Address to the national press club

HON CHRISTOPHER PYNE MP

SHADOW MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, APPRENTICESHIPS & TRAINING

ADDRESS TO THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB

CANBERRA, APRIL 6, 2011

(Check against delivery)

Since December last year a real revolution has swept through the Middle East.

Two longstanding, seemingly insurmountable regimes were ousted. Both Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak and President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia were toppled by ‘people’s movements’.

Revolution, by definition, is fundamental change at a furious pace.

For the last four years we have heard the Prime Minister talk monotonously about a revolution in education. It is trite, pointless rhetoric. It has not led to any tangible improvement to what matters in education – improving how teachers teach and how students gain knowledge.

Far from initiating a revolution, Julia Gillard has simply inflated expectations and let people down.

The children of the education revolution are still waiting for their Trades Training Centres in their high schools. After nearly four years only 70 are operational out of the promised 2650[1].

The children of the education revolution still don’t have a laptop computer for every desk, nor the high speed broadband promised along with it, but the cost of the program has more than doubled.

The children of the education revolution are still waiting for the National Curriculum to be finished and implemented. It was cited by Julia Gillard in the 2010 election campaign as one of her greatest achievements. It has been delayed until at least 2013[2].

The education revolution has secured a place in history for record waste and unprecedented mismanagement.

The promise of ‘iconic’ school halls ended up in many cases being over-priced prefabricated buildings delivered on the back of a truck from thousands of kilometers away, adding nothing to local economies.

No one, from the Prime Minister, to the Principals and Parents and Friends Presidents across the country doubts money was wasted in this program.

The Government’s own, hand-picked taskforce puts the figure at around $800 million.

The NSW Public Schools Principals Forum puts the figure at around $5 billion[3].

With some schools paying double the management fees usually associated with the cost of construction, we may never know the final dollar figure of waste in the BER.

It is now emerging that some sub-contractors hired for work remain unpaid. Remember, the Prime Minister’s first line of defence of the waste in this program is that it was necessary to roll it out quickly because it was a stimulus program to respond to the global financial crisis.

Yet here we are, years after the global financial crisis and bills are yet to be paid and subbies will go under as a result! Honestly, Larry, Curly and Mo could have run this program better than the current Government.

There was never a truer word spoken than by the person who said this Government has lost its way.

As far as revolutions go, Labor’s education revolution doesn’t even touch upon what parents want for their children, and I can tell you as a father of four, it isn’t a laptop computer each.

It is to emerge from twelve years of schooling with a dream of what you want to do with the rest of your life and the ability to make that dream a reality.

Today I wish to outline the defining elements of the Coalition’s approach to education and our alternative.

There are four key principles in the Coalition’s strategy:

1. Increasing school autonomy, which is the key to improving quality teaching and learning.
2. Encouraging choice and diversity, by having a consistent approach to funding for all schools.
3. Ending the politics of envy and genuinely looking at ways to improve student outcomes across the board.
4. Delivering a quality curriculum that prepares students for the workforce or for further education or training.

These elements are the building blocks of the Coalition’s plan for school education.

Increasing school autonomy

The Coalition is committed to increasing school autonomy in Government schools. It will be the corner stone of real reform in school education.

Simply put, we support a model for government schools where decision making power over resources and staffing is entrusted to principals and their leadership team with the support of school governing councils.

This may not be possible for every single school in Australia. There will be some schools that need more support from the centre than others. But under a Coalition Government such schools will be the exception not the rule.

While school autonomy is the Coalition’s corner stone for reform in education, Labor has mouthed platitudes about school autonomy and delivered the opposite. As is often the case with Julia Gillard, it is wiser to examine what she does rather than what she says.

The best example must be the delivery of the Building the Education Revolution program.

The failure of the BER can be attributed to the manner in which it was delivered.

The person who bears responsibility for that is Julia Gillard. She was the Minister responsible for its establishment, its criteria, its initial blow out and the failure to heed warnings about its inadequacies. Only her stubbornness stopped the program from being overhauled and repaired in its early days. She wasted potentially billions of dollars of taxpayer’s money and her penalty was not demotion but rather, to be made Prime Minister.

Government schools were not given the same opportunity as non-government schools to manage their own projects.

Evidence from the Government’s own BER taskforce shows Government school buildings constructed under the program have cost two to three times as much as equivalent building projects in non-government schools[4].

It is an indisputable fact that schools with principals and school communities in control of their projects gained greater value for money.

During the Senate Inquiry into the BER it was revealed that based on the Taskforce’s own data, if Government schools had been allowed to self-manage their BER projects in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland, and were as efficient in achieving the same price per metre as the Independent school authorities in these three states, the taxpayers would have saved as much as $2.6 billion[5].

Imagine what could have been done with that money if this Government had trusted schools to deliver their own projects instead of handing responsibility to the States and hoping for the best.

When the BER was first announced, I urged the Government to adopt the former Coalition Government’sInvesting in Our Schools program model for capital infrastructure.

This enormously successful scheme provided funding directly to schools. Crucially, Investing In Our Schools also recognised that it is school communities themselves, who are best placed to decide what they need and how to get it done.

Instead Labor opted to force schools to choose between halls, libraries, gyms, and classrooms. Many have received a standard design delivered off the back of a truck regardless of whether it was what the school community wanted or needed.

When I have visited schools around Australia over the last two years, my discussions with school principals inevitably ends up on the subject of the BER.

Labor insists that formal complaints about this program are limited. This is not surprising. You would be hard pressed to find a school principal who would be ungrateful for new funding. No-one looks a gift horse in the mouth! But an Australian Primary Schools Principals Association survey found that 40% of Public School principals surveyed had concerns with school hall program funding, and that 60% had project costs hidden from them[6].

As Principals guide me on tours of their schools, we often stop and pause to take a look at the BER project under construction.

I visited a middle sized primary school in Hamilton in Victoria on Monday. Fourteen months ago the school had a canteen and ‘state of the art’ bathrooms for the children and staff. Right now, they are still using port-a-loos, they have no canteen and have been told there is no money for a canteen and this result from a grant of $2.5 million! Can any of us imagine a primary school of 321 students in a large town without a tuck shop? It’s almost un-Australian.

To describe the school community as angry would be an understatement. But really, they are more bewildered and hurt that their money could have been so maladministered. If Tony Windsor is looking for examples of maladministration worthy of withdrawing support from this Government, he need look no further than the BER program.

It’s not only the schools that are complaining, there is no end to the mismanagement under the BER.

Tradies and contactors around the country remain unpaid for some of the work they undertook as part of the BER. Several construction companies have gone bust leaving small independent sub-contractors, many with young families, struggling to stay afloat.

Putting aside the apparent contradiction that companies involved in the Government’s economic stimulus plan appear to be going broke, this is a very serious matter and needs a very serious response.

Examples have emerged in Western Australia, New South Wales and South Australia, involving several construction firms and affecting hundreds of sub-contractors.

Over the next few days I will be meeting with my colleagues, the new Minister for Education in New South Wales, Adrian Piccoli and Victorian Minister for Education, Martin Dixon. I will discuss with them the possibility of establishing a judicial inquiry into the Building the Education Revolution in these two states, so a full and frank investigation can occur into the waste and mismanagement that is the legacy of their predecessors.

It is important to remember why the BER debacle occurred. It was because schools weren’t trusted to manage their own projects.

The Coalition trusts schools to make decisions over infrastructure, with appropriate support mechanisms in place, because it is the only way to get value for taxpayer’s dollars and ensure schools receive what they need.

Trusting local school communities, and granting them greater autonomy will encourage more community involvement in schools, and truly revolutionise teaching and learning.

There is no better evidence of this than the steps Premier Colin Barnett has made to reform education in Western Australia. He is establishing what he calls Independent Public Schools.

The Independent Public Schools program gives schools real control over staffing, programs and the spending of school resources. It allows them to better accommodate student needs and respond quickly as these needs change.

Schools opt into the program after consultation with the broader community. They establish school boards that are involved in day-to-day decision making. They are drawn from the local school community. Teachers vote on whether they wish to apply to be an Independent Public School.

Parents and community members are rewarded for being involved. They are able to make a meaningful contribution and feel any concerns can be acted upon within the school by the staff. This in turn encourages more people to become involved. A government school with autonomy, like a non-government school, becomes a hive of activity and builds a strong base of community support.

On a recent trip to Perth I visited two very different Independent Public Schools.

The first was a typical middle class suburban school with students from a diverse background.

I was met by a principal who is effusive in his enthusiasm for the Independent Public School program and how it has transformed his school.

For the first time, he said the school is able to select its own staff. Instead of a centralised office sending in a teacher, the principal, in conjunction with the school board is able to advertise themselves based on their own criteria. To fill two positions recently they did just that and received over 130 applications.

As well as this, the school is now able to manage their own financial affairs, select development day dates, approve leave applications and tailor the curriculum to best support students. They are able to do simple things like manage the school utilities, and arrange their own repairs and maintenance. They describe themselves as a one line item in the State Education budget.

The school librarian proudly informed me that when the library shelves were replaced they were able to choose what they wanted. They chose shelves with backing so the books didn’t slip off onto the floor. They were able to match the paint of the shelves to the same colour scheme as the rest of the library building. If this sounds like a small thing, it is – the point being, under the old system those decisions would be made by a bureaucrat in central office and schools would get what they were given rather than what they needed or wanted.

These are the small every day decisions, that extraordinarily, government schools nation wide aren’t currently able to make themselves.

Increasing school autonomy has the potential to transform a school by trusting principals, treating staff like adults, engaging parents and building school pride.

The transformation in this school occurred in just 12 months and is already yielding results. The school has had to turn away dozens of enrolments from students at neighbouring schools who wanted to join theirs.

Another Independent Public School, less than an hour away from this school, has different issues.

Nearly all students at this school are from low income households, the school has a high proportion of indigenous students, the school is situated in an area of high unemployment and many of the parents are unable to read or write.

This school is managing their budget, with the core objective to deliver programs to not only improve literacy and numeracy in students but to teach and engage the parents as well.

This school is using the resources it has to reward parents and encourage them to become involved in their child’s life at school. Parents are able to earn points in a reward system that allows them to access internet facilities, buy canteen lunches for their children, and pay for uniforms or excursions. Parents earn points by participating in activities such as mentoring, attending P & C meetings, volunteering at school carnivals or helping children at the schools read and spell club.

Evidence in this school under the independent model has seen an improvement in attendance rates of the children and what the Principal describes as a ‘U-turn’ in the schools NAPLAN results.

Contrary to the belief of the Australian Education Union, treating government schools more like non-government schools has not led to the sky falling in. Giving schools autonomy will transform the government school sector and that’s what a Coalition Government will do.

There is a growing body of research that supports the approach that school management practices should place an emphasis on local decision-making by principals and teachers, as this is a most effective means of improving student outcomes and quality teaching.

This is supported by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD) Programme for International Student Assessment Report 2010 (PISA) study.

This study found that when looking at school policy and practice on average across OECD countries, school autonomy has a significant impact on student outcomes in reading, mathematical, and science literacy[7].

Research also shows that autonomy leads to better outcomes in primary school. It shows that countries that have greater school autonomy in primary school are more likely to foster a belief in young people that going to university or seeking high-level vocational education or training is something that they should be thinking about. It inevitably leads to greater participation from low income households. And of course, means the country has a higher skilled workforce, better productivity and growth.

Decentralisation of decision-making is an important factor in accounting for differences of student outcomes between countries. Australia's Government school system has for a long time exhibited an extraordinary degree of rigidity and centralisation.

The difference between the management of the government and non-government school systems creates confusion and there have been calls for the establishment of a common framework of agreement.

At the 2010 election the Coalition proposed that the current system of divided accountability of schools between the Commonwealth and State Governments needed real reform. A Coalition Government will not be prepared to hand over federal taxpayer’s money in the education portfolio to the states without a clear legislated agreement between both levels of Government to introduce genuine school autonomy.

Our support for this plan is unwavering. Greater autonomy will lead to a rejuvenation of the Government school system, reenergise school communities, improve student outcomes, skill the workforce for greater productivity and bring about quality teaching.

A strong government sector is vital, just as encouraging and supporting non-government schools is a central pillar in the Coalition’s plans for education.

Encouraging choice and diversity

The Coalition remains the only political party that unequivocally supports choice in education. We believe that since all parents pay taxes they are entitled to help from government towards their child’s education, irrespective of whether they may choose a government or non-government school.

The Labor Party has an inconsistent approach to school funding.

In 2007 the then Shadow Education Minister, Stephen Smith, surprised many when he announced that Labor would retain the Coalition Government’s Socio-Economic-Status, or SES funding model for schools until 2012.

I say surprised because when it was originally introduced in 2000, the Labor Party didn’t have many nice things to say about it. Julia Gillard described it as a ‘flawed system and an inequitable index.’

However having learnt the hard lessons from 2004 when Mark Latham’s infamous private school hit-list caused uproar in the non-government school sector, the Rudd Opposition played a straight bat on the issue of school funding promising to maintain the status quo.

In 2010 Julia Gillard announced a review of school funding and commissioned David Gonski to chair it. The Gonski review is due to report by the end of 2011.

During the 2010 election the Gillard Government announced it would in fact extend the existing SES school funding model beyond 2012 for an additional year, to once again avoid conflict with the non-government schools sector. In other words, to buy themselves another election without a fight with the 1.2 million student strong non government schools sector.

By the end of 2013 successive Labor Governments will have maintained what the current Prime Minister described as a ‘flawed’ SES funding model for six years.

Beyond 2013, Labor appears reluctant to guarantee the future of funding to non-government schools in real terms.

Peter Garrett recently said in a speech: “No non-government school will lose a single dollar per student as a result of the Gonski review”[8].

What he didn’t say is that no non-government school will lose a dollar of funding in ‘real terms’, a recognition that the real value of the dollar goes down as the costs of good and services rise.

During the 2010 election, the Coalition undertook an analysis of the potential impact of what this might mean for schools if they weren’t promised funding in ‘real terms’.

Without indexation, funds will be reduced to non-government schools by $1.3 billion dollars over a four-year period.

If Labor doesn’t truly commit to the non-government sector in real terms beyond 2013, there will be at least a $1.3 billion shortfall in funding, even if schools don’t lose a single dollar in today’s value, they will in real value. This will mean parents will have to find the additional money through higher school fees.

The likelihood that the Government will financially penalise non-government schools is high.

The Greens are on the record stating their opposition to the existing funding arrangements for non-government schools.

The Greens policy explicitly spells out that Government schools should be funded at the expense of non-government schools. As indicated on their website, they want to drastically reduce non-government schools funding back to 2003 levels[9].

An analysis of the NSW Greens recent state election policy reveals that if it was implemented nationwide, almost 300 non-government schools would lose all government funding entirely. The impact of this would cut deeply. The pressures on families already feeling cost of living pressure would be immense.

Recent reports suggest that this would mean 90 schools in Victoria, 79 in NSW, 62 in Queensland, 32 in Western Australia, 21 in South Australia, 9 in the ACT, 5 in Tasmania and 1 in the Northern Territory would struggle to remain open[10].

The Catholic Bishops in New South Wales issued a statement which estimated under the Greens policy:

“to cover this loss in funding and maintain current standards, fees in Catholic systemic primary and secondary schools would have to rise substantially, possibly by as much as $1,550 a year”[11].

The Prime Minster’s recent pantomime where she accused her Green bedfellows of being extremists and a fringe group shows just how worried Labor is about the perception they are too close to the Greens. But with the balance of power shifting in the Senate in July, no one should underestimate the power of this new alliance and the risk this presents to parents who choose to send their children to non-government schools.

In its submission to the Gonski Review, the Australian Education Union argues that 1 200 non government schools have been overpaid by $2.7 billion between 2009 and 2012. Taken to its logical conclusion, the AEU would have cut funding to those 1 200 schools. That’s almost half of all non government schools. The impact for parents of such a cut means paying higher fees or removing their children from those schools.

These are uncertain times, where little stock can be placed in the word of a Prime Minister who routinely says one thing, then does another. She will say she understands the cost of living pressures on families but her policies make their lives harder. She could immediately alleviate the fears of parents and guarantee that no non-government school will be worse off beyond 2013 in real terms, but she refuses. Like Nelson at Trafalgar, she simply turns her eyeglass to her blind eye and cannot see the unfolding battle.

By contrast, the Coalition has had a consistent approach to government support for non government schools – allowing families and schools to plan with certainty.

We have committed to not reduce any recurrent funding to non-government schools in real terms because we understand this is the bread and butter they need to effectively plan.

Under the Coalition, there would be no risk that parents could be slapped with a massive hike in school fees because of a change to how non government schools are funded.

Ending the politics of envy

The Labor-Greens axis wants the debate to be focussed on whether non-government schools should receive public funding. This has become increasingly apparent with the recent changes to the MySchool website.

Despite the Prime Minister hailing this website as one of her only achievements in education, according to a recent study by Independent Schools Queensland, only 8.2 per cent of parents listed the MySchool website among their top three resources when choosing a school. By comparison, advice from friends and colleagues rated 74 per cent, other parents with children at the school rated 67 per cent and school open days rated 48 per cent[12].

The research in fact tells us the top priorities for parents are “preparing students for life, good discipline and encouraging a responsible attitude to school work were the most influential factors for parents when choosing an independent school for their children”[13].

Given the website does not even measure these priorities, the question remains, to what extent does the website publish information that parent’s actually find useful?

It is the view of the Coalition that the additions to the MySchool website are nothing more than an attempt to sneak the private school “hit list” online and lay the groundwork for an assault on government funding for non-government schools.

The publication of school finances on the new version of the website is designed to fan the politics of envy. The manufactured outcry, from the Australian Education Union is simply an excuse to abolish the current SES funding system.

And the Government’s new plan to move towards the publication of school assets and trusts, tells us it’s all about an ideologically driven desire to punish those schools which are successful at raising additional funds for their needs.

The Left’s war against non-Government schools is alive and well in the Labor Party and is now starting to rear its ugly head.

Non-government schools throughout Australia are fully aware of Labor’s hidden agenda. They are quite rightly concerned about it.

Hundreds of non-Government schools initially made complaints about inaccurate financial data and the re-launch of the MySchool website was put on hold.

Since the delayed release of MySchool 2, dozens of articles have appeared in the press pitting neighboring schools against one another, in bitter arguments about school finances and in some instances we have seen the publishing of “financial league tables” which name schools in terms of their school’s finances and NAPLAN results.

The schools debate is becoming increasingly divisive.

It is well know that non-government and government schools operate in Australia very differently, and have different cost structures. Making real comparisons at a school level is virtually impossible.

I agree with many school Principals that an overemphasis on a school’s finances, or student performance in tests will tell us very little about teacher quality at the school or give a holistic picture about how that particular school meets the needs of the children who attend it.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with a website that would seek to compare performance outcomes that are meaningful and relevant but the current MySchool website does not do that.

At the last election, the Coalition’s policy was to review the MySchool website, with a view to only publish student improvement based on NAPLAN tests performed every year from year three to year ten.

Publishing financial information might be interesting parlour game for class warriors but when it is already available for parents in their school’s annual report I can see no compelling educational benefit to publish it more widely nor has the Government been able to provide one.

The Coalition will put to rest the politics of envy by removing financial data from the MySchool website and restoring the site to its original purpose – to be a resource for parents interested in evaluating how their child’s school is performing.

Delivering a quality curriculum

While the MySchool website has had a difficult birth the National Curriculum is yet to even be delivered. Addressing the clear deficiencies in the National Curriculum will be a priority of a Coalition Government.

The draft national curriculum has been widely criticised as being inferior to current curricula offerings, overcrowded and missing an overarching purpose for its existence by almost every player in the education field.

In April 2008 Julia Gillard promised ‘A national curriculum publicly available and which can start to be delivered in all jurisdictions from January 2011’[14].

Since then the Prime Minister has been making pre-emptive claims that the national curriculum is finished, with statements prior to the election such as ‘This nation's talked about national curriculum for 30 years. I delivered it.[15]’

Well, she didn’t.

The curriculum for years K-10 for English, Maths, Science and History was due to be adopted last year by State education ministers but now further consideration has been moved to October this year It will not be possible to begin implementation until January 2013 at the earliest.

Julia Gillard would have been aware of the scathing criticism of the draft curriculum before she became Prime Minister. She has handballed this particularly ‘hot potato’ to Peter Garrett, the man responsible for the home insulation disaster, perhaps hoping blame will accrue to him rather than to her as it continues to unravel.

Labor’s overly prescriptive approach to the development of a curriculum means that our children are at real risk of ending up having to accept a ‘one size fits all’ curriculum, rather than schools being able to tailor an overarching framework to the needs of each student.

There is a real danger that important flexibility will be lost in our education system.

The Coalition would have a much a broader based approach that would seek to encourage and foster choice and diversity not stamp it out in our schools. It would have the right balance, ensuring that our students learn educational basics and important fundamentals about our nation’s history and structure.

We also need to be able to adequately prepare teachers to roll-out the new curriculum. Little is known about how the Government intends to support teachers to learn how to teach the new curriculum. Indeed, with the Budget in deficit, it appears several important professional development programs have already been cut.

For example, while OECD evidence indicates that science literacy in students has flatlined in Australia compared with other countries the Government is cutting programs that would improve science teaching[16].

Peter Garrett has taken the axe to programs initiated by the former Coalition Government such as‘Primary Connections’ and ‘Science By Doing’. They support professional development for teachers to engage school students in the science curriculum.

He should come out of hiding and explain why, if the Government purports to recognise the need for quality teaching, he is cutting funding that supports the training of teachers in science.

Conclusion

This Government’s approach to policy and programs suffers from a seemingly incurable inability to deliver anything on budget or as promised or without hyperbole.

We have heard the Prime Minister talk about a revolution in education but we have witnessed anything but a revolution and more a one man sandwich board protest.

Labor has produced a widely criticised national curriculum, which was delayed and delayed and delayed again without any plan or funding to roll it out or prepare teachers to teach it.

The My School website re-relaunch, derided by the government and non-government sector for displaying inaccurate and misleading data has now become a vehicle to reignite the politics of envy and build a case to strip funding from non-government schools.

And the perennial debacle, the BER program, where billions were lost because Labor didn’t trust schools to manage their own funding is now threatening to send subbies and tradies to the wall who are not being paid for their work.

Has any Labor Government program had an impact on what actually matters? Improving how teachers teach and how students learn? Not by a long shot.

On the other hand the Coalition has a clear idea of where we will take school education policy:

• We are committed to school autonomy and will work with the state and territory governments to decentralise decision making from head office, to the principal in the government schools sector.

• We are determined to get to the bottom of BER waste and I will ask the Victorian and New South Wales Education Ministers to consider establishing judicial inquiries into BER waste in those states.

• We will defend choice and diversity in education and fight to ensure non-government school funding is maintained in real terms beyond 2013.

• We will refocus the MySchool website on its original purpose as a diagnostic tool designed to provide parents, Principals and teachers with information about students and stop it from becoming a weapon to be wielded against public funding of non-government schools.

• We will review the national curriculum, ensuring it is not overly prescriptive and appropriately focussed on Australia’s heritage and traditional teaching methods.

I would never claim to have the panacea to all problems in education. And I would never offer the Australian people a ‘revolution’ because the rhetoric never stacks up to the reality. But I am confident that the policies and principles the Coalition is putting forth in this portfolio will improve how our children learn, and how our teachers teach, and that is what really matters.

Ends