School League Tables (1 Viewer)

[Kalashnikov47]

Yes, old news, but I think it is still worth discussing.

Source: Parents shut out by ban on school league tables

Background: the federal government wanted to introduce a scheme that would list down the academic performance of all schools in form of a league table and thereby rank them. The Liberal party of NSW, along with the Greens, amended legislation regarding this field to make it an offence to publish results of school academic performance on print media (the internet falls under federal jurisdiction).

Personally, I think we SHOULD have a league table that provides the academic performance of schools because I believe the general public, especially parents, have a right to know how well the schools of their kids is performing.

I understand there would be one or two problems. First, as the Greens MPs argued, the publication of a simple league table would be equal to public shaming of poor-performing schools and the children who attend those schools. I don't think this is a valid argument at all, because we cannot help the schools in trouble without knowing which schools we are talking about.

Second, the Greens also argued that such simplistic approach ignores the situations of certain schools, especially those populated by students from migrant background and those in rural areas. In my opinion, however, this is precisely the reason why we have to publish those results because the society must know the scale of the problem before it can provide greater support to students and schools in need.

Anyway, this incidence totally changed my impression on the Greens. Their logic is: whenever a piece of information that is leaked to the public, it would become "misinformation" and subjected to "misinterpretation"; by contrast, the government will always deal with it in an appropriate manner.

 

[johony]

do the bottom 3 schools get relegated?


nah, seriously, such a system would be too detrimental to poorer performing schools. perhaps it would give them an incentive, however there is the prospect of better students going to other schools.
edit: perhaps the lower x% of schools receive more funding? then theres the problem of tanking..

 

[banco55]

do the bottom 3 schools get relegated?


nah, seriously, such a system would be too detrimental to poorer performing schools. perhaps it would give them an incentive, however there is the prospect of better students going to other schools.
edit: perhaps the lower x% of schools receive more funding? then theres the problem of tanking..

Why would students leaving a sinking ship be a bad thing? Fucking teachers unions priorities are:

1.better wages and conditions for teachers
2.protecting incompetent teachers.
3.better wages and conditions for teachers
4.protecting incompetent teachers.
5.the kids

 

[Mu5hi]

The waiting list for teachers is fucking huge, includes young euthanstic teachers, which many change careers. While the Public schools are filled with near retirement, only un-motivated teachers. If this system changes that i m all for it.

 

[Kalashnikov47]

Why would students leaving a sinking ship be a bad thing? Fucking teachers unions priorities are:

1.better wages and conditions for teachers
2.protecting incompetent teachers.
3.better wages and conditions for teachers
4.protecting incompetent teachers.
5.the kids

you might as well take out the kids from No. 5, because the teachers pay the unions, not the kids.

 

[banco55]

If it's for the sake of picking the best school for your children, would it make sense to publicly reveal say, the top 25% of schools rankings, or something to that effect?
I mean still asses every school, but keep the rankings of the other schools private?

Every kid can't go to the top 25 % schools. I think it's about transparency. Lots of other professions have detailed stats published. Teachers seem to argue if they can't control every single variable that no stats should be published. If you know the local school is useless at least you can consider saving up to send your kid to a private/catholic school rather then finding out that it's useless after they've already been there for 2 years.

 

[SylviaB]

Every kid can't go to the top 25 % schools.

Well okay, how about top 50% then?
I mean, it has to get to a stage where people don't care. Like at least 50% of families aren't going to be trying to send their children to the best schools in the state.

 

[Kalashnikov47]

Well okay, how about top 50% then?
I mean, it has to get to a stage where people don't care. Like at least 50% of families aren't going to be trying to send their children to the best schools in the state.

You're totally missing the points. First, the parents or more matured students can use the table to choose which school to go, so it has to be a comprehensive list of every school in the state.

Second, if some schools perform consistently poor then we know there is something wrong. It may be embarrassing for students who attend those schools, but the general public has to know about it before changes can be done. Surely there will always be schools at the bottom, but then again we should always try to improve the education system.

 

[Kalashnikov47]

Yeah, I realise they need fixing, but that's why i said keep those private and let the government fix them. What exactly can the general public do about it?

your opinion is about as authoritarian as the Greens. Like I said, this shows your logic that whenever an issue that is embarrassing for the government occurs, it should be fixed in private, as if the general public is less capable of understanding issues than a bunch of beaucrats.

 

[Riet]

The problem is that many schools are "bad" for reasons beyond their control; for example it has been proven that children of working class people, whether intelligent or not do worse at school than more affluent children simply because they aren't as likely to be encouraged to read as much, or to take school seriously. The reason this is a problem is because it has been shown that simply by having higher achievers in a class tends to encourage other students to improve themselves too.

If all the good students in an area suddenly start going to Ashfield and all the dumb students to Canterbury, for example, its obvious who is going to do better in the rankings, regardless of how good the teachers are.

Do you think if all the teachers from James Ruse swapped with say, Punchbowl Boys, that Punchbowl boys would be the number 1 ranked school? Of course not, though James ruse would still be at the top simply because it has the best canditure.

 

[Riet]

If they measured how well the students improved for example, with standardized testing, it'd be more fair I reckon.

 

[banco55]

When did I ever say it was embarassing for the government? I was thinking about the students and teachers of the schools more than anything.

And as unfortunate as it may be, those 'bunch of bureaucrats' are the only ones who can actually do anything about the problem.

What exactly can the general public do? They can't increase funding, they can't increase the number of teachers, they can't implement programs to improve academic standards.

Last time I checked they can vote and with league tables they will be better informed voters. For example people who live in suburbs with shitty schools might want increased government funding of private schools to make them more affordable.

 

[katie tully]

we name the top 200 schools imo and then anyone outside the top 200 is shit and we forget about them

imo


~went to a top 700 school lol omg

 

[whatashotbyseve]

They need to determine who the worst schools are. I don't think they need to rank them per se, just like the HSC only identifies that you are in the bottom 50% if you fail. Education department needs to allocate funds accordingly. Do students at poor performing schools actually want to be there, or are only there out obligation until the end of year 10? If so, then allocating better teachers will not fix the problem. Maybe 7-10 schools need to be introduced so at least everyone is on the same page.

 

[jb_nc]

The problem is that many schools are "bad" for reasons beyond their control; for example it has been proven that children of working class people, whether intelligent or not do worse at school than more affluent children simply because they aren't as likely to be encouraged to read as much, or to take school seriously. The reason this is a problem is because it has been shown that simply by having higher achievers in a class tends to encourage other students to improve themselves too.

If all the good students in an area suddenly start going to Ashfield and all the dumb students to Canterbury, for example, its obvious who is going to do better in the rankings, regardless of how good the teachers are.

Do you think if all the teachers from James Ruse swapped with say, Punchbowl Boys, that Punchbowl boys would be the number 1 ranked school? Of course not, though James ruse would still be at the top simply because it has the best canditure.

it... has... been.... proven

 

[Riet]

it... has... been.... proven

This covers just about everything I said.

The Peer Effect on Academic Achievement Among Public Elementary School Students

 

[johony]

Why would students leaving a sinking ship be a bad thing? Fucking teachers unions priorities are:

it's not in the schools interest to have their better students leave them, which they probably will if they are performing poorly. funding is based upon the number of students that are enrolled; if a whole bunch of students leave then there is a monetary void left. less funding, lesser quality of education. and that will repeat year after year, assuming that the government does little to stop it.

 

[banco55]

it's not in the schools interest to have their better students leave them, which they probably will if they are performing poorly. funding is based upon the number of students that are enrolled; if a whole bunch of students leave then there is a monetary void left. less funding, lesser quality of education. and that will repeat year after year, assuming that the government does little to stop it.

It seems perverse to have a policy that says we should conceal the poor performance of a school from parents of its relatively high performing students so they don't wise up and move their kids.

I'm not sure it would be a bad thing if a poor placing in a league table did trigger an exodus from a school. It may build public pressure for the Government to do something to fix the school.

I think one thing the teachers union is really afraid of is that league tables would push the Government towards adopting policies to improve poorer performing schools that they don't like ie vouchers, paying teachers in crap schools bonuses for results etc.

 

[SylviaB]

we name the top 200 schools imo and then anyone outside the top 200 is shit and we forget about them

imo


~went to a top 700 school lol omg

This is what I've been saying, more or less.

 

[johony]

It seems perverse to have a policy that says we should conceal the poor performance of a school from parents of its relatively high performing students so they don't wise up and move their kids.

I'm not sure it would be a bad thing if a poor placing in a league table did trigger an exodus from a school. It may build public pressure for the Government to do something to fix the school.

I think one thing the teachers union is really afraid of is that league tables would push the Government towards adopting policies to improve poorer performing schools that they don't like ie vouchers, paying teachers in crap schools bonuses for results etc.

perverse maybe, but jobs are at stake. i'm actually all for transparency in our schools to be honest, but there has to be guarantees for the poorer performing schools; whether if this comes in extra funding or extra teachers.

i thought the teachers' union were now ok with the idea of performance based pay?
Teachers give ground on performance pay