Education Amendment (Publication of School Results) Bill 2009
It is with some diffidence that I speak in debate on the Education Amendment (Publication of School Results) Bill 2009 after Dr John Kaye, who is passionate about this issue. The object of the bill is to transfer to the Education Act 1990 and to amend provisions that are currently contained in the regulations under that Act relating to the prohibition on the public release of school results, including results of national basic skills testing and the School Certificate and Higher School Certificate examinations that disclose the results of particular students or rank particular schools.
The amendments will authorise the State to provide school results to the Commonwealth or an authority established by the Commonwealth in accordance with any national agreement to which New South Wales is a party, and for the publication of results relating to particular schools in accordance with any such agreement.
The Education Amendment (Publication of School Results) Bill will implement the agreements reached by the Council of Australian Governments in 2008 and by the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. All State and Territory governments and the Commonwealth have agreed that, for the first time, in 2009 there will be national uniform reporting of the results of individual schools.
Since 1997 all public schools in New South Wales have been required publicly to report on their performance and to publish information about their performance in externally conducted tests, such as the basic skills tests in literacy and numeracy in primary schools, the English language and literacy assessment test [ELLA] and the Secondary Numeracy Assessment Program [SNAP] in junior secondary. There is also the School Certificate and the Higher School Certificate in senior secondary schools.
Since 2008 the Basic Skills Test, the English Language and Literacy Assessment test and the Secondary Numeracy Assessment Program have been replaced by an equivalent test under the National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy [NAPLAN]. In 2007 every school annual report was required to include the school’s performances with optional reporting against the State average. I checked a number of schools via their websites and established that most schools found a great deal to comfort them; they were proud of their standing and the way their students and teachers had performed.
More than 60 per cent of schools report their test results against a group of schools with similar background characteristics, and hundreds of schools proudly publish their reports on their website. I think what they do willingly is altogether different to what may be done by other people with schools that are unwilling partners.
We are at a critical time in Australian education. Educators, students, parents and policymakers all agree that schools should be accountable, that students should have access to the best possible education and that reporting should be subject to greater transparency. The Federal Government was elected on a platform of promising an education revolution.
I support the Rudd Government’s commitment to delivering first-class education to all Australian children and to enhancing accountability and transparency in our schools, but I cannot support the creation and publication of simplistic league tables, as they have come to be known. Australia, in particular New South Wales, has the chance to maintain our first-class education among OECD countries, or we can follow the United States and United Kingdom models of publishing league tables, as outlined in detail by Dr Kaye.
My first concern relates to the potential misuse of this data by third parties, particularly by the media and other commentators, who may be tempted to misleading conclusions and build fictitious league tables that unfairly denigrate the performance and operation of particular schools and the work of their teaching and leadership teams. I took the opportunity today to indicate to one of the advisers to the Minister for Education and Training how, if I were a journalist, I could compare schools and publish the results.
The adviser indicated that it is possible using the plan I outlined to publish such fictitious league tables. This was clearly evident in the Hobart Mercury of 6 May and the Brisbane Courier Mail of 23 May. While the Mercury issued some cautions, nothing alerted the reader to the errors and false assumptions underlying the printed rankings—for example, the averaging approach the paper took to squeeze the district central schools into the list. The Hobart Mercury scored three Hobart high schools exactly the same, yet ranked them differently.
Professor Gordon Stanley, former head of the New South Wales Board of Studies and an educator of outstanding note, said that in the United States data had been manipulated enormously since schools were asked to publish adequate yearly progress. The possible misuse of the data is detrimental in protecting the privacy of individuals and preventing damage to the reputation of an institution or group of people. The publication of league tables creates an environment of winners and losers, which brings me to my second concern.
Competition and choice between schools exacerbates achievement gaps between the rich and the poor and along racial, religious and ethnic divides. All they do will give us a socioeconomic map of a city like Sydney. International studies show that students from schools of low socioeconomic backgrounds fare worse when there is high social segregation.
When published school results appear, competition between schools heightens and markets rise. Winning schools then can choose which students they will have; losing schools have few means to lift themselves out of the mire. Simple comparisons based on results such as National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy tests affect staff morale, teaching and learning. Rankings like these do not assist students, teachers, parents or schools.
My third concern relates to the fact that league tables are based only on test results from a narrow part of the curriculum, such as English and mathematics. Simplistic league tables overlook achievements in the arts, music, science, humanities and social sciences. Hence, we will have an education system that does not foster creativity or critical analysis. We will simply have an educational system that encourages teaching for the test. All my life I have been a strong believer in and committed to what is called a liberal arts curriculum—broad-based education designed to equip a person for a living, not just for a job.
Dr Ken Boston, former Chief Executive of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority in the United Kingdom and former outstanding New South Wales Director General of the Department of Education and Training, found that many young people are poorly equipped for employment, and that these young people generally have good General Certificate of Secondary Education [GCSE] results and come from schools at or near the top of the United Kingdom league tables. Speaking in the United Kingdom Dr Boston stated:
Employers find that, despite their formal qualifications, many young people are unable to communicate simply and well; they cannot work in teams; they lack initiative, enterprise and the capacity to foresee and resolve problems; and they lack a thirst for continued learning and personal growth. They are deficient in the soft skills that form an essential component of each individual’s human capital, some of them to the extent that they are in fact unemployable. This situation is not a figment of employers’ imagination. It is real and it is a crisis.
Dr Boston criticised the United Kingdom Government’s approach to key stage tests, which, as mentioned by two previous members, “sucked the oxygen from the classrooms of primary schools”. I ask members in this House: Do we really want New South Wales classrooms to just focus on learning simply for the tests or do we want classrooms that produce creativity, innovation, enterprise and communication? The damage to curriculum provision, students and entire school communities resulting from league tables is well documented in international research and evidence. In the interests of time I will not refer to all the negative experiences in the United States and the United Kingdom. Dr Kaye and other members have outlined those negative experiences. League tables are overtly simplistic and potentially damaging to many schools.
I am amazed at the breadth of opposition in the education community to league tables. As mentioned by other members, they include the Federation of Parents and Citizens Association of NSW; NSW Primary Principals’ Association Inc.; Public Schools Principals Forum; NSW Secondary Principals’ Council; NSW Teachers Federation; Australian Education Union; Australian Secondary Principals Association Inc.; Art Education Australia; Association of Heads of Independent Schools of Australia; Australian Association of Christian Schools—Christian schools in Australia oppose this and expect members in this House to support them in this process; Association of Women Educators; Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers; Australian Association for the Teaching of English Inc. Other educational organisations opposed to league tables include Australian Council for Education Leaders, Australian Literacy Educators’ Association, Australian School Library Association, Australian Science Teachers Association, Australian Society for Music Education, Business Educators of Australasia Inc, Catholic Secondary Principals Australia and Independent Education Union of Australia.
Could there be any other organised educational gathering or group of people who actually support league tables? I think not.
In conclusion, I support parents and children having choice when selecting schools and in the scrutiny of information about school results. However, I believe league tables are the wrong way to inform students, parents, educators and policymakers. If we go down the path of publishing school league tables, willingly or unwillingly, we should do the same for medical practitioners. Should we not do the same for law firms? I have even considered league tables for members of Parliament.
For example, what kind of league tables could be drawn up for members of Parliament? Would all those who expend their logistic support allocation accurately and effectively, and not overspend it—as Stuart Lowe makes sure we do not—get high marks? Would members who talk the most, even if they say little and do not add to the common good, get high marks? Would those who spend the most hours in Parliament House but little time in their electorates get high marks? Are good marks given to those who spend their electorate allowance in the Parliament House wine cellar?
It is fitting that I conclude with a quote from Ken Boston in a United Kingdom Times article, in which he stated:
You fatten a steer by providing a full and nutritious diet not by constantly weighing it.
This bill does not have the paramount interests of students, parents or educators in mind. We must not denigrate the lower-scoring schools; we must support and encourage them. Because of the arguments I have outlined, I cannot, in good faith, support this bill.
