Governments still fail at education 101

By Stephen Sedgwick

The Australian Financial Review,
14 April 2008, p. 71

The answer to the problem seems simple, but the system is still letting students down, writes Stephen Sedgwick.

A good place to start an education revolution would be to ensure that every child can actually read and write and be numerate. That very simple proposition was enshrined in the national goals for schooling adopted by all states, territories and the commonwealth in 1999 (the Adelaide Declaration, which reflected an earlier agreement between ministers reached in 1997).

What has happened since governments committed themselves in this way? Common benchmarks were adopted to assess students in years 3, 5 and 7 and track progress via a testing and reporting regime.

The benchmarks represent the minimum standards of performance below which students will have difficulty progressing satisfactorily at school. Those minimums rise as students progress through years 3 to 5 and 7, reflecting the more demanding nature of learning in later years.

Ninety-three per cent of year 3 students were assessed as reading at least at the level of the benchmark in 2006. Boys fared slightly worse (91.3 per cent) and girls slightly better (94.8 per cent). The results for writing and numeracy were about the same, though with less variation between boys and girls.

But location mattered, with performance falling as distance increased from metropolitan areas. Only about half of very remote indigenous students met the benchmarks, for example. Ninety-three per cent is not 100. Perhaps things got better over time? Well, not really.

The proportion at the standard has hovered around ninety-two point something since 2001. Statistically, there has been no measurable improvement in the proportion of students meeting the year 3 benchmark since testing began in 1999.

More worryingly, the success rate in reading deteriorates in later years at school. It was down to 88.4 per cent for year 5 students in 2006, and only slightly higher for year 7 students. The fall-off was particularly marked for indigenous students from about 80 per cent at year 3 to two-thirds or less in the higher classes. Interestingly, 92.3 per cent of the 2006 year 7 cohort met the standard when assessed in year 3 (in 2002). Their year 3 and year 7 confidence intervals do not overlap.

The proportion that met the writing benchmark in 2006 did not get any worse in the higher classes (it did not get any better, either). But in the case of numeracy there was sharp deterioration: overall only 79.7 per cent met the benchmark in year 7 while only 20 per cent of very remote indigenous students achieved it.

The evidence is clear that children who fall behind in the early years find it very hard to catch up. In these days of target setting and performance measurement, you might then expect governments to restate their commitment to ensure that every child acquire at least the minimal skills required to progress through school and back their words with action. But the signs are ambiguous.

Neither the national reform agenda adopted by the Council of Australian Governments in 2006 nor the revised Adelaide Declaration adopted by the states late last year repeat the commitment.

Last weeks communiqu proclaimed that COAG had endorsed a comprehensive set of aspirations, outcomes, progress measures and future policy directions in the key areas including schooling. But these were not further elaborated.

International data suggests there is a correlation between high socioeconomic status and relatively better reading skill. However, as Professor Geoff Masters recently pointed out to our New Agenda for Prosperity Conference, many students from low socioeconomic backgrounds nonetheless read well and many socially advantaged students read badly. It is more likely to be effective to target effort on the needs of underperforming students whatever their background, than to target those of low socioeconomic status per se.

A genuine focus on the student requires skilled, well-motivated teachers and a supportive school-based culture that champions evidence one in which teachers are themselves learners. A clear commitment from governments to meeting the literacy and numeracy needs of every child is one good way to keep the focus where it belongs: on the needs and circumstances of individuals.

However, as the little progress recorded since such a commitment was first made in Australia demonstrates, the commitment is necessary but not sufficient. Administrative systems and incentives that produce empowered, well-prepared and accountable principals and teachers, backed by the dissemination of good evidence about effective teaching practice, are also crucial.

And there is no point in collecting data about test scores unless it is used to identify and address underperformance.

Professor Stephen Sedgwick is director of the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research. He was secretary of several federal departments between 1992 and 2002, including Finance and Education.