Persistent suggestions that parental attitudes to education in Tasmania are to blame for poor engagement and educational attainment by young Tasmanians are disappointing and frustrating.

The only comprehensive study of Tasmanian parents’ attitudes to education I am aware of was commissioned by the TCCI in 2008. The study did not find that Tasmanian parents – the working majority - do not value higher education, it found that they fear it. They fear higher education because they believed there are no jobs in their community or Tasmania which require higher education, and therefore pursuing higher education would mean their children leave Tasmania for employment opportunities elsewhere, threatening the family and community fabric which working Tasmanians value so highly.

The report also found that the working majority of Tasmanians valued hard work which they defined as physical, blue collar or service work rather than intellectual work.  This working majority had a high work ethic and measured success as working hard in their community, looking to their community for future opportunities.

The study also found that the working majority did not associate higher levels of education with the ability to find employment in their community, therefore they did not deem it necessary. The report found that the working majority were motivated by their personal environment of community, lifestyle, family and friends rather than more successful careers.

Fast forward 13 years, and the jobs landscape has changed. Of the current jobs in Tasmania, less than a third require a bachelor degree or higher qualification, while more than two in five (44%) require no more than a certificate II.

Not only has the Tasmanian workforce been polarising over time -  growth has been in high and low skill jobs, the number of jobs considered to be entry level, requiring certificate III or IV vocational qualifications for trade and technical jobs has been declining, now around 12% of the total workforce. In addition, these jobs are experiencing changes in content and skill requirements, evolving from physical labour dominated work, to the need for higher level numeracy, literacy and technological skills, not previously considered necessary.  

In its The Modern Worker, A Guide to What Employers Want, the Business Council of Australia outlines the minimum capability requirements for trade and technical jobs which include occupation specific reading comprehension, writing and oral communication skills; numeracy capabilities of measuring and calculation, data recording and interpretation and cost estimation; and extend to include analytical and digital capabilities as well as the generic ‘soft skills’ which receive so much attention.

A range of current research reports also indicate that young people today are aspiring for jobs they have little chance of securing. These reports also confirm that community remains a strong factor in education and work decision making processes, particularly for young men, yet our education and social systems are not preparing our young people for the future of work.

Historically, students who have struggled academically have been encouraged to pursue vocational education and training and trade or services related employment rather than higher education and associated opportunities. With expanding skill requirements in VET related jobs, the polarisation of the workforce and the shift to services-oriented work, many young Tasmanians can no longer rely on gaining meaningful employment in hard, physical work to sustain their much-valued lifestyles in their community.

Given the increasing literacy and numeracy demands across all occupational skill levels, whether vocational or professional jobs, we need to ensure that all Tasmanian students meet the expected benchmarks for reading, writing and numeracy by grade 7 so that they are able to engage in the wider school curriculum and successfully complete their schooling to pursue other opportunities.

In 2019, the latest available data, of the students starting grade 7, 1 in 5 were at or below the National Minimum Standard for reading and numeracy, 1 in 4 were at or below the Standard for spelling as well as grammar and punctuation and 1 in 3 (34.9%) were at or below the Standard for writing, meaning they were unable to express their thoughts, knowledge or understanding in written form with the appropriate structure, vocabulary and cohesion – critical skills for participating in the wider school curriculum and future employment.

Critically, for those students whose parents were in low skilled jobs or not in paid work at all, over half did not exceed the expected Standard for writing.  Over a third of those with parents in low skilled jobs did not exceed the reading or numeracy benchmarks, while less than half of those with no working parents met the benchmarks.

Jobs have changed and skills within jobs have changed but the aspirations of our young people have not and connection to community remains strong. Strong work ethic and values also remain, as do aspirations to contribute meaningfully to society, however, our young Tasmanians need much stronger educational foundations to achieve their aspirations. These skills and knowledge sit squarely in the responsibility of our education system, not with the parents who have not benefited from a good education themselves.

If we want our young Tasmanians to successfully complete their schooling, pursue higher education and aspire to higher-skilled jobs, then we also need to be better at creating those higher-skilled jobs in Tasmania and our regions. To do that, we need vision and a strategic industry policy.
​
See more about the impact of lack of supply of jobs on educational aspirations here.
 
For more on the values, attitudes to education and career aspirations of young people see this report for the Tasmanian Seafood Industry Council).
 
An edited version of this Opinion Piece was published as a Talking Point in the Mercury on 14 July 2021. 

Around 4 per cent of Australian students have a learning disability caused by a neurological disorder, rather than intellectual impairment, and present with varying degrees of unexpected under-achievement in one or more areas of literacy; reading, spelling or writing, and/or numeracy, 80 per cent of whom struggle reading.

In Tasmania, that equates to 4,360 students.

Neurological disorders present as persistent and long-lasting learning impairments which require educational support needs extending beyond those normally addressed by classroom teachers under differentiated teaching practices, governed by the reasonable adjustments framework within the Disability Standards for Education 2005.

​In Australia, there is no clear definition of learning disabilities which has implications for policy development, resourcing and effective teaching practices.

This lack of definition and understanding originated from a 1979 report by the Australian House of Representatives Select Committee on Specific Learning Difficulties which determined there was insufficient evidence that learning difficulties experienced by students were intrinsic in origin, a requirement for the use of the term disabilities. The committee therefore recommended the use of the term ‘learning difficulties’ to refer to students who experience difficulties in reading, spelling, writing and/or mathematics despite a terminological difference between ‘experiencing learning difficulties and having learning disabilities’, and without regard for a specific diagnosis (Elkins, 2007).

Even so, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, which is designed to protect people with disability from discrimination in access to education, includes in its definition of disability ‘a disorder or malfunction that results in the person learning differently from a person without the disorder or malfunction’. More recently, significant advancements in cognitive science research have contributed to expanding the understanding of the cognitive processes of learning and the underlying causes of learning disabilities.  A contemporary definition has since been proposed, ‘learning disabilities should be viewed a subset of learning difficulties that are neurological in origin, permanent in nature and resistant to intervention and not the result of below average intelligence, English as a second language (ESL), sensory impairment, emotional or behaviour problems, economic disadvantage and inadequate or inappropriate teaching’.

In Australia, the lack of evidence for effective invention for those with learning disabilities may be attributable to a number of factors. There is a growing body of evidence which finds the intervention programs used for those with learning difficulties are ineffective. Several evaluations of the predominate program for reading difficulties in Australia, Reading Recovery, found no evidence for positive effects on children’s reading achievement over the long term, and a negative impact in the medium term. Further, a review of 20 intervention programs used in Australia by Dr Kate de Bruin for Catholic Education Melbourne found that only one program had a large and robust evidence base supporting its use, seven programs were either ineffective or unsupported by sufficient evidence to produce the desired outcomes and that eight interventions incorporated inefficient instructional practices (either completely or partially) which are not aligned with the consistent research findings about the best ways to teach literacy.

An alternative to differentiation at the individual level is the whole-class Response to Intervention (RTI) model. A multi-tiered model of instruction based on need, RTI aims to improve educational outcomes for all students through the early identification of students who require additional support and to direct appropriate resourcing and intensity of instruction to meet the educational needs of the student. The RTI model also enables the identification of students with learning disabilities, before they fail. Tiers of instructional approaches operationalise the RTI model, supported by on-going screening and progress monitoring assessment. Beginning with whole-class core instruction which meets the needs of at least 80 per cent of the class (Tier 1), RTI then increases instructional intensity for students whose screening data identifies they are below expected benchmarks. Tier 2 interventions supplement Tier 1 core instruction with the aim that the support is targeted to specific areas of skill, usually in small groups, to support learning progress and return the student/s to Tier 1. Tier 3 intervention is provided to those students who do not respond to Tier 2 intervention, and require individualised support with an appropriately qualified educator, typically one-to-one with high levels of intensity and frequency. Critically, the RTI model is only effective if Tier 1 instruction provides for a strong foundation of evidence-based teaching instruction, otherwise too many students require the resource intensive interventions at Tiers 2 or 3.
​
All students with learning disabilities have the right to access the curriculum at the same level as their peers. Given students with learning disabilities have an underlying neurological disorder impacting their cognitive processes, the key to supporting them achieve their educational potential is through evidence-based practice. Structured literacy refers to the content and methods or principles of instruction for teaching how to read, write and use language in an explicit, systematic and cumulative manner. Structured literacy includes; phonological awareness – particularly phonemic awareness, (systematic, synthetic) phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension, as well as oral language. This works best within a whole-class RTI model with strong Tier 1 instruction, as it provides for regular screening and progress monitoring to inform evidence-based teaching practices and required intervention and intensity for all students. 

An edited version of this Opinion Piece was published in the Mercury on 23 June 2021.

For over 20 years I have worked in roles in which the primary objective was to improve the economic and social outcomes for Tasmanians. Prior to that, I was a teacher of economics and business studies and, before that, employed in financial services.

These roles in public, private and academic spheres have been diverse, interesting, challenging and confronting and have provided me the opportunity to gain a deep insight into not just the statistical workings of the Tasmanian economy but also the intertwined social, political and cultural fabric that influences our policy-making in Tasmania.
I have researched, written and presented extensively about Tasmania’s economic, demographic, educational and social performance over the years and the structural impediments underpinning that performance, as have many others. I’ve provided a plethora of science-based evidence to both warrant and inform policy intervention, as have many others, and I have delivered it using different narrative styles, yet, the reality is, little has changed over those two-plus decades and, for a number of indicators, the situation has deteriorated.

I detail Tasmania’s four key structural challenges; industry structure, population change, the workforce and educational outcomes and their relationship in this presentation which is essentially a culmination of my work over the past 15 years or so.

While the government of the day may laud the current successes of our economy, even in a post-COVID environment, the reality is that Tasmanians’ living standards, measured as Gross State Product (GSP) per capita, are the lowest of any state or territory and are lower than in the 1990s, in relative terms, around 20 percent lower than the average Australian.

While successive governments assert that its aim is to improve the living standards of Tasmanians, it’s overarching policy framework does little to improve the productivity of our economy, which is what ultimately leads to sustainable and ongoing improved living standards for all.

Suggestions that ‘demography is destiny’ underplay the import of economic and social policy in shaping our long-term future. Our destiny is not predetermined by our demography. In fact, our (socio-economic) demography today is the outcome of policy decisions made in the past. And our (socio-economic) demography in the future will be shaped by policies of today. So, really, our destiny is ours to shape (including our socio-economic demography destiny).

All commentators, including myself, correlate Tasmania’s economic and social underperformance with our relatively poor educational outcomes, which in turn impact our industry structure, workforce and the potential for improved productivity.

Which then poses the question of why, when there is ample evidence of where our deficiencies are and what to do about it and how, is there a reluctance to improve?

In 2013, Jonathan West asked the question “What’s wrong with Tasmania, really? The Obstacles to Progress” in a special issue of The Griffith Review; Tasmania: the Tipping Point.

In his essay, he asserted that

“Tasmania has developed a way of life, a mode of doing things, a demographic, a culture and associated economy that reproduces underachievement, generation after generation.

The reality is that Tasmania has bred a dominant social coalition that blocks most proposals to improve.
Problems and challenges are debated endlessly, with no resolution. Most discussion avoids mention of the uncomfortable truths at the source of under-performance.

Ultimately, Tasmania doesn’t change because its people actually don’t really want to.”

He went on to say; “I’ve become convinced that the underlying reason for this is that the Tasmanian community actually does not want government to overcome these obstacles – or at least, it does not want it enough to sacrifice existing amenity for those obstacles to be removed.”

He suggested that the dark side of Tasmania’s enviable emphasis on a laid-back lifestyle is a ‘culture of low aspiration’ and that while we have a ‘substantial underclass’, there was no personal incentive for the ‘smaller, comfortable, government-dependent middle class’ to improve the outcomes for the underclass through greater educational attainment. He claimed that this ‘government-dependent middle class’ ‘valued above most other concerns a modest, comfortable lifestyle, the kind that steady government employment guarantees. The ease with which it had become possible in Tasmania to reach this income level and enjoy material security meant that there was little incentive for more education’.

At the time, this accusation from an ‘outsider’ who suggested that only ‘outsiders’ could change the trajectory for Tasmania and Tasmanians, was not well received. I wrote a response to his essay in The Conversation, and in doing so, it made me reflect critically on his observations, which I continue to do so today.

West’s observations were inspired by the need for greater economic development and growth in the form of the traded, market sector to improve the state’s performance, based on the false assumption of the current neo-liberal economics standpoint that a greater proportion of private sector capital and investment in the economy would eventually ‘trickle down’ to improve the socio-economic outcomes for the ‘underclass’. However, he also claimed that Tasmanians placed very little value on education, drawing from a study undertaken by the TCCI in the mid-2000s as part of the Education Transforms project. This study concluded that as working-class Tasmanians placed a higher value on their community and lifestyle than work, they feared that if their children pursued further education, they would have to leave their family, the community or Tasmania and as such, didn’t encourage completion of schooling by their children nor the pursuit of further education.

I discuss the problem of education in Tasmania in more detail in this presentation, particularly from a demand perspective, which is also ultimately impacted by a supply issue.

The uncomfortable reality is that Tasmania persistently underperforms the national average in all economic indicators; GSP, employment engagement and productivity, which can be directly attributable to considerably lower educational attainment.

1. Tasmania’s employment participation rate is the lowest in Australia (partly explained by a larger proportion of Tasmania’s population being over the age of 65, considered the end of working life age);
2. Tasmanians work fewer hours per week than the national average, reflecting the greater prevalence of part-time work in Tasmania than elsewhere and have the highest level of underemployment (want to work more hours);
3. For each hour that they worked, Tasmanians with jobs contribute less to GSP than the average Australian, that is the labour productivity of Tasmanians is considerably lower than the labour productivity of Australians; and
4. Tasmania’s workforce is dominated by five low productivity industries (health care and social assistance, retail trade, accommodation and food services, education and training and public administration and safety), making up over half of the total workforce (52%) and contributing to 38 per cent of GSP. Whereas these 5 industries make up around 45 per cent of the Australian workforce and contribute 28 per cent to GSP.

This poor economic performance and lack of diverse and high productivity industry sectors can be attributable to Tasmania’s poor educational outcomes across all developmental stages of life.

A recent report from the Mitchell Institute, Educational opportunity in Australia 2020: Who succeeds and who misses out found that, nationally, about one-fifth to one-third of young people are behind or missing out in Australia’s education systems. The report’s indicators cover the various stages of learning and development from early childhood through to early adulthood to assess how well Australia’s systems are doing in preparing young people with the lifelong knowledge and skills needed to contribute successfully and meaningfully to social, economic and cultural life. The report found that the ‘results are at odds with our national goals for education’.

The report also found that Tasmanians fare worse than the national average in all but 7 of the 23 indicators for all four stages of learning and development. Of the total 23 indicators, Tasmania ranks 7th or 8th (out of 8) in 12.
The recent Productivity Commission Report on Government Services concluded the same.

While Tasmania’s apparent school retention rate has improved since the extension of high schools to year 11 and 12 (74.3%), successful completion of year 12 has not. Around 58 per cent of Tasmanian school leavers successfully completed year 12, 14 percentage points less than the national rate. The attainment rate gap is much higher for low SES students (16 percentage points) who make up over half of our school leavers, than students from medium (10 percentage points) or high (9 percentage points) socio-economic areas.

Further, students from low SES backgrounds in Vic, SA and WA have higher Y12 attainment rates than students from high SES backgrounds in Tasmania. And, students from “remote” or “very remote” areas of NSW, Victoria, SA and WA have higher Y12 attainment rates than Tasmanian students from inner or outer regional classifications e.g. Greater Hobart and Launceston.

Young people’s successful transition from compulsory schooling to education, training and employment is particularly important for fulfilling life opportunities, with a positive relationship between completion of year 12 and subsequent engagement. Sadly, however, while nationally in 2020, 69.3 per cent of 17 to 24 year old school leavers were fully participating in education, training and/or employment (with proportions higher for those completing year 12 compared to year 11 or below) it was a different story for Tasmanian school leavers. Around 2 in 5 school leavers aged 17 to 24 (60.5%) were engaged fully in education, training and/or employment.

This poor educational attainment and engagement in further education or training and employment can be further linked to poor language and literacy achievement in Tasmania, from as young as early childhood.

Around one in five children in Tasmania start school every year developmentally vulnerable across five indicators: physical, social, emotional, language and communication. An additional one in 10 are at risk of being developmentally vulnerable.

Further to that, around one in five of our grade 7 students start the year at or below the NAPLAN National Minimum Standard (NMS) for reading which represents a very low level of reading skill.

For those grade seven students whose parents’ highest level of completed schooling was year 11 or below, around two in five students (40 per cent) are at or below the NMS for reading.

In terms of comparison by state and territory, the percentage of Tasmanian grade 7 students who are at or above the NMS for reading is lower, and statistically significantly different, than most other states and territories.

Those who are not reading proficiently by grade seven are highly likely to struggle with the demands of the wider curriculum and are more likely to not complete school, leading to poorer health and well-being over their lifetimes.
So, while our lifestyle is the envy of the nation for so many Tasmanians, it’s a point in time perspective. Less understood however, is that while we may be enjoying the lifestyle on offer now, this attitude of undervaluing improving educational outcomes for ALL Tasmanians will have longer term consequences, including for the ‘government-dependent middleclass’.

Why does it matter that Tasmanians have such poor educational outcomes and don’t value pursuing further education? Why does it matter for those who have completed school and been fortunate enough to secure work and a reliable income and currently enjoy the Tasmanian lifestyle?

It matters because it affects what sort of industry and business we can attract to the state. A skilled and educated workforce is critical to attract and retain investment and improve productivity.

It matters because the type of industries and businesses we have in the state affects the types of jobs that Tasmanians can get and what they are paid for their work.

It matters because our young people, our children and grandchildren, have limited career pathways to aspire to.
It matters because for those Tasmanians who do successfully complete year 12 and pursue further education, many are unable to secure meaningful work at their level of qualification and/or field of study and either need to leave the state to find work, or work at a lower level of skill in Tasmania.

It matters it as without the availability of higher skilled jobs it may affect where our children live and work and where our grandchildren are born and grow up.

If our children do stay in Tasmania, it will affect the type of job they can get, the income they can secure and whether or not they can afford to buy their own home.

It matters because it may affect when, and if, our children and grandchildren are able to return to live in Tasmania – the best place to raise a family - and usually depends on whether they are able to gain commensurate work in the State.

It matters because as we age and our independence decreases, and our need for assistance to go to appointments or do the shopping increases, we may not have readily available access to help and support if our children and grandchildren no longer live in the state and we will become dependent on (already stretched) public services to provide that assistance.

It matters because it will affect how long we have to wait to get a shoulder, knee or hip replacement, our glaucoma or cataracts treated, or whether we can get treatment for our illnesses and other medical needs in Tasmania (if they are even available in Tasmania) and how long we wait for a room in an aged care facility.

Growing up my parents would often say to my sister and I, ‘the greatest gift we can give you is a good education’. While my sister and I would tire of hearing this, they were right and we have both benefited from that education, and continue to do so. My work over the decades has shown what is possible for those who receive the gift of a good education, and what the lifelong outcomes are for those who do not. Not all parents can give the gift of a good education, nor should they be the ones who are expected to, particularly if they haven’t received one themselves. A good education is actually a human right to be provided by, at minimum, the public education institutional framework.

We ALL have a vested interested in improving the educational outcomes of ALL Tasmanians, and their subsequent participation in the economy and society.

Tasmania has not yet reached peak population ageing and the point of population (natural) decline, which is projected to occur around 2030 as the last of the baby boomers turn 65 years of age.

From this point, it will be difficult to recover economically and socially, and will impact on our much-valued way of life in Tasmania. We have the opportunity to shape our destiny, starting with a clear, shared vision that includes improving our educational attainment and participation in the economy (supply) which is aligned with strategic industry policy (demand).

Read more at www.lisadenny.com.au

This OpEd was first published in The Mercury on 14 April 2020.

THE white economy is an emerging and evolving term used to define the approach to leverage the challenges of an ageing population into economic and social opportunities whilst meeting the needs of an older population. Population ageing is an unprecedented, global scenario. For several decades, governments all over the world have been grappling with how to manage the fiscal implications of supporting more older people from a diminishing revenue base.

Like population ageing, the COVID-19 virus is an unprecedented scenario on a global scale. The difference is that rather than unfolding gradually over time, falsely allowing policy makers to believe they have time on their side, the global pandemic is fast and furious and needs an immediate response across multiple facets.

In Tasmania, the threat of the COVID-19 virus has instigated an impressive, tactical response; a call to arms to flatten the curve and build the health sector capacity to manage the inevitable spread of the disease into the community. However, this response comes from a very low base; an underfunded and under-resourced health system which failed to invest in, and cater for, the changing health and care needs of an increasingly older population with relatively poorer socio-demographic backgrounds. Most governmental responses to population ageing have been to grow the economy with a focus on population growth to increase the revenue base as a counter to the fiscal challenges. However, this approach largely ignores the fact that the number of people getting older still increases. More than one in five Tasmanians are aged over 65, and while migration has temporarily slowed the rate of ageing over the past couple of years, the likelihood of migration to Tasmania in the short to medium-term is slight.

As a result, our population will age rapidly.

Unlike the silver economy — another term used to describe the opportunities associated with an older population, but focused on the changing consumption patterns of older generations, active ageing through increased recreation and leisure, travel and tourism, as well as property, finance and insurance services — the white economy encompasses a new collective for economic growth based on the increasing demand for aged-focused needs; an ecosystem of products and services for older people.

More specifically, the white economy refers to “products, services and activities related to healthcare and care including the dependent, disabled and elderly”.

These products, services and activities include meeting the existential needs of older people, older consumers, older employees and the needs of employers and organisations providing and servicing older people’s needs.

White economy initiatives include investing in health care and its workforce, including doctors, nurses and other health care specialists, to adapt to the needs of an ageing population, alongside new technologies and types of services, which is fundamentally different to what is understood to be mainstream healthcare.

The increasing demand for health care services resulting from ageing may include shifting the focus of health care from prevention and curing to one that emphasises management of symptoms and the variability of symptoms.

Of critical importance, however, is that the white economy extends beyond just the provision of services, to transport and logistics, research and development and the expansion of such initiatives such as telemedicine, remote monitoring and rehabilitation, as well as career upskilling.

As already seen in the tactical response to COVID-19, there has been substantial investment in the capacity of the health sector in Tasmania, including statewide and regional response units, large-scale acquisition of equipment and recruitment of staff.

We have also seen the rapid response of businesses to address new product demands and supply constraints; hand sanitiser being produced by gin distilleries, point-of-contact clear protection screens manufactured by a sail-maker and marine trimming company; and ventilators being fabricated using 3D printing technology by a former automobile parts manufacturer. These are all examples of initiatives within a white economy framework.

As the immediate threat of COVID-19 to the Tasmanian community becomes more known than unknown, the tactical response to increasing the capacity of our health care sector needs to transition to a strategic, longer-term response.

Tasmania’s population will age rapidly with a reduction in migration to the state, and will be dispersed around the state.

The opportunity for economic recovery and meeting the needs of our population rests with the white economy in the short, medium and long-term.

Tasmania already has a long history of health innovation from which the white economy can be built.

The humidicrib was invented in Tasmania, as were elevatable hospital beds and baths. Mader International already manufactures specialised transport equipment in the North-West, including ambulances, 4x4 patient transport, as well as medical and rescue equipment and ambulance consultancy services.

E-health technological services are also emerging.

Increasing the capacity of our health sector over the longer-term; investing, identifying, prioritising and streamlining services around the state, as well as providing logistics and transport services, will provide much needed economic stimulus over the years to come. So too will incentivising research and development for product and service innovation in the white economy as Tasmania recovers from the unprecedented, global scenario of COVID-19 and provides for the ongoing unprecedented, global scenario of population ageing.
​
As the visitor economy is to the tourism sector, the white economy is to the healthcare and social assistance industry, and the longer-term viability of our state and our lifestyle.

The Mitchell Institute, Educational opportunity in Australia 2020: Who succeeds and who misses out found that, nationally, about one-fifth to one-third of young people are behind or missing out in our education systems. The report’s indicators cover the various stages of learning and development from early childhood through to early adulthood to assess how well our systems are doing in preparing our young people with the lifelong knowledge and skills needed to contribute successfully and meaningfully to social, economic and cultural life. 

The report found that the ‘results are at odds with our national goals for education’. 

The report also provides the ability for a state/territory comparison to be made across all indicators for each stage of learning and development. 

Key Tasmanian indicators:

• In the five entry to school learning and development indicators Tasmania ranks 4th in three, 5th in one, and 6th in one.
• In the six middle school years learning and development indicators, Tasmania ranks 1st in one, 3rd in one, 5th in one, 7th in two and 8th in one.
• In the six senior school years learning and development indicators, Tasmania ranks 6th in one, 7th in three and 8th in two.
• In the six early adulthood years learning and development indicators, Tasmania ranks 2nd in one, 3rd in one, 7th in one and 8th in three.

 
See this table for more detail. 

After being elected and forming government in 2014, former Premier of Tasmania, Will Hodgman, declared that education was at the ‘heart of his vision’, describing it in the following terms:

My vision is a Tasmania that is at or above the national average in every NAPLAN measurement … in reading, writing, maths and science. A Tasmania where our greatest asset, our young people, are able to achieve their potential and write their own life story. Because a better education usually means better health, and positive outcomes in family life and community participation. And a much better chance of getting a good job. And it's a vision of a Tasmania that is more economically productive and prosperous as a result…that leads to improving education outcomes to give every young Tasmanian their best shot in life, and to lift our State as well. This is central to my vision for our State.

Current Premier, Peter Gutwein, is yet to declare his vision for the State; his priority since he became Premier has been to keep Tasmanians safe during the global pandemic. However, he did note in his State of the State address in March 2020 that ‘education is the passport to a better life – and every child deserves the best possible education’. 

The determinants of our health and wellbeing are the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age. The single strongest predictor of our health and wellbeing is our position on the social gradient, often referred to as social class, which can be measured by educational attainment as well as income or occupation.

A recent report from the Mitchell Institute, Educational opportunity in Australia 2020: Who succeeds and who misses out found that, nationally, about one-fifth to one-third of young people are behind or missing out in our education systems. The report’s indicators cover the various stages of learning and development from early childhood through to early adulthood to assess how well our systems are doing in preparing our young people with the lifelong knowledge and skills needed to contribute successfully and meaningfully to social, economic and cultural life. The report found that the ‘results are at odds with our national goals for education’.

At a state level, the Tasmanian Government can influence educational outcomes directly through schooling, including the first 1000 days of childhood, and vocational education and training.

There are two critical issues that the Tasmanian Government needs to address to improve the educational foundations for Tasmanians.

First, in 2018, over one in five children started school developmentally vulnerable across five indicators; physical, social, emotional, language and communication. A further 11.3 per cent were at risk of being developmentally vulnerable. The same proportion were vulnerable in 2012 and 2015.

Second, one in five of our grade 7 students started 2019 at or below the NAPLAN National Minimum Standard (NMS) for reading, an indicator of future literacy skills and thus economic and social well-being.

Unfortunately, since 2014, the proportion of grade seven students who were at or above the NMS has been declining, and in direct contrast to the former Premier’s aspirational goal to meet the national benchmark. 

For those grade seven students whose parents’ highest level of completed schooling was year 11 or below, two in five students (40 per cent) are at or below the NMS for reading.

This poor level of reading skill was identified in both the Year 3 and Year 5 NAPLAN assessments for this grade 7 cohort. Most students who were at or below the NMS in grade 3 and grade 5, still were by the time they started high school.

Those who are not reading proficiently by this age are highly likely to struggle with the demands of the wider curriculum and are more likely to not complete school, leading to poorer health and well-being over their lifetimes.
While Tasmanian students reading outcomes have not improved over the past six years, South Australia has shown what is possible in a short time frame. In the two years since implementing the phonics screen check accompanied by appropriate professional learning for teachers, the proportion of students achieving or exceeding standards has increased by 20 per cent.
​
Given the current emphasis on health and well-being, there is no better time to ensure that the foundations of a young person’s life prospects are developmentally sound, grounded in strong literacy skills and supported by clear educational pathways whereby our education systems intervene appropriately when needed to ensure our young people are achieving their potential. 

​

This snapshot provides an insight into the structural change that has occurred in the Tasmanian labour market over the past 12 months, incorporating a pre-pandemic analysis.

Compared with pre-pandemic times, in February 2020, when there were around 261,400 Tasmanians employed, in August 2020, there were 255,300 Tasmanians employed, more than the 248,700 employed in August 2019.

The employment to population ratio was 57.2, down from 58.8 in February 2020, however higher than the 56.4 in August 2019.

The unemployment rate in August 2020 was 6.3% compared with 4.9% in February 2020 and 6.4% in August 2019.

The labour force participation rate was 61.1% in August 2020, compared with 61.8% in February and 60.2% in August 2019.

Around 17,200 were actively looking for work in August 2020, compared with 14,500 in February and 16,900 in August 2019.

Given the JobKeeper payment masks true employment, structural change in the Tasmanian labour market will be analysed using original, hours actually worked data from the ABS Labour Force, Quarterly, Detailed publication released on 25th of September 2020.

This analysis looks at which industry sectors have increased or decreased the hours worked since February 2020 (pre-pandemic times) and August 2019 and how the share of hours worked has changed within the economy.

The top five industries for hours worked in August 2020, making up almost have of all hours actually worked (49.8%), were health care and social assistance (14.5 percentage point share), education and training (9.8 PP), retail trade (8.9 PP), construction (8.3 PP) and agriculture, forestry and fishing (8.3 PP).

In February 2020, manufacturing was in the top five industry sectors for hours worked, whereas retail trade was sixth.

Greater structural change in the economy is evident when compared with August 2019 when health care and social assistance, construction, education and training, retail trade and public administration and safety were the top five industries for hours actually worked.
​

​Compared with pre-pandemic times, Tasmanians worked 1.4% less hours in August 2020 than in February 2020. Tasmanians worked more hours in seven industries compared with pre-pandemic times; professional, scientific and technical services (14.9%), retail trade (12.4%), logistics (11.4%), utilities (4.4%), health care and social assistance (3.8%), public administration and safety (1.2%) and education and training (1.1%). 

Compared with 12 months ago, Tasmanians worked 3.2% more hours in August 2020. All industries recorded more worked hours except for arts and recreation services (-46.6%), mining (-33.8%), information media and telecommunications (-14.6%), other services (-7.6%) and health care and social assistance (-2.4%).

In terms of the share of hours actually worked for the total Tasmanian economy since February 2020 (pre-pandemic) the greatest increase in the share of hours actually worked was in retail trade (1.1 percentage point increase in the share of hours worked) followed by professional, scientific and technical services (1.0 PP), healthcare and social assistance (0.7 PP) and logistics (0.6 PP). These gains in share of hours worked were offset by a decline in the share of hours worked in the accommodation and food services sector (-1.0 PP), construction (-0.8 PP), arts and recreation services (-0.5 PP) and administrative and support services (-0.4 PP).

The structural change in the economy is vastly different over the 12 month period when compared with August 2019. Over 12 months, the economy saw a shift to agriculture, forestry and fishing (0.9 PP), professional, scientific and technical services (0.9 PP), utilities (0.8 PP), logistics (0.6 PP) and education and training (0.5 PP). This shift was offset by declines in the share of the hours worked in construction (-1.1 PP), arts and recreation services (-1.1 PP), healthcare and social assistance (-0.8 PP) and mining (-0.6 PP).  The share of the hours worked had no change for manufacturing, wholesale trade, retail trade, accommodation and food services and public administration and safety.

This analysis points to an increase in spending and/or discretionary income over the six months since February 2020, being realised by, or redirected to, the retail trade and associated logistics sector, from the accommodation and food services, construction and arts and recreation sectors, as well as an understandable increase in health care and social assistance during the pandemic period. It raises the question of what the impact of the reduction of the JobKeeper and JobSeeker payments on employment and hours worked will be into the future, at least over the short term.

However, when compared with 12 months ago, prior to the pandemic, the change in the share of hours actually worked shifted to sectors which are predominantly trade/market sectors (agriculture, forestry and fishing) and higher skilled (professional, scientific and technical services, as well as utilities and education and training), indicating a positive structural shift which may result in employed people working more hours for higher levels of income, which can then be distributed as discretionary income in the wider economy. change in the professional, scientific and technical services sector is also a leading indictor for change in the construction sector, suggesting that increases in the hours worked in the construction sector is possible in the short term. 

The decline in both the number of hours worked, as well as the share, in health care and social assistance is both surprising and concerning given the impact of the pandemic on our health and well-being as well as the pressure the Tasmanian health system was under prior to the pandemic and the need to ensure the state is prepared for COVID-19 outbreaks into the future. 

On International Literacy Day it is important that we ask, what does it mean to be literate? Literally, being literate means that a person is able to read and write to a level that enables them to function in society.
In addition to the personal benefits that arises from sharing a story with a child, making a choice from a menu of options, or being challenged from the ideas written in a newspaper – literacy supports health, employment and well-being outcomes over the life-course.
In 2019, one in five Tasmanian grade seven students started the year at or below the National Minimum Standard (NMS) for reading. The minimum standard represents a very low level of reading skill, so the 1,437 Tasmanians who started grade 7 in 2019, is actually a very conservative estimate of the true number of grade 7 Tasmanian students who struggle with reading. Those who are not reading proficiently by this age are highly likely to struggle with the demands of the wider curriculum and are more likely to not complete school.
This poor level of reading skill was identified in both the Year 3 and Year 5 NAPLAN assessments for this grade 7 cohort. Evidence suggests that what is being done is not yet improving results. Most students who were at or below the NMS in grade 3 and grade 5, still were by the time they started high school. Furthermore, the proportion of grade seven students who were at or above the NMS has been declining since 2014, despite a gain in the average mean score.  
In addition to the personal benefits that accrue from literacy there are broader economic and societal gains. It is estimated that for every cohort that doesn’t complete school, costs the Australian economy $12 billion over their lifetime.
In Tasmania, over half (57%) of those of working age (15 to 64 years) have not completed year 12.  Of those who have completed year 12, three quarters (75.2%) are employed, as are 68.1% of those who completed year 10. Only 38% of those who completed year 9 or below are employed.
When being literate is vital to secure individual, social and economic outcomes for Tasmania, why is it not a public policy and industry priority of the highest order?
The Business Council of Australia’s recent publication, “The Modern Worker: a guide to what employers want”, explicitly outlines employer expectations for the first day of work. Literacy and numeracy capabilities are a pre-requisite. The BCA encapsulates literacy as the ability to read and write an email using sentences, understanding vocabulary and the meaning of words in a sentence and paragraph, being able to follow instructions in manuals and interpret, assess and evaluate information from the perspective of the job as well as oral communication skills; being able to hold professional conversations with colleagues, clients or customers.  These are literacy skills many of us take for granted, but, in Tasmania, almost half the working age population is not functionally literate.
Literacy skills need to be supported from birth and then throughout the lifecourse. There are ways to do this.
Sharing books, stories, songs and rhymes every day from birth fosters emergent literacy development and supports attachment. Reading and talking to young children builds language skills and sparks imagination. Reading, looking at books, or sharing stories is also a special time to snuggle up and connect. The Channel Basics, using an evidence-based model, is working with children, families and communities to foster early childhood development outcomes.
Fivefromfive, AUSPELD and Learning Difficulties Australia recently launched a plan to have all students reading by the end of primary school; the Primary Reading Pledge. In the plan they provide a framework to ensure that the number of children who finish primary school in Australia unable to read is reduced to near zero.
The #primaryreadingpledge calls on all Australian Education Ministers to ensure that schools and systems are able to provide children the high quality evidence-based reading instruction they need (and deserve). The pledge argues that NAPLAN is an indicator that should be acted upon if students are identified in grade 3 as not meeting the NMS. Through direct and explicit intervention - reading instruction based on the cognitive processes of learning to read - all children should be supported so they do not start grade 7 below the NMS.
Recognising the importance of reengaging adults with opportunities to gain literacy skills is vital and achievable. 26TEN has made positive inroads and the work of former Tasmanian of the Year Rosalie Martin is also to be applauded in leading the charge for the #100percentliteracy goal in Tasmania.
A continued policy focus on core educational skills – such as literacy – is vital for Tasmania’s prosperity. There is much more to be done to ensure that literacy is at the core of policy, planning and program activity now and into the future across government, industry and the community.
 
Dr Lisa Denny is an independent Workforce Demographer and Dr Becky Shelley is the Deputy Director at the Peter Underwood Centre for Educational Attainment at the University of Tasmania. 
This article was published as a Talking Point in the Mercury on Tuesday 8 September 2020.
https://www.themercury.com.au/news/opinion/talking-point-what-does-it-mean-to-be-literate/news-story/f9fd061bf88c93660bbdfa948ffe5235​

Life, and work, is challenging for young Australians. While the economic implications of the current COVID-19 global pandemic, the GFC and the subsequent policy direction for economic recovery contribute to, and exacerbate, these challenges, they are not the cause. No, the cause of young Australians life challenges is rooted in primary school. There has been a collective failure of our economy and society to inform, educate, inspire and ignite passion in our younger generations to aspire to a job and career of the future.
The OECD report, Dream Jobs? Teenagers Career Aspirations and the Future of Work, found that two in five Australian students expected to work in one of ten occupations by the age of 30 (52% of girls/42% of boys). The study essentially found that it is jobs with origins in the 20th century or earlier that are most attractive to young people rather than jobs of the future.
The report concluded; ‘that increasingly the expectations of young people may be out of date and unrealistic. Over the period of the greatest accumulation of human capital during a lifetime, the data indicate that many young people are intent on pursuing jobs that they have little chance of securing’.
A number of Australian studies using Longitudinal Survey of Australian Youth (LSAY) and the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC) data draw the same conclusions; that young people do not have a full appreciation of the types of jobs available to them, resulting in their career aspirations falling within a narrow set of occupations, not all of which are realistic, and which have been narrowing further over time. The top three expected occupations for young women were registered nurse, solicitor and primary school teacher, while for young men the top three occupations were engineering professional, policeman and electrician.
Studies out of the UK and New Zealand conclude that teenager’s career aspirations are shaped at much earlier ages, between 7 and 11 years of age. These studies further link current labour market skill mismatches to the career aspirations of primary school children and further conclude that there is ‘nothing in common’ between young people’s career aspirations and the reality of the labour market. 
These findings are even more concerning when considered in conjunction with other studies which detail the deep anxiety that young Australians are feeling (prior to COVID-19). The 2019 Mission Australia Youth Survey found that mental health was the most significant issue for young people in Australia today, for the third year running. The cumulative effect of a range of stresses reported by young Australians; anxiety about their ability to find meaningful work, financial insecurity, equity and discrimination, lack of affordable housing, rising cost of living, the environment and climate change and the sustainability of their lifestyle, is having a deep impact on young Australians well-being.  
These anxieties are further linked to the competition for jobs, inadequate education and training and a lack of skills and experience. Young Australians want to be given a fair chance and a fair go when seeking employment. At the same time, young people fear working in a job they are not interested in or passionate about. They feel they only have one chance to end up in a career they want, they feel their opportunities are limited, they feel they are not progressing and they are struggling to navigate a career path in a rapidly changing world for work.
An OECD Youth Voice for the Future of Work study of 19 of the G20 nations found that the only 39% of young Australians were confident they would be able to find a job they really wanted to do. Compared with a 50% average, Australia ranked 14th out of 19.  
Reports from the Foundations for Young Australians, the 2019 Mission Australia Youth Survey and analysis of Longitudinal Survey of Australian Youth (LSAY) data all find that young Australians lack confidence about their working futures. Young people report being affected by stress and anxiety when looking for work, less than half are confident in their ability to achieve their work and study goals, despite almost all intending to complete year 12. Almost half report there are barriers to achieving their post-school aspirations, young women more so than young men, and that the top three barriers young people consider to be impacting their goals after finishing school were academic ability, mental health and financial difficulty. The top three perceived barriers to finding suitable employment are a lack of work experience, a lack of jobs and lack of the right education and/or training. They also believed their age was a barrier to employment.
 Young people’s potential to achieve their dreams and aspirations may be further compromised by confusion about how education and qualifications are related to jobs and careers. A key indicator of young people’s capacity to understand and progress in the labour market is the extent to which their educational and occupational aspirations are aligned.  However, numerous Australian studies have found that there is considerable confusion relating to educational pathways and their alignment with occupations. For young Australians responding to another OECD survey, less than one in ten believed that school had prepared them for adult working life, they do not feel supported by their education system. Nearly half fear that their skills or knowledge won’t be in demand in the future. Australia’s result was the 7th lowest of 19 countries compared with the average of 26%.
Prior to COVID-19, over half the Australian workforce comprised jobs in health care, social and personal services, administration, sales and hospitality. The Department of Employment, Education and Skills projected that labour demand would continue to grow in these areas to 2024, distributed between high and low skill jobs.
However, the COVID-19 global pandemic has, and will continue to, reshape the Australian labour market and the underlying industry structure for years to come, making projections of the past almost obsolete. Jobs of the future will now be dependent on the decisions taken today in relation to economic, industry, social, industrial relations and education and training policies and how they each intersect.
The implications of these misalignments between educational aspirations, career aspirations and the reality of the labour market are far reaching. The recent BCA’s The Modern Worker – a guide to what employers want, comprehensively sets out the requirements of the future workforce from an employer’s perspective, but fails to align these needs with the considerable evidence relating to the needs, desires, concerns and values of young Australians and their aspirations for work and life. In fact, the predictions of the future of work; the type and how people engage in work, is not necessarily what the future generation of workers want. This will have implications for employers in attracting and retaining workers. And for the future workforce, this misalignment is causing deep anxiety.
Add to this challenge, over one in five Tasmanians start grade 7 below or at the minimum national standard for reading. We need to reverse the trend of setting our young children up to fail from primary school.
 

Jobs jobs jobs. Job creation has always been a priority economic policy of successive governments, just as it is now as the recovery phase of the global pandemic crisis begins. However, prior to COVID-19, there was little acknowledgement that not all jobs are the same.

The COVID-19 crisis has revealed how polarised and inequitable our employment market has been in the past. Not only has the pandemic exposed the vulnerability of the industry structure of our economy and the precarious nature of employment for so many, it has also highlighted the importance of the work carried out by so many Tasmanians whose industry and jobs have previously been undervalued; namely the health care and social assistance sector, educators, child carers, cleaners and many public servants.

The recovery process provides the opportunity to correct the structural economic and social deficiencies that exist in our labour market. Policy needs to move beyond just creating jobs, but to creating good jobs which offer quality work in a good working environment. There are three guiding principles which measure good jobs, all of which need to be objective rather than subjective.

1. Focusing on job-related well-being; job quality is constituted by a set of work features which have the capability of enhancing or diminishing worker well-being
2. Maintaining a job-only focus; that is, the attributes of the job occupied by the worker and not the workers personal circumstances or background
3. Adopting a multi-faced approach; a variety of job attributes impact worker well-being. While remuneration is considered the main factor, there are others such as security of work, autonomy, range of tasks, level of effort, career opportunities, access to training and/or professional development, flexibility, skill utilisation and so forth.

The OECD’s job quality framework comprises measures of earnings, labour market security and the quality of the working environment.

In Tasmania, prior to COVID-19, the workforce was polarised between high and low skill jobs. Almost half the workforce (47.1%) required no formal qualification higher than a Certificate II, while less than a third (29.7%) required a bachelor degree or higher to undertake their job. Over time, Tasmania’s workforce was becoming further polarised, with the proportion requiring a certificate III or IV qualification (a trade ticket) declining to 12.6% of the workforce compared with 16.6% in 2016.
 
More and more people in the workforce were also in casual roles – that is, roles with flexibility, but usually without job security and the protections of sick, carer and holiday pay.

In August 2019, there were almost 250,000 people employed in Tasmania. Of these:

• 42,500 wanted to work more hours
• 17,000 had more than one job
• 97,200 were employed casually
• 93,800 did not have access to paid sick leave entitlements – three in five workers
  • 26.3% of women, 21.4% of men
• 4,600 did not know if they had paid sick leave entitlements
• 18,700 worked as independent contractors with no entitlements

 
The Tasmanian workforce was dominated by gendered industries and occupation clusters. Five industry sectors made up more than half of the Tasmanian workforce; healthcare and social assistance (16.4%), education and training, retail trade, accommodation and food services and construction (7.2%). While women made up the majority of workers in health care and social assistance (80.2%) and education and training (69.4%), men made up 93.9% of the construction industry.
 
The roles most likely to be casualised, underemployed and working more than one job are those also in lower skill level jobs with low pay – precisely those roles that involve face-to-face and hands-on contact, care and support for customers, clients, patients and other vulnerable people.
 
In relation to paid sick leave entitlements in Tasmania, pre-COVID-19, only a quarter (26.7) of cleaners had access to paid leave, just over half the hospitality, retail and service managers (53%) and food trade workers (57%), 69% of education professionals had access while one in five (21%) workers in residential care services had no access. The situation was more dire for those who worked as a carer or an aide; one in four (24.7%) had no paid sick leave but worked face-to-face with older and more vulnerable people.
 
These workers were also more likely to be under-employed and wanting to work more hours. Over one in five community and personal service workers were underemployed (21.6%), over a quarter of those employed in the accommodation and food services sector were under-employed (27.4%), as were those in the arts and recreation sector (25.0%), 17.2% in other services and 16.7% in retail trade, the majority of them women.  

At a time when making businesses and workplaces COVIDSafe for customers, clients and workers is a priority in our economic and social recovery, the lack of access to paid sick leave by largely under-employed Tasmanians working in contact roles with vulnerable people threatens our recovery. As new COVIDSafe policies require sick workers to stay at home rather than work, and sick children to not attend school, access to paid sick and carer leave entitlements will be critical to ensuring these regulations are adhered to.
​
The economic component of the post COVID-19 recovery must not be considered in isolation of the social component.  Efforts to create jobs must focus not just on higher skilled jobs but also on quality jobs; those which provide enough hours of work, with security of income, access to paid sick and carers leave, the opportunity for career progression and intrinsic job quality. To do this, economic policy must be shaped by industry policy. More secure work and quality working environments are better for the economy as well as the health and well-being of Tasmanians.