Why I oppose education league tables
The controversy that surrounds education league tables is back on the agenda with the passing of the Education Amendment (Publication of School Results) Bill. Readers may recall the community outrage that followed when the Daily Telegraph published a front-page photograph of Mount Druitt’s Year 12 Class of 1996 under the headline “The Class We Have Failed”, all of whom received a tertiary entrance rank below 50.
At first glance, the Bill appeared to reinforce the current regulation banning the publication of league tables. However, a closer scrutiny of the Bill revealed a significant change. Clauses were inserted to allow the State Government to provide data to the Commonwealth in accordance to any national agreement relating to the provision and publication of school results.
Independent MLC Rev Dr Gordon Moyes joined the Coalition, the Christian Democratic Party and the Shooters Party to carry an amendment moved by Dr John Kaye on behalf of the Greens. While the amendment allows the continuation of current practice each year of ranking schools in the top ten percent in relation to HSC results, it importantly imposes fines on anyone (individual or organisation) who in NSW: publishes any ranking or other comparison of particular schools according to school results, except with the permission of the principals of the schools involved; and identifies a school as being in a percentile of less than 90 percent in relation to school results, except with the permission of the principal of the school.
There are several reasons why I oppose the publication of education league tables.
First, the practice of comparing students based on a single academic result, such as literacy and numeracy scores, fails to take into account the diversity of rich educational programs offered by a particular school.
Second, comparative tables encourage a kind of diagnosis that is simplistic and does not take into account the various factors that might impact on the performance of students in a particular school: socio-economic considerations, selectivity, number of students from non-English speaking backgrounds, number of Indigenous students, number of students with disability or learning difficulties, historical factors etc.
Third, the possible misuse of data is detrimental in protecting the privacy of individuals in preventing damage to the reputation of an institution or group of people. The publication of league tables creates an environment of winners and losers. 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.
Fourth, 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 and schools.
Fifth, 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. Schools should implement broad-based education designed to equip a person for a living, not just for a job. Former Director General of the NSW Department of Education and Training, and former CEO of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority in the UK, Dr Ken Boston, stated: “The UK government’s approach to the key stage tests has sucked the oxygen from the classrooms of primary schools. The primary school curriculum has become a dry husk. The teaching programme focuses on what is to be tested and on practising for the tests, because the future of the school is dependent on the result.”
In summary, ranking similar schools – “like for like” is meaningless; each school is unique and exists in a context not able to be captured by rankings; league tables show only one tiny aspect of performance; winners and losers are inevitably created; league tables encourage teaching to the test; league tables lead to unethical manipulation of data; curriculum is distorted through the use of high-stakes tests; tests should be used for diagnostic purposes; schools and parents already receive an enormous amount of data; league tables do nothing to redress real problems of proper resourcing; league tables encourage “blame and shame”; and league tables are opposed by a huge cross section of the educational community.
They are the following: 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; Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers; Australian Association for the Teaching of English Inc.; 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 the Independent Education Union of Australia.