Opinion

With the furore about the National Standards, it reminded me of an article Models of education reform: an interview with Prof. Allan Luke, that I found particularly compelling.   It was published in QTU’s professional magazine in November 2008.   

The introduction to the article links the Rudd government’s so-called “education revolution”, which includes a plan to link school funding with school performance, with the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) policy in the United States.   Luke provides ample evidence that the Rudd government would be crazy to go down the same path.

NCLB in the United States has been highly problematic in a number of ways:
•    There are technical problems with the measurements used
•    There have been cases of actual fraud
•    It has done absolutely nothing to close the equity gap, nor to deliver consistent improvements in literacy or maths.

Luke cites David Berliner and Michael Smith’s arguments about “collateral damage” resulting from the increase in “accountability pressure”:
•    Narrowing of the curriculum
•    Teaching to the test
•    Lack of promised support for struggling schools
•    Low teacher morale and increased teacher attrition
•    Failure to adequate assess and support special education and NESB students
•    Poorly researched but mandated instructional programmes
•    Increases in equity gaps
•    School, system and state level manipulation of results (p.13).

Luke does not deny the need for accountability and for policies based on evidence.   Interestingly he cites as a good example of this kind of reform the work by the Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat in Ontario (Ben Levin’s province).   But he argues that simplistic approaches are doomed to failure, and that the systems which have resorted to them, such as the USA and UK, are struggling to deliver improved achievement.   The systems which are showing improved equity and achievement are those that “stress high levels of professionalism, targeted educational approaches, and the clever and strategic use of data to mobilise resources and action”, and also “much better resourced teacher education, professional development, and innovative schemes for attracting high quality teachers” (p.14).

Judie Allison

Advisory Officer (Professional Issues)

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/hide comment form

Name

Email

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment