Dutton could exert funding influence over schools, but curriculum a can of worms

Peter Dutton could act almost immediately to withhold funding from schools deemed to be pushing political "agendas" if he wins the election, but he would encounter hurdles changing the curriculum and would risk a costly spat with state governments and the education sector.

Labor accused Mr Dutton of copying Donald Trump after he floated attaching strings to federal money for schools, an idea denounced as "chilling" by the education union.

While the Liberal leader offered no detail about his proposal when asked to clarify on Tuesday, education experts say the federal government could exert significant leverage over state and territory education systems given its fiscal firepower.

"It is a lever that federal governments have, given they are the ones with the money, so in theory it makes sense that a government might want to use that," said Trisha Jha of the Centre for Independent Studies.

The Albanese government has recently signed new schools funding agreements with every state and territory, but finer details such as the sequencing of that money are yet to be resolved, offering a window of leverage for a newly-elected Dutton government.

Mr Dutton also promised in his budget reply speech last week to "restore" the national curriculum to focus on "core fundamentals … critical thinking, responsible citizenship, and common sense".

That curriculum was last changed by the Morrison government, which put a focus on improving the teaching of foundational skills such as reading, writing and maths, which has continued under Labor.

"I'm focused on making sure that our kids learn to read and write and count … not this extreme agenda of Peter Dutton," Education Minister Jason Clare said on Tuesday.

National curriculum a can of worms, not really 'national'

Any fresh round of curriculum changes would need to be negotiated with states and territories, raising the prospect of a messy fight with states and territories that Ms Jha said had usually dissuaded federal governments of any persuasion.

"Historically, neither the curriculum authority ACARA nor federal governments in the past have been particularly willing to have a big war with the states and territories over the curriculum," she said.

Another barrier to activism at the federal level is that NSW, Victoria and Western Australia all maintain their own versions that can differ substantially from what is nationally agreed, with South Australia soon to follow suit.

"Despite its name, the national curriculum is actually not very national," Ms Jha said. "From that perspective, there's probably a discussion to be had about what the real value is of having a national curriculum because it doesn't seem as though consistency is really a huge part of it."

A recent Senate inquiry into the teaching of civics education found even the basic details of Australia's political and legal systems were being taught inconsistently not just across jurisdictions, but across schools within the same jurisdiction.

"At some schools you could walk into two classrooms and see two teachers teaching the same year level and ostensibly the same subject but effectively teaching two different things," Ms Jha said.

A key reason for that, highlighted in major teacher surveys conducted by the Productivity Commission and the Grattan Institute, is that the national curriculum is not very prescriptive and not accompanied by detailed lesson plans to assist teachers.

Grattan's education program director Jordan Hunter has argued that the federal government could be most effective by working around the national curriculum and the states and territories.

For example, Ms Hunter has recommended funding national professional development courses for teachers based on best practice and evidence of what works, pushing back against the persistence of "faddish" and ineffective teaching practices.

Ms Jha agreed there was scope to improve the teaching of foundational skills.

"It does need substantial review … Evidence says students really benefit from curriculum that's selective, curated and carefully sequenced, rather than leaving a whole lot of room for school by school or teacher by teacher decisions."

Union concerned by vague proclamation

Correna Haythorpe, secretary of the education union, said it was not clear what Mr Dutton meant when he suggested some schools had "indoctrinated" students with "agendas that come out of universities".

"He is taking a leaf from the Trump playbook by going for the Department of Education by threatening to … control what teachers teach and pull funding if they don't comply with his ideology."

Mr Dutton on Tuesday "guaranteed" he would not cut overall schools funding from current levels, saying this was a "frontline" service, but left the door open to cuts to parts of the federal department of education he regarded as doing "back office" work.

"We have said we want to take waste out of the federal budget and put it back into frontline services. The second point is, I want to make sure our kids … are receiving the education their parents would expect them to receive and our position will reflect community standards."

Mr Clare claimed the Coalition would cut funding despite that assurance.

"It'll start with the department, but it won't stop there."

Having trouble seeing this form? Try this link.