ELECTION 2014: FACTS AND MYTHS

QPEC Fact Checker

Decile is not Destiny

 Tuesday 26August 2014

As we look into the evidence on this one, let’s be clear on one point right from the start: let’s understand the difference between “destiny” and “probability”. And, if we don’t want decile to be destiny, then what are we doing about it!

 QPEC firmly holds the view that every student should get the greatest opportunity possible to succeed to the fullest extent of their abilities and their willingness to work hard and achieve. Neither does QPEC accept that students from disadvantaged backgrounds cannot succeed. But, the evidence on this one is clear.

Fact 1: OECD Study of Teaching Policies (2005)

 A major study of the teaching profession, carried out by the OECD in 2005, made this statement in their summary paper:

“Student learning is influenced by many factors, including: students’ skills, expectations, motivation and behaviour; family resources, attitudes and support; peer group skills, attitudes and behaviour; school organisation, resources and climate; curriculum structure and content; and teacher skills, knowledge, attitudes and practices. Schools and classrooms are complex, dynamic environments, and identifying the effects of these varied factors, and how they influence and relate with each other – for different types of students and different types of learning -- has been, and continues to be, a major focus of educational research.

Three broad conclusions emerge from research on student learning. The first and most solidly based finding is that the largest source of variation in student learning is attributable to differences in what students bring to school – their abilities and attitudes, and family and community background. Such factors are difficult for policy makers to influence, at least in the short-run. The second broad conclusion is that of those variables which are potentially open to policy influence, factors to do with teachers and teaching are the most important influences on student learning. In particular, the broad consensus is that “teacher quality” is the single most important school variable influencing student achievement.” [Emphasis added]

 Source: OECD, “Teachers Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers”

 The problem with the OECD approach – we can’t change the kids, so let’s focus on the teachers – is that it does not deal head on with what the OECD itself calls, the first and most solidly based finding: factors associated with the student are the largest source of variation in student achievement.

 It is important to go beyond ideology and examine the hard evidence of the strong links between student background and student achievement. Failure to diagnose this correctly leads to two major problems. First, we miss the main goal, which is how do we improve children’s lives; and second, education policy initiatives are misdirected. Teachers and schools are part of the solution; they are not the cause of the problem.

Fact 2: New Zealand NCEA achievement

 Table 1: Percentage of school leavers with NCEA Level 2 or above, by ethnic group and school quintile (2012 data)

 Quintile 1 = deciles 1 & 2, etc; MELAA = Middle Eastern, Latin American & African.

 The table above reports NCEA Level 2 school leaver achievement levels by school quintile, gender and ethnicity. Of students from quintile 5 (deciles 9 & 10) schools, 89.6% of them left school with at least NCEA Level 2, compared with only 58.1% for those in quintile 1 (deciles 1 & 2) schools.

Socio-economic advantage is clearly a major predictor of educational achievement.

 Fact 3: International Reading Assessments

 Table 2: PISA Reading Literacy, ranked by the student’s socio-economic status, across the 10 highest performing school systems (PISA 2009 Reading Literacy):

In this table, the 5^th percentile means the lowest 5% and the 95^th percentile is the highest 95% of students, measured on the OECD’s own index of economic, cultural and social indicators.

So, this table is slightly different from our NCEA L2 table, because it shows the student’s own status, rather than where they go to school. But the pattern is indisputable:

Student achievement rises lockstep with socio-economic status in every school system.

QPEC Mythbuster

Class Size Does Matter

 Tuesday 12 August 2014

Myth: “Class size doesn’t matter.”

 One of the most hotly debated issues in education policy is class size.

The issue caused major problems for the National Government in 2012 as they had to backtrack on a controversial proposal to change the teacher:student funding ratio, which would have increased class sizes for most students.

And Labour has proposed a change in the funding ratio, as part of its 2014 Education policy, which would see the creation of approx. 2,000 additional teaching positions.

But much of the debate on class size misses the point.

The discussion invariably descends too readily into the “Quantity v Quality” trade-off without recognising the common sense view that most parents would prefer smaller class sizes for their children.

Indeed, today’s Dominion Post (12 August 2014) features an article quoting the Principal of Scots College Prep School, Mr John Western:

Western says the small class sizes, about half to two thirds the size of those in a state school, make a big difference in teaching. “The individual needs of each child are catered for and that’s because the teachers have time to work with every child…they can improve their weaknesses and celebrate their strengths, and as a teacher that’s a real privilege.”

Two recent and significant pieces of research on class size, published this year, are a new review of major research undertaken by Northwestern University Associate Professor Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach and published by the National Education Policy Center (February 2014 ); and a review of 112 research papers (written between 1979 and 2014) by Australian Dr David Zyngier of Monash University (published May 2014).

These two items are cited by Labour in its Education Policy document.

 But QPEC also notes the highly regarded series of projects by Peter Blatchford and colleagues at the University of London. They studied several hundred real classrooms and schools which varied considerably in actual size.

They found that larger classes affected: the size and number of groups in the class, with consequences for curriculum coverage and learning; the teacher’s time on task with individual students, support for learning, behaviour management and stress or wellbeing; and students’ interactions with the teacher, time on-task and peer relations.

The research programme as a whole reported benefits of smaller classes for some students both at the beginning of primary and the beginning of secondary schooling. These effects were most pronounced for students who might be at risk of disengaging from learning.

In terms of policy recommendations, Diane Schanzenbach believes the following policy recommendations emerge from her studies:

• Class size is an important determinant of student outcomes, and one that can be directly determined by policy. All else being equal, increasing class sizes will harm student outcomes.
• The evidence suggests that increasing class size will harm not only children’s test scores in the short run, but also their long-run human capital formation. Money saved today by increasing class sizes will result in more substantial social and educational costs in the future.
• The payoff from class-size reduction is greater for low-income and minority children, while any increases in class size will likely be most harmful to these populations.
• Policymakers should carefully weigh the efficacy of class-size policy against other potential uses of funds. While lower class size has a demonstrable cost, it may prove the more cost-effective policy overall.

So, in summary:

• Class size matters – let’s be honest.
• Research supports the common sense notion that teachers can better manage smaller classes.
• Students can get more individualised learning and better quality feedback.
• Achievement gains are clearly positive, especially in the early years.
• Children from disadvantaged backgrounds gain far more benefit from smaller classes and suffer disproportionately more from larger classes.

QPEC’s wish-list therefore includes much smaller classes for low-decile schools, where students need the greatest attention and support from their teachers.

References:

1. Diane Schanzenbach / NEPC:
   http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/does-class-size-matter
2. David Zyngier / AARE blog:
   http://www.aare.edu.au/blog/?p=345
3. Peter Blatchford Projects:
   Blatchford, P. (2003). The class size debate: Is small better? Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
   Blatchford, P., Bassett, P. & Brown, P (2011). Examining the effect of class size on classroom engagement and teacher-pupil interaction: Differences in relation to pupil prior attainment and primary vs. secondary schools. Learning and Instruction, 21, 715-730.
   Blatchford, P., Russell, A. & Brown, P. (2009). Teaching in large and small classes. In L.J. Saha & A.J. Dworkin (Eds.). International handbook of research on teachers & teaching (pp. 779-790). New York: Springer.

QPEC Mythbuster

Privatisation does not increase Education Choice

Tuesday 5 August 2014

Myth:

“We believe that students will get better educations if their parents have more choice and educators face more competition.”

Source: ACT Party Education Policy 2014, p.1

ACT Party Leader, Dr Jamie Whyte, keeps saying that his party would privatise the public education system and believes this will provide increased “Choice” to parents.

But a quick look at the New Orleans “Recovery School District” website will reveal that Dr Whyte is deluded and that privatised systems do not work as he thinks. And besides, New Zealand parents already have more choice in education than he acknowledges.

The Recovery School District in New Orleans is the best worked example of a system where all the schools have now been privatised. This followed the devastation of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, which accelerated the process of establishing privately operated charter schools and closing public schools.

Unfortunately, in the new fully privatised system, there are three things that parents cannot now choose:

1. They cannot choose their school, as the system “assigns” their child to a school;
2. Once assigned, they cannot choose to just leave their school;
3. And most importantly, they cannot choose to send their child to a public school.

Because the charter schools are privately operated parents initially had a nightmare trying to enrol their children. As enrolment applications usually exceed the number of places available at each school, parents needed to apply to many different schools, as they did not know for certain whether their children would get accepted.   This caused a backlash and a centrally operated enrolment system was developed, called One-App.

One-App allows parents to apply once on one application form and to designate their top 3 preferred schools. The process is not easy and the form is nearly 20 pages long! But any suggestion that parent choice prevails goes out the door pretty quickly.

The enrolment system assigns each child to a school. If the parents are happy with the school they have been assigned to in the main round, then they do no more. But, if they are unhappy, then they may apply again in the second or third rounds.

Here’s what the RSD website reveals:

“The system matched 90 percent of entering kindergarten and rising ninth grade applicants to one of their top three school choices

In non-transition grades, 70 percent of applicants were matched to a top choice; and in pre-kindergarten, where the demand for seats is greater than the supply, 75 percent of students were matched to one of their top choices.”

Source: http://www.rsdla.net/apps/news/show_news.jsp?REC_ID=310270&id=0

So, let’s be very clear.

• The system assigns children to schools. Parents do NOT choose;
• In total, 80 percent of applicants were assigned to a top 3 school choice, of which only 61% were assigned to their Rank 1 selection.

 But, it’s even harder, in some ways, to leave your school. Why? Because once everyone has been assigned there are very few available places.

“Prior to the beginning of the third week of August and after February 1, a family requesting admission to a school other than the one they were assigned to or currently attend can submit a Placement Exception Request (PER).”

So, parents need to complete a form and seek permission to leave their school. Call that parent choice?

Here’s what the website says:

“All PER requests must be approved by the RSD and are pending seat availability. PER requests must address a particular “hardship” and must be submitted with accompanying paperwork. The hardship criteria are Medical Hardship, Safety Transfers, Travel Hardship, Childcare Hardship and Transfer to a Specialised Program.”

So, being disappointed with the school and wanting to vote with your feet is not an option!

Finally, we come to the last choice that is missing: the right to send your child to the local, neighbourhood public school. That right has been taken away by the privatisation movement.

In New Zealand, parent survey research shows that only 6% of New Zealand primary and intermediate school parents say their child was attending a school that was not their family’s first choice; and the equivalent figure for secondary parents is 9%. [Source: NZCER Surveys: 2013 (Primary and Intermediate) and 2012 (Secondary)]

 So, 94% of New Zealand primary/intermediate school parents and 91% of secondary parents are satisfied with their first choice school.

Contrast that to the 61% first choice figure achieved in the RSD in New Orleans and you can readily see that New Zealand parents already have more effective school choice options available to them than their counterparts in a privatised system.