Fair to compare?

By grouping schools into a number of sub groups so that perhaps those schools that have a large proportion of children with English as a second language might be lumped together and then perhaps various allowances such as for specifically disabled students might also be factored in somewhere. Now the powers-that-be will have created their "Like Schools" groups, they can feel justified in persecuting the lowest performing schools in each of their specified and statistically adjusted categories.

They feel that they can now quite happily compare one school with another because they think that the use of statistical formulae has eliminated any other community differences and has exposed only the teaching prowess of those in each school. It defies imagination (well mine anyway) that we can statistically sweep away the myriad of differences between the mix of individuals who make up different schools and pretend that they are now competing on a level playing field.

School A will never be quite the same as school Q or school X no matter how much bureaucrats adjust their scales and pretend they are. If school X does not perform as well as school Q in some particular areas there may well be another perfectly rational explanation other than poor teaching. Their group of Aboriginal children might be quite different in ability or in experience to the other school’s group of Aboriginal children - but who will listen?

No one denies that “mediocrity” and “incompetence” will not be found among members of the teaching fraternity. It is no different to any other occupation. Every parent knows, or should know, if their child is unhappy or not progressing at school. Surely any problems with under-performing teachers can be dealt with effectively at a local level. There is no need to create some bureaucratic bullying system.

Every parent would no doubt like to send their child to the best school. But what is the best school? The highest academically achieving school may not be the best school for a child who is not very academically inclined. He might find himself struggling along at the bottom of the class, losing his self-esteem and throwing in the towel. The best school for a creative child might be one where there is a particular art teacher or program that suits him. The best school for a disabled child might well be one that caters best for his particular disability. The best school for a child might be the one with teachers he likes. There are so many other important things that go into making a good school than a narrow band of statistical data can ever identify.

It behoves us to remember the days when some poor child, who was doing his very best, but still struggling academically was made to stand in the corner with a dunce’s hat on his head because he didn’t answer the teacher’s question correctly. In the playground other children could follow the teacher’s example and point the finger, laugh and deride him for his inability to measure up. At examination time, children all had their test rank read out in front of the rest of the class. The teacher worked his way down from the top to bottom. It was quite a buzz for those at the top but mortifying for the rest of the children.

We all thought that education had come a long way since those days. Dunce’s hats and public disclosure of rank disappeared because they were deemed unfair and inappropriate. They often penalised a child for circumstances beyond his control or served to put unwarranted pressure on him to achieve the impossible.

It is strange how history, given enough time, always seems to find a new way to repeat itself. Why would a practice criticised for its unfairness to individuals now be touted as praiseworthy when it is applied to schools?

Will all those parents who are demanding public disclosure of their school’s performance compared to others be happy to also have their children’s test rank on public display in the school foyer? After all, their children have had equal opportunity, are of the similar age and have had the same teachers as their class-mates. How will the parents feel and what excuses will they use to defend their child if they find that a large number of children did much better than their child? They might be quick to concede that there might, in fact, be a large number of other factors that have some bearing on their child’s low achievement.

How many parents would really want to see their child publicly ranked against his peers? They understand that their child is an individual with different problems to cope with and talents outside those being measured. Surely they must understand the very same principles should apply to the ranking of schools?

Parents must not be caught up in the government hype that seeks only to deflect attention away from its own inadequacies and responsibilities. They must understand the possible consequences that may arise from such a ranking system. They must know that schools are made up of individuals and that averages do not tell us that even within the “poorest” school there are still likely to be a few very high achieving children and that the highest achieving school may also have a number of under achieving children.

Statistical data used inappropriately is a dangerous tool and no one should for one moment believe that the proposed assessments are going to be some sort of “cure-all” as touted.