I was really trying to avoid commenting on PISA 2025, but enough people flagged enough nonsense, I guess I’m supposed to write something. So, in roughly decreasing order of annoyingness, and as brief as possible, here is the PISA stuff that got up my nose. And, if I missed anyone, good.
John Hattie
It is preferable to ignore Hattie, who can be pretty damn silly but is mostly just boring. On occasion, however, Hattie is very difficult to ignore. Speaking at an ACER-fest to launch the PISA report, Hattie was all smiles:
“The headline that should have been in every newspaper this morning is ‘ Australia is in the top 10 in the world. Congratulations.
…That is pretty incredible.”
Aren’t you the data man? Look at the graph, John, look at the graph. And, ignoring the fact that 10 ≠ 17, did you happen to notice how distant are the top 5? As they always are.
“Here we go again, another round of PISA, another burst of headlines, and another week where Australian education is told how bad it is … a familiar cast will assemble: the wailers … the demonising demons who talk about the quality of Australian education as failing – I’m talking policy people who once again start educational tours to go to Shanghai, Singapore and Finland.
“But then as you’ve noticed, we can take Finland off the agenda now…”
Hattie said wryly.
Hattie is quite the wit, although for plenty of us Finland was never on the agenda. But is Hattie suggesting we take Shanghai and Singapore off the agenda?
The answer to turning around Australia’s long-term decline in academic performance is not something to be found by looking at what the very top performing countries are doing, the researcher added.
Apparently so, and which is about as stupid as one can get.
Jonas Bertling
Bertling is the research director of ACER. For Bertling, the “headline result” is that “Australia continues to be a very strong performer”:
“We can be quite content, I think, with these findings.”
Content? What the hell would it need to cause you concern?
To be fair, Bertling acknowledges the “challenges”:
“And some of the challenges are declines in the long run for reading and maths.”
Ya think? Got any thoughts on how to address these challenges?
It is difficult to know what to think of ACER. It is a clunky but old and proud institution, that periodically comes out with nonsense but also seems to do some bread and butter things tolerably well. There will be some sense of loss when ACER goes under, which should be any year now. But guys like Bertling will make the loss sweet-bitter.
Christopher Harris
We last met the SMH Education Editor when he was banging the maths anxiety drum. For that, Harris featured “mathematics researcher Dr Greg Ashman”. Ironically, the only sensible words included in Harris’s absurd reports were quotes from mathematics researcher Dr Greg Ashman.
This time, in response to PISA, Harris is banging the explicit teaching drum. Harris features Ashman, of course, thankfully this time not a “mathematics researcher”. Harris’s report is not terrible, and at least, unlike Bertling and Hattie, it is located on Planet Earth, but it is not good. Explicit teaching, when it is not inhumanly stupid or when people are not pretending it is God’s gift to everything, is to be applauded. But here, Harris has simply signed up to his new cult, seemingly with no idea what he has signed up to. More to the point, explicit teaching cannot fix Australia’s PISA/TIMSS/reality woes: if one continues to teach drivel, it is not of great importance whether the drivel is being taught explicitly. Harris alludes to this at one point but it should not be an allusion: it should be declared with flashing lights and sirens.
Natasha Bita
Natasha, we’ve missed you.
Well, no, we haven’t. Bita is Education Editor of the The Australian and is pure Murdoch, a hell-or-high-water advocacy reporter. We’ve previously encountered Bita regurgitating ACARA madness on their “back to basics” curriculum, regurgitating OECD-Schleicher madness, regurgitating AMSI madness and, clearly her favourite, regurgitating Liberal-National culture war madness on the “woke” Australian curriculum. Bita is as annoying as hell.
Predictably, Bita’s response to PISA is to give the Liberal-Nationals a free kick, but at least that free kick is at the Australian Curriculum, which puts her way ahead of Hattie and Bertling and Harris. Unfortunately, the Liberal-Nationals cannot kick straight, meaning Bita is mostly regurgitating incoherent criticism. And, of course, Bita-Liberal-National have to whine about Aboriginal basket-weaving and whatnot. Yes, the Indigenous stuff in the curriculum is 90% tokenistic and absurd, but it is so absurd that no one pays attention to it. The tokenistic nonsense is not remotely the reason the Australian Curriculum is so bad and so damaging.
Ben Jensen
No, Jensen did not annoy me. Jensen always seems to be on point, and he is on point here (M,P): Jensen focusses upon the Australian Mathematics Curriculum and hammers it, accurately and forcefully. I just wish Jensen were more of a thug.
********************************************
UPDATE (18/09/26)
HENRY ERGAS
Ergas has an op-ed in today’s Australian (M,P):
Don’t blame the curriculum for classroom mediocrity
Why?
“…parental expectation … tutoring schools … the worship of the ‘middling standard’ …”
Um, maybe “parental expectations” would be higher if the curriculum required little Johnny to do some work? And maybe the Australian Curriculum is, apart from anything else, an example of (we wish) “middling” standard? And tutoring? In Asia, tutoring is very common, to help students reach the high standards expected in schools; in Australia, tutoring is very common to help students learn something because the standards in school are so low.
To suggest that Australia’s education woes are all due to the woeful curriculum would be absurd; if nothing else, the curriculum, while clearly an unmitigated disaster, is also a symptom of general education perversion. But if Ergas has anything else, anything that might justify his absurd headline, I cannot see it.
The answer to turning around Australia’s long-term decline in academic performance is not something to be found by looking at what the very top performing countries are doing, the researcher added.
I can’t believe he actually said that… If one of our ‘top’ education gurus is saying this, what bloody hope is there?
To be honest, it was Bita’s column that tipped me over the line, with her idiotic point-scoring on basket-weaving. But when writing the post, I read the columns and not just the headline stupidity, and I agree, Hattie’s was the worst: I cannot see how anyone, let alone someone of Hattie’s stature, can come out with something that absurd.
I wish I could take my profession seriously, but when this sort of stuff is said it starts to become clear that the education sector doesn’t run on competence. I then ask myself, what is the next best move I can make to try to lift this profession a bit? Hard to know what to do!
I know you didn’t want to post on this topic, but it was quite helpful. Thanks
Thank you, GI. I genuinely did not want to post on PISA. I don’t want to post on anything. I am so, so tired of the self-indulgent sanctimony of them all, and not least Ashman. None of them think they have anything to learn. But I appreciate your words.
Re your question on how to lift the profession, I know you’re weren’t asking for thoughts, but obviously I’ve thought a lot about it, and I am seeing more coalface than expected. So, here are a couple thoughts.
*) No one is coming to save you
This is very depressing, of course, but it is also helpfully clarifying. The new gurus are not going to repair things any more than the old gurus, they will simply model a new hell to their own liking.
*) Object when you can
Filling in a survey or whatever is not ever likely to do much good: this is almost always “consultation” rather than consultation. But, like voting, even if it serves no practical purpose, it makes you feel a little better.
*) You need not and should not ever pretend madness is not madness
If your school is doing some brainless cult thing then you do not have to pretend that it is other than a brainless cult thing. That doesn’t mean you should do a Marty, and you should not; as I tried to explain, yelling and ridiculing is to be targeted at the gurus and the Glorious Leaders, not your poor beleaguered colleagues, even the bullying Principal types (Haileybury excepted). But you can say what the local market will bear, and if you can say nothing then saying nothing can still have power. Most bullies are thin-skinned cowards; they will sense your objection and it will somewhat matter.
*) KKK
Even if your school is going nuts, or going nuts in a new way, you have good opportunity to teach well. Desipte the gurus’ best efforts, teaching can still be sane and human, and it must be, to the best that your abilities and handcuffs permit.
Thanks for the advice Marty. I am a happy with this shift to more ‘explicit instruction’ and perhaps I need to read some more of your posts on why you think it is cult, or a growing cult. I did read your article on Rosenshine. When you sit down and think for a minute, I guess it is just ‘Rosenshine’s principles of common sense…’ I think that’s what you were getting at.
My thinking with surveys now is it is best to just not complete them. If more people do that, that will say more than actually answering their bloody questions.
I read many education blogs and I think your voice is very important. Like I said, I am a big fan of this shift to explicit instruction (if it is done effectively) and I usually get quite defensive on it when people disagree. Having civil debates on topics like this is important and if individuals could swallow their pride a bit (come on Hattie – you can still say you fucked up) then perhaps we could improve things.
Thank you, Guy.
Despite the aggressive nature of my posts, I am always happy and keen to discuss/debate/explain/whatever my positions. I may snap back at commenters who try to lord it over me or others, and in particular I snapped at Ashman here because of his idiotic and manipulative defense of ResearchED’s thuggery towards me. But I like to think that I treat genuine questions and criticisms with gratitude and proper respect. I will discuss long and hard anything that people suggest is worth discussing, as long as they are discussing in approximately good faith.
Re explicit teaching, if you are unsure or sceptical of my position or claims, then it is probably best to comment with questions or criticisms on the specific posts. I pretty much always respond, no matter how old the post, and new comments appear on the right of the blog page. So, i don’t think it preferable to begin any discussion here, but below, in brief, is my current stance on explicit teaching.
I understand the attraction of “explicit teaching” and am fundamentally in support of it, intrinsically and especially given the Inquiry nightmare we have had to endure and still endure. Without repeating arguments and howls from my posts (and without undercutting coming posts), my concerns are:
1) When it is framed as more than the common sense of Rosenshine etc, it quickly becomes pompous overreach.
2) When it is implemented as more than the common sense of Rosenshine, it can easily become authoritarian and cartoonishly idiotic.
3) Even when it is implemented well, it is limited.
4) It is a cult. Ashman and Donovan and the rest have zero interest in genuine debate. They are very bad winners.
The good professor throwing boomerangs at passing satellites whilst standing on the shoulders of midgets with a meta-smug grin on his face is not at all surprising, but it might be a symptom of altitude sickness. Effect size -0.707, or +0.666 (depending on one’s perspective). It would take the strength of Hercules to not conclude that everything is nuts in education.
Do you think Hattie might have read that back and thought “Well, that was kind of dumb”? I’m genuinely curious how a supposedly scholarly type can say something like that and not reflect upon it.
Reflecting, even privately, that “well, that was kind of dumb” opens-up the possibility of expanding the self-reflection. I’m yet to see/hear of an education guru, professored or otherwise, brave enough to risk that kind of leap. Better to persist with the delusion than risk damaging or even destroying it. My rule of thumb is the more esteemed the guru, the more fragile the ego. Especially when an entire business model might be placed at risk.
I guess that is right. They all employ the strategy of never giving an inch, and that strategy is fundamental to the hawking of the product.
If it’s any consolation, we have progressively destroyed all the human sectors (disability, psychiatric care, aged care, employment support, welfare, education etc etc). Instead of seeing what worked over decades and centuries, some new idea comes along and a giant experiment is conducted, which unsurprisingly fails.
Someone I know who has a broad view says it is impossible to find a school anywhere today, which is as good as an ordinary suburban high school 40 years of ago. At least primary and secondary education haven’t been totally gutted like tertiary, even if loony ideologies make it hard to teach well. Maybe that’s next ….. The latest trend in Education Department appointment of principals is to put in younger people who will implement these new fads.
As Marty says, we do what we can. The situation is hopeless, we must take the next step.
JJ, you do with a little practice at this “consolation” thing.
And Marty – I’d even forgotten to list TAFE in there as one of those with a fad idea that destroyed it! Sorry – the only real consolation is that we were born at the right time and got a very high quality education!
Haha, thanks JJ.
Thing is, education doesn’t need to be like this (obviously). I’ve got two young kids and it motivates me to do more than just be nihilistic about the whole thing. I’m working on being more vocal on my views (not to say I am the person with all the answers – definitely not), but it’s hard when you career is on the line.
Guy, you have zero obligation to stick your head above the parapet if there is a genuine risk that it might be shot off.
Gosh I agree. I went to school at Warrnambool Secondary College in the late 80s and early to mid 90s. I strive to be as good as my high school teacher Mr Saunders but I’m not even close. No Cambridge in our class, just the teachers handwritten notes and handwritten exercises. No CAS or laptops back then either. Feel very fortunate to have had that experience. My next teacher was some lecturer from Melbourne Uni they called the maths monster. Think he is still around. He runs some blog about bad mathematics I believe.
You’re a funny man, J2. When did this math monster teach you, and what?
1996. First year linear algebra and calculus in semester 1. Here is an anecdote from our class on first order linear odes. The powers that be had told the maths monster that applying a given integrating factor was all that was required. The exercises were contrived. They just gave us the factor in the question. For me, it was an early example of seeing someone fight ridiculousness. The maths monster poked fun at this and showed us how easy it was to find the factor for ourselves. Happy days.
Huh. It does sound like someone I know.
I couldn’t agree more, JJ! I’m an English teacher that uses older textbooks for the fundamentals of language and grammar. Not only does it get results, but it actually encourages critical thinking in a world full of idiots.
I recently bought my high school poetry collection: Mainly Modern.
Hi Guy – both my brothers asked questions when their local primary schools introduced IPads and what was the reason for them being introduced. No luck I’m afraid. And that decision was costing parents hundreds of dollars (as well as probably being detrimental to their learning). Good for you if you can manage it, but I’m afraid a lot of primary teachers believe the maths they are teaching is the best way.
The issue with technology is that it is constantly outdated as soon as it is fully implemented. Walk into any school and I’m sure you can find at least one room that serves as a mausoleum for five-year-old tech. A solemn monument to a budget proposal determined to bring the school into “the future.”
Content and delivery both need to be important, but laptops and tablets are nothing but a monument to our inability to sit still and think.
Modern tech (used with discipline and purpose) could actually enhance a classroom. However, nothing has ever surpassed the quite and radical elegance of telling students to take out their pens and open their books.
Let me make an observation about technology and teaching in a university. We used to have blackboards and chalk. Then we moved to overhead projectors and screens. Then we moved to white boards. Electronic white boards became more popular in schools than in universities, although I remember university rooms with electronic boards and expensive markers. Then we moved to having a computer in the lecture room with a screen, and maybe a whiteboard at the side. Now we have a computer in the room with screens on every wall; students sit at tables organised roughly in a circle so that one-third of the students have their backs to the lecturer; sometimes there is a white board in the room. In addition, the life-spans of these expensive innovations seem to be decreasing over time.
Have these innovations led to improvements in teaching and learning?
But Terry, according to Ashman it’s all “just a medium”.
Perhaps I am a misoneist (a word I encountered only recently).
That’s it exactly, Terry. You simply do not appreciate the value of machines that go “ping”.
Marshall McLuhan had something to say about that!
Indeed he did. As did Neil Postman.
I’ve never seen a chalk or white board blue screen. I’m yet to see a power point lesson display the entire discourse of a lesson all at once. You also get to model the pen strokes you want to see in the assessment. Any issues with the extra length of time it takes to write can be overcome with some thought to concurrent activity. Best of all, it slows you down to make things easier for your students to follow and ask questions. Chalk boards rock.
Education has completely failed to learn from where Powerpoints came from – corporate. Death by Powerpoint is extreme there. The lesson there is that less is more and 60 slides is a nonsense!