Federal Government Seeks to Impose Rankings in Primary Schools

[Lizard Drinkin]

This (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/nelson-ups-ante-over-report-cards/2005/08/24/1124562921625.html) infuriates me. Why on earth we have an ex-GP in charge of our education system is beyond me.
Federal Education Minister Brendan Nelson said the Commonwealth had made it "very clear" that as a condition of $600 million federal funding, the states introduce plain-language reports from next year that had A to E grades and rankings of students against their classmates. Bold face is added by me.

I feel SO DAMN GOOD that my little boys will be entering a system where failure is a necessity for a percentage of every classroom. :mad: I never thought I'd say it, but long live Lynne Kosky!! Knocking back Federal funding on principle, and about time too. I'm not even very pleased about the whole A to E system for primary schools, but at least the Victorian approach is a grading instead of a ranking and takes the entire student population of Victoria into account instead of just the kid's classmates. God how irritating is Brendan Nelson!! Infuriating man with a nasty little agenda, he'll probably be the Prime Minister soon. :rolling:

[kthemusicalkat]

agree agree agree.

[Lizard Drinkin]

I just read the Age's editorial (http://www.theage.com.au/news/editorial/plain-english-reports-yes-rankings-no/2005/08/24/1124562916406.html) on the matter, just about says it all I reckon.

[Nook]

My 7 yr old and my 9yr old both attend public schools. In Victoria the classifactions on a child's progress is as follows:
Related Social Skills/Work Habits E-Excellent VG-Very Good G-Good S-Satisfactory N-Needs Improvement
Not once in there does it state that an 'F' means failure only that a child Needs Improvement. This is the same for all their classes. The other gradings are B-Beginning C-Consolodating E-Excelled consolidation.
I find this easy to read as a parent and find it to be more positive than an 'F' grade given.
The children do a 'Self Evaluation' on themselves on what they believe needs to be improved. My children are hppy with this as they keep it in their rooms look at and try to achieve goals that they have set for themselves.
I have had one of my children's school work corrected by a student in her class who claimed that she was wrong. Unfortunate for that child that I have brought my children to stand up for themselves and prove their innocence when neccessary. The other child was incorrect and was made to be looked as a fool.
So neither my child or the other child felt complete satisfaction on the task set before them, nor did it improve their social interaction with each other therefore neither of them even gave each other the chance to excell in their social skills with each other.

[custos]

I feel SO DAMN GOOD that my little boys will be entering a system where failure is a necessity for a percentage of every classroom. :mad: I never thought I'd say it, but long live Lynne Kosky!! Knocking back Federal funding on principle, and about time too. I'm not even very pleased about the whole A to E system for primary schools, but at least the Victorian approach is a grading instead of a ranking and takes the entire student population of Victoria into account instead of just the kid's classmates.
Yes, there's plenty of time for kids to discover that the world actually is competitive when they go for their first job interview or audition (Aust Idol style) and find out that they've been lied to for years and they are actually crap at what they thought they were "Consolidating".

Thousands of children all aver Australia participate in sports (e.g. Little Athletics) every weekend, where for ever race there is a winner, and all the rest in order right down to last. This doesn't seem to injure their psyches but for some reason we are aghast at kids knowing where they stand in an educational sense. The proposal is to rank by quartile -- what's the harm in that?

[Lizard Drinkin]

Yes, there's plenty of time for kids to discover that the world actually is competitive when they go for their first job interview or audition (Aust Idol style) and find out that they've been lied to for years and they are actually crap at what they thought they were "Consolidating".

Thousands of children all aver Australia participate in sports (e.g. Little Athletics) every weekend, where for ever race there is a winner, and all the rest in order right down to last. This doesn't seem to injure their psyches but for some reason we are aghast at kids knowing where they stand in an educational sense. The proposal is to rank by quartile -- what's the harm in that?
custos, in respect for your immense intellect I'm going to wait 24 hours to calm down before I respond to that.
**or maybe not :rolleyes: Never make promises you idiot Lizard**

[Nook]

cutos-do you have any children? Have you been doomed to failure and lies? As Lizard Drinken also said I'm going to wait until later to add further to your response and calm down a touch more.

[alex zorrilla]

As a Texan reading this, I am a little puzzled. I am guessing the A through E grades judge how a child has done with the schoolwork, and the rankings compare the children against each other. How does this make failure a necessity? Wouldn't failure still be a function of how children did with the schoolwork itself?

Now, children and parents may not appreciate being told they fall into the lowest quartile ranking, but that is another matter onto itself, as far as I can tell.

Another question I have is, how does one actually go about compiling these rankings? Within a classroom, or even a school, it would be easy enough, but across all of Victoria? Are schools all so similar across the entire state that they have the same exact curricula and the same exact quality of education? I find that rather difficult to believe, but then again, I do not live there. Or is there some sort of standardized test that is given once or twice a year to rank these children against each other?

[Lizard Drinkin]

Alex, a quarter of the class must be graded at the lowest end irrespective of how well they did in their work. They might be among the brightest in the state in a particular field, but less competent than their astonishing classmates. So despite being very competent, they are told they are incompetent.

That's my principal objection.

I don't know how the state grading works. But frankly I'd be happier with the focus on classroom competition if it was a grading instead of a ranking. Being told you are average rather than extraordinary is no great shakes. But I feel few primary school children should be given an "F" unless they require specialist education.

The "competition" argument I'm saving for a calmer moment. :rolleyes:

[kat]

Honestly it's what parents really want to know. Though when they know their little johnny is an academic failure they just want someone to blame - and they barely ever look to themselves or little johnny - but to the teachers. - they're planning to do the same with high school teachers and ranking them in regards to the performance of their students.
- so on top of the increasing shortage of teachers in schools they're adding another element to dissuade teachers to join the profession. - i know i never want to teach in an Australian school and this is just one of the reasons why - and i'm training to be a teacher. It's just got the point where no one cares what or how the student is learning, as long as they (the teachers, parents, DET, etc) look good

[Lizard Drinkin]

(not in direct response to above, but got me on a tangent) Since when are PARENTS professional educators?? Certainly they require the best education for their children, and that is entirely appropriate, but without the appropriate training and theoretical background what gives them the right to tell teachers what constitutes good teaching?? This is populist politics and schools and pupils are the meat in the sandwich.

[siliegrrl]

My last year in primary school was at a private school and they did a similar thing (with the exceptions of rankings) In our reports at the end of every term we got graded academically and socially. Often I was ranked highly academically but scored average socially as whilst I got along with other students, I was very introverted. I honestly don't see a problem with giving parents a full picture of their child, it might give a few 'parents' a kick up the bum who think it is up to the teacher to teach their child everything there is to know. I don't see any merit in ranking children against each other as kids develop their social kids and find their feet at different ages.

And if anyone starts talking about how we shouldn't fail kids but rather call in the new politically correct "deferred success" is going to get a big slap across the head from me. Telling kids they need to improve is not a bad thing! Creating positive feedback and good study habits should be encouraged, not relabelled to save feelings. However, I digress....

[speedie]

you would be beating your head against a brick wall trying to get the minister to change his mind.i'm glad my son's in his last year of school,the rating system already seems to be applied to his school reports which even though they are easier to understand dont give a true understanding of your child's progress at school

[custos]

Alex, a quarter of the class must be graded at the lowest end irrespective of how well they did in their work. They might be among the brightest in the state in a particular field, but less competent than their astonishing classmates. So despite being very competent, they are told they are incompetent.
This logical conclusion is the bit I don't accept. If you are accepted into an elite group but fall into the bottom quartile of that elite group why would consider yourself to be incompetent? From an early age children recognise that they are better or worse at things they do, at a point in time, within their cohort -- it is usually what inspires them to do better. All other areas of life function in this way and people are very familiar and comfortable with the concept.

As an example, I play tennis at a local club -- all teams are graded and the competition at each grade produces winners and losers every weak. Like anyone, I like to finish in as high as possible in my grade, and perhaps even go up a grade, but it doesn't phase me to know I'm never going to play at Wimbledon. Similarly, of the top ten players in the world the bottom quartile (ranked 8-10) are still pretty good :rolleyes:. I'm sure they don't feel incompetent because they are ranked in the bottom quartile of their group.

[princessnay]

i went through both high school and primary school with the a - f ranking and when i hit year 10 they changed it to a - e. i then when onto tafe where there was the competency based outcomes! and i must admit that i preferred the a - e grading! i think that it gives a better overall ranking for later in life! as a child i always strived to be the best! sure i never got there but hey i got my fair share of a's as well as f's (sure the f's were for sport) and i have never seen a problem with this! as for comparing children againt one another, thats just going to cause problems! at least with the A - E system there is a guideline to follow. what will happen if we start telling children that so-and-so is doing better than them and so-and-so is doing worse than them? you think bullying is high now? wait till they bring in a system that shows the competent children who the incompetent children are!!!

[Lizard Drinkin]

This logical conclusion is the bit I don't accept. If you are accepted into an elite group but fall into the bottom quartile of that elite group why would consider yourself to be incompetent? From an early age children recognise that they are better or worse at things they do, at a point in time, within their cohort -- it is usually what inspires them to do better. All other areas of life function in this way and people are very familiar and comfortable with the concept.

As an example, I play tennis at a local club -- all teams are graded and the competition at each grade produces winners and losers every weak. Like anyone, I like to finish in as high as possible in my grade, and perhaps even go up a grade, but it doesn't phase me to know I'm never going to play at Wimbledon. Similarly, of the top ten players in the world the bottom quartile (ranked 8-10) are still pretty good :rolleyes:. I'm sure they don't feel incompetent because they are ranked in the bottom quartile of their group.
*sigh* Okay custos you've challenged my emotional fortitude and have inspired me to do better :rolleyes: ;)

1. Interesting choice of spelling there

2. Do you seriously think that a primary school child would be aware that they are in a class of the state's top achievers? Do you think they'd say "oh, well, I'm the dumbest kid in a smart lot, good for me?" Nup. They don't have that context, and I doubt that the school would either. (Be interesting to see how Kosky intends to grade kids across the state I must say.)

3. siliegrrl brought up the developmental stage argument ie. kids develop at different rates. I cringe to use myself as an example, but it's material close at hand:


I grew very quickly and was a gigantic, uncoordinated kid at primary school. Despite being much stronger than everyone else, I was hopeless at sport and frequently placed in humiliating situations. So I focussed on schoolwork as an area in which I could feel proud of myself.

I finished growing at around 11 just under six foot, and everyone started to catch up with me. I found after about two years of remaining in the same proportions (arms and legs, basically) that I was suddenly a very capable athlete. I became very fit out of sheer bloody mindedness (which supports your competition argument) - but to this day I despise sport, do not watch sport, can't get into sport. Hate it. All that negative reinforcement did me no favours, despite my quite favourable chances at being reasonably successful. Now I see it as a lost avenue of enjoyment.[/banjo music]

4. Furthermore, the idea that a quarter of all children should be told that they are not adequate means that a quarter of all children are told that they are far more adequate. So here we are perpetuating the intellectual elite, the middle classes and the Great Unwashed from early childhood onward. This may have been okay fifty years ago when your average child was not expected to fulfill current levels of post-secondary education in pursuit of your average career.

5. I have no compunction in keeping kids back a year or sending them to specialist education if they are plainly not keeping up or experiencing some form of learning difficulty. None at all. But frankly I consider the urge to "rank" children comes from the same unsavoury element of human nature that seeks [B]status. And it's not status for the children, but for their parents. Soccer Mum mentality. "Johnny is SOOOO smart, he ranks in the top quarter" and if he doesn't, then some people can pay for the extra tuition to get him there, while others can't. And even if all of them can, it's still a question of winners and losers.

6. Of course parents need to take responsibility for educating their child in the home, but I don't see how labelling their children as failures is going to motivate negligent parents, much less those who simply don't know what the hell they're doing (most, I suspect :p).

I see this as a manouevre by a party of elitist ideologues towards a system that enables one class of people to feel superior to another to the detriment of real opportunities for all children to learn and develop their real potential at their own pace. Primary school children, as human beings, are already fiercely competitive and know when their classmates are better or worse than themselves at something. They don't need it stamped on their damn foreheads. All they need to know is that they are either doing well or could be doing a lot better. High School is the proving ground.[/rant]

[Diabolical]

As an example, I play tennis at a local club -- all teams are graded and the competition at each grade produces winners and losers every weak. Like anyone, I like to finish in as high as possible in my grade, and perhaps even go up a grade, but it doesn't phase me to know I'm never going to play at Wimbledon. Similarly, of the top ten players in the world the bottom quartile (ranked 8-10) are still pretty good :rolleyes:. I'm sure they don't feel incompetent because they are ranked in the bottom quartile of their group.

I don't know how relevant that argument is when we're talking about the developing impressions of a child that will formulate the opinion he/she holds of him/herself well into his/her adulthood. You might be OK with the fact that you're not too crash hot at tennis because you're successful in other aspects of your life. What about the child that is told he is less than average, or a failure and grows up with that impression? Chances are they won't be successful at anything and I'm pretty sure they won't be a member of a tennis club.

I don't have any kids but I vaguely recall being one once. I had a group of peers that excelled academically and that I constantly compared myself to. I was probably one of the least brightest in the group. This did not mean that I was stupid by any means, but at that age I thought it did. I didn't acknowledge that there were kids achieving less than me because what was important were my peers. I don't think it's healthy to create a situation where children are constantly comparing themselves to each other and competing, they do it enough on their own. At least on a state level the comparison is somewhat impersonal.

[custos]

Hmmm, take pigeons, insert cat. :rolleyes: I thought I might stir up a hornets nest here (to mix my metaphors).

The fallacy in both your arguments, I think, comes down to this:


. Furthermore, the idea that a quarter of all children should be told that they are not adequate means that a quarter of all children are told that they are far more adequate. So here we are perpetuating the intellectual elite, the middle classes and the Great Unwashed from early childhood onward.
The assumption here is that being told you're in the bottom quartile, in one area, will lead to feeling inadequate overall. I don't buy that. My kids (yes D, I have two in high school) are variously good, average, and "consolidating" in different subject areas. They know it, their teachers know it, I know it. Does it affect their self-esteem? No, because as parents we reinforce the idea that they should strive to be the best they can in everything they do, but with the acceptance that it's unlikely they will be the best in the world at anything they do. That's quite a different thing then constantly being told you're a failure -- I never advocated that and never would. In fact I think it's a stretch argument to claim ranking in quartiles is equivalent to failing kids in particular classes, which in turn is labeling them failures.

Oh, and to answer your other question, yes I do think kids can appreciate, when they are in the bottom group of elite kids (be it in sport, music, or intellect), that they are still performing well above "average". That requires two things -- some minimal maturity on behalf of the kid (ie. ages 10 and up) and a lot of responsibility on behalf of the parents to support the kid's self-esteem.

I don't buy the ideology/status argument at all. It may be a consideration of some parents (you actually see it more in children's sport than education) but for me and most parents I know the desire for some ranking is to benchmark your kid's development. If my son or daughter is performing exceptionally well or exceptionally poorly, in any important aspect of their life, I'd like to know so I can assist.

Finally, I believe that one of the most important life skills is emotional resilience -- that is, the ability to receive bad news, or bad circumstances, or failures and pick yourself up and move forward. If we deny our children the opportunity to develop this skill in the controlled school environment (with parental support) they will crack under the real life pressures. That's possibly why we see the epidemic of depression these days -- people have grow up without learning to deal with life's knocks.

[cam86]

I dont mind it, it gets to the point and tells the parent how the child is really going.

I know when i was at school it was hard to know how i was going, if im compared to other students then i will know if im up with them or if im falling behind. Thats what i would want to know.

Anyway, i probably have to read up on the proposal a bit more... and not jump to conclusions like a few on here are doing.

[Hyarastorni]

I had those same gradings not even 7 years ago, when I was in primary school, and looking through my reports, I feel a lot better getting an 'good work' rather than a 'C' grade. That said, I also feel a lot better getting a 'needs improvement' as opposed to an 'F'.

I think those marks are an excellent way to do it for Primary school students, but also, I think that it's very close to what a friend of mine said last year. She could have done a higher mathematics than what she was doing, but she said she'd rather be at the top of her normal class, rather than struggle at the bottom of the higher class. In the end, she dropped maths altogether, 'cause she just didn't want to be ranked. If a 17 year old feels like that, how do we think primary school children would feel? It's not too far back for me, and I would have felt like crap.

I don't think children need to be ranked, it makes them unnecesarily competative.

I say: No ranking!