League tables and school performance

Anything less than [full and transparent reporting of individual school outcomes] by way of caving into union pressures, will compromise the process.

One respondent (“Chris C”) to Leigh’s article observed:

Recently, the ABS [Australian Bureau of Statistics] released its Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey. Contrary to the widespread claims of dumbing down over the past few decades, the survey showed that, with the exception of teenagers, older people have lower levels of literacy than younger people. The patterns for numeracy and problem solving were generally similar.

These comments came after Rupert Murdoch told us in his fourth Boyer Lecture, “The unvarnished truth is that in countries such as Australia, Britain, and particularly the United States, our public education systems are a disgrace” and “Australia needs in its schools a culture of performance and accountability”.

In November also New York City Schools Commissioner Joel Klein, brought to Australia by Minister Gillard, asserted that the culture of the education system in New York City was typified by a culture of excuse which had to be transformed to a culture of performance. Unfortunately Klein’s claims for success are very hotly disputed, particularly by Daniel Koretz, Professor of Education at Harvard University, who has described the methodology behind the New York City reporting system as “baroque” (in “More Questions Raised About the New York School Reporting Model” September 26, 2008).

I do wonder what the point is of all this ongoing criticism, as if that is the way to achieve desirable change. At what point do we recognise outstanding achievements by young people in so many fields? Where and when do we acknowledge dedication of teachers? (They are not people rewarded with huge salaries for leading the enterprise into the garbage can of history!)

The many problems with publication of test scores as “league tables” are not acknowledged by advocates. How valid are the data? How will they be used? And, especially, do they actually tell us anything useful about schools and teaching?

Unfortunately, many economists and politicians who venture into this area seem to regard research in education as inferior. Is this because its results do not agree with their preconceived views? Small bits of “experimental” economics and generalisations about business practice are quoted as authoritative. Getting hold of any data is considered worthwhile, no matter its validity.

The statistical validity of the information from school test scores is extremely limited: therefore the value of the information is also extremely limited. This is not because unions or teachers or anyone else arranged that to be so.

The late Kenneth J. Rowe (who died tragically in the recent Victorian bushfires) of the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER), drew out these profound defaulters in numerous papers. His views are captured by this comment. “Australian politicians and senior bureaucrats currently advocating the publication of such performance information in the form of ‘league tables’ are naively, and in typical fashion, stomping around in an uninformed epistemopathological fog.”