IndexAbstractIntroduction – Principles of the DeclarationReview of the Declaration (essay on educational objectives)Statistical evidenceEmpirical evidenceConclusionReferencesAbstractThis essay on educational objectives will outline the principles of the Melbourne Declaration. It will address the policies of the Declaration and critically examine the implications and impact it has had on the education of young Australians following ten years of national education reforms. Based on statistical and empirical analyses, the evidence presented will show why the Declaration has not adequately met its vision and aspirations to enable all students to reach their full potential. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Introduction - Principles of the Declaration The signing of the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (Melbourne Declaration) in 2008 sets the agenda for Australia's future education system. There are two main objectives and its aim is to provide a long-term vision for education where all young Australians are “provided the opportunity to reach their full potential” (MCEETYA, 2008, p.18 ). They are: Goal 1: Australian education promotes equity and excellence. Goal 2: All young Australians become successful students, confident and creative individuals and active and informed citizens (MCEETYA, 2008, p.8). The Melbourne Declaration also includes a 'Commitment to Action' in eight related areas to support the achievement of educational goals. They are: Developing stronger partnerships Supporting quality teaching and school leadership Strengthening early childhood education Improving middle years development Supporting school years and youth transitions Promoting world-class curriculum and assessments Improve educational outcomes for Indigenous youth and disadvantaged young Australians, particularly those from low socioeconomic backgrounds Strengthen accountability and transparency Additionally, the Melbourne Declaration supported by its companion document, MCEETYA has produced a four-year plan (2009–2012) that identifies key strategies for each educational goal area. It also provides the framework for significant national reform of the Australian Curriculum, the National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education and Care, the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers and the Australian Professional Standards for Principals. Review of the Statement (essay on educational objectives) In this part of the essay on educational objectives, the question of whether the promotion of equity and excellence can be achieved with equivalence will be explored and analyzed. On the surface, the educational objectives are simple and easy to understand. However, the goal of promoting equity and excellence seems to contradict itself. The questions at hand are: Is it possible to achieve excellence and equity with equivalence? Is it realistic or practical to have both seemingly opposing attributes within the same lens? One might infer that this conceptualization is based on a false distinction (Buchanan & Chapman, 2011). While there has been some progress in the provision of education services over the past 10 years, research from the National Assessment Program (a program that tracks student performance in key learning areas such as literacy and numeracy) and the National Education Report in Australia of the Education Council (report highlighting theprogress of the Australian community towards the goals of the Melbourne Declaration) show that, after 10 years of government policy reforms and targeted improvement strategies, the education system has not adequately achieved equity and excellence in creating an educated citizenry for all young Australians (Lamb & Huo, 2017; O'Connell, Fox & Cole, 2016). Statistical Evidence The above statement is supported by the following statistics: PISA performance showed that 40,000 Australian 15-year-olds (14% of students) lack the reading skills to adequately participate in the workforce and contribute as productive future citizens. 57,000 students (20% of students) fail in mathematics (Thomson, De Bortoli, & Buckley, 2013). 22% of children (or 60,000) are developmentally vulnerable in one or more Australian censuses of early development (physical health and wellbeing; social competence; emotional maturity; language and cognitive skills) at school entry. They are at risk of poorer educational outcomes (AEDC, 2015; Australia Institute of Health and Welfare, 2015). 28% of Year 7 students do not meet performance benchmarks in key academic skills. Approximately 78,000 students are below expected achievement benchmarks in literacy and numeracy in Year 7 and an estimated 62% of Indigenous students do not reach this target (Lamb, Jackson, Walstab & Huo, 2015). 26% of students do not reach the Year 12 certificate or equivalent by the age of 19. Approximately 81,000 students, with significantly higher rates for Indigenous students (42%) and low SES (39% for the lowest SES quartile) (Lamb et al., 2015). 27% of 24-year-olds (approximately 93,000 young adults) are not in full-time work, education or training, with a higher proportion of people being indigenous and low SES (Lamb et al., 2015). A quarter of children and young people are not adequately supported to meet key educational milestones; and one in eight of those who lose their job at age 24 are likely to remain disengaged for much of their working lives (Mitchell Institute, 2017). 42% of Indigenous children are identified as developmentally vulnerable compared to 21% of non-Indigenous children. 33% of children from the lowest SES quintile are identified as developmentally vulnerable, compared to only 15% of children from the highest SES quintile (Australia Institute of Health and Welfare, 2017). Fundamentally, “human capital theory” underlies the statement that spending is aligned with increased economic prosperity (Becker, 1962, 1964; Schultz, 1962). The government's neoliberal and capitalist agenda for economic reform is hidden under the guise of educational progress. A 2012 Deloitte report showed that by investing in early childhood education (MCEETYA, 2008, p.11), student participation would increase by 0.7% and productivity by up to 1.2% by 2030. The percentage increase may seem minuscule, but this would translate to a GDP increase of approximately 2.2% or $25 billion in today's dollars (Deloitte Access Economics, 2012). Since 2015, the Government has been committed to improving the STEM skills of young Australians by placing an emphasis on STEM education across the Australian Curriculum. It allocated $64 million to fund early learning and school-based STEM initiatives (“Support for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) | Department of Education,” 2019). According to a 2017 PwC report, if the government were to shift 1% of the workforce into STEM roles, the country's GDP would realize an increase of $57.4 billion (PwC Australia, 2017). It is clear that the government's neoliberal agendait has the power to “dehumanize education and reduce it to an equation of input and output” (Smith, 2019). Empirical evidence In 2010, the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) was established to purportedly support quality teaching and school leadership. This is a regulatory mechanism established to monitor the work of teachers (Brennan, 2009; Rizvi, 2008). Control over teaching has been transferred from the states and territories to the federal level. New policies such as DER, NAPLAN, PISA (to name a few) have been introduced which have changed the nature of teachers' work. As a result, bureaucratic and neoliberal policies have had a negative impact on teachers and teaching becomes “an object of scrutiny and criticism” (Luke, 2006). Progressively, the government is strengthening its control and authority over education.important issues by imposing accountability and efficiency of a national curriculum and standardized testing system through ACARA and AITSL (Ball, 2008). This outlines how the Declaration interacts with other commitments, adhering to coordinated and collaborative federalism (Blackmore, 2004). The federal political structure and different ideological perspectives have influenced this change and now have control over educational restructuring in Australia. Schools are filled with tensions as policies are implemented to centralize school management and decision making (McInerney, 2003). The purposes of education are expressed through the financing, structure, organization, and curriculum of an educational system (Cranston, Kimber, Mulford, Reid, & Keating, 2010). These managerial and marketization programs replace the public goals of school education with political ideology and influence them through power, control and efficiency (Labaree, 1997). The national curriculum is consequently optimized to focus on narrowly defined learning outcomes, excludes the wide range of skills, abilities and priorities of school leaders and teachers (Jackson, Adam & Turner, 2017) and ignores learning needs and student aspirations ( Bentley & Cazaly, 2015 ). In essence, schooling has become “national economic reconstruction” as a means of generating greater national productivity and international economic competitiveness (Knight and Warry, 1996). The emphasis is on the individual, private sector practices, the market, the economy and competition. There is a clear divergence between education and political ideological practices where politics overshadows the purposes of education (Singh and Taylor, 2004). Based on the evidence presented, it is difficult to ascertain whether progress has been made towards the goal of “all young Australians becoming successful learners”. Conclusion The Declaration implies a “formal commitment” to the public purposes of education (MCEECDYA, 2008, p.4 ). However, it did not adequately provide for the overall development and holistic growth of the student. National assessment results show large social gaps (Thomson, De Bortoli & Underwood, 2017) and an exaggerated equity gap between the most and least advantaged students (Goss, Sonnemann, Chisholm & Nelson, 2016). Catholic educators summarize this as “a lack of understanding of human dignity” (Catholic Education Commission, 2014, p.6). Australians today need to learn more continuously than any generation before them. Schools must prepare students for lifelong learning and incorporate effective social and economic participation. It must prepare them and equip them with skills such as critical and creative thinking, intercultural capacity and personal and social capacity; skills thatthey go beyond academic skills (Education Council, 2014). The Declaration will have a greater impact on system improvement if it is built on a collaborative commitment between policy makers, professionals, students, families and communities (Fullan, Gallardo & Hargreaves, 2015). It must focus on continuous improvement, collective responsibility, shared leadership, and accountability to a shared set of educational goals that will meet the full learning potential of all students. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a custom essay The Declaration shall embrace a holistic vision and provide a pedagogy of values ​​(Lovat, Dally, Clement, & Toomey, 2011) with educational objectives that serve the public good (Martin, 2010) and schools serve and build a society socially cohesive (Loader, 2008). It is hoped that the 2019 review to update the Declaration will push all stakeholders to transform the educational experiences and opportunities of our young people, their citizens and the future in society. References Australian Census of Early Development. (2015). Factors influencing children's success in school. Retrieved from https://www.aedc.gov.au/resources/detail/factors-found-to-affect-children%27s-success-at-school/Australian Census of Early Development. (2018). AEDC Results. Retrieved from https://www.aedc.gov.au/parents/findings-from-the-aedcAustralian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2015). Australian welfare 2015: in brief. Canberra: AIHW.Australian Institute of Health and Wellbeing. (2017). Australian welfare 2017: in brief. Canberra: AIHW.Ball, S. (2008). The education debate. Bristol: The Policy Press. Becker, G. S. (1962). Investments in human capital: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Political Economy, 70(5), 9-49. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1829103Becker, G.S. (1964). Human capital: a theoretical and empirical analysis, with particular reference to education. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Bentley, T., & Cazaly, C. (2015). Shared work learning: Improving academic outcomes through collaboration. Mitchell Institute.Blackmore, J. (2004). Restructuring educational leadership in changing contexts: A local/global account of restructuring in Australia. Journal of Educational Change, (Vol. 5, 267-288). Brennan, M. (2009). Directive teachers; Work to control the feminized profession of education. Journal of Sociology, 45, 339 – 359. Buchanan, RA & Chapman, AK (2011) Utopia or dystopia?: a critical examination of the Melbourne Declaration. Paper presented at the PESA Conference 2011, Auckland, New Zealand.Catholic Education Commission. (2014). Submission to the Australian Curriculum Review. New South Wales, 2014. Cranston, N., Kimber, M., Mulford, B., Reid, A., & Keating, J. (2010). Politics and school education in Australia: A case of shifting purposes. Journal of Educational Administration, 48(2), 182 – 195.Deloitte Access Economics. (2012). Evidence base on youth transitions: 2012 update. Department for Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. Board of Education. (2014). Review of the Melbourne Declaration - Discussion Paper. Retrieved from https://uploadstorage.blob.core.windows.net/media/education-au/20190415_FINAL_Melb%20Dec_Discussion%20Paper.pdfFullan, M., Rincon-Gallardo, S., & Hargreaves, A. (2015). Professional capital as responsibility. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(15). Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.1998 Goss, P., Sonnemann, J., Chisholm, C., & Nelson, L. (2016). Growing gaps: what NAPLAN tells us about student progress. Grattan Institute..