School League Tables (2 Viewers)

[banco55]

What a ridiculous, sweeping and downright stupid thing to say. Fair dinkum do you know how many good men and women, my parents included, you just wrongly insulted?

Maybe these good public school teachers should vote out the apparatchiks who run the teachers union.

 

[Lentern]

I'm not having a go at teachers for wanting the best for their children, just for trying to stop other parents from accessing that information and also being able to do what they think is best for their children.

It's not sweeping or stupid:

1) Most teachers want their children to attend a good school.

2) Most teacher support suppressing test results and league tables.

Which of these statements is not true of most teachers?

You either stupidly or sneakily bypass two mitigating factors. Naturally you are not a fan of teachers, they are notoriously progressive, but let us not resort to the tactics of the serpent.

Yes teachers want their children to attend a good school but a similarly overwhelming majority want all schools to be good schools and of similar quality. They want the playing field levelled but until that happens they are not about to stand by idly whilst their children are disadvantaged. How shocking!

Yes they have objections to these league tables because they are flawed, they are misleading and they are going to jeopardise the education of their children and others as schools are pitted against each other, cease educating and commence training children for specific tests.

 

[BlackDragon]

they are going to jeopardise the education of their children and others as schools are pitted against each other, cease educating and commence training children for specific tests.

Yes, the assessment of the quality of schools based on the performance of the students in particular tests and then the use of this data as a way of determining where a student should or should not go is very dangerous. It shifts the balance of the ledger away from education towards performance and is a simplistic and damaging indicator of what a good school is.

 

[BlackDragon]

I'm not having a go at teachers for wanting the best for their children, just for trying to stop other parents from accessing that information and also being able to do what they think is best for their children.

It's not sweeping or stupid:

1) Most teachers want their children to attend a good school.

2) Most teacher support suppressing test results and league tables.

Which of these statements is not true of most teachers?

I think this makes the assumption that just because teachers want their children to attend the best school they don't think these school league tables are damaging and simplistic. Just because they want their children to attend better schools doesn't mean they want these awful tables.

 

[pman]

League tables tell you nothing about a school is it really any surprise that the best primary schools have OC's and the best high schools are selective? Not really.

Over time, more desirable locations such as the north shore have built up with richer people residing in these locations, you have to be intelligent (or hot) and hardworking to make money...These kids inherit their intelligence and hardworking attitude from their parents. Places out west generally have cheaper housing and therefore less intelligent, less motivated populations.

Because intelligent peoples genrally live in similar neighborhoods, children in these schools will naturally do better.

My Aunt teaches at a school where most students will turn up once or twice per week, not do their homework and not pay attention in class, the best teacher in the state may teach at this school but they won't get the same quality of results as my physics teacher did and he was crap, didn't know what he was talikng about and was more hinderence than help. Because we were a selective school, Students did well which reflects well upon both him and the school.

The league tables (which don't exist but the media calculated them anyway) reflect the genral ability and commitment of the students more than that of the teachers.

I do not deny that a better teacher will get better marks out of a student but they will not get the same marks out of a class with an average IQ of 100 as they will out of one with an average IQ over 120.

 

[pman]

I think this makes the assumption that just because teachers want their children to attend the best school they don't think these school league tables are damaging and simplistic. They can want their children to attend better schools and want a better way of determining this.

league tables aren't a better way though

 

[BlackDragon]

league tables aren't a better way though

I know, that's what I was saying. And I agree with your point, what do league tables actually tell us about the schools and the quality of teaching?

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

I know, that's what I was saying. And I agree with your point, what do league tables actually tell us about the schools and the quality of teaching?

Essentially nothing.

I could write a whole page on why I think this myschool thing is a dumb idea but basically, reducing a school to a number based on one standardised test (naplan) and expecting this to serve as an adequate measure of school or teaching quality, is ridiculous amounts of stupid. For one thing it places unnecessary focus on test results and encourages teaching to the test which is detrimental to the overall, broader education of a student. Literacy and numeracy skills are important but focusing on them to the extent that education becomes more about achieving a high score than actually learning or developing thinking/life skills is what I am most concerned about with this...the way that it could influence the way students are taught.

 

[jellybelly59]

How does one measure whether or not a school is good if not by tests? Going to a school and talking to the teachers? Yes, that would be the logical approach because teachers would tell students not to go to the school because the school is shit in an effort to reduce school funding. How often are parents actually able to go on school grounds and gauge whether or not the school is actually good? Maybe open day? Even then you have teachers asking you to be on your best behaviour so as to not scare off the parents of potential future students. So if not by tests then how?

 

[BlackDragon]

How does one measure whether or not a school is good if not by tests? Going to a school and talking to the teachers? Yes, that would be the logical approach because teachers would tell students not to go to the school because the school is shit in an effort to reduce school funding. How often are parents actually able to go on school grounds and gauge whether or not the school is actually good? Maybe open day? Even then you have teachers asking you to be on your best behaviour so as to not scare off the parents of potential future students. So if not by tests then how?

But the problem is that tests don't actually tell you anything about the school at all. It is completely vague and simplistic and is perhaps a better indicator of student performance than anything else. The value of a school is so much broader than the attainment of a score in a test, which does not explain anything about the teaching quality or learning environment; it is in fact rather misleading. If a parent can't investigate a school, where their child will be spending most of their time, then what kind of parent are they?

 

[ilikebeeef]

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

??? I go to a "top 25%" school.

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.

+1. I've heard that there are some really bad teachers at Ruse.

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

+1 Lol.

If we start ranking our schools the emphasis is going to change from education to performance, which could be the worst possible outcome. More funding cannot change the issues that many schools have, which is the behaviour and attitude of their students. Things like this are determined by socio-economic position of the school more than anything else. We should at all costs move away from assessing our children on performance in this manner, it is a too simplistic way to understand what is going on in our schools and will lead to bad places. The american "No child gets left behind" strategy is an important example of this.

Well the unfortunate thing is that measuring performance would be the best way to go because it is quantitative.

The best thing to do is to privatise the system and run them like businesses that compete.

No way. I love my (public) school.

Funny thing is it's exposed some private schools that charge a hell of a lot for mediocre results.

That's a good thing.

 

[jellybelly59]

But the problem is that tests don't actually tell you anything about the school at all. It is completely vague and simplistic and is perhaps a better indicator of student performance than anything else. The value of a school is so much broader than the attainment of a score in a test, which does not explain anything about the teaching quality or learning environment;it is in fact rather misleading. If a parent can't investigate a school, where their child will be spending most of their time, then what kind of parent are they?

How are you going to investigate the school- through the school itself ? No that isn't in the slightest biased. Most of the information parents are shown right now are provided by the school. League tables might be vague and simplistic but at least it's not information that is trying to sell itself.

 

[BlackDragon]

How are you going to investigate the school- through the school itself ? No that isn't in the slightest biased. Most of the information parents are shown right now are provided by the school. League tables might be vague and simplistic but at least it's not information that is trying to sell itself.

Its easy to find out what a school is like, if not through the school, then through other parents and people you know. It is possible to find out alot about a school if can discover how it fares in terms of the parents and students. I'd even support a website that acted as a forum for parents to discuss the pros and cons of each school, or something like that. But not a situation where the quality of a school is determined by a test. There is so much more to a school than quantitative data, and if you ask any parent they would say that there are so many more things than just test scores that they consider. Especially for primary schools. This is the wrong path.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

You either stupidly or sneakily bypass two mitigating factors. Naturally you are not a fan of teachers, they are notoriously progressive, but let us not resort to the tactics of the serpent.

I have nothing against teachers, my parents are actually teachers. All I oppose is a particular stance of the NSW Teachers Union.

Progressive is such a weasel word. Anyone can define themselves as such. Personally, I don't think censoring information is progressive.

Yes teachers want their children to attend a good school but a similarly overwhelming majority want all schools to be good schools and of similar quality. They want the playing field levelled but until that happens they are not about to stand by idly whilst their children are disadvantaged. How shocking!

I would support teachers if their goal is to improve all schools. But the reality is that some schools will always be better than others even if the overall standard is improved and attempts are made to level the playing field.

Making every school the same quality is obviously impossible, so choosing the best school for ones children will always be a concern. Teachers have access to more information about the quality of schools than most parents. What I object to is their desire to try and hide this information.

Also, if their goal is indeed to "level the playing field," surely league tables would in fact be a good indicator of the disparity between various school and would allow the public to judge the success of such efforts.

Yes they have objections to these league tables because they are flawed, they are misleading and they are going to jeopardise the education of their children and others as schools are pitted against each other, cease educating and commence training children for specific tests.

I agree. League tables are flawed. People will misinterpret them.

The same thing could be said of almost any information or data the government releases. It will be misinterpreted by idiots and misrepresented by hack journalists.

That does not mean hiding the information is the answer. Free speech should apply to everyone, and if teachers want to try and explain that league tables are flawed and to try and help the public become better informed about the education system, I would applaud them in their efforts.

What absolutely sickens me is the view that basic information should be hidden from the taxpayers that have been forced to fund the system, and that they think newspapers should be sued for presenting that information in a particular way.

 

[Yasser Arafat]

lol my school was shitttt and in the country and its top 20%?