A few weeks ago, I set my third year education students a task. They were to research two hypothetical and alternative scenarios. The first of these was a proposed move, with a young family, to a locality in the UK for a few years. The second scenario was a similar move to northern Victoria.
In each instance, and using the Internet, my students were to scout out government (local authority in the UK) schools for their hypothetical, school-age children. The object of the exercise? To see which system was the more transparent, the more informative and more immediately responsive to parental enquiries, bearing in mind that the UK newspapers publish league tables.
At the end of the task, opinion was unanimous: the UK system provided far more candid information than did the Australian schools. This is because the UK’s Ofsted (the Office for Standards in Education) publishes detailed reports of the regular evaluations of all schools and these reports can be very easily found on the Ofsted site, arranged by category, by school name, by area and even by postcode. In these reports you will find measured and professionally-based comments on all curriculum matters, with a careful outline of the good – and the bad – together with suggested strategies for improvement.
In contrast, information about Victorian government schools can only be found by looking at individual school websites (if they exist at all) or the school annual reports on the departmental website (brief, bland and unhelpful). My students, all budding teachers looking for frank external assessment of potential employers, with some of them actual parents looking for the real lowdown on what goes on in a school, had no doubt about which system they preferred: Ofsted won hands down.
This sensible conclusion makes the current spat about Julia Gillard’s proposals for clearer access to genuine information about school achievement all the more puzzling, that is until you consider the recent political history. This narrative includes the Howard government’s big stick 2006 ‘accountability’ campaign, set up to deal with a supposedly recalcitrant teaching profession protected by an allegedly militant union organization.
Howard’s implacable revisiting of an old conservative NSW chestnut, cheered on by sections of the press, excited teacher suspicions. These misgivings were not alleviated by the 2007 general election result since, in late 2008, New York city’s schools’ Chancellor Joel Klein, was invited to Australia for a roadshow and tell.
Appointed by Mayor Bloomberg in 2002 to rescue the city’s ramshackle and under-performing education service, and with a reputation for talking tough and firing incompetent principals, the well-intentioned, if highly controversial, Klein seemed to have become a beacon of hope for educational policymakers, until, that is, his seven-year record was examined more carefully over time by independent experts. Critics of Klein range from Jennifer Jennings, a liberalish researcher from Columbia University, to academic Diane Ravitch, a conservative veteran of the 1990s US History Wars.
The anti-Klein view is based on accusations of statistical manipulation, simplistic progress assessment techniques, lack of actual and comparative progress in both socio-economic and ethnic-racial terms, hyped publicity about sacking of incompetent principals (compared with actual numbers fired) and offhand dumping of suspended teachers in so-called ‘rubber rooms’ scattered around the city. The conclusion? When a superficial and cosmetic political stunt, however benificent, is measured by a range of determined specialists, the outcome is generally not a good look.
That is why it’s important to try, as much as possible, to keep the discussion out of the realm of political and media opportunism and keep it firmly within a forum of rational and constructive debate about improving teaching and learning. This is going to be a tough task, if only for one reason: a tabloid media obsession with schools that ‘succeed’ and schools that ‘fail’, an approach combined with an editorial desire for league tables and a concomitant obsession with crude, vivid commentary that panders to prejudice.
This win/lose/blame mentality was exemplified in the Sydney Daily Telegraph’s notorious January 1997 caning of an entire and hapless Year 12 HSC group, at the western suburbs Mount Druitt High School, as the ‘Class We Failed’, complete with school photograph. The Telegraph, not a paper renowned for changing its tactics in the interest of common sense and good taste, was forced to apologise three years later by the New South Wales Supreme Court, with costs and an award to the student plaintiffs. However, that vindication came after a stubborn holdout by the Telegraph and trauma for the students and teachers.
As a precedent, it may not be counted as protection against future insults that are bound to come, because, however complex the published figures and details are, tabloid journalists will be keen to come up with league tables of one sort or another, not to mention sexy headlines and one-liner quotes – with winners, losers and evildoers. Whatever system is created to avoid over-simplification, the print and electronic media will find a way, even in New South Wales where, while press-instigated league tables are banned, the reduction of complex data to brief front page splashes, to feral op ed articles and to scathing editorials is not. And that is all to do with the relative freedom of the press, for good or ill.
The solution to the politicisation and sensationalisation of schooling therefore is threefold. First, the authorities must publish reports that give accessible, clear and authentic information that paints a fair, a detailed and a broad picture, and Barry McGaw, the federal curriculum head honcho, has promised this. It may take time, since it has taken Ofsted eighteen years to get to where they are today (with some major diversions along the way), so be patient.
Second, all governments, federal and state/territory, must educate parents and teachers so that they will actively look for the more complex backgrounding and make informed judgements about education, instead of just relying on banner headlines and crude rankings. This approach, presumably, is on its way and may result in an increasingly knowledgeable public disposition about schools and schooling. We live in hope.
Third, tabloid journalists must change their ways, look for a deeper meaning in life and disdain league tables. Don’t hold your breath.
Tony Taylor teaches and researches at Monash University.
Well, Tony, when the Daily Telegraph stops it’s incessant lust for banner headlines, and its much loved sport of kicking all workers, particularly teachers; exercise the ideal of having a responsiblity to vulnerable people, in this case sensitive and vulnerable school students, then perhaps you may have a point. In the meantime, I’m not in favour of publishing school tables, as I don’t see how it accomplishes anything. As for taking any notice of the educational practices and results in the US? Why do we have to listen to their so-called experts? Don’t Australian kids outdo their kids in numeracy and literacy? What’s their track record? Not too good?
I once worked in a school, where at least 80% of the kids came from a non-english speaking background. A large number of little 5 yr olds who not only didn’t speak
english, they couldn’t understand it either. Those teachers, with too many in once class were amazing, in my view. When mykids went to school(now in their 40’s) kids going to public schools went to the one set down by the Dept. of Education. The system has created the ‘best’ and ‘not so good’ schools, not the parents. Why did they do this? How can we be assured, that the school I mentioned, won’t be compared to one that’s obviously not as challenging? How can these kids be assured, that their teachers won’t be depicted as not producing good results?
Finally, I recall the Mt Druitt incident very well, and I can also remember the kids who were demoralised, the teachers who were ridiculed, and in the final analysis, why? Interested parents can now see very clearly, how kids in the class/es are doing? If they’re in close contact with their kids’ teachers, why the need for ‘going public’? I don’t trust the media, and certainly not any papers out of the Murdoch stable. He doesn’t give a toss? Only cares about money, not kids? Not even an Australian citizen any more? Why? MONEY! Can make more in the US if he’s a citizen!
The lack of information about schools is astonishing. It is only by being some kind of insider that you gain any real idea of how a school is performing and obviously any parent coming fresh to that school will not be an insider.
Annual school reports are a dreary mixture of puffery and bland, largely indecipherable bureaucratese. It is no wonder that there is a market for tabloid sensationalism when real, balanced and rounded information is so hard for the ‘outsider’ to come by. It is extremely rare for a school report to admit that there are serious problems within the school ( I have only ever seen one such report) and yet, of course, many schools do have serious problems.
School teachers are regularly instructed at staff meeting not to talk outside the school about problems or negative incidents. Instead they are instructed to be relentlessly upbeat within the local community. Teachers are effectively required to mislead their local friends, acquaintances and neighbours.
I am not very familiar with Ofsted reports but nevertheless the objective and detailed reports they produce do seem to be what is needed. In the meantime schools should be obliged to produce annual reports that are more honest and straightforward about the difficulties the school is confronting.
it’s quite simple really, contact the school.
the details are not appropriate to anyone outside the school community, given the well established track records of the media and self serving politicians, both local state and federal to distort the findings/comments to their own ends.
Schools are VERY wary of providing any information which will be used out of context….to anyone.
hardly surprising an internet search for northern Victoria turns up not much info.
try reading the local paper!!
it’s so easy to be a critic
not so simple investing hundreds of hours into building fragile self esteem and confidence, which can be irretrievably destroyed in one banner headline
the entire national curriculum is a political solution…schools do not recognise the need..
there are greater differences between classrooms than between schools and states
the ACARA with national assessment is the big sleeper, though with Peter Hill now appointed NSW must be worried the national curriculum will be VCE(II)
Oh yes, I’m most disturbed by reports, that in future, educational subjects will be scaled to achieving good public results, and/or to provide future employment requirements over each student receiving a well rounded education. I find that scary, and it could be the possible outcome of publishing school league tables. Teach kids to pass exams, at the cost of a full and varied coverage of subjects etc.
Having worked in all three systems at play in Tony’s article, I feel I can make a couple of informed comments.
Aussies inviting anyone from a US public education system is baseless. I employed (at times) 20 people in my small agency – our sole goal was cleaning up the mess left behind by the public education sector here on the east coast. Many US systems treat kids like widgets on an assembly line – one in which it’s extremely easy to generate positive numbers when passing courses is possible with a failing grade (e.g., ~40% on the EOG tests for fourth graders was considered a passing grade). Aussies – just don’t do it.
Ofsted. I’m a huge fan of the education sector in the UK. I worked in on-site behavioral units in London and outer London schools for five years and was regularly surprised by how well they educated their kids in relaxed environments. Additionally, if a prospective parent wanted to know what we did they came round for a visit and a cup of tea. Transparency was never even discussed as it simply happened.
Victoria, Australia. Some great schools, but it’s a closed system. I’m not surprised by what Tony’s students found. I agree with Liz45 that as long as certain media outlets are gunning for tawdry headlines there is pressure to keep the schools protected, but in itself (unfortunately) that’s not a sufficient reason for the lack of transparency. I think some lumps will just have to be dealt with.