Volume 3 APRIL 2008

Policy making in an uncertain world
Nilss Olekalns

Did business matter? Australia in the twentieth century
David Merrett

Financial shell games
Satyajit Das

Drugs policy: a role for economic research?
Steve Pudney

Our schools...our future
Stephen Sedgwick

Pursuing talents and confronting burdens
James T Riady

The importance of vision and people
Laurence Cox AO

Print this page

By Stephen Sedgwick

Listen to speeches from the New Agenda for Prosperity conference

Disparity in performance

There is active debate in Australia about whether students achieve as well as they could or should and about the distribution of performance around the mean. Almost 20 years ago a high level agreement was reached between the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments about the National Goals of Schooling. These were last updated in 1999 and contain the aspiration that every primary school pupil should be able to read and write at least at the minimum levels specified in the national benchmarks for the relevant age cohort. Subsequent to that agreement, performance standards were developed for years three and five and a testing process introduced.

Initially based on each jurisdiction’s own regime, the original testing arrangements are soon to be replaced by an alternative based on nationally administered tests. That said, the results to date are concerning. They show that there is considerable disparity in performance against the benchmarks for reading, writing and mathematics amongst equity groups and that the national goal remains elusive. For example, data published by the Ministerial Council on Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs shows that in 2005 the 95 per cent confidence interval for the proportion of year five students who achieved the reading benchmarks was 83.1–87.1 per cent (slightly higher for females), well short of the target, while the interval was only 58.7–66.9 per cent for indigenous students.

International benchmarking

Since the economy opened up to global competition – especially following the dismantling of tariff barriers from the mid-1980s – Australian policy makers have increasingly sought to benchmark Australia’s performance against international standards. There are two frequently quoted international benchmarking exercises in respect to the outcomes of education, one of which Professor Barry McGaw of the Melbourne Education Research Institute referred to at the conference. He discussed Australia’s international standing as measured against the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and

Development (OECD) Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). PISA assesses the ability level of 15-year-olds on a well established cycle of internationally comparable tests. The approach taken is to measure performance independently of the national curriculum by focusing on demonstrated competencies. McGaw characterised Australia as having tied for second place, with eight other countries, in reading (PISA 2000); tied for fifth, with nine others, in mathematics (PISA 2003); tied for fifth, with eight others, in science (PISA 2003); and tied for fifth, with eight others, in problem solving (PISA 2003). He characterised this as ‘high quality, but not gold or silver,’ and suggested we should aim higher. He asked what lessons could be drawn from the international evidence about how to improve performance.

Socio-economic status and performance

The OECD argues from PISA evidence that student achievement is correlated, in most countries, with the socioeconomic status of the student’s family. Students from families of higher socioeconomic status tend to perform better in the PISA tests. However, schools in some countries, such as Finland and Canada, are better at reducing the gap in the average performance of students drawn from low socioeconomic backgrounds compared to those from more well off homes. In these countries, overall scores in the PISA tests are relatively high and, in addition, the dispersion of student scores is relatively low. McGaw characterises these countries as achieving both high quality outcomes and high equity. In drawing lessons for Australia, he noted that one relatively good performer, Finland, devotes significantly more resources than most countries to identify poorly-performing students and to providing targeted support to improve their performance relatively early in their schooling. He argued that this is most likely why Finland achieves both better average outcomes and more equitable outcomes than many other countries.

Professor Bill Louden from the University of Western Australia presented evidence compiled by others that questioned the relative power of socioeconomic status in explaining student achievement in any given year of school. While not denying that social background is important, this analysis placed considerably more emphasis on the prior achievement of students themselves and the expertise of teachers. He argued that the extent to which the school’s culture nurtures an evidence-based learning environment and promotes high levels of responsiveness to student needs is as important to student progression each year as social background. Louden posed the hypothetical question: ‘What is amenable to policy action?’ His answer was that the highest and quickest impacts would be achieved by working to improve the performance of students from their earliest school years (thus improving the ‘prior achievement’ of students entering later years of schooling) and by improving the quality of teachers. The former is consistent with McGaw’s argument that part of the reason for Finland’s success lies in its systematic approach to provide early remedial assistance to students assessed as performing poorly.

Teacher quality and school culture

Indeed, as is so often the case at such discussions, how to improve teaching and teacher quality was a recurrent theme throughout the conference. Greg Whitby of the Catholic Schools in the Diocese of Parramatta, in the course of a passionate exposition of the potentially transformative power of information technology, asked why it is that ‘attendance at school is compulsory but learning seems optional.’ He, along with several other speakers, emphasised the importance of creating environments within schools and within communities at large in which parents, teachers and students hold high expectations of what should be achieved at school; and a measurement, reporting and accountability framework that supports their achievement. Dr Chris Sarra, currently Director, Indigenous Education Leadership Institute, Queensland University of Technology but previously principal of Cherbourg High School, recounted his experience in turning around a school culture based on low expectations to one in which indigenous students were expected to meet state standards and were proud when they did so. He argued that not to insist on high standards – even for students drawn from highly disadvantaged backgrounds – is to condemn these students to achieve at less than their potential. He reported significant improvements in both test scores and student satisfaction during his tenure as principal.

Several speakers noted that there are many, many examples where individual teachers or schools have pursued an approach which has led to extraordinary improvements in the outcomes achieved by students. Dr Sarra’s experience and the success of the Bell Shakespeare Company in engaging students from a wide variety of backgrounds, reflected in Ms Linda Lorenza’s presentation to the conference, are cases in point. As Dr Wendy Jarvie of the Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training noted, the issue is how to make such successes systematic so that they become the norm.

Improving teacher performance

How best to improve teacher performance, teacher preparation and the quality of school based culture came up repeatedly in the discussions as important elements in answering Dr Jarvie’s question. McGaw noted that teachers in Finland have high social status and are required to have a minimum teaching qualification at Masters level. Indeed, several speakers called for higher tertiary entrance scores for teachers, noting that cutoff scores had declined in recent times. Louden, for example, quoted data from Leigh and Ryan (2006) that showed over the 20-year period to 2003 a significant shift towards lower levels of ability, as measured by entrance scores, in the intake of females into teacher preparation courses. Louden argued that the root cause of the slide in status of teaching (and thus the lower apparent standard of the teacher intake) is a ‘short, flat, low and uniform salary structure in a world of expanding graduate opportunities.’ He and several other speakers supported more generous pay arrangements for both beginning and experienced teachers, though views quickly polarised about how closely pay should be related to performance and how to measure performance, especially the performance of an individual teacher. There was similarly a range of views about the nature of accountability (and associated reporting) of schools to their communities. Amongst other things, this raises issues about how widely test scores of individual students, classes or schools should be disseminated; and whether, if the answer is yes, how comparisons should be drawn about the relative performance of individual teachers or schools based on these scores.

Several speakers argued that teacher preparation courses need to pay greater attention to the subject matter expertise of teachers as well as improve their understanding of pedagogy. They argued that deep subject matter knowledge, continuously updated, not only leads to high quality instruction for students but also means, most likely, that the instructor has a passion for the subject which may well be infectious for students. This, it is argued, is especially helpful with the more technically demanding or specialist subjects in secondary school such as English literature, history, mathematics and science.

Christine Ure of the University of Melbourne presented the findings of the Faculty of Education’s review of teacher preparation. The University of Melbourne is moving towards a more clinical approach to teacher preparation – that is, one which requires and supports beginning teachers to develop self-critical skills, which assist them to evaluate the effectiveness of classroom techniques so as to improve the outcomes achieved by particular groups of students. In particular, this approach requires greater coherence between teacher preparation and school life and more active interactions between universities and schools. This has led to a significant redesign of the practicum to improve the relevance of this experience, especially by improving the quality of mentoring and support available to beginning teachers by university faculty members.

Similarly, several speakers addressed the importance of continuing professional development for teachers. This is not simply a reference to the need to make available professional extension courses and similar devices to enable teachers to keep their subject matter knowledge current and keep up to date about the latest evidence about effective pedagogy. That is necessary, but in the view of some, not sufficient – and could be viewed as harmful if it is seen as a substitute for a genuinely student-centered approach. Rather, it also relates to the provision of school-based mentoring of teachers and the systematic gathering of evidence about the effectiveness of teaching practices at school level. Indeed, there was strong support for basing classroom practice on what research tells us works. These insights, however, represent a significant challenge for many schools. The challenge is to create a school based culture which not only sets high expectations for its students but accepts that students and teachers need both, in their own ways, to be learners. While an individual school may identify, locally, teachers skilled in evaluation and knowledgeable about the latest research on pedagogy, it was suggested that this does not occur routinely across Australian schools. Even more sadly, there are suggestions that reform of teacher preparation needs to proceed in tandem with changes in how schools are managed. Otherwise, some beginning teachers, who may acquire enhanced appropriate technical skills and enthusiasm through their preparatory courses, may find that their skills are not recognised or valued by more experienced teachers or principals when they join the workforce. In these cases, the value of the society’s investment in better teacher preparation will be lost. The role of heads and their supervisors in providing encouragement and support to young teachers is often remarked upon. The sadness is that some capable new teachers may lose their skills if not their motivation before they reach positions of influence within the school community if they are not appropriately nurtured in the workplace.

Kevin Donnelly of the consultancy Education Strategies took a stronger position than some on the importance of school autonomy. He wanted to free schools from ‘provider capture – a situation where bureaucrats, teacher unions and professional associations exert too much influence on schools and classroom teachers.’ He favoured a ‘light touch’ approach to regulation, to support school autonomy to ‘hire, fire and reward staff, to better reflect the aspiration of their local communities and to develop curriculum (core/elective) that best suits the needs of their students.’ He favours the employment of tax credits or vouchers to give parents an effective choice about where to send their children to school.

Funding

Funding issues also attracted attention. Donnelly suggested that the OECD’s publication Education at a Glance ‘shows there is little, if any, relationship between levels of investment and performance as measured by learning standards.’ Gerald Burke presented data on funds flowing into government, Catholic and independent schools respectively. Student numbers have grown fastest in the independent sector over the decade to 2005, with primary school enrolments in that sector rising by more than 50 per cent (secondary student numbers rose 40 per cent). The student population of Catholic secondary schools rose 17 per cent, more than five times the growth of the government sector. Burke presented a range of data on the levels and sources of funding for each of the sectors over the period. These show, for example, that average school real income per student in non-government schools rose by 44 per cent in the decade to 2005, compared to 27 per cent in government schools. In absolute terms, real income per head in the non-government sector exceeded the level in the government sector in 2005, whereas the rankings had been reversed in 1995. Strong growth in Commonwealth government support, not matched by higher contributions from state governments in respect of public education, contributed to this outcome.

A recurring theme was the desirability of putting additional effort into meeting the needs of students from disadvantaged backgrounds or with personal needs. In addition to students drawn from families of low socioeconomic status, these groups include those with disabilities, students from indigenous backgrounds (especially outside of the major urban centres) and those whose principal language is not English. Tom Karmel of the National Centre for Vocational Education Research, however, focused on the needs of students at risk of failing to complete school and the potential contribution that vocational educating and training, including school-based delivery, may play in prolonging the attendance of certain young people beyond Year 10 and improving the job prospects of students.

Concluding thoughts

It is hard to fault the logic that higher status for teachers, better quality of teacher preparation, more effective school leadership, and accountability arrangements that reward and promote effective learning environments attuned to meeting legitimately high expectations for student learning outcomes are amongst the prerequisites to ensure that each young person can develop to their potential and participate fully in the economy and our society. At the conference, much of the debate focused on how to design systems and structures that lead to such outcomes. To my mind, however, there is a large unspoken issue lurking in the background. Good quality teachers, effective teaching practices and demonstrated progress in securing better outcomes for students are clearly necessary to underpin improvements in the status and therefore attractiveness of teaching. The profession and those with leadership responsibilities in education policy have clear responsibilities to improve the policy frameworks within which schools, school systems and teachers work; and to be held accountable for results. But perhaps the community also needs to reassess its relationship with the teaching profession as part of a long term approach to giving children their best chance to reach their potential. All too frequently, teachers of my acquaintance seem to be fearful that they do not have the support of parents in managing discipline, expecting high learning standards and requiring behaviours in classrooms that are conducive to learning. I wonder whether teachers reasonably believe they need more support than some now get from parents in order to do their job properly. There was no evidence presented at the conference that bears on this aspect. Perhaps this is a field best ploughed at another conference, on another day.

Top ^