governments Great Teaching, Inspired Learning reform places the responsibility of
quality education on teachers. The recommendations outlined in the document titled Great
Teaching, Inspired Learning: A blueprint for action (Bruniges, Lee, & Alegournarias,
2013), produced in a collaboration between the NSW Department of Education and Communities,
1
NSW Institute of Teachers, and NSW Boards of Studies, are centred around improving the quality
performance (NSW Department of Education and Communities, 2013, p. 3). This is based on the
assertion that, despite influencing factors originating both within and without the school
environment, once inside the school gates, student performance is most closely influenced by
teacher quality (Bruniges, Lee, & Alegournarias, 2013, p. 5). This finding is based on a paper
reviewing various research on effective education, dated from 1971 to 2013 (NSW Department of
Education and Communities, 2013). Thus the reform presents the issue in question and their
solutions to it as well-informed and based on, and backed by, decades of academic research
(Bruniges, Lee, & Alegournarias, 2013; NSW Department of Education and Communities, 2013).
This certainly suggests a thoroughly comprehensive approach, though one might question the
applicability of the more dated research to the contemporary context. The reforms blueprint
document does briefly acknowledge influences on student achievement external to school, however
its focus on the teachers role neglects these supposedly superfluous factors (Bruniges, Lee, &
Alegournarias, 2013). Furthermore, the reform proposes that improvements to teacher quality can
be achieved through various measures, including: attracting and accepting only high academic
performers into high quality initial teacher education; supporting graduate teachers career entry
with a high quality induction program; supporting professional development, and removing
teachers form the profession who fail to meet standards even with professional support (Bruniges,
Lee, & Alegournarius, 2013, p. 7, 12, 15, 17). The reforms focus on teacher quality, and enabling
the removal of failing teachers, implies that student failure is the fault of the teachers, thus placing
collaboration to improve teacher practice and student outcomes" (Bruniges, 2013, p. 19). So while
these measures appear to be beneficial to both teachers and students in standardising the teaching
profession, NSW Education Minister Adrian Piccolis assertion that the actual application of these
recommendations are not to be specified by the blueprint, but rather by local school authorities, is
2
questionable. If the blueprints guidelines are to be implemented at the individual school level,
without input from the state government, then the margin for interpretation is left wide open. As
such, there is much academic and media criticism of the NSW Governments Quality Teaching,
In his article, The quality teaching movement in Australia encounters difficult terrain: a personal
perspective, Dinham (2013) criticises the political emphasis on teacher quality for improving the
quality of education, for its condemnation of teacher performance. Dinham (2013) argues that
conclusions drawn from various studies, such as Hatties (2003, 2009), that name teachers as the
most influential factor on student performance internal to the school environment, have been
misappropriated to blame teachers for student failures. He also argues that in the public debate over
teacher quality, the words in school have been mislaid, by accident or design, so that teachers
are represented as be the most significant factor (Dinham, 2013, p. 93). This view of teachers fails
to recognise the various other factors that can influence a students success or failure. The students,
themselves, are the biggest overall factor, accounting for 50% of variance, for their personal
attributes are the most influential aspects on achievement, and that is ultimately informed by the
home environment, which itself contributes another 5-10% (Hattie, 2003, p. 1-2). The criticism of
teachers to ensure success with students, regardless of factors beyond their control, has rendered
teaching as the battered profession, in which teachers and education in general are heavily and
negatively criticised (Dinham, 2013; Scott & Dinham, 2002, 2013; Scott, Stone & Dinham, 2001).
Furthermore, Dinham (2013) argues that the various solutions emerging from the teacher quality
teaching debate, such as dismissal of lowest 5% performing teachers, paying teachers according to
performance, rather than time spent in the profession, and raising entry requirements for teaching
students, neglects the professional support and development of teachers, moreover the recognition
and rewarding of teachers skills and growth. This is contradicted by co-author of the Quality
3
Dr Michele Bruniges (2013, p. 19), who claims that the reform proposes a more efficient system for
supporting teachers in all stages of their careers with professional learning plans aligned to the
professional standards. Regardless, these debates are occurring concurrently with the NSW
Governments decision to cut $1.7 billion and 1000 jobs from the states education sector (Dinham,
2013; Patty, 2012). This inevitably prompts the question of how seriously concerned the NSW
Government are with improving teacher quality, if they are cutting the funds necessary to do so, or
whether they are shifting the blame of government's failure to provide resources on to individual
schools and individual teachers (Joan Lemaire, NSW Teachers Federation senior vice-president, as
cited in Armitage, 2012, p. 7). This possibility is supported by Dinhams (2013, p. 93) view that the
The Gillard Government's Review of Funding for Schooling: Final Report (Gonski et
al., 2011) emphasises the necessity of adequate and equitable funding to support the provision
of quality education for all Australian students. It further suggests that the widening
performance gap amongst students results from the inequitable distribution of school funding,
which tends to allocate more funds to schools with high student performance and high socio-
economic status (Gonski et al., 2011). Thus it proposes a 'needs-based' funding system, in
which funding is distributed according to disadvantage. The Gonski Review presents itself
from hundreds of education professionals and stakeholders and over 7000 written submissions
(Gonski et al., 2011, p. xi). Furthermore, it bases its findings and recommendations upon a
considerable portfolio of academic literature and research material, statistical evidence and
official reports. Such a vast array of research increases the Gonski Reviews credibility and
veridicality, that is, such foundational research affects a far more compelling case for needs-
based funding, for it is represented with sincerity and authenticity. Some of the academic
research informing the review strongly links quality education to adequate and equitable
4
resources and funding in the relationship between school socio-economic status and student
outcomes, regardless of students personal SES (Perry & McConney, 2010, 2013). Ultimately,
though, funding positively influences outcomes only when spent on effective resources,
such as learning aids, support workers, or teacher quality (Grubb & Allen, 2011). Thus, while
the Gonski Review certainly has the best of intentions in its desire to promote educational
equality, one must question how Gonski funding will be spent once distributed to individual
schools and school systems. In this, the Gonski Review asserts that school systems would be
expenditure of funding (Gonski et al., 2011). Whether this will ensure funding benefits those
who need it most remains to be seen, however students and school in NSW, SA and Victoria
are already reaping the advantages, with funds enabling professional teacher development and
the employment of support staff for struggling students (Australia: Students benefit from new
Gonski funding, 2014; Gonski fact sheet(s), n.d.). While the Gonski funding is equitably
beneficial to all school students, the matter is further complicated by the Abbot Governments
indecisiveness regarding Gonski funding and eventual refusal to honour it to its full extent
(Zyngier 2013). Federal Education Minister, Christopher Pyne, and Prime Minister, Tony
Abbot, abandoned the co-contribution requirement of the states, distributing only 30% of the
funds promised by the Review (Zyngier, 2013). This potentially leaves public schools, with
the most disadvantage, further disenfranchised. Which brings us full circle, for in the midst of
all the Gonski turmoil, Christopher Pine promoted the view that quality education results from
quality teaching, not funding and resources (Roberts, 2013). This implicates that the future of
Australian schooling is uncertain: teacher quality must improve, or suffer the consequences
(see above), yet the funding necessary to support teachers in improving their practice, and to
equip teachers with the resources they need to provide students with quality education, is at
5
The turbulent nature of the quality education debate in Australia ensures a certain ambiguity for the
future of education. As both sides of the argument base their findings and recommendations on
comprehensive research, quality education is surely related to both teacher quality and funding.
However, the Quality Teaching reforms omission of other factors influencing student outcomes
incites suspicion of the NSW Government's hidden agenda, whereas the Gonski Reviews
acknowledgement of other factors indicates its sincerity. Arguably, the Quality Teaching
reforms ulterior motive is detract public attention from education budget cuts, and to shift the
blame of student failure from a lack of resources to teacher quality. The implication is that
equitable, quality education may not be taken seriously in Australian politics, despite predominating
public and political debate, likely resulting in further disadvantage for those students, teachers and
6
References
Armitage, C. (2012, October 19). Call to waive HECS debt for good student teachers. Sydney
url=http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/ps/i.do?id=GALE
%7CA305620657&v=2.1&u=uwsydney&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=8a6e22787e0d2f4b6f
6457b05182b28a
Australia: Students benefit from new gonski funding. (2014). MENA Report. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1621680251?accountid=36155
Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the worlds best-performing school systems
come out on top. McKinsey and Company, OECD. Retrieved from http://www.smhc-
cpre.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/how-the-worlds-best-performing-school-systems-come-
out-on-top-sept-072.pdf
Bruniges, M. (2013, April 1). Time teachers broke down the old assumptions. Sydney Morning
url=http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/ps/i.do?id=GALE
%7CA324234228&v=2.1&u=uwsydney&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=6d21f5ec27e96ce64a
9fa3eb6aa9ce7d
Bruniges, M., Lee, P., & Alegounarias, T. (2013, March). Great teaching, inspired learning:
A blueprint for action. NSW Department of Education and Communities, NSW Institute
http://www.schools.nsw.edu.au/media/downloads/news/greatteaching/gtil_blueprint.pdf
hijacking-the-quality-teaching-movement-9017
7
Dinham, S. (2013). The quality teaching movement in Australia encounters difficult terrain: A
doi:10.1177/0004944113485840
Gonski, D., Boston, K., Greiner, K., Lawrence, C., Scales, B., & Tannock, P. (2011, December).
https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/review-of-funding-for-schooling-final-
report-dec-2011.pdf
Gonski fact sheet: Gonski is getting results in New South Wales. (n.d.). I give a
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/aeu/pages/332/attachments/original/1442532572/Go
nski_is_getting_results_in_NSW.pdf?1442532572
Gonski fact sheet: Gonski is getting results in South Australia. (n.d.). I give a
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/aeu/pages/333/attachments/original/1442532543/Go
nski_is_getting_results_in_SA.pdf?1442532543
Grubb, W.N., & Allen, R. (2010). Rethinking school funding, resources, incentives, and outcomes.
Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference: what is the research evidence? Building Teacher
Quality. Australian Council for Educational Research Annual Conference. Retrieved from
https://cdn.auckland.ac.nz/assets/education/hattie/docs/teachers-make-a-difference-ACER-
%282003%29.pdf
8
Jenson, B. (2010). Investing in our teachers, investing in our economy. Grattan
content/uploads/2014/04/057_report_education_investing_teachers.pdf
NSW Department of Education and Communities. (2013, February). Great teaching, inspired
learning: What does the evidence tell us about effective teaching? Centre for
http://www.schools.nsw.edu.au/media/downloads/news/greatteaching/gtil_cese_research_repo
rt.pdf
Patty, A. (2012, September). NSW to slash $1.7b from education funding. Sydney Morning
funding-20120911-25ps9.html
Perry, L., & McConney, A. (2010). School socio-economic composition and student outcomes in
54(1), 72-85.
Perry, L., & McConney, A. (2013). School socioeconomic status and student outcomes in reading
Roberts, P. (2013). Curriculum, equity and resources: how we got lost in the Gonski
and-resources-how-we-got-lost-in-the-gonski-debate-21210
Scott, C., & Dinham, S. (2002). The beatings will continue until quality improves: Carrots and
sticks in the search for educational improvement. Teacher Development, 6(1), 15-31.
Scott, C., & Dinham, S. (2013). A battered profession. Sheilas. Retrieved from
http://sheilas.org.au/2013/02/a-battered-profession/
9
Scott, C., Stone, B., & Dinham, S. (2001). I love teaching but ... international patterns of teacher
Zyngier, D. (2013). From Gonski to gone to Gonski again: school funding future
gonski-to-gone-to-gonski-again-school-funding-future-remains-uncertain-21025
10