Another rushed policy debacle avoided
Policy implementation by the Gillard Government tends to follow the all-too familiar approach of:
i) Initiate a program that will achieve the broadest possible political mileage with the public.
ii) Attempt to keep all parties happy by being appropriately vague about the policy details.
iii) Rush the policy into the public arena with much fanfare, regularly including the buzz words ‘transparency’ and ‘equity’ to provide legislative authority and political credibility.
iv) After discovering the policy was ill conceived in the first place attempt to first obfuscate; second refuse to answer piercing questions; third, when ultimately the real truth of the policy flaws or its cost overruns are revealed either blame those who have white-anted the program or appoint an ‘independent’ committee to review the entire process.
v) Hope like hell the public will lose interest in the policy but follow the same scenario with the next flawed program.
For examples see fuel and grocery watch, pink batts, solar energy rebate, BER, Henry tax review, mining tax, carbon tax, Malaysian immigration solution, health services, et al.
This classic policy approach has been adopted with the government’s launch of the national schools curriculum programme which was projected to commence in this year’s new school term.
Even ACARA, the national organisation established by then Education Minister Gillard to prepare and implement the program for English, Maths and Science, admitted last year that planning and preparation would take longer than had first been anticipated.
That was hardly surprising news considering in the last twelve months Labor governments had been thrown out in Victoria and NSW.
Cynics could have argued that both states hastily agreed to the federal government’s curriculum policy to secure some semblance of political credibility leading into their state elections.
Now Minister Garrett has accused the NSW government of ‘letting students down’ because the state has delayed implementation of the proposed curriculum by twelve months in order to give more time for teachers to assess the program and enable more thorough professional training and evaluation prior to its implementation.
Mr Garrett’s reasoning that the states were responsible for the curriculum implementation fails to recognise that Canberra was imposing its own policy on state education authorities.
If the states are not aligned to Labor’s objectives or they are concerned about its adequate implementation haven’t they the right to delay and review its content?
See federal government blame point four.
Mr Garrett also conveniently fails to acknowledge other states recognise that NSW already enjoys the highest quality school curriculum.
Any new, imposed curriculum program needs to be carefully reviewed to ensure it at least maintains the present standards otherwise NSW students would ‘be let down’ by federal intervention into the curriculum, not the state’s implementation delay.
Again, see federal government blame point four.
Few educationalists have argued against a national curriculum concept in principle.
Former Prime Minister Howard sought a similar policy more than six years ago but the initiative was defeated primarily because labor-governed states refused to accept this federal directive from a conservative government.
When those political circumstances are reversed it is hardly credible that Minister Garrett is making similar claims.
Ahem, can we refer to blame point four again please.
Don’t be surprised that NSW politicians aren’t holding out for more federal funds to better inform and support their public and private teaching professionals through the difficult curriculum implementation process.
They are adept at playing the political game as well especially as NSW Education Minister Piccoli has received teaching union backing for delaying the curriculum implementation for twelve months.
It is highly probable this delay will extend further into 2013 which means the national curriculum may not be implemented until the 2014 school year.
If this delay means students will receive an improved school education perhaps the longer wait will be well worth the effort.
See new policy implementation point six: undertaking adequate review, plus incorporating checks and balances processes, may actually achieve an improved policy outcome for everyone.
Isn’t that what effective government leadership is all about?
Comments: