Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

Schools to be held accountable

By Mikayla Novak - posted Tuesday, 30 August 2005

The Federal Government’s recent Schools Assistance legislation marks a watershed in the way Australian schools will operate.

As a precondition for $33 billion in Commonwealth funding over the next four years, states, territories and non-government school authorities must publicly provide information about the performance of individual schools. The information to be released by schools to parents and the general community will include:

  • Student and staff attendance, and staff retention;
  • information on teacher qualifications, and expenditure and teacher participation in professional development activities;
  • data on the proportion of Years 3, 5, 7 and 9 students achieving the national benchmarks in reading, writing and numeracy, as well as changes in these results from the previous year;
  • information on the extent to which schools facilitate improvement in student academic performance above normal expectations (“value-added” measures);
  • average standardised assessment results for Year 9 students;
  • average tertiary entrance data for Year 12 students;
  • proportion of Year 9 students retained to Year 12;
  • information on post-school destinations of students, including university, vocational education, or employment; and
  • data on parent, student and teacher satisfaction rates.

After lagging behind on this issue for a number of years, some state and territory governments are also introducing their own reporting standards. For instance, Queensland and New South Wales are to introduce plans to provide school reports that gauge student performance in state-wide tests, with other jurisdictions anticipated to follow over time.

However, despite broad community acceptance, including voters during the 2004 Federal Election, these proposed school performance reporting standards have been met by howls of indignation by various teacher unions, principals’ associations, school sector advocacy bodies, and a number of educationalists. Many of these interest groups have disparagingly labelled the proposals as “league tables” which will rank individual schools from best to worst performers, and have sought to provide critiques as to why standard school reporting frameworks ought not to be introduced. For instance, one of the more colourful criticisms is that publication of reporting standards, which demonstrate relative underperformance by individual schools, will somehow punish, humiliate and demoralise students (the “poor little Johnny” syndrome).

This raises a deeper question as to why these reforms are being introduced in the first place, and why there are negative reactions. Regarding the former it is helpful to recall the statements of Federal Education Minister, Dr Brendan Nelson, who predicated the introduction of the national school reporting model on the basis that “… For too long, parents have been kept in the dark as to how well our schools are performing. Information that is critically important for parents to make meaningful decisions about school choice, to hold schools accountable and to identify underperforming schools, is frequently difficult to obtain or is non-existent.” In the absence of clear, accurate information on the performance of schools, parents are thus left to rely on rough, unreliable rules-of-thumb such as “prestige” and “tradition” when choosing between schools for their children.

In short, the development of schools reporting guidelines is a policy which will strengthen the hand of parents: as the financiers of education; charged with the primary responsibility for educating their children; in ensuring that schools have extra incentive to adopt improvements such as experimenting with different educational approaches; providing quality facilities; and promoting excellence in teaching, in order to maintain and attract students.

Reliable and comparable performance information will encourage the use of “exit” (i.e. moving from one school to another) and “voice” (i.e. informing the school of the need to improve performance standards) mechanisms by education consumers - the parents and their student children.

The promotion of school accountability and responsiveness to the customer base will be of particular benefit for low-income families who have precious few financial and other avenues of recourse in an environment of limited information about school performance. For the first time, low-income parents will be given a real voice to air their concerns about underperforming school providers, based on rigorous information already publicly provided in countries such as the United States and United Kingdom.


Far from being a mechanism to humiliate or punish poorly performing students and schools, consistent schools reporting will provide a greater impetus for the implementation of school improvement strategies by individual schools and governments to ensure the provision of high-quality education.

The only ones who should feel afraid of schools performance reporting standards are those schools that are simply unwilling to improve performance for the benefit of students in a more open, accountable and competitive Australian school sector. After all, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that schools are here for students and their parents, not the other way around.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

Article edited by Geoffrey Zygier.
If you'd like to be a volunteer editor too, click here.

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

13 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Mikayla Novak is a Research Fellow with the Institute of Public Affairs. She has previously worked for Commonwealth and State public sector agencies, including the Commonwealth Treasury and Productivity Commission. Mikayla was also previously advisor to the Queensland Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Her opinion pieces have been published in The Australian, Australian Financial Review, The Age, and The Courier-Mail, on issues ranging from state public finances to social services reform.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Mikayla Novak
Article Tools
Comment 13 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy