In Australia, we are fortunate to have many outstanding and dedicated teachers.
It has meant we have many successful schools and by international standards, a better than good education system.
But given our governments invest billions of dollars of public funds into our education system each year; Australians deserve a system that is better than good.
We can do better.
If we want to improve our standard of living, our productivity and our society, then it is crucial that we confront some of the key challenges facing our education system, including our long tail of students failing in literacy and numeracy, our sub-standard and over-crowded curriculum and our looming teacher shortage and quality crisis.
All of these problems are inextricably linked. Without the top performing teachers teaching the best curriculum, we have lower standards, get poorer student outcomes and have fewer top performing teachers being attracted into classrooms in the first place.
These are all problems which won't simply be solved by putting a computer on a desk.
As welcome as new computers might be - they won't create better teachers.
We need our smartest people teaching in our classrooms and if we can achieve this, better literacy and numeracy results will follow.
A study from the Australian National University found that a teacher who rates in the 90th percentile of performance can achieve in six months what it takes a teacher who achieves in the 10th percentile to achieve in a full year (‘Incentives will bring top teachers', Noel Pearson, Weekend Australian, 19 Jan 2008).
While we currently have thousands of dedicated and high quality teachers, performing incredibly challenging roles to get great outcomes, we don't have enough.
Unlike the top performing education systems in the world, Australia recruits its teachers from the bottom third of graduates from our school system, rather than the top.
To the detriment of our school system, you can now get into a teaching course with an entrance score as low as 56 in Victoria, making it one of the lowest ranked university degrees on offer (VTAC Course index 2009).
Added to this, is our problem of retaining the teachers we do attract and coping with an ageing workforce.
The solutions required will need across the board reform in the years ahead involving our universities, our schools and both levels of government.
Firstly, we need better pay and better respect for the teaching profession.
At the moment this isn't the case. While a graduate's starting salary is quite good it plateaus quickly. A teacher starting in their early 20s can reach their maximum salary by the time they're in their 30s.
We cannot think about raising standards in our schools if we think that teachers don't deserve incentives and rewards for better performance.
Teachers need greater options for professional development and they must be provided with access to higher salaries to reward excellence.
I for one would be happy to see the best and brightest and highest performing teachers and principals rewarded with salaries of $100,000 - or more.
Not for every teacher, but for the best teachers.
Secondly, we need to be flexible in the way we keep our teachers and recruit them in the first place.
We need to look past just drawing our teachers straight from university, accept that some teachers will leave the classroom and recognise qualifications and experience for those who wish to make a career change into teaching.
With better pay and recognition for skills and experience and flexibility in qualifications, other professionals should find it easier and more viable to consider teaching as a career later in life.
It is also imperative that we lift the status of the teaching profession.
In the UK, there was considerable focus on improving the quality of teachers and part of this was achieved through the innovative Teach First programme which used marketing and recruitment techniques to select the top performing graduates to teach in England's most challenging schools (see the Teach First website).
In its first year, 1000 applicants from the top universities applied for 200 places and demand for a spot has been growing ever since.
We must also pursue policies and pathways to remove our poorly performing teachers from the classroom.
This could be achieved by allowing for greater principal autonomy in hiring and firing and management of staff, shifting the focus onto what is best for the school, rather than what is convenient for the union or easy for the bureaucracy.
In Australia the time to debate the wave of reform in our teaching profession and consequently our education system to advance our future prosperity, is now.
Because as welcome as new computers might be - they won't create better teachers or dramatically improve educational outcomes. We need a real revolution that attracts the best and brightest into teaching and gives them a first rate curriculum to teach with so Australia can have the best education system in the world - not just the most computers.
The Hon. Tony Smith MP has been a Liberal member of the Australian House of Representatives since 2001, representing the Division of Casey, Victoria. In his role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (appointed in January 2007), he was involved in the legislation approval process and had responsibility for broad policy implementation as well as for the Government's National Security Science and Technology Unit. On 6 December 2007, Tony was appointed the shadow portfolio of Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training. http://www.tonysmithmp.com/
Comments
Response from Julia Gillard's office
We've contacted Julia Gillard's office for a comment on Tony's blog and they've asked us to publish a speech the Deputy Prime Minister delivered recently at the ACER conference in Brisbane, by way of her response - here is the link.
I think both Tony and Julia,
I think both Tony and Julia, as much as they talk about improving and rewarding "good" teachers miss the point almost entirely. No amount of teaching is going to help prepare students for industries which don't exist just yet. And this is increasingly the case in a rapidly changing and globalizing world.
We have plenty of institutions for being taught something. What we haven't yet cracked is understanding what are the requirements of an institution for lifelong learning. We tend to lump teaching and learning in the same category, as if the principles of each are the same. But learning is something which, in my experience, begins in memesis = in copying someone's behaviour. So I'm certainly not going to chastise a student in a schoolyard for copying a politician's behaviour in our parliament's question time.
Tony might say, " the time to debate the wave of reform in our teaching profession and consequently our education system to advance our future prosperity, is now". He's quite wrong. The time was years ago, when (say) Google's capitalization overtook US's steel.
This comparison gives us a hint. The new knowledge industries are founded in global (interactive) media platforms. So rather than focussing on "what is best for the school", could we focus, just for once, on what is best for students (regardless of age). Could we also get past this idea that the development and delivery of policy (in government) and curricula (in education) must be produced by experts like widgets from a factory.
If we can do this, then we might just improve the situation mentioned in this report. http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/consulting-with-government-online...
"In contrast to most respondents, teenagers (14 – 17 year olds), participating in the focus groups held a different view. They were keen to participate in this debate only if they felt their views were being listened to". Seems all the 18+ students have learnt otherwise.http://me.edu.au/p/Simonfj