First Dog socks now in stock at the Crikey Emporium!
A cautionary tale…
Why it’s easier to pick a school in the UK than Oz
|
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. |
|
|
10 Comments
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.
“it’s quite simple really, contact the school.”
“try reading the local paper!!”
Gary, I presume you are putting this forward as a way of gaining, in my words, “real, balanced and rounded information” about a school. That is a proposition that does not survive the slightest examination. I know many teachers and schools do it tough but that does not entitle schools to cover-up what is occurring.
The mix of bureaucratic authoritarianism, union power and centralised ‘pre-social’ media that allowed the culture of cover-up and secrecy peaked some years back and is now in steep decline. Schools should move more strongly with that change and embrace a culture of openness, trust and transparency with parents and the wider community.
Tony, I applaud your call for a rational discussion. I too have a problem with simplistic tabloid evaluations of which school is better? You have to ask better on what basis? Better for producing obedient workers, people who can pass multiple choice tests, people capable of critical thinking or people capable of fixing motor vehicles? Exactly what do we want our children to be better at?
Not everybody wants to go or is cut out for university but I do not blame people for grasping at this seductively simplistic testing approach. We have been conditioned over the last 50 years or so to think in terms of life as a series of dichotomous choices (i.e. the Hegelian dialectical model), Liberal V Labor for example, Socialism V Capitalism or basically good guys V bad guys.
This is what I see as dumbing down the population and encouraging it to make judgements in an emotive and simplistic way without really questioning the original assumptions on which the proposition was based. It is much harder to interpret the actions of our adversaries as having been based on complex, temporally influenced and competing motivations as opposed to “original sin”.
What the Americans and British are doing is to reduce education to an overly simplified economic choice model forcing decisions to be based on the results of tests, not the growth and development of human spirit and intellect. This to me is an anti-humanity approach to life and I believe that we have been in its grip since the end of WWII. By reducing outcomes to how well certain schools “work the system” to engineer the best results, then we are likely to end up with an educational system that delivers a series of summa cum laude’s in how to “work the system”. If that is our aim, we will have succeeded in teaching students how to pass specific tests and failed totally on teaching how to think critically. If as a parent, you happen to be looking for a school that may assist in the development of productive human beings capable of making a real contribution to the growth and development of humanity then testing regimes based on multiple choice are not going to get you there..
Charter Schools and their equivalents in the UK, Hong Kong, Singapore, India and elsewhere are usually the product of Public Private Partnerships or PPP’s. Telegraph boss, Rupert Murdoch in his Boyer lectures a year or so ago, was very strong on the idea of the corporatisation of schools simply because private enterprise is more efficient. But we are not talking free market here. This system relies on crony capitalism or oligopoly if you like where certain “preferred” tenderers receive government granted monopolies with no fear of default on payment because it is the government that pays. Tony, you report that all is not honey and dates with Gotham City residents in this regard. I am familiar with many websites sponsored by furious NY parents up in arms at how this system is operating and its iniquities. Just Google “NY City residents angry over charter schools…” and see for yourself. I have similar material about the Birmingham experiment in the UK and there are many more.
Most non government schools in Australia are not for profit and are run for the benefit of the students. They operate at break even which requires adequate reserves to keep in business. As these schools are not for profit, the welfare of the students is paramount. To run schools on an economic efficiency model is another story entirely. At present not for profits in any industry whether insurance, superannuation, education or others keep for profit businesses in line as they are forced to match NFP pricing. If the not for profit sector were not there, then we would experience the same escalation of costs in education and health insurance that we see in every other PPP based enterprise e.g. roads, airports, energy – you name it. There are many unfortunate examples of PPP’s in Australia and it looks like politicians still haven’t got the message. The best definition I can come up with for a PPP is a monopoly handed to a corporation by the government where profits are allowed to be privatised, investments are subsidized and losses are socialised (bailout). Every state has at least one of these. If they were such a good deal for the taxpayer, the terms of these contracts would not have to be kept secret.
In the case of education it will be the parents and children who will suffer under this sorry system when services are cut to meet profit targets for investors and interest repayments to banks?
The point of testing and rewarding schools on the basis of their test results is totally discriminatory. The best performing schools are rewarded with additional funding whereas poorer performers live under the threat of closure or reduced funding. This can only exacerbate the problems for already under-resourced schools. Invariably higher socioeconomic areas with a high proportion of university educated parents who value education and reinforce the virtues of study at home and who can support the school financially, receive performance bonuses. On the other hand, the poor performing schools in lower socio economic areas, where many of the children live in households in which only they are competent in English, can never hope to compete. Something doesn’t quite stack up in this neo Darwinist education model. I know that this may not be the plan for Australia but judging by the way the US and UK models are being lauded by certain politicians I am truly worried. These are countries which regularly report that their own educational standards have been steadily degrading since the seventies.
The simplest way to find out about a school is to visit the school, meet the principal, and have a walk around the corridors. This will tell you far more about a school and its learning environment than a league table.
The author discusses UK schools, but is I understand referring only to English schools. Ofsted’s reach does not to my knowledge extend, for example, to Scotland or Wales, however both of these countries have statutory bodies which operate to some degree in a similar way to Ofsted.
In terms of comparisons with Ofsted, my first hand experience, having recently returned to Australia after spending four years in the UK, is that the regular monitoring of schools only serves to focus all learning or teaching on the Ofsted reportable outcomes. If for example, Ofsted reports numeracy and literacy in their report, or if these are perceived by a school to be weak areas, then numeracy and literacy will be the ONLY teaching to occur for many weeks or months. A balanced curriculum simply does not exist when it comes time for Ofsted reporting. I can’t see how an Oftsed-style reporting mechanism is going to provide high quality information to families and teachers - it may be easily available but it is not worth the paper it is written on.
“The simplest way to find out about a school is to visit the school, meet the principal, and have a walk around the corridors. This will tell you far more about a school and its learning environment than a league table.”
You will get very little from that other than the principal’s sales spiel for the school (useful, but far from being a rounded picture). Nobody would claim that you could get a solid understanding of the Cadbury business from a half hour tour of their chocolate factory yet people continue to claim that such a school tour is adequate for parents. These claims are constantly trotted out but they are worthless.
Many parents find these tours awkward and even embarrassing. Why should they not have some reasonably objective and comprehensive information that they can examine in private? At the very least they will be able to ask the principal more informed questions.
One problem I have with this article is any comparison to the UK. Their system - as is the US’s system - is completely flawed. I know of at least a half dozen teachers who have worked in the system in the UK and have found themselves ham-strung by either the appalling behaviour of the students who are told quite early (through the results of all these tests that they’ve had inflicted upon them) that they aren’t going to amount to much, or; by the curricula constantly being dictated by the tests, instead of the other way around.
But more than that is the question that’s been bothering me all along. Who is this information actually for? You cannot tell me that a person - especially those hypotheticals in the education assignment mentioned (by the way: what would a potential teacher need to know this information for) - who can afford to choose their house based on the relative quality of a local school would not send their kid to a private school. In Australia we send our children to the school that serves our geographical area. If on the odd chance that we get a choice, that choice is easily informed by other people in the same area. We ask our neighbours and friends about their experiences and knowledge. Any person not happy with sending their children to the local school would probably send them to a private school.
The worst schools are the ones from socio-economic areas, which will never be improved on the basis of test results, and whose clientele cannot afford to move into a better location anyway, and so have no choice.
The only real reason these tables are being mooted is that they are politically beneficial. They won’t help schools, and worse yet, they won’t help the kids.