I had a revelation when I walked into Notre Dame High School in Ottawa last year. Here was a fully publicly funded Catholic school serving some of the city’s most disadvantaged neighbourhoods. No fees, no entrance tests, just a comprehensive education for any local child who wanted it. The principal, Jean-Paul Cloutier, proudly described it as “a place for everyone,” embodying both choice and equity in a way that seems unattainable under Australia’s current fragmented system.

This experience, documented in the Australian Learning Lecture's "Lessons from Canada" report, crystallised a fundamental challenge facing Australia’s education system, and by extension, our productivity agenda. While the Albanese Government has rightly focused on tertiary harmonisation between VET and higher education through the Jobs and Skills Australia's roadmap, we’re missing the foundational need to harmonise our early childhood and schools.

Educational harmonisation involves the strategic alignment and coordination of early-childhood, primary and secondary school education services whilst supporting states and territories to maintain their autonomy. Fundamentally, the job of teachers and schools is the same, whether in a small remote school in Tasmania or a busy urban Sydney high school. Rather than merging systems, harmonisation creates consistent frameworks for funding, regulation, and pathways for the public, Catholic and independent school systems across all states and territories that improve our chances for an equitable, excellent education for all Australian children.

The case for extending harmonisation beyond tertiary education is strong. Australia currently operates a ramshackle tangle of legislation, regulation and funding distribution across early childhood and school education, creating a myriad of duplicated authorities and agencies, intent on similar outputs. This federated fragmentation is a curdling obstruction to the federal government’s productivity aims outlined in Treasurer Jim Chalmers' mid-year National Press Club address.

The productivity benefits of harmonisation extend beyond efficiency gains. A unified approach would enable the lifelong learning that the OECD Skills Outlook 2021 identifies as essential for an adaptive and resilient society and economy. But this reality  remains inconceivable while early childhood, primary, secondary, Catholic, independent, public, VET and higher education structures operate as silos.

Consider our current approach. Eight independently developed regulatory frameworks, data collection systems, and quality assurance mechanisms to address similar educational challenges, representing substantial duplicated professional, legal, and administrative investment. Meanwhile, employers face eight different sets of professional standards, graduation requirements, and capability frameworks when recruiting nationally, whilst teachers and school leaders encounter increasing occupational complexity and mobility barriers amid an ongoing teacher shortage.

This doesn’t mean eliminating diversity or choice for parents. Ottawa and Ontario prove that a common framework can support distinctive educational missions while ensuring equity and efficiency. What it does mean is applying consistent standards in exchange for public funding, ending the regulatory arbitrage that allows some schools to cherry-pick students while others serve all-comers, and creating genuine portability of qualifications and recognition of learning.

The Federal Government has created the institutional architecture for this reform through Jobs and Skills Australia and the forthcoming Australian Tertiary Education Commission. The same collaborative approach that produced the tertiary harmonisation roadmap could tackle school education harmonisation, beginning with data collection standards and teacher registration frameworks before progressing to broader coordination mechanisms.

The productivity dividend from a more coherent education system would be substantial. The current tertiary harmonisation project identifies that integrated approaches reduce duplication, eliminate artificial barriers between sectors, and create clearer pathways for learners and educators. These same principles apply with even greater force to the foundational years of education, where quality of life, supportive partnerships with parents, and needs-based investment have lifelong impacts on kids’ progress, or in technical-speak, human capital development.

Our current approach is contradictory. The Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education Declaration of 2019 commits all jurisdictions to both excellence and equity, promising that “all young Australians are equipped with the knowledge, skills, values and capabilities to thrive and compete.” Meanwhile, our choice-led funding and regulatory policy settings perversely segregate students by socioeconomic background, undermining this very commitment.

Research by Dr Michele Bruniges reveals the reality. Between 2017 and 2023, the number of students in ‘high-concentration of disadvantage’ schools grew from 430,000 to 555,000. As education researcher Dr Pasi Sahlberg from top-performing Finland notes, Australia has "one of the best education systems in the world, but only for some children." This is not just an equity failure; it’s a productivity drain, wasting human potential on an industrial scale.

The Canadian experience offers a different path. Ontario’s harmonised system, where secular and faith-based schools operate under common funding and regulatory frameworks, demonstrates that choice and equity need not be mutually exclusive. Schools maintain their distinctive character and mission whilst operating under shared accountability frameworks and receiving equal per-pupil funding regardless of sector.

The province achieves superior outcomes to Australia across all PISA domains ( Programme for International Student Assessment). It also maintains lower social segregation and higher participation rates. Most tellingly, 92 per cent of students attend fully publicly funded schools. Yet Canada spends slightly less of GDP on education than Australia, despite its 40m population, 13m greater than Australia.

The opportunity for fundamental reform here is real. With Labor likely securing a third term, we have the political stability for structural change. The economic imperative is clear. Treasury’s Intergenerational Report projects that 90 per cent of new jobs will require post-school qualifications, yet our school completion rates are declining. The social conditions are shifting too. We can look to École Ensemble's successful campaign for education reform in Quebec, where parents are demanding an end to three-tier schooling systems that entrench disadvantage.

The productivity stakes are too high to maintain the status quo. As Chalmers noted, Australia needs structural reform to lift living standards for working people. Education harmonisation from early childhood through to tertiary represents the kind of “progressive and patriotic” reform that can deliver both economic efficiency and social equity.

The question isn’t whether we can afford to harmonise education, it’s whether we can afford not to.