Over the past few decades many countries have tried to reform their schools and school systems but very few have delivered real enduring improvements. This observation is sobering and sends a clear warning: fads and short-term, isolated reforms do not work, or they work but only for a while. There are also no ‘silver bullets’. No one strategy or lever will fix under-performance. Each school starts from a different point and each student has different needs, thus strategies need to be tailored appropriately. There is, however, a strong evidence base and clear consensus on what does generate substantial and enduring improvements. The challenge, as is often the case, comes with thorough and comprehensive implementation.
6.1
Successful reforms target the right change, are politically
sustainable and operationally feasible
Before examining ‘what works’ it is worth briefly investigating why reforms have under-delivered in the past. According to Ben Levin63 past educational reforms have failed either because they: target the wrong changes; do not give adequate attention to political dynamics; and/or are not effectively implemented.
Separating out the SES impacts and individual student characteristics that can affect learning, there are several other variables that can be adjusted by educational authorities and school leaders to improve educational outcomes. John Hattie conducted a widely regarded meta-analysis of the relative impacts of these variables (Figure 33).
Figure 33: Major sources of variance in student achievement64
63
Levin, Ben (2010) Governments and Education Reform. Some lessons from the last 50 years, Journal of Education Policy, Vol. 25, No. 6, November 2010, p. 740
64 Hattie, J, Teachers Make a Difference: What is the Research Evidence?, Australian Council for Education Research, October 2003 Students 50% Principal 5% Schools 5% Peers 5% Home 5% Teachers 30%
Such a ‘hierarchy of effectiveness’ (based on the best available evidence) should always be used to identify the most appropriate reform options. However this is often not the case. As Levin65 describes: “More typically, someone comes across an idea she or he likes and urges its adoption… often the changes proposed are both single and simple – more testing of students, loosening certification requirements for teachers, or a particular school improvement model…”
The nature of our school system – divided as it is between sectors and jurisdictions – means that innovation can often happen on a small scale. This is good and reflects one of the strengths of our federation. But evaluating, scaling and leveraging these innovations is important. Reforms should be given enough time to work before being independently and thoroughly evaluated, and then transferred, as appropriate, across the system.
The degree of political support – broadly interpreted – is also important to reforms being properly implemented and resourced. Reforms require direction and funding from central authorities as well as ‘buy-in’ from an informed community. To attain this support, Levin contends that schools should have open and honest communication with external and internal parties66. Decisions should be based on evidence and take into account all relevant factors, bearing in mind the implications of change for other parts of the education system, for other government policies and for easy access to good schools by segments of the community that need this the most. At the national, state and regional level, much can be done to orient effort towards collective goals through a consistent narrative around agreed
objectives.
Most reforms require people to change their behavior or learn new skills. This can be incredibly
challenging and it takes time. It is no wonder then that many good ideas that have gained legitimacy and support have not led to enduring improvements in student outcomes. To create and sustain real change Levin and others argue persuasively that we need to build the capacity of schools to improve. This means having the right leadership structures, materials and resources, learning opportunities for teachers and data to support continuous improvement.
6.2
Reforms must be well-targeted to different degrees of
under-performance
If we want to ‘lift all boats’ we must recognize that each school starts from a different point. Applying the performance scale used in McKinsey’s report ‘How the world’s best performing school system come out on top’ to 2009 PISA data; we can see that most Australian schools (39.5 %) are in the ‘great to excellent’ band. However there’s still a significant number (31 %) that score between poor to fair and fair to good.
School
performance band PISA score Key statistics
Great to excellent schools
Average reading score 520+
39.6 percent of Australian schools are in this range
Schools in this band have an average student SES of 0.6267
Good to great schools
Average reading score of 490 - 520
29.4 percent of Australian schools perform in this range Good to great schools have an average student SES of 0.165
65 Levin, B. (2008) How to change 5000 schools: a practical and positive approach for leading change at every level, Cambridge, Harvard Education Press
66ibid.
67
School
performance band PISA score Key statistics
Fair to good schools
Average reading score of 440 - 490
23.2 percent of Australian schools perform in this range Fair to good schools have an average student SES of 0.04
Poor to fair schools
Average reading score below 440
7.8 percent of Australian schools perform in this range Poor to fair schools have an average student SES of -0.16
Figure 34: Australian schools’ performance across four tiers using PISA 2009 data68
Poor to fair schools typically have a higher concentration of low SES students and may have higher average costs due to declining enrolments and poor morale amongst staff. It is important then that strategies are targeted towards getting the school ‘back on track’ by making it more attractive to prospective students and improving the experience of current students. Equally, strategies targeted at good to great schools should drive further improvement in school performance.
6.2.1
There are common elements that underpin any school’s success and
these should inform our future direction.
Research shows that there are several key elements that explain or contribute to good student outcomes. These are summarised in Table 6 below. The authors listed at the top of the table (with the exception of the NILS multilevel analysis) are those that are most cited with respect to the Australian schooling context, or who have conducted meta-analyses that distil the findings from a range of other wide-ranging research projects on educational improvement. There are common themes across each of their respective works, but we highlight different points of emphasis that emerges in each (represented by the number of ticks).
Levers Ben Levin
(2010) Fullan et al. (2006) Hattie (2009) Goodwin (2010) OECD Lessons from PISA (2011) NILS PISA analysis (2011)
Early support for students with additional needs
Student engagement and motivation
Support for students with additional needs (e.g. low SES) Parental involvement Teacher quality (attraction and peer-to-peer learning)
68
NILS analysis of PISA 2009 database, and framework from Mourshed, M, Chijioke, C, Barber M (2010) How the world’s most improved
Levers Ben Levin (2010) Fullan et al. (2006) Hattie (2009) Goodwin (2010) OECD Lessons from PISA (2011) NILS PISA analysis (2011)
Teaching method based on continual assessment of impact High expectations of students A good curriculum
High quality leadership
Positive school culture and ethos Orderly learning environment Standards and transparency of information
Community and stakeholder engagement
Table 6: Support for reform levers by prominent educationalists/academics
Considering this evidence in the context of the current challenge in Australia, we recommend a policy and funding focus on the following six areas, noting that several are already the subject of considerable reform effort:
1. Teacher quality and improved teaching
2. Ensuring the right external standards and governance 3. Regional-level collaboration and networked schools 4. Support for disadvantaged students
5. Investment in under-performing schools where there is a concentration of disadvantage 6. Improving and supporting school leadership
Focussing on these levers for improvement will deliver the most benefit to schools and students; the best results will emerge if they are used in a comprehensive, integrated and sustainable manner. Only then will Australia be positioned to match or better the performance of a country like Canada.