Gonski 2.0 skims over key indicators such as discipline in schools - The Centre for Independent Studies
Donate today!
Your support will help build a better future.
Your Donation at WorkDonate Now

Gonski 2.0 skims over key indicators such as discipline in schools

“Not good enough.” That’s what the Prime Minister said this week about Australia’s declining results on international school tests.

As noted in the Gonski 2.0 report, Australia has fallen in both absolute performance and relative to other countries on the three Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) tests run by the OECD — assessing the science, maths, and reading abilities of 15- year-old students.

The OECD found the five school-related factors most strongly associated with student achievement are: ‘adaptive instruction’, ‘teacher-directed instruction’, and ‘school disciplinary climate’ (which are related to higher achievement); and ‘enquiry-based instruction’ and ‘perceived feedback’ (which are related to lower achievement).

What comes through loud and clear is that four of the top five factors influencing student achievement are instruction (that is, methods of teaching). The fifth factor is the level of disruption in the classroom, which is also associated with instruction. And these factors barely rated a mention in the Gonski 2.0 report, despite the extensive evidence base that is readily available.

The negative trend in Australia’s performance on these tests is more concerning than our rankings compared with other countries.

The PISA 2015 analysis relates specifically to results and factors affecting student achievement in science classes ¾ so we need to be cautious about generalisation ¾ but the results correspond with similar analyses in previous years, and with other educational research. Also, it should be qualified that because the data is based on self-reporting (rather than systematic observation), only limited conclusions can be drawn from the results.

However, in the PISA result’s favour is that it is a large sample size, and there are no obvious biases in the survey and assessment instruments.

And despite the qualifications cited, Australia is above the international average on all three categories of instruction. But there are significant question marks over the categories and descriptions of the types of instruction.

Teacher-directed instruction is not completely analogous to the standard definitions of explicit or direct instruction used in educational research literature. Likewise, the questions to which students responded to create the adaptive instruction index are hallmarks of explicit and direct instruction (“The teacher adapts the lesson to my class’s needs and knowledge”; “The teacher provides individual help when a student has difficulties understanding a topic or task”; and “The teacher changes the structure of the lesson on a topic that most students find difficult to understand”).

However, irrespective of the precision of the definitions, instruction is clearly the big ticket item and should have been a major focus of the Gonski 2.0 report.

Teacher-directed instruction is defined as the teacher explaining and demonstrating ideas, leading whole-class discussions, and responding to student questions. The OECD findings corroborate those of decades of research on the subject indicating teacher-directed instruction is highly beneficial for student learning.

Enquiry-based teaching is characterised by class learning activities that encourage discovery through group collaboration. Enquiry-based instruction has a strong negative association with student achievement across OECD countries.

On the surface, adaptive instruction sounds similar to one of the main recommendations of the Gonski 2.0 report. Adaptive learning refers to the extent to which teachers adjust their teaching to cater for the needs of their class and individual students. Most teachers try to do this as much as they can ¾ to varying degrees of success. For teachers to know the levels and range of ability in their classes, and calibrate their teaching accordingly, is an important skill.

However, the review went much further; recommending assessing students based on growth in learning rather than age-based or year-based curricula. Specifically, by giving teachers an online assessment tool to continuously measure student learning growth, with the expectation that they would provide ‘tailored teaching’ for individual students depending on their ability.

Adaptive learning as described by the OECD is much simpler. It simply means teachers adapt lessons, provide individual help to struggling students, and change the structure of lessons when covering difficult topics. It does not mean going to the great lengths of using a continuous online assessment tool or coming up with an individual learning plan for every student. So according to this data, teachers adapting to the needs of students is much simpler than what the Gonski panel recommends, and Australian students think teachers are already doing this reasonably well.

This is where Gonski 2.0 could have made a valuable and tangible contribution ¾ an objective and detailed investigation of the factors have the biggest impact on student learning, and how to enable and facilitate them in Australian classrooms.

 

School disciplinary climate is the factor that most clearly differentiates Australia from the top 10 performing countries. The data on this are clear: according to students, Australian classrooms are unsettled and disruptive to learning.

The disciplinary climate index is based on: whether students don’t listen to what the teacher says; if there is noise and disorder; if the teacher has to wait a long time for students to quiet down; if students cannot work well; and if students don’t start working for a long time after the lesson begins.

Further, this PISA data on student behaviour and school discipline in Australia is corroborated by the most recent results from two other international education datasets ¾ the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS) and the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) ¾ which both indicate Australia has relatively high levels of student misbehaviour relative to other countries.

These results aren’t surprising, given a series of recent studies showing Australian university teacher education degrees largely do not adequately equip new teachers with evidence-based classroom management practices.

And recent research from Macquarie University researchers found school discipline is far more important than school funding in determining a country’s educational performance.

Interestingly, the OECD has found that for developed, high-income countries there is no clear relationship between school funding and student outcomes.

This should give us pause for thought as the federal government puts an extra $23.5 billion of taxpayer money into schools over the next 10 years.

But on school discipline — like on so many other vital issues — the Gonski 2.0 report stayed silent.

Blaise Joseph is a policy analyst and Dr Jennifer Buckingham is a senior research fellow in the education program at the Centre for Independent Studies.