School Performance: Australian State/Territory Comparisons of Student Achievements in National and International Studies

Policy activities related to outcomes and standards-based educational performance indicators and their links with growing demands for accountability, standards monitoring, benchmarking, school effectiveness and reform are widespread and well established in many countries throughout the world. While the long-term goals of school education may be expressed as the enhancement of young peoples’ access to and participation in society, as well as preparation for meeting the constantly changing demands of the modern workplace, the most direct and readily accessible measures of student and school performance are obtained from assessments of students’ academic achievements. Despite several limitations, achievement data obtained from both national and international studies have several benefits that include: (a) the potential to provide valuable information concerning student and school performance compared with other national systems, and (b) generate understandings (as well as raise questions) about observed differences among educational jurisdictions – within and between countries. To this end, the present paper presents findings from analyses of students’ achievements in Literacy, Mathematics (or Numeracy) and Science – obtained from participation in national and international studies, and compares students’ achievements at the student and school levels, and between Australia’s eight States and Territories. Implications of the findings are discussed. Introductory comments The provision of schooling is one of the most massive and ubiquitous undertakings of the modern state. Schools account for substantial proportions of public and private expenditure, and are universally regarded as vital instruments of social and economic policy aimed at promoting individual fulfilment, social progress and national prosperity. It has long been recognised that the key to such prosperity at both the individual and national level is the provision of quality schooling. Since schooling generates a substantial quantity of paid employment for teachers and administrators, it is not surprising that there has long been an interest in knowing how effective the provision of school education is and how it can be improved. The global economic, technological and social changes under way, requiring responses from an increasingly skilled workforce, make high quality schooling an imperative. Whereas OECD education ministers have recently committed their countries to the goal of raising the quality of learning for all, this ambitious goal will not be achieved unless all children, irrespective of their characteristics, backgrounds and locations, receive high-quality schooling and teaching in particular (OECD, 2005a,b). 1 Correspondence related to this paper should be directed to: Dr Ken Rowe, Research Director, Learning Processes and Contexts Research Program, ACER, 347 Camberwell Road (Private Bag 55), Camberwell, VIC 3142, Australia; Tel: +61 3 9835 7489; Email: rowek@acer.edu. au. 2 See, for example: Bosker, Creemers and Scheerens (1994); Caldwell (2003); Coleman et al. (1966); DES, (1984); Edmonds (1979a,b, 1981); Goldstein (1997, 2001); Goodlad, (1982, 1983); Hanusheck (2004, 2005a,b,c); Hanusheck et al. (2005); Hanusheck and Jorgenson (1996); Hanusheck and Raymond (2004); Hanushek, Rivkin and Kain (2005); Jencks et al. (1972); Masters (1990, 1991, 1994); Mortimore (1991, 1992, 1995, 2001); NCEE, 1997; OECD (1983, 1986, 1989, 2001); Podgursky et al. (2004); Reynolds, Hopkins and Stoll (1993); Rowe (2001a,b, 2003, 2004a,b, 2005a,b,c); Rowe and Lievesley (2002); Rowe, Turner and Lane (2002); Rutter et al., (1979); Scheerens and Bosker (1997); Willms (2000); Wyatt (1994). _____________________________________________________________________________________ ACER: Improving Learning School Performance 2 K.J. Rowe _____________________________________________________________________________________ Central to the goal of providing quality schooling has been the development, construction and increasing use of educational performance indicators. The work of Professor Eric Hanusheck and colleagues at Stanford University (USA) continues to make noteworthy contributions to understandings about economic indicators of quality schooling (for several references to this ongoing work, see relevant citations given in footnote 2). A brief outline of what is entailed in such indicators is helpful. Performance indicators In general, performance indicators (PIs) are defined as data indices of information by which the functional quality of institutions or systems may be measured and evaluated. Typically, within the context of specified goals and objectives, PI data are ‘measures’ of operational and functional aspects of organizations and/or systems, and provide evidential bases for determining the extent to which such goals and objectives have and are being met. PIs serve various purposes, the most notable of which are for monitoring, feedback, policy formulation, targetsetting, evaluating and reforming. Although the essential features of educational PIs are consistent with their counterparts in other government and corporate enterprises, they also have unique characteristics – key aspects of which have been highlighted by Rowe (2001a, 2004a, 2005a) and by Rowe and Lievesley (2002). At the outset, however, it is helpful to note the importance of educational PIs in prevailing local and international contexts. The nature and purpose of educational PIs During the last thirty years, education systems throughout the world have been subject to considerable reform and change – all justified on the grounds (or at least the rhetoric) of improving the quality of school education. A key feature of this change has been the frequent revisions of style and policy focus, especially in respect of PIs, with major emphases being placed on the assessment and monitoring of student learning outcomes – mostly in Literacy, Numeracy (Mathematics) and Science. Indeed, current policy activities related to outcomes and standards-based educational PIs and their links with growing demands for accountability, standards monitoring, benchmarking, school effectiveness and reform are widespread and well established in many developed countries (e.g., Buckingham, 2003; Chapman et al., 1991; Dorn, 1998; Hill & Crévola, 1999; Forster, Masters & Rowe, 2001; Rowe, 2001a, 2005a; Tucker & Codding, 1998; Visscher & Coe, 2002; Willms, 2000). Such emphases are aptly illustrated in the reported proceedings of a meeting under the auspices of the Summit of the Americas (2002), which states: Although it is now part of daily life in schools and in debates between specialists, education assessment has recently become a relevant topic for governments and society, especially because of the economic crisis and the acceleration of the globalization process, which made investments in education a strategic point while the resources available for the sector have shrunk. In many developed countries including Australia, much of this activity has been (and continues to be) focussed on linking inputs and processes of educational systems (e.g., physical resources and curriculum provision) with outputs (e.g., improvements in student achievement outcomes, as well as in school and system performance). A major effect of such activity has been to signal government policy intention to: • encourage system accountability to ensure both efficient and effective utilization of resources, and • bring the delivery of educational services into public sector accounting, underscored by a concern to ensure that such services represent ‘value for money’. Whereas the provision of quality education is critical to the development of all countries, it is especially the case for developing countries where there is considerable pressure to increase access to education, but not at the expense of quality. Hence, the demand is to ensure that PIs _____________________________________________________________________________________ ACER: Improving Learning School Performance 3 K.J. Rowe _____________________________________________________________________________________ (including assessments of students’ learning and achievements) do not provide a partial, and thus potentially misleading picture of either quality or effectiveness, as has often been the case. Despite the difficulties entailed in defining educational effectiveness at the school, system, national and international levels, and reaching consensus on the relevant criteria, a good deal of discussion has focused on what is meant by quality schooling and quality teaching, and how they might be measured and improved. Although the term quality is likewise problematic, the “. measurement of the quality of schooling is of critical importance at a time when so much school reform in so many parts of the world is being undertaken” (Mortimore, 1991, p. 214). In fact, concerns about the quality of school education and its monitoring have long been high priority policy issues in all OECD countries (OECD, 1983, 1986, 1989, 1993, 1995, 2001, 2005a,b). An illustration of this priority is evident in the assertion by Manno (1994): When judging educational quality, either we focus on what schools spend – or one of its many variants – or we focus on what students achieve, what they know and can do. Those who advocate a focus on outcomes in judging educational quality hold one common belief: we must specify what we expect all children to learn, and we must assess them to determine whether they have learned it. While the long-term goals of school education may be expressed as the enhancement of young peoples’ access to and participation in society, as well as preparation for meeting the constantly changing demands of the modern workplace (OECD, 1983, 1986, 2005a), the most direct and readily accessible measures of schooling outcomes are obtained from assessments of students’ academic attainments. Herein, however, lies