Education Backgrounder

Source: SMHC

Unfortunately one of the issues with using trend data is that subsets can often get lost. We have a relatively well preforming education system that is well funded, however it is also clear that it is failing some sectors of our society. Given the results above there still may be a need for targeted funding where we can achieve the best marginal benefit for each dollar spent and ensure that each school reaches the level of investment where other factors such as the way we teach play a more important role.

Further Distractions

While analysis points to several factors that have a real influence on our education it is still often the case that governments can focus on policies which are politically attractive but which have been shown to have little effect on improving student learning.

Polices such as reducing  class size have been frequently mooted, most recently by the Labour Party at a cost of around $350million over the next three years. While intentions may be good, there is significant evidence that this has a negligible effect on learning performance. 

Average 2012 PISA scores (average of reading, numeracy, and science), arrayed by average class size

Souce: OECD

Reducing class sizes as a measure is certainly a way to appease parents, teachers, and school leaders. Parents see reducing class size as a proxy for more attention being paid to their children. School leaders see it as a proxy for more resources (since salaries are more than 80% of most budgets, more staff automatically means more money) (Hattie), and teachers argue it is less stressful and more effective to deal with fewer students.

While these are all understandable assumptions the evidence shows there is little obvious relation between class size and performance, and that there are much more worthy cases for investment.

Testing

Academic testing and targets are another area that produces significant debate and there are several different schools of thought regarding how they should be implemented.  

The standard Anglo-American model follows a consistent pattern in announcing ambitious student achievement targets publicly, conducting regular testing to assess performance against these targets, and then making assessment results visible to stimulate school motivation and discussion on how to improve.

These targets help to align stakeholders on a small set of priorities, and gave a simple metric regarding progress in making improvements that could be easily communicated and understood by the public.

Standard Asian and Eastern European systems operate on the opposite end of the scale, “We have never used targets... No good for our students could ever come from making school data public and embarrassing our educators,” says one Asian system leader (McKinsey & Co).

The main rationale voiced by leaders of this system is a belief that top-down target-setting is at odds with developing holistic school capacity; they view this as a trade-off between their desired focus on processes (e.g. school excellence, teaching and learning practices) and that on targets. “We want our schools to focus on getting the process right. If they follow the process, they will get good results. But if they focus on targets, they can end up taking shortcuts in the process.” (McKinsey).

There is little evidence that creating more achievement tests is beneficial (NRC) and further research outlines some of the major issues related to excessive assessment testing and target setting.

Learning only what is required to pass

Relating especially to a competitive schooling environment where students and teachers know what is required to pass and do not engage in any deeper learning or promote the knowledge, skills and habits needed for success in college or skilled work (Especially detrimental when test scores are used to evaluate teachers). (NRC)

Narrowing the curriculum

Standardized exam results have become one of the most important indicators of school performance. As a result, teachers and administrators feel enormous pressure to ensure that test scores consistently rise. Schools narrow and manipulate the curriculum to match the test, while teachers tend to cover only what is likely to be on the next exam (NRC). It is also very difficult to design tests to cover some important skills (such as the 4Cs which will be discussed later).

Undermining student engagement and school climate.

Schools are now increasingly stratified, and even within schools, students get stratified into streams and ability groups. This doesn’t help the good students, but hugely dents the performance of poor kids (Hattie). Recent research shows children perform according to expectation – a major reason children from poor backgrounds perform poorly is because no one expects them to do well (Stipek). By stratifying schools and classes we rob poor performers of positive role models, and leave teachers as the sole vehicle for increasing expectations. This undermines the performance of poor kids, poor schools, and our entire education system

Misinformation

Poor information only informs poor decisions and using testing as a yardstick for performance, especially across schools and to compare teachers only accentuates this. Student tests cannot reliably, validly, and fairly be used to judge educators. Researchers looked at popular value-added methods of teacher evaluation and found them fraught with errors and unreliable (EPI). The negative consequences for teaching and learning will only intensify when educators are judged “in significant part” by student test scores. One study found:

• Among teachers who were ranked in the top 20% of effectiveness in the first year, fewer than a third were in that top group the next year, and another third moved all the way down to the bottom 40%.
• The study also found that teachers’ effectiveness ratings in one year could only predict from 4% to 16% of the variation in such ratings in the following year (EPI).
• A separate study showed that the teacher drives just 13% of a student outcome (Marzano).

This is not to say that the quality of the teacher does not matter, quite the opposite, it is rather to say that as a it is unwise to use student test scores as single metric to determine teacher quality.

Aside from educational factors the logistics of testing also require significant resources with substantial amounts of time and money invested into preparing, administrating, marketing etc (AFT). Studies across the US show that students in some districts in grades 6-11 devoted up to 55 hours per year simply to taking tests (about two full weeks of the school year - AFT). There is no similar information for New Zealand. 

UK and US Case studies on using testing to manage school and teacher performance

To give some context to these examples we can examine what has been happening recently in the UK and US.  Monitoring of A level results through a government target saw a considerable rise in student pass rates; while over the related period PISA results fell. 

Pass levels increased from around 70% to 98% and PISA results fell from 529 (9^th position) in 2000 to 494 (26^th) in 2012. When looking at this grade inflation there are a number of potential factors that could have influence on these scores, however the results are in line with evidence provided by Hattie, McKinsey and others around the effects of monitoring and result targeting.

One of the biggest issues with this grade inflation is that it is often seen as a success, when the reality is it is undermining how students learn. After analysing these statistics policy makers in the UK proceeded to overhaul their system and students will now be tested at the end of two years – with no exams in the first 12 months – to stop courses being broken down into bite-sized chunks that encourage a “formulaic approach” to education.

Similar sentiments are being felt over in the US with organisations such as the American Federation of Teachers, and “learning is more than a test score” campaigns, attempting to restore the balance between teaching and testing. These organisations hold a similar view to the research stated in this document, maintaining that the current test-and-punish accountability system has squeezed out vital parts of the curriculum that are not subjected to accountability testing, sacrificed student learning time for testing and test preparation, and forced teachers—particularly those teaching our most vulnerable students—to focus their attention on students achieving just below the passing score. This last phenomenon means that while one group of students get more help our best and worst performing students are left with less teacher input, solely to increase the level of students that pass.  

Many stakeholders within the US have voiced their concerns about the impact of standardized tests and have acted to curtail over testing and its consequences.

• In Texas, lawmakers cut the number of high school end-of-course exams required for graduation from 15 to five, and eliminated the requirement that results would count for 15 percent of a student’s overall grade.

• The Orchard Park Central School District Board of Education in New York took a stand with a resolution proposing that this year’s state assessments be used for “measuring the state’s progress in introducing the Common Core Learning Standards rather than for measuring student performance or educator effectiveness.”

Overall the major purpose of assessment in schools should be to provide interpretative information to teachers and school leaders about their impact so that they have the best information possible about where to go next in the teaching process (AFT).   

The current structure of schooling, and changing learning requirements

Up until now we have concentrated predominantly on the impacts inequality has had on our educational performance, but even when we separate the two issues the trends in our educational performance still track down (OECD). The organic nature of education means there is not a silver bullet to right these trends however there are a number of extensively researched studies that show successful interventions can be made to increase performance in a relatively short period of time.

Researchers and consultants McKinsey & Co hypothesize that there are two main education techniques. ‘Rote learning’ which is based around a centralised curriculum applied by teachers backed up by strong testing and accountability. This system is very cost effective, efficient in terms of developing resources, and requires a lower relative skill set to teach. The second is an ‘Inquiry approach’, which encourages the teachers to explore what works best for children, where teachers are effectively making up their resources as they go along, trying to find subjects that will inspire their children and help them learn. This requires skill and time.

 The differences in the two techniques are summarised below.

The New Zealand education system has aspects of both approaches, and seems to be struggling. Which way should we head?

We often forget the organic nature of our children when it comes to schooling, and therefore to defer to a cardinal numbers regime of scores to say which technique is ‘best’ is difficult. A onesize-fits-all approach does not work and the art of teaching is to balance the need for both, using appropriate proportions of surface and inquiry in any series of lessons and knowing when to move from learning more ideas to relating and extending these ideas (Hattie).

The way we teach.

This new integrated school of thought requires an overhaul of current techniques and places the teacher and curriculum at the centre, while disregarding what is seen as unnecessary testing and heavy handed government control of practises.

Central to this new learning is what has been labelled “21^st century” skills which revolve around soft skills like communication, collaboration, creativity, and critical thinking (the 4Cs), alongside the traditional skills, reading, writing, and arithmetic ( the 3Rs). 

If we look back these two approaches are indistinguishable in terms of outcomes. Looking forward, however – in this world of rapid change, no more jobs for life, and casualization of work - it is the 4Cs that are increasingly prized by employers. Therefore this points to the importance of an inquiry based approach for our education system.

Developing these new systems requires a cohesive effort between teachers, leaders ( principals), and government.

An extensive study from McKinsey & Co gives us insights into how some of these learning techniques have been applied in practise over the course of several decades. The study consisted of 20 entire school systems, the earliest of which began in 1979, from different parts of the world, and from an array of starting points, it shows schools that have registered significant, sustained, and widespread student outcome gains, and examines why what they have done has succeeded where so many others failed.  The sections below summarise the results.

Curriculum.

The study shows there is a strong, correlation between a school system’s improvement and the tightness of central control over the individual schools activities and performance. Once a system has reached a benchmark of performance the core driver for systems moving forward is characterized by higher skill educators, providing only loose, central guidelines for teaching and learning processes, in order to encourage peer led creativity and innovation inside schools.

Teachers and leaders.

Having this autonomy is one thing, but it also means that teachers must be able to cope with the added complexity that this brings.

Teacher quality is too often absent when it comes to policy discussion, perhaps because these discussions lead to some hard questions being asked; hence, the politics of distraction (class size, more money, etc) are often invoked to avoid asking them. Everyone that has kids going through the school system, or have been through themselves, knows that there is a massive variability in the effect that some teachers have compared to others. This is reflected in Hattie’s extensive research where he shows the most effective factor in boosting student achievement was collective teacher efficacy.

Collective teacher efficacy can be manipulated at a whole school level, and involves helping all teachers on the staff to understand that the way they go about their work has a significant impact on student results – for better or worse. Simultaneously, it involves stopping them from using other factors (e.g. home life, socio-economic status, motivation) as an excuse for poor progress. These factors do hinder learning, but a great teacher will always try to make a difference despite this, and they often succeed.

So the aim is to bring the effect of all teachers on student learning up to a very high standard. The ‘No Child Left Behind’ policy should have been named ‘No Teacher Left Behind’.

Both Hattie and McKinsey maintain that the three systems, curriculum, teachers, and leaders, when combined effectively can lead to successful transformations and have the greatest influence on student progression in learning. Performance indicators from schools that have adopted this strategy show this to be true (McKinsey).

Below is one of the best examples, Finland.

Finland Case Study                                                                                                           

The schooling system in Finland has adopted many of the approaches we have discussed above over the last 40 or so years and have seen significant improvements. To say simply that because they have worked there they can be successful in New Zealand would be foolish, each system possesses its own intricacies and variables. However this does not mean to say we cannot gain significant insights into how the application of such systems could benefit us here. 

Finland school system quick stats

• The 2015 PISA scores place Finland 5^th in science, 4th^th in reading and 10^th in maths among  69 countries and nearly half a million students.
• In Finland, the average time per week spent learning regular lessons is one of the shortest among countries and economies participating in PISA. (24.2 Hours/week, rank 54/55 )
• In 2015, the index of social inclusion (calculated as 100 × [1-rho], where rho stands for the intra-class correlation of socio-economic status) was one of the highest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (87.2 %, rank 4/68 )
• They have no mandated standardised tests apart from one exam at the end of students senior year in high school.
• Results are not publicised
• Compulsory schooling does not begin until age 7.  
• There are no rankings, no comparisons or competition between students, schools, or regions.
• Schools are publicly funded.
• The differences between the weakest and strongest students is the smallest in the world
• Finland provides three years of maternity leave and subsidized day care to parents, and preschool for all 5-year-olds, where the emphasis is on play and socializing.
• The state subsidizes parents, paying them around 150 euros per month for every child until he or she turns 17
• Nearly 30 percent of Finland’s children receive some kind of special help during their first nine years of school.
• Ninety-three percent of Finns graduate from academic or vocational high schools
  
  

The school system emerged as way out of economic distress brought about by Finland’s fractured past civil and world wars through the 1900’s. The idea was that robust education would drag them toward economic recovery.

The initial plan developed in the 60’s revolved around a one unified system of schools with a national curriculum. This was contributed to by teachers from across the nation and provided guidelines rather than prescriptions. Resources were distributed evenly.

In 1979 reform then required every teacher earn a fifth-year master’s degree in theory and practice at state expense. From then on, teachers were effectively granted equal status with doctors and lawyers. Applicants began flooding teaching programs, not because the salaries were so high but because autonomy and respect made the job attractive. In 2010, some 6,600 applicants vied for 660 primary school training slots.

Finally in the mid 1980’s initiatives cleared schools from the last vestiges of top-down regulation.  Control over policies shifted to town councils and the national curriculum was distilled into broad guidelines. 

• Sifting and sorting children into so-called ability groupings was eliminated.
• All children—clever or less so—were to be taught in the same classrooms, with lots of special teacher help available to make sure no child really would be left behind.
• Accountability and inspection was turned over to teachers and principals.

Pasi Shlberg, a Finnish educator and author emphasises that Finland’s success is one of basic education, from age 7 until 16, at which point 95 percent of the country goes on to vocational or academic high schools. “The primary aim of education is to serve as an equalizing instrument for society,” he said.

He maintains that the system was not built to be the best, simply to try give equal opportunity to every child in Finland, and of course “ We want to be better than the Swedes. That’s enough for us.”

Bibliography

OECD (2013). Education Indicators in Focus. What are the social benefits of education..

ME (2016). New Zealand Education System Overview.

OECD  (2015. Program for international Student Assessment

OECD ( 2014) PISA in Focus.

OECD (2011) Investing in high quality early childhood education.

OECD (2016) Low- Performing Students – Why the fall behind and how to help them succeed

OECD (2010) The High Cost of Low Educational Performance.

OtagoUniversity (2016). Child Poverty Monitor Technical Report.

VictoriaUniversity (2014). Indicators of Inequality for Maori and Pacific People.

Waters, T. Marzano, R. McNulty, B. (2003) Balanced Leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement.

Haque, B. (2014) Changing our Secondary Schools.

Hattie, J ( 2015) What Works Best in Education: The politics of Collaborative expertise.

Hattie, J ( 2015) What Doesn’t Work in Education: The politics of Distraction.

Scheweinhart, J. Montie, J. Xiang, Z. Barnett, W. Belfield, C. Nores, M. (2005) The High/Scope Perry Preeschool Study Through Age 40.

McKinsey & Company (2010). How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better.

Fullan, M. Langworthy, M. (2014) A Rich Seam – How New Padagogies Find Deep Learning.

National Research Council (2001). Incentives and Test Based Accountability in Education.

EconomicPolicyInstitute(2010) Problems with the use of student test scores to evaluate teachers.

Heckman J, Masterov D. (2007). The Productivity Argument for Investing in Young Children. 

Stipek, D (2002). Motivation to Learn. Integrating Theory and Practice.

Dalice, S. Marrott, L (2014). Indicators of Ineqaulity for Maori and Pacific People

Nelson, H (2013). American Federation of Teachers, Testing More, Teaching Less: What America’s Obsession with Students Testing Costs in Money and Lost Instructional Time.