Table of ContentsSummaryIntroduction – Principles of the DeclarationReview of the Declaration (essay on educational objectives) Statistical evidenceEmpirical evidenceConclusionReferencesSummaryThis essay on educational objectives will describe 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 after ten years of national educational reforms. Based on statistical and empirical analysis, the evidence presented will show why the Declaration has not adequately realized its vision and aspirations to enable all learners to reach their full potential. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essayIntroduction – Principles of the DeclarationSigning the Melbourne Declaration on the Educational Aims of Young Australians (Melbourne Declaration) in 2008 sets the agenda for the future Australian education system. It has two main objectives and its aim is to provide a long-term vision for schooling in which all young Australians “have the opportunity to reach their full potential” (MCEETYA, 2008, p. 18). These are: Goal 1: Australian education promotes equity and excellence. Goal 2: All young Australians become successful learners, confident and creative individuals and active and informed citizens (MCEETYA, 2008, p.8). The Melbourne Declaration also includes a “Commitment to Action” in eight interrelated areas to support the achievement of educational goals. These include: Developing stronger partnerships Supporting quality teaching and school leadership Strengthening early childhood education Improving middle years development Supporting the later years of schooling and youth transitions Promoting curriculum and world-class assessment Improve educational outcomes for indigenous young people and disadvantaged young Australians, particularly those from low socio-economic backgrounds Strengthen accountability and transparency Additionally, the Melbourne Declaration supported by its companion document, the MCEETYA produced a four-year plan (2009-2012) which identifies key strategies for each area of ​​educational objectives. It also provides the framework for significant national reform to 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 the directors. Review of the Declaration (essay on the aims of education) In this part In the essay on the aims of education, the question of whether the promotion of equity and excellence can be achieved with the The 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 each other. The questions in question are: can excellence and equity be achieved with equivalence? Is it even realistic or practical to have two seemingly opposing attributes for the same purpose? We can deduce that this conceptualization is based on a false distinction (Buchanan & Chapman, 2011). Although progress has been made in educational service delivery 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 calculation) and theThe Education Council's national report on education in Australia (a report which highlights the Australian community's progress towards the goals of the Melbourne Declaration) shows that after 10 years of government policy reforms and education strategies targeted improvement, education The system has not adequately achieved equity and excellence outcomes in creating educated citizenship 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 15-year-old Australians (14% of students) do not have the reading skills needed to adequately participate in the workforce and contribute as future productive citizens. 57,000 students (20% of students) fail mathematics (Thomson, De Bortoli, & Buckley, 2013). 22% of children (60,000) are developmentally vulnerable according to one or more Australian early childhood development censuses (physical health and well-being; social skills; emotional maturity; language and cognitive skills) from entry to school. They are likely to perform worse in school (AEDC, 2015; Australia Institute of Health and Welfare, 2015). 28% of Year 7 pupils do not meet the passing standards in key academic skills. Approximately 78,000 students are below expected achievement benchmarks in Grade 7 literacy and numeracy and it is estimated that 62% of Indigenous students do not meet this milestone (Lamb, Jackson, Walstab, & Huo, 2015). 26% of students do not reach grade 12. certificate or equivalent before the age of 19. Approximately 81,000 students, with significantly higher percentages of Indigenous (42%) and low SES students (39% for the lowest SES quartile) (Lamb et al., 2015). 27% of 24 (approximately 93,000 young adults) are not in full-time employment, education or training, and a higher proportion of Indigenous and low SES people (Lamb et al., 2015). A quarter of children and young people do not receive adequate support to meet key needs. educational milestones; and one in eight people absent at age 24 are likely to remain disengaged for most 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 in the lowest SES quintile are identified as developmentally vulnerable, compared to only 15% of children in the highest SES quintile (Australia Institute of Health and Welfare, 2017). Fundamentally, the “human capital theory” underlies the statement that spending is aligned with an increase in economic prosperity (Becker, 1962, 1964; Schultz, 1962). The government's neoliberal and capitalist agenda of 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 tiny, but it would translate into an increase in GDP of about 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 with a focus on STEM education across the Australian Curriculum. It allocated $64 million to fund early learning and school STEM (Support for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) initiatives.(STEM) | Department of Education,” 2019). According to a 2017 PwC report, if the government shifted 1% of the workforce towards STEM roles, the country's GDP would see an increase of $57.4 billion (PwC Australia, 2017). It is evident that the government's neoliberal agenda has the power to "dehumanize education and reduce it to an equation of inputs and outcomes" (Smith, 2019).Empirical EvidenceIn 2010, the Australian Institute of Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) was created to presumably support quality teaching and school leadership. It is a regulatory mechanism put in place to control the work of teachers (Brennan, 2009; Rizvi, 2008). Control of education was transferred from the states and territories to the federal level. New policies such as DER, NAPLAN, PISA (to name a few) have been introduced and have changed the nature of teachers' work. As a result, bureaucratic and neoliberal policies have had a negative impact on teachers and teaching becomes “the subject of scrutiny and criticism” (Luke, 2006). Gradually, the government is strengthening its control and authority over education by imposing accountability and effectiveness of a national curriculum and standardized testing system through ACARA and AITSL (Ball , 2008). This describes how the Declaration interacts with other commitments, adhering to a coordinated and collaborative federalism (Blackmore, 2004). The federal political structure and different ideological perspectives have brought about this change and now control the restructuring of education in Australia. Schools are filled with tension as policies are implemented to centralize management and decision-making at the school level (McInerney, 2003). School goals are expressed through the funding, structure, organization, and curriculum of an education system (Cranston, Kimber, Mulford, Reid, & Keating, 2010). These management 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 therefore streamlined 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 does not does not take into account the learning needs and aspirations of students (Bentley & Cazaly, 2015). In essence, the school became a “national economic reconstruction,” as a means of generating greater national productivity and greater international economic competitiveness (Knight and Warry, 1996). The focus is on the individual, private sector practices, the market, the economy and competition. There is a clear divergence between education and political ideological practices, in which politics overshadows the goals of schooling (Singh and Taylor, 2004). Based on the evidence presented, it is difficult to ensure that progress towards the goal of “all young Australians becoming good learners” has been made. Conclusion The Declaration implies a “formal commitment” to the public objectives of education (MCEECDYA, 2008, p. 4). ). However, it has not adequately ensured the overall development and holistic growth of the student. National assessment results show significant social gaps (Thomson, De Bortoli, & Underwood, 2017) and exaggerated equity gaps between the most and least advantaged students (Goss, Sonnemann, Chisholm, & Nelson, 2016). Catholic educators summarize this as “a lack ofunderstanding of human dignity” (Catholic Education Commission, 2014, p.6). Australians today need to learn more continually than any generation before them. Schools must prepare students for a life of learning and integrate effective social and economic participation. It must prepare and equip them with skills such as critical and creative thinking, intercultural capacity and personal and social capacity; skills that go beyond academic skills (Education Council, 2014). The Declaration will have a greater impact on system improvement if it is based on collaborative engagement between policymakers, practitioners, students, families, and communities (Fullan, Gallardo, & Hargreaves, 2015). It must focus on continuous improvement, collective responsibility, shared leadership, and accountability to a common set of educational goals that will meet the full learning potential of all learners. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a personalized document now from our expert writers. Get a personalized essay The Declaration should adopt a holistic vision and provide a pedagogy of values ​​(Lovat, Dally, Clement and Toomey, 2011) with educational objectives that serve the public good (Martin , 2010) and schools to serve and build a socially cohesive society (Loader, 2008). We hope that the 2019 review to update the Declaration will inspire all stakeholders to transform the educational experiences and opportunities of our young people, their citizens and their futures in society.ReferencesAustralian Early Development Census. (2015). Factors that affect children's academic success. Retrieved from https://www.aedc.gov.au/resources/detail/factors-found-to-affect-children%27s-success-at-school/Australian Early Development Census. (2018). AEDC findings. Retrieved from https://www.aedc.gov.au/parents/findings-from-the-aedcAustralian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2015). Australia's well-being 2015: in brief. Canberra: AIHW. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2017). Australia's well-being 2017: in brief. Canberra: AIHW. Ball, S. (2008). The education debate. Bristol: The Policy Press. Becker, G. S. (1962). Investment in human capital: a theoretical analysis. Journal of Political Economy, 70(5), 9-49. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1829103 Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital: a theoretical and empirical analysis, with particular reference to education. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Bentley, T. and Cazaly, C. (2015). The work of shared learning: Improving academic achievement 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). Managing teachers; Working 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 2011 conference, 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. and Keating, J. (2010). Politics and school education in Australia: A case of shifting goals. Journal of Educational Administration, 48(2), 182 – 195. Deloitte Access Economics. (2012). Evidence base on youth transitions: 2012 update. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. Board of Education. (2014). Review of the.