By Ken Boston
Education reform critics are out in force, misrepresenting the second Gonski report and naysaying approaches that promise to bring real improvement to learning in NSW and across Australia.
The federal government asked for advice on how $23.5 billion could be distributed in line with the principles of the first Gonski report "to improve school performance and student achievement”. The second report's recommendations directly answer this request and are solidly grounded in international research and evidence.
They do not recommend a change in the role of teacher to facilitator; separate the teaching of general capabilities from subject knowledge; abolish whole-class teaching as a classroom strategy; require lesson plans for every student; abolish year level classes; replace the ATAR; introduce outcomes-based education; revolutionise early childhood education; eliminate competition between students; or prevent examinations using A-E grades. The report recognises that one year’s growth in learning is not the same for every child, and shows how this is best addressed.
Further, the report proposes evolution not revolution. The strategies it proposes are already well underway in Australian schools.
A key concept is the "learning progression". A learning progression is a sequence of stages of learning in a school subject, from ignorance to mastery. These stages of steadily increasing proficiency are called levels, and are identified by what a student typically knows, understands, and is able to do at each level in the subject.
For example, a child who can write some letters of the alphabet and say the corresponding sound might be at level 2 in literacy; a child who can combine most letters to represent the dominant sounds in words (apl for apple) might be at level 3; correct spelling of apple and other common words might signify level 4. The objective is to move children from one level to the next level as rapidly as possible during the school year, to eventual mastery of the subject. Hence the report's title, Through Growth to Achievement.
Some time ago, Australian education ministers requested the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority develop national literacy and numeracy progressions, which are already online for trial in schools, notably in NSW.
The value of such an approach was confirmed for the review panel in discussion with Andreas Schleicher from the OECD and Geoff Masters from the Australian Council for Educational Research, both of whom focused on the characteristics of high-performing education systems internationally; by the international research literature; by submissions from Australian education systems and universities; and by principal, parent and teacher organisations. The report is not proposing the revolutionary introduction of an untested strategy, but encouraging the continuing evolution nationally of an already proven reform.
Similarly, international research dating back to Lev Vygotsky 40 years ago has demonstrated the effectiveness of two processes in teaching: first, the teacher identifying the level a child has reached on a learning progression (a process called diagnostic assessment); and second, setting the next challenging but achievable learning activity to take the child to the next level (a process called personalised learning or differentiated teaching). This approach to teaching – dubbed the clinical approach because of emphasis on diagnosis and response - is hardly revolutionary or untested: Michael Fullan, John Hattie, Field Rickards and others have researched its effectiveness internationally. It is an increasingly common approach in all Australian states.
The Gonski report is proposing no more than the scaling up of these proven reforms to national level, by a phased and managed process. We recommend that over the next five years, the national curriculum be expressed as national learning progressions.
The proposed online assessment and teaching tool is intended to make the clinical approach more manageable for teachers. First, teachers will benefit from online availability of a bank of low-key assessments in areas such as grammar and number, revealing quickly the level a child has reached on a progression. This is already well within our grasp through online resources such as the ACER Progressive Achievement Tests, which are heavily used by teachers. Second, teachers will be able to draw on a choice of teaching activities to enable students to achieve the next step in learning. The development of a bank of such activities is also well within reach.
In implementing these and other reforms, the key strategic issue for the next five years is the professional development of teachers and the development of the teaching profession. High quality teaching is, always has been, and will remain the essential foundation of high quality education.
Ken Boston is a former head of the NSW Department of Education and a panel member of the Gonski Review to Achieve Education Excellence in Australian Schools.