MUCH of the education debate focuses on issues such as resources, standards and accountability and the respective quality and standing of government and non-government schools

UNION RHETORIC DRIVES PARENTS FROM PUBLIC SCHOOLS

by K= evin Donnelly 18 February 2006=

MUCH of the education debate focuses on issues such as resources, standa= rds and accountability and the respective quality and standing of government and non-government schools.
Equally important, evidenced by the way politically correct teacher unions, professional associations and teacher academics define education as a key instrument in reshaping society, is the way the education system is used to promote a one-sided view of society.
While it is wrong to say that education should be values-neutral, the traditional approach is one that sees education as impartial and balanced. Education is not indoctrination, and social engineering should not be confu= sed with critical inquiry and searching for the truth.
On reading the 2005 and 2006 Australian Education Union annual general meet= ing speeches by the union's federal president Pat Byrne, it is clear she is in = no doubt on the need to promote certain values and the union's right to shape = the social debate and the work of schools. Byrne's 2006 speech attacks what she sees as a federally inspired, backward-looking education agenda, the Government's industrial relations policy and human rights record, the Prime Minister's response to the Cronulla riots, the Government's anti-terrorism legislation and what she sees as its conservati= ve response to the availability of the abortion pill RU-486.
Byrne describes 2006 as ``the greatest period of social and political change since Australia's federation'' and believes the AEU has a special role in influencing Australia's education system and how we define ourselves as a nation.
She states: ``The Australian union movement has a track record of over 100 years of shaping the very values that we regard as quintessentially Australian'' and argues teacher unionists ``need to continue to speak out, = to fill the growing vacuum in thoughtful public discourse on issues of social justice and human rights''.
Byrne's 2005 speech also places the union centre stage in the battle of ide= as, when she states: ``Through well articulated poli= cies, courage, commitment and campaigning over more than a century, we have significantly influenced the way our society functions.''
In addition to arguing that unions best reflect Australian values, Byrne al= so contends, as a result of upholding values such as ``empathy, responsibility, protection, fairness, fulfilment, freedom, hone= sty, trust, co-operation, strength, community'', the AEU is the true guardian of= the public education system.
Wrong on both accounts. Instead of reflecting mainstream opinions, the AEU, according to Byrne's own admission, champions= a left-wing view of the world enmeshed in the culture wars against conservati= ve values. In bemoaning the re-election of the Howard, Bush and Blair governme= nts, the AEU president admits: ``This is not a good t= ime to be progressive in Australia; or for that matter anywhere else in the world.= ''
Anyone familiar with AEU policies will know the teacher union, along with o= ther cultural elite groups such as the ABC, teacher academics and assorted artis= ts and intellectuals, consistently attacks Australian society as socially unju= st and champions a range of left-wing causes.
The union also argues that Australian society is riven= with ``inequality and social conflict'' and that education, instead of repr= esenting a ladder of opportunity, reinforces privilege and meritocracy. The result? Given the union's commitment to overthrowi= ng the status quo, the school curriculum is no longer impartial or balanced since teachers are asked to embrace a politically correct approach in areas such = as gender, ethnicity and class.
Traditional academic studies, a belief in competition and the right of pare= nts to choose non-government schools are all attacked by the AEU as simply ways= by which the more privileged in society are able to maintain power and prestig= e. Equally as facile as the AEU's argument that it= best represents mainstream values is Byrne's argument that the union is the guar= dian of the public education system. Instead of strengthening the government sys= tem, the union has been instrumental in causing the move to non-government schoo= ls.
By imposing a politically correct curriculum, in opposition to one with a strong academic focus, by adopting feel-good student reports where all are winners and by failing to hold teachers accountable for performance, the AEU undermines confidence in government schools.
By becoming politically active in its support for the ALP, by aligning itse= lf with the trade union movement and by refusing to free government schools fr= om provider capture, the AEU also shows that it cares more about politics than= it does about education.
Evidence that the AEU's approach to education is counterproductive is found in a survey carried out by Irving Saulwick and Associates.
On being asked why they chose non-government schools, ``respondents talked about the reduction, as they saw it, in educational standards -- a lack of = rigour in teaching the `three Rs= ', a lack of discipline and respect in schools, and poor teaching.
``They did not think that all state-employed teachers were poor teachers. <= span class=3DGramE>Far from it. But many did think that they were teaching under difficult conditions, and that some, who were poor teachers, could no= t be dismissed.''
After reviewing NSW government schools, Tony Vinson, a defender of the publ= ic system, reaches a similar conclusion: ``Some parents expressed doubts about= the environment of such schools, the handling of unsatisfactory teachers, and whether sufficient emphasis is placed upon students' acquisition of good values.''
If Byrne and the AEU were serious about strengthening government schools, the way forward, as in the US and England, is with innovations such as charter schools and vouchers. Empowering local communities by allowing parents to establish charter schools improves stand= ards and builds the types of values embedded in social capital.

Kevin Donnelly is author of Why Our Schools are Failing and was chief of staff to a Coalition minister, Kevin Andrews, during 2004.