Save Our
State South Australia IncSave Our
State South Australia Inc
Dedicated to the preservation of personal freedoms, moral standards, honest responsible government and principled political behaviour for the people of South Australia
The SACE Review
or
Will our children benefit?
The rationale behind the current review of the South Australian Certificate of Education is somewhat obscure. The introduction to “MINISTERIAL REVIEW OF SENIOR SECONDARY EDUCATION IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA - SACE Review Final Report” states
“The number of South Australian students who achieve the SACE each year is a little over half (55 per cent) of the number of students who were enrolled in Year 8 in South Australian schools four years earlier. This `apparent SACE completion rate' has remained remarkably steady over the decade since the SACE was introduced, in spite of changes that have been made during that time. It is also clear that a disproportionate number of early school leavers in South Australia come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.”
Well. so what? Just why should this be perceived as a problem? The first – and very obvious - question one might ask is “Where have those who left school, gone?”. The second question might be “Do you expect that everybody attending school will achieve academically, rather than in any other way?”. The review is seriously flawed by not addressing these issues, and in other ways, as we shall see later.
The timing of this review is odd, too – just at the time that there is serious consideration being given to the possibility of an Australian Certificate of Education (ACE) to replace the NINE different State and Territory versions which currently exist. If ACE comes into being SACE will be redundant, so wouldn't it be wise to defer the time cost and energy expended on the South Australian Review until after a decision is made to abandon ACE? What's the hurry?
Two seminars was recently held at Flinders University under the auspices of the Flinders University of International Education and the South Australian Institute of Education Research. The first seminar delivered by Professor Geoff Masters, CEO of the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) and Professor John Keeves, a former CEO of ACER and curently Professorial Fellow at the School of Education at Flinders. concentrated on the soundness of the ACE proposition (Masters) and the need to base educational change on research findings rather than ideology (Keeves).
Masters view in essence is:
“Your Year 12 son tells you he received a final mark of 19 for English. How should you respond? [...] the answer to this question depends on where you live. He argues that it is time for Australia to adopt a more consistent language and common currency for reporting Year 12 results.” http://www.acer.edu.au/publications/newsletters/enews/06_enews45/Common_Currency.html
Keeves pointed out that research shows not only that Australia performs very well indeed educationally compared with other OECD countries, but that South Australia performs well compared with other States in Australia. Thus, while all education systems must be subject to critical review to remain effective, there is little evidence that change is urgently required in Australia. (Keeves J, A View from Outside the Confines of South Australia, International Education Journal, 2006)
The second seminar challenged the SACE Review more directly.
Dr Paul Kilvert, Executive Director,Office of Strategic Policy and Planning (OSPP) and Head of the SACE Review Implementation Steering Committee. outlined progress on the SACE review, emphasising that this was a “work in progress”. Information will be updated on www.futuresace.sa.gov.au as it comes to hand.
Dr. Tony Gibbons, a specialist working primarily on philosophical issues, showed that the Ministerial Review was basing firm action on loosely defined criteria. The review based its proposed curriculum structure on what it called “Capabilities”, but Gibbons pointed out that so many aspects of the term are canvassed that “[...] at this point in time, there is no firm idea of the nature of the capabilities or their range. They are, however, the core of the new curriculum.” (Gibbons JA, The Heart of the New SACE, International Education Journal, 2006, in press)
The Review also states:
“Central to these capabilities is the ability to recognize that since knowledge is shaped by the world views and ideologies of those who produce and present it, it is problematic rather than given.” (Crafter et al., 2006, p.106)
Gibbons points out: “This is an extremely contentious assertion. The SACE Review appears to assert that knowledge is relative to circumstance, that knowledge is relative to the personal ideologies of those who produce it and this is reflected in the way in which they present it.” (Gibbons JA, op cit) The Review seems to be suggesting that knowledge as objective truth does not exist – which is clearly wrong. Gibbons also presents considerable doubts at the vague nature of the other Review concepts of Disposition and Reflection which he argues are being used as approved “buzz words” rather than being accurately and usefully defined.
Dr. Kelvin Gregory, a research specialist, psychometrician and lecturer in the Flinders School of Education, analysed the Review statistics and found them in error. The 55 per cent retention rate which the Review decries is based solely on full time students and ignores not only part time students but also returning students (adult entry courses, etc.). Adding such students by using “full time equivalent” figures paints a very different picture indeed – South Autralian figures jump to near the top of the list at over 80 per cent. As TAFE and apprenticeship students could also be included in the total it can be seen that SA has absolutely nothing to worry about, concerning “retention rates”.
“[...] the focus on full-time students is misleading. South Australia has the highest number of part-time students of any state or territory (ABS, 2003). In 2002, 20.0% of all South Australian Year 12 students were studying part-time (ABS, 2003). This is mainly due to the number of students who decide to work part-time and study part-time. It is also a reflection of study patterns emerging in the SACE itself. In some schools, it is relatively common for students to start their SACE studies in Year 10 and taking a reduced load in Year 12, thus spreading out a two-year program over three years. Such students are technically part-time students in their final year of secondary education, even though they are in effect fully engaged with SACE.” (Gregory K, The SACE Review Panel’s Final Report: Significant flaws in the statistical analyses of available education data, International Education Journal, 2006)
After taking other issues into account, Gregory states In conclusion:
“(The Review) failed to explore the reasons why students move schools at the end of Year 10 that it is so evident in the growth of Year 11 and 12 Adelaide private schools. It has failed to examine what keeps students at school, instead focusing upon two possible explanatory variables: socio-economic status and the so-called academic curriculum. It has failed to examine critically and rigorously the shortcomings of the SACE.” (Gregory K, op cit)
In a second paper, concerned with opinions gathered by the Review Panel about the existing SACE (Gregory K, Tailoring Educational Research to a Desired Goal:The SACE Review Panel’s Report on Community Views, International Education Journal, 2006), Gregory observes “there is not a single quote that indicates what students, teachers, parents, or other stakeholder find positive in the present SACE. [...] For example, “ 'Many' students are disaffected with school for a range of reasons” (Crafter, Crook, & Reid, 2006, p. 58). and later in the same section of the report, “ 'Numbers' of students believed that flexibility would be increased” and “the lack of success of 'many' students” (Crafter, Crook, & Reid, 2006, p. 58) adds to the perception of a grave problem”
Later in his article, Gregory complains “Notwithstanding that these students are disaffected with school and not SACE per se, the question is how the Review Panel established the nature and extent of this disaffection. Nowhere in the report is the actual number of student respondents mentioned”
He later suggests that “The Review Panel no doubt believes in the soundness of their report and the reasonableness of their recommendations. However, that they have effectively underreported or silenced many voices is congruent with groupthink.” (Groupthink is the tendency for some groups to value their cohesiveness and the value of the group's objective so highly that they ignore or devalue dissenting information regardless of its source.)
It would seem obvious that the Review Panel's report is seriously flawed and that any implementation programme should be held back until the Review and the flawed information upon which it is based, are corrected.