Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's education revolution continues to provoke critique, most recently from Professor Peter Mortimore, a former director of the London-based Institute of Education. Speaking at an Australian Education Union-sponsored event in Brisbane in October, he points out quite rightly that in education, there is often a distinction between achievement scores and real learning.
For example, students may very well get high marks in a test on World War I history, but if this achievement was due to an emphasis on studying exam questions and criteria rather than the content itself, then the exam cannot be a reliable measure of knowledge.
By the same token, compelling states and schools to produce information on performance will never be a reliable strategy for lifting numeracy and literacy, if this were indeed its purpose. It is simply the wrong philosophical framework for action, especially when learning is as much about taking risks and failing as it is about getting the answers right the first time. Granted that a results-oriented system can motivate teachers and students to excel, it only goes so far before it kills the spirit of the enterprise. All too easily, what you know becomes the standard rather than how you came by what you know.
It is important to make the distinction. Over the years, there have been many changes in the content that is taught in the classrooms. Far too often, teachers are told what to teach rather than how best to teach. It was not that long ago that former Education Minister Brendan Nelson insisted on highlighting Simpson and his donkey in the teaching of Australian history.
Rudd's education policy is no better in terms of encouraging educators to facilitate learning rather than regurgitation. It is especially demoralising because it ties performance to funding and employment. This move implies that teachers have complete and sole control over their students' performance. They do not. There are other variables, apart from the teacher, that impact on learning, such as the quality of the home environment, availability of resources, and students' own commitment to their schooling.
On the other hand, it is difficult to disagree that teachers must be held accountable. The education of our children is far too important for us to simply assume that every single teacher is trying their best and making a point of developing their craft. But Rudd's policy suggests that teachers and schools are