It’s not the commissioning of reports that is important. It is acceptance and implementation of recommendations.

Recently, the Mitchell Institute, attached to Victorian University, released a significant report highlighting deficiencies in Australian education. The report is 113 pages long and includes an executive summary highlighting key points. You can download the report by googling “Mitchell Institute” and following the prompts.

The report revisits some major educational concerns. The chief reason is that 25% of Australian secondary students fail to complete Year 12. This varies from state to state, with 50% of NT students not finishing Year 12.

Another concern the report raises is the non-readiness of early childhood children for school. In particular, children are underdone regarding social and emotional readiness for school.

Other key concerns are raised as deficit areas.

Revisitation

I don’t doubt the accuracy of this report. Those perusing its pages would have to agree with its findings about educational deficits. Sadly, the report is yet another document exploring the problems and challenges confronted by Australian and NT Education. As with most reports, it will stimulate brief public discussion and generate responses from educationalists, politicians, and Notary Publics before being shelved. The reaction of many people to the report may well be “same old, same old.”

This is the latest 2015 report to be released. It joins the hundreds of reports on Australian Education produced over the past half-century. These documents run to hundreds of thousands of pages. Most reiterate and update problem areas pertinent during their research and writing. In most cases, they are light on suggesting workable and realistic solutions. Reports advocate change but leave resourcing implications for others to consider. That task can be impossible.

Credit

Credit needs to be given where it is due. The NT Education Department has accepted the findings of some recent reports and determined to implement key recommendations. Direct instruction, visible learning, and revisiting education for Secondary Indigenous Students are examples of changes emanating from the Wilson (Indigenous Education) and Zbar (Middle School) Reports of 2014.

It can’t be expected that systems will implement all report recommendations. However, over time the response has been to file reports in the too hard basket. This often has to do with resource implications. Implementation comes at significant cost.

Schools are often urged to adopt changes ‘within existing resources’. This may lead to hasty reprioritisation or unfairly stretch schools, requiring them to do more with less. In order to make things fit, existing programs may have to be discontinued.

Many inquiries are undertaken without terms of reference including cost implications. The Gonski Report (2011), now creating furore because of implementation costs, is a prime example.

System studies are necessary. However, they need to consider implementation costs. Commissioning of reports can be an exercise in futility if the costs of implementing recommendations are not considereds.

.

.