“Global Education Reform: How Privatisation and Public Investment Influence Education Outcomes.”

            Published in Professional Educator, 2017, Q2-3, 40-41.

            Edited by Frank Adamson, Bjorn Astrand and Linda Darling-Hammond (Routledge, 2016)

            Book Review by Professor Colin Power, AM, Ph.D. FACE, University of Queensland.

 

The Global Education Reform is the product of a collaborative effort by ten universally-respected education experts, one that every education policy-maker, administrator and educator should study carefully, discuss widely and act on.   The book documents two educationally and politically distinctive approaches to the structuring and reform of education systems: market-based approaches at one extreme, and strong state investments in public education on the other.  This book makes a major contribution in illuminating the choices to be made by nations and their consequences. 

 

In the early 1970s, the economist Milton Friedman argued that market-based systems can deliver better and more-cost-effective education services than governments, the assumption being that ”free” markets would promote competition, improve efficiency and lead to higher quality.  During the 1980s, market-based education policies were aggressively pushed by the World Bank and IMF as a condition for loans. Developing countries were forced to make savage cuts in their education budgets, further disadvantaging the poor, children with special needs, and in particular, girls and women.   Since then, GERM has become the new educational orthodoxy among international development agencies (UNESCO being the exception), consulting firms and in many nations, including Australia.  

  

Using three sets of paired comparisons of education systems, the authors provide us with a powerful and authoritative analysis of the impact on these two approaches on teaching, learning, equity and the quality of education in six countries: Chile and Cuba; Sweden and Finland; USA and Canada.  Their work forces us to question the assumptions underlying the political and economic models that have been driving educational ideologies, policies and “reforms” in countries like our own.  It warns us that market-based education reforms are based on faulty assumptions, and have failed to deliver the outcomes promised by their neo-liberal economic advocates.  They have not helped improve the quality of teaching and learning at any level of education, significantly increased inequality, accentuated the disadvantages facing poorer and vulnerable students and families, and have led to a narrowing of the basic purposes of education in a democratic society.  

 

The case studies lift the lid on what can happen if the ideology of the market, GERM, is applied to education. In the 1970s, the Chilean dictator put Friedman’s market-based theory into practice, privatising social sectors and publically-owned enterprises, including education. But as the case study of Chile reveals, the free-market “reforms” led to sharp increases in inequality, degraded the teaching profession, increased corruption and have had a pernicious effect on the quality of education.  In contrast,  Carnoy’s chapter helps us to understand Cuba’s successful approach to providing high quality, equitable and affordable education, despite the obstacles.  Many may be tempted to ignore Cuba, but his group’s findings are consistent with research evidence from other countries:  

 

1. State-generated social capital matters:  national government policies need to generate cohesive and supportive family and school educational environments

2. Curriculum matters but its implementation depends on teacher quality:  Cuban students cover fewer subjects but more profoundly, and their teachers are well-trained, highly motivated and supported

3. Teacher education needs to be practice-based and co-ordinated with existing curricula

4. Instructional leadership and supervision is the key to improving instruction.

 

Much has been written about the Finnish paradox:  the delivery of a high quality public education within a competitive market economy, one that consistently places it at the top internationally in terms of quality, equity and performance outcomes.  As Sahlberg puts it, Finland remains immune to GERM because it does not believe that cut-throat competition, standardised testing and high-stakes accountability systems are smart ways to improve quality and equity.   Unlike much of the rest of the world, Finland encourages collaboration among schools, focusses on whole child development, trust-based accountability, empowerment of teachers and investing in a highly professionalised teacher labour force. 

 

This truncated review by Professor Colin Power of the book shows that the GERM is the direct cause of the greatest inequity our nation has faced since World War Two, entirely driven by the policies of our own Federal Governments over the past seventy years, since the decision by Sir Robert Menzies to win his election, at any cost, and begin the move to privatisation, so greatly exacerbated by the Howard government and those following.

 

If it is the wish of our Federal Governments to increase the disparity, disadvantage and inequity across the whole of society it should then continue to pursue the current policies, and with even greater vigour in the words of former federal education minister, Alan Tudge, which can only result in more prisons, more domestic violence, more crash and carry crime, more suicides, more obesity, more gambling, more drugs, more social media disruptive discourse, more shady deals and scams, more……  I think you get my gist.  

 

A complete Re-Form of our nation’s education system is way overdue and may even now be too late to turn the tide on total community breakdown as we are witnessing so clearly all about us.​​​

​

​