by Lorraine Lockhart

How many of you are having difficulty reading this article or this paper? If we are to believe the federal Minister for Education David Kemp, your numbers are increasing. In response to a national survey on literacy which showed that almost half the country, or 6.2 million people, have poor or very low literacy skills, Kemp has once again delivered what he sees as the solution another crisis in education: testing, testing and more testing along with federal government grants (money that was formerly used for programs to help disadvantaged schools) from next year being tied to performance in improving literacy.

Kemp's solution to the problem is not only shortsighted and ill-informed but also devisive.

Kemp has alienated the state ministers who now see a possibility of their federal funding being cut or at least reduced if they are not able to improve the levels of literacy. Reduced federal funding will mean more pressure from below to increase state grants to make up the shortfall and maintain current levels of funding that individual schools receive. It may also mean that if Kemps's proposals go ahead, existing programs in schools will be in danger of being scrapped as schools spend their limited funds in raising literacy to ensure they get their federal grant. Programs like Art, Music and Sport are often the first to go when schools tighten their belts. Again it's the 'rob Peter to pay Paul' syndrome.

Economic rationalist governments

State governments which have adopted the economic rationalist approach must accept that their policies have been fundamental in assisting the lowering of our literacy levels. Over the last decade they have continued to tighten the education belt and reduce funding and as a direct result fewer teachers have been placed in the schools and class sizes have increased. For example, in Victorian primary schools, the Minister for Education Phil Gude admitted that 600 schools have class sizes of over 31; a five fold increase since his Liberal government came to power in 1992.

This of course means that teachers have less time to spend with each student they teach, making it more difficult to help students with problems. Reduced funding also means schools cannot run programs that employ outside staff to specifically assist students with literacy (or numeracy, which is sure to be the next big issue) problems. Quite ironically, Kemp has managed (if only for a brief moment) to unite teacher unions and state governments over funding issues.

The real concerns

The real concern is that schools which have large populations of ESL (English as a Second Language) students, Aborigines and children from poor families will be even more at risk of not being able to assist their students. These groups are those that the survey identified as having the lowest level of literacy and therefore the greatest need of increased funding. Yet under Kemps proposal, they not only have to face having their disadvantaged schools grant cut but also further cuts if they are not able to improve literacy levels. Once again Kemp has put the cart before the donkey and left the most marginal exposed to future disadvantage. For the past thirteen years as part of my job I have listened to students read out loud in class as they work their way through a class handout. However, unlike Minister Kemp, I do not see literacy levels of students falling because teachers and schools aren't doing their job properly. What I see are growing numbers of students who have difficulty reading and writing because they cannot and do not receive the help they need. In my school we have two programs (one of which is reliant on volunteer staff) for students with poor literacy skills. However, there are only enough places in these programs for the very weak students. You may ask why all students who have problems are not in these programs. The answer is of course RESOURCES. Resources that must be delivered on a needs base not as a reward for work well done.