New Directions for School Leadership and the Teaching Profession
Marina Golding submission
New Directions for school leadership and the teaching profession
DEECD discussion paper, June 2012 – A Response by Martina Golding
Performing Arts at South Geelong Primary School
In response to the document ‘New Directions for school leadership and the teaching profession’
I wish to point out the following:
I’m an experienced teacher with more than thirty years experience who has lived in the United States
for several years (my children having started school there) before returning to Australia to take up
Performing Arts teaching in Primary schools.
In Texas I was able to work as a volunteer parent within the school system which gave me some insight
into public education. Unfortunately I see what we experienced in American schools being repeated
here. Public education seems to be derived from a ‘business model’ which has led to a highly
prescriptive, colourless, narrowly focused, overly analysed and consequentially based accountability
system. Not surprisingly there has been a general malaise in education.
My concern with the trend in Australian education is that it is becoming more like the States. Our wellintended policy reforms for improving the quality of education and raising student achievement have
not been realized. The values of professionalism, creativity, flexibility , equity and trust seem to have
been replaced by prescriptive homogenous systems, performance targets, overly analysed data and
high stakes accountability.
With standardization in education came an outcomes-based approach in which the focus is on student
learning and school performance. While this reform is well intended, the apparent assumption has been
that centrally prescribed curricula, frequent testing of students and teachers, enforcement of external
testing and education systems and fear based performance strategies is the way to improve the quality
of outcomes. The predominant emphasis has been on literacy and numeracy :
Pasi Sahlberg * shares a Finnish perspective:
The second common feature in global education development policies and reform strategies is
increased focus on literacy and numeracy. Basic student knowledge and skills in reading, writing,
mathematics and natural sciences have been elevated to serve as prime targets and indices of education
reforms. As a consequence of accepting international student assessment results such as Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA) and International Association for the Evaluation of Educational
Achievement (IEA) studies as a criterion of good educational performance, literacy and numeracy have
now become the main determinants of the perceived success or failure of pupils, teachers, schools and
entire education systems. Although only a slight shift in relative time allocation away from other school
subjects to literacy and numeracy has been noted within different school systems, the importance given
to these school subjects in curriculum, teacher policies, or other resources has been obvious, for
example, in international development aid programs. A nationwide study in the USA confirms that 71%
of Education policies for raising student learning 151 school districts reported that they have reduced
teaching time in at least one other subject to allow more time for reading and mathematics, the subjects
tested for new accountability purposes (Centre on Education Policy, 2006). Consequently, curriculum
and, therefore, teaching in schools in many nations place too strong an emphasis on structural
knowledge, technical skills and cognition, or what Habermas (1972) termed the system world of
knowledge. Instead, knowledge societies where social tolerance and internal security play increasingly
important roles draw upon the lifeworld of culture—especially beliefs, values, morality, meaning and
social experiences. Both knowledge types are important and both must be balanced to enable schools to
perform well. As a consequence of too-narrow focus upon literacy and numeracy, in many nations the
importance of aesthetic and moral education as well as social sciences has been reduced due to the
need to strengthen instruction in what Tucker and Codding (1998) call fundamental or core subjects.
* Education policies for raising student learning: the Finnish approach
Pasi Sahlberg* World Bank, Washington, DC, USA
The problem with consequential accountability is that success or failure of a school or its teachers is
measured only with respect to limited aspects of schooling such as students results in maths and
literacy. Sahlberg gives a good illustration of how this has affected policy in the United States :
‘Perhaps the best-known practical illustration of large-scale education reform driven by the notion of
standardization and related consequential accountability is found in the USA, where controversial
federal legislation termed No Child Left Behind (Public Law 107–110) links school and teacher
performance to Adequate Yearly Progress and to financial and resource allocations to schools (Popham,
2004; Centre on Education Policy, 2006). Recent research, however, suggests that ‘the ability of standardized tests to accurately reflect school performance remains in doubt’ (Lemke et al., 2006, p. 246).
Furthermore, Amrein and Berliner (2002) concluded, on the basis of their analysis across 18 states in the
USA, that since clear evidence was not found for the positive impact of high-stakes testing policies upon
increased student learning and because there are numerous reports of unintended consequences associated with these policies, such as increased student drop-out rates, teacher and school cheating on
exams, and teacher defection from the profession, there is need for transforming existing high-stakes
testing policies.
With respect to the points outlined in the DEECD discussion paper, I believe the way to achieve desirable
outcomes needs a more enlightened approach.
I would like to see:

A focus on depth and breadth of learning that encompasses all aspects of a child’s growth, including aesthetic
moral and societal values.

Better understanding by DEECD officials of progressive, successful education policies of leading countries
such as Finland.

Greater flexibility for teachers to develop their talents and creativity as professionals.

An end to enforcement of standardised testing and prescriptive performance standards.

The cultivation of quality teaching through better teacher training of pedagogical skills and more experience
out in schools.

Authentic professional development giving teachers freedom to select professional pathways.

Adoption of intelligent accountability with gradual building of a culture of trust within the education system.

A greater emphasis on learning through sensory experience especially in the early years.

A shift from a policy of competition for resources to equitable distribution and reward for extra
responsibility.

More allowance for teachers and students to be actually engaged in learning without distraction.

An increase in well resourced music programs and well trained music educators. (Finland has the greatest
number of training musicians per capita than any other nation.)
There are many issues in this discussion paper and I may only have touched on a few, but I urge the
policy authors to re-think the proposals listed and seek some further input from others who have
experience or insight and can contribute to a better vision for teaching and education.
sincerely
Martina Golding