How schools can lift their games
There is a good deal of evidence that autonomy, diversity and choice in education is beneficial.
School autonomy and a more market-driven approach, represented by diversity and choice in education, are front and centre as public policy issues. Both main political parties at the Commonwealth level advocate giving schools greater autonomy, and Western Australia has introduced its Independent Public Schools Initiative while the Victorian government is signalling a new wave of reform.
Critics such as the Australian Education Union argue against increased competition, diversity and choice in education, while Professor John Hattie, from the University of Melbourne, argues against change as Victorian teachers "already have a remarkable degree of autonomy".
In relation to autonomy, Victorian teachers, and Australian teachers generally, have minimal freedom in what they teach, how it is assessed, how schools are structured and how they are accredited and evaluated in terms of performance.
Schools face a national curriculum, national NAPLAN testing, national teacher registration and certification and national standards for teacher training. School leaders complain they are overwhelmed with micromanagement and many teachers leave the profession because of bureaucratic overload.
The research is mixed but there is a good deal of evidence that autonomy, diversity and choice in education is beneficial.
To argue that school autonomy is inherently good shouldn't surprise; remember that during the 1970s, alternative schools such as the Sydney Road and Swinburne community schools pioneered curriculum innovations because they were free from bureaucratic control.
An evaluation of Western Australia's independent schools initiative concludes that "the implementation of the IPS initiative is a positive one", and that "most teachers in the IPS felt more professional, accountable and in control of their careers".
Research by Ludger Woessmann and Erik Hanushek, from Stanford University's Hoover Institution, concludes that increased autonomy and choice in education leads to improved standards as measured by "more than one and a half PISA [Program for International Student Assessment] grade-level equivalents".
The consensus is positive, whether you consider Caroline Hoxby's analysis of charter schools in the US, Patrick Wolfe's evaluation of the Milwaukee and Washington DC voucher programs, or a 2011 London School of Economics analysis of Academy Schools introduced during the Blair years.
It shouldn't surprise that an OECD analysis of the 2009 PISA results concludes, "In countries where schools have greater autonomy over what is taught and how students are assessed, students tend to perform better."
Closer to home, independent and Catholic schools outperform government schools, even after adjusting for students' home backgrounds, because non-government schools have greater control over staffing, curriculum focus and school culture.
In an analysis of the impact of school autonomy, research sponsored by the OECD concludes that the presence of well-resourced and autonomous non-government schools is critical if standards are to improve.
The OECD Education Working Paper No. 13, School Accountability, Autonomy, Choice, and the Level of Student Achievement, says that where non-government schools are under-funded by government, students "perform significantly worse", whereas if "public funding is equalised between privately and publicly operated schools", standards as measured by international tests improve.
Of course, to argue for autonomy, diversity and choice doesn't mean all schools and their communities are ready to take on the challenge.
Some school leaders are not up to the task, some existing staff rooms might be dysfunctional, and a particular school community might face challenges and obstacles such that there is still a need for external intervention and support.
It's also the case that introducing a more market-driven approach will fail if, at the same time, governments increase control and management such that there is little, if any, flexibility or freedom for schools to chart their own course.
Rhetoric about empowering schools is meaningless if government intervention increases and funding is tied to implementation. Objections to the Rudd government's Better Schools plan expressed by Premier Denis Napthine and Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings, who are from either side of the political fence, best illustrate this fear.
Dr Kevin Donnelly is director of the Education Standards Institute. He taught for 18 years in Melbourne government and non-government schools.
The story How schools can lift their games first appeared on The Sydney Morning Herald.