Indigenous-Education-Review_DRAFT

Recommendations

Info

Review of Indigenous Education in the Northern Territory Bruce Wilson Chapter Five: The education system The key to overall improvement in the education of Indigenous children lies in the Department of Education’s capacity to provide effective, long‐term management of a large and complex system (or of two systems, as discussed above). The elements of good management include a clear strategic direction, effective alignment of resources and people around that direction, quality of implementation, rigorous monitoring and reporting of progress and consistent delivery over long periods of time. The findings of the review suggest that in each of these areas there is the opportunity to set new directions and improve performance. The review has found that the major factors affecting areas in which improvement is needed are: matters that are outside the direct control of the Department, including an exceptionally difficult demographic and logistical context, a complex funding and strategic relationship with the Australian Government and elections and changes of government and minister at Territory and national levels; uneven approaches to strategic planning; weak implementation practices; historical weaknesses in data management, now significantly improved; funding arrangements and other practices that encourage short horizons for action; unresolved structural relationships between central office, regions and schools; and limited workforce planning and a lack of coordination in staff development. Learning Lessons The Learning Lessons review found in 1999 that there were substantial management failings in the Department of Education. The review highlighted ‘insufficient long‐term departmental planning’, a focus on short‐term projects and ‘a lack of a strategic approach’. Discussing the management tools that underpin effective delivery of outcomes, the report says, ‘…the review has found that there are major system and school deficiencies in regard to these management tools’. The review notes that the only schools ever formally evaluated were DRAFT bilingual schools. There was ‘no interest at departmental or government level in a dispassionate analysis of the educational outcomes of Indigenous students’ (Collins, 1999: 47‐8). A clear strategic direction Previous reviewers have drawn attention to difficulties in the Department’s approach to strategy. The Collins review referred to ‘The lack of an overarching departmental strategy in relation to Aboriginal education’ (ibid.: 22). Discussing the Literacy and Numeracy Strategy in 2011, Masters noted: The document would be better if it next identified a few big strategies that the system is going to pursue to improve literacy and numeracy performances across the Northern Territory….My first recommendation would be to focus strategic planning for improved literacy numeracy on what the system is going to do…identifying a few major ways in which the system can make a difference (system ‘strategies’) and 37
Review of Indigenous Education in the Northern Territory Bruce Wilson elaborating in more detail how the system will pursue these strategic priorities (Masters, 2011: 16). Similarly the Menzies evaluation of Strong Start, Bright Futures, in reviewing the overall strategy for the initiative, argues for prioritising actions rather than tackling everything at once (Menzies, 2013: 77). The Department of Education has improved its approach to strategy in some areas. There is now a strong data framework and a greatly enhanced capacity to monitor and report on progress. Across the system at all levels there is a focus on the use of data to drive planning. The framework is now in place for school and principal evaluation and accountability. Regions have in some cases established common expectations and goals with their schools. The present review has, however, identified the continuing absence of a clear strategic direction in the area of Indigenous education. Department strategy in the area of Indigenous education, as reflected, for example, in the 2006‐2009 Indigenous Education Strategic Plan (DEET, 2006) is comprehensive. The goals in the plan cover effectively all possible action that the Department might take. Because of this, they do not make clear what will not be done, or where resources will be differentially allocated. Although there is no current strategic plan for Indigenous education the new Department of Education Strategic Plan 2013‐2015 (DoE, 2013A) is similar. While targets and measures are in the process of being set, and will go some way to focus the plan, the goals seem to give free rein to almost any approach that someone thinks might work. In part this is both deliberate and normal. Strategic plans in large public sector organisations are often less strategic than political: they aim to satisfy interest groups, stakeholders, government, clients and employees that their interests are being protected. The easiest way to do this is to keep plans very general and to be vague about tough decisions. This approach does not, however, easily lead to continuing improvement. DRAFT A key requirement for effective system leadership is a set of clear goals that make clear what matters. These will be whole‐organisation goals that drive activity at every level of the system. Actions at central office, regional, school and classroom levels should be driven by this framework of goals. When a new strategic direction is set, some activities should stop or change direction. Others should be strengthened. Resources should be reallocated, and in some cases resourcing should cease for some areas. Unless strategy is followed through into resourcing, staff responsibilities, implementation, monitoring and accountability, nothing is likely to change. In each critical area, strategy should be explicit. There seems to be no limitation in current Northern Territory policy regarding, for example, what kinds of early years literacy programs and approaches should be adopted. Schools are free to choose their own approach to the implementation of the Australian Curriculum. These examples might seem to reflect a devolution of authority to the level at which the decision can most appropriately be made. The review interprets them as the abandonment of the responsibility of the Department to make clear what is required of schools. Strategy should also define, even if by implication, what will not be done. The present review, for example, is clear that literacy should be the priority in primary schools. It argues that numeracy can wait. In secondary schools, the review would resolve the tension 38
Page 1 and 2: Bruce Wilson, The Education Busines
Page 3 and 4: Review of Indigenous Education in t
Page 37: Review of Indigenous Education in t
Page 89 and 90:
Review of Indigenous Education in t
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
show all

Indigenous-Education-Review_DRAFT

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?