Education Expert Challenges ACT Reform Narrative as Data Misinterpreted
In a pointed critique of recent advocacy for educational changes in the Australian Capital Territory, an academic has asserted that those championing the Strong Foundations reforms are fundamentally ignoring crucial historical and conceptual data. This response follows a previous opinion piece that questioned whether the ACT's pioneering education system is being systematically dismantled.
Historical Vision Versus Modern Reforms
Dr Will Brehm, an Associate Professor in Comparative and International Education at the University of Canberra, contends that the current push for reform represents a significant departure from the ACT's original educational philosophy. When the territory's schools were established in the 1970s, the guiding principle was clear: maximum devolution of authority to individual schools. This approach emerged from a deliberate rejection of New South Wales' centralised bureaucratic model, which stakeholders at the time viewed as unwieldy and unresponsive to local needs.
The founding vision wasn't about specific teaching methods, Brehm emphasises, but rather embodied democratic principles about who should exercise power over education. "Abandoning decentralisation essentially surrenders to the notion that teachers, parents, and communities are not best placed to understand how their particular children learn and what they require," he argues. The suggestion that centralising curriculum, prescribing teaching methods, and standardising approaches across schools aligns with founding principles of decentralisation represents what Brehm describes as "an Orwellian re-reading of ACT's history."
Conceptual Confusion in Reform Arguments
Proponents of the Strong Foundations reforms frequently point to the Catholic education system's Catalyst program as evidence that significant improvements in student outcomes can be achieved rapidly. Indeed, analysis has shown that Catholic Education Canberra Goulburn demonstrated substantial positive shifts in NAPLAN results for Year 3 and 5 Reading and Numeracy between 2019 and 2022.
However, Brehm identifies a critical flaw in this comparison. The Catholic diocese was already operating under a centralised governance structure when it implemented Catalyst. Therefore, while the program demonstrates that a centralised system can implement reforms that improve standardised test scores, it doesn't answer the more fundamental question: is centralisation actually necessary for effective reform? The success of Catalyst shows centralisation might be sufficient for certain changes, but not that it's essential.
"The question Catalyst leaves unanswered is whether ACT public schools could build teacher expertise while preserving school autonomy," Brehm notes. "Could the public system equip teachers with deep knowledge of foundational skills while respecting principals' professional judgement over implementation?"
Questioning the Research Foundation
The assertion that Strong Foundations rests on "exhaustive research" requires particularly close examination, according to Brehm. He suggests that the ACT Government's Literacy and Numeracy Education Expert Panel report should be understood for what it was: policy advocacy commissioned by government, rather than peer-reviewed research that settles contested educational questions.
Brehm points to what he sees as selective use of sources within the report. Some papers cited to support claims of consensus on systematic phonics actually argue against phonics-first sequencing and call for balanced instruction instead. Critical sources questioning systematic phonics receive minimal treatment, while agencies aligned with the recommendations receive extensive discussion.
"Treating this advocacy document as settled science is problematic," Brehm argues. "Contested educational questions don't become settled because a government-commissioned panel made recommendations. The pedagogical questions remain contested, and even accepting certain evidence-based practices, the need for governance transformation remains unjustified."
The Core Principle: Professional Autonomy
Fifty years ago, the ACT education system represented genuine innovation: trusting teachers, empowering communities, and prioritising students over systems. The founding vision recognised that teachers require professional autonomy to respond effectively to students' actual needs.
"Real equity isn't achieved by mandating identical approaches everywhere," Brehm contends. "It's achieved by empowering educators with the knowledge, support, and trust to teach effectively. ACT students don't need identical instruction in every classroom. They need teachers with professional autonomy to recognise when a struggling reader needs phonics support, when another needs confidence building, when a third needs engagement with meaningful texts."
Professional autonomy, Brehm concludes, isn't merely a luxury but rather the essential precondition for responsive teaching. Before trading flexibility for standardisation, the public system should be absolutely certain it's not sacrificing what makes excellent teaching possible in the first place.
