Australia’s School Improvement Framework
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
2 likes•1,364 views
Presentation by Robert Hassell - Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER). ABSTRACT Since 2012 all Australian States and territories, and the Federal government, have endorsed an approach to school improvement that was originally developed by the Australian Council for Educational Research in conjunction with the Queensland State Government. While there is an increasing trend towards autonomy of school leadership, all schools in Australia are expected to write a school improvement plan. Rather than focusing purely on desired outcomes, the approach is based on the view that the most effective strategy for improving student achievement in schools is to improve the quality of day-to-day teaching and learning. In this presentation I will outline the research and development underpinning the National School Improvement Tool (ACER, 2012) and its current use for school improvement review and planning that focuses on these important behaviours. Presentazione di Robert Hassel in occasione del suo intervento al convegno internazionale "Migliorare la scuola", tenutosi a Napoli il 14-15 Maggio 2015 e organizzato dall'Indire.
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (11)
Similar to Australia’s School Improvement Framework
Similar to Australia’s School Improvement Framework (20)
More from Istituto Nazionale di Documentazione, Innovazione e Ricerca Educativa
More from Istituto Nazionale di Documentazione, Innovazione e Ricerca Educativa (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Australia’s School Improvement Framework
- 3. Some Context: 1. Australia is a Federation. There are six states and two territories. 2. The States and Territories are constitutionally responsible for education . 3. There are three sectors of Education in Australia. 4. Every school receives funding from several sources. Information about the National School Improvement Tool can be found at https://www.acer.edu.au/files/NSIT.pdf
- 4. Further Context: The Australian Government with the State and Territory Governments decided that these results were not acceptable and that the way to improve was at a school level. PISA Average Reading Score 2000-12 Source: Masters ACER (2014) What will it take to turn things around? PISA Average Mathematics Score 2000-12 Source: Masters ACER (2014) What will it take to turn things around?
- 5. Other Government Initiatives: • The Australian Curriculum • The Australian Professional Standards for Teachers • The National Professional Standards for Principals • National Standards for initial teacher education • Education Services Australia, which is tasked with providing digital resources for Australian schools • The My School website, which provides consistent outcome data on every school in Australia, including results from the National Assessment Program-Literacy and Numeracy • The National Safe Schools Framework • The Nationally Consistent Collection of Data on School Students with Disability • A review of funding for Australian schools
- 6. Can you see evidence of learning taking place in these classrooms ? (Make a short list) • From this very cursory observation, can you suggest improvements that could be made to learning in these classrooms? • What else would you need to know to answer this question?
- 7. The National School Improvement Tool 1. An explicit improvement agenda 2. Analysis and discussion of data 3. A culture that promotes learning 4. Targeted use of school resources 5. An expert teaching team 6. Systematic curriculum delivery 7. Differentiated teaching and learning 8. Effective pedagogical practice 9. School-community partnerships The Tool does not describe everything that effective schools do, but focuses on those practices that are most directly related to school-wide improvements, and thus the outcomes for students. In this sense, the Tool can be thought of as a core element of more comprehensive school improvement programs, frameworks and initiatives.” (Masters, 2012, National School Improvement Tool)
- 8. National School Improvement Tool Domain 1: An explicit improvement agenda The school leadership team and/or governing body have established and are driving a strong improvement agenda for the school, grounded in evidence from research and practice and expressed in terms of improvements in measurable student outcomes. Explicit and clear school- wide targets for improvement have been set and communicated to parents and families, teachers and students, with accompanying timelines. The assessment of this domain includes consideration of the extent to which: • The governing body, school principal and other school leaders are united, committed to and explicit about their core objective to improve learning outcomes for all students in the school; • Progress towards targets is monitored and initiatives and programs are systematically evaluated for their effectiveness in producing desired improvements in student learning and performance. • The school has made an effort to understand current student achievement levels, and how achievement levels have changed over time, including for students in social inclusion priority groups, students at risk of disengaging or who have disengaged from schooling, and students facing disadvantage, including students with a disability, those from non-English speaking backgrounds, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, those from low-SES backgrounds and regional and remote areas;
- 9. The Tool has proven to be generic and flexible: “The ACER School Improvement review and planning process has been used in schools across the State, Catholic and Independent sectors in Australia, as well as internationally. The focus of the domains is independent of system, religious or national context. Without exception the ACER consultants have commented that the Tool is relevant and useful in all of these contexts as it focuses on teaching and learning.” (Seifert, D., Hartnell-Young, E. , 2015 An Effective School Improvement Framework: Using the National School Improvement Tool,5)
- 10. Robert Hassell Robert.Hassell@acer.edu.au www.acer.edu.au National School Improvement Tool www.acer.edu.au/files/NSIT.pdf For more information on the ACER School Improvement process and the associated research, please contact: Robert Marshall Senior Project Director, School Improvement Australian Council for Educational Research +61 3 9277 5346 +61 0439 665 965 Robert.Marshall@acer.edu.au
Editor's Notes
- The Australian Government legislated in 2013 to require every school in Australia to write a School Improvement Plan that addressed improvements in student learning for that school context, had specific timelines and explained how the improvements were to be measured. The process is, in essence outcomes based (Masters, 2009,1), because there are explicit expectations for each school and the measures of accountability to these expectations are published annually on the My School website. This includes performance on the National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) and progress over time, final year graduation and certification rates, including Vocational Education and Training (VET) Certification and student attendance rates. Some of the stated expectations are deliberately high, for example, the Parties agreed new ambitious national targets with respect to Australia’s international performance: 1. Australia placed in the top 5 countries internationally in reading, mathematics and science by 2025; and 2. Australia considered to be a high quality and high equity schooling system by international standards by 2025 (Australian Education Act 2013). However, in the Australian Education Regulations 2013, which elaborate the Act of Parliament, there is a recommendation that schools use the National School Improvement Tool, as the document to provide “information about the school’s performance based on the school’s self-assessment, having regard to the National School Improvement Tool or any equivalent document (whether or not prepared by the Ministerial Council) (Australian Education Regulation 2013, 39). What prompted Australian Governments to legislate in this way?
- Australia is a federation of six states and two territories. The states and territories are legally responsible for school education in Australia. Decisions about education policy in Australia are discussed at the Council of Australian Governments (COAG). The members of COAG are the Prime Minister, State and Territory Premiers and Chief Ministers and the President of the Australian Local Government Association. The work of COAG in education is supported by the Education Council, which is an inter-jurisdictional, ministerial-level Council that facilitates consultation and cooperation between the Commonwealth and the States and Territories in specific policy areas. COAG Councils pursue and monitor priority issues of national significance and take joint action to resolve issues that arise between governments. Councils also develop policy reforms for consideration by COAG, and oversee the implementation of policy reforms agreed by COAG. Despite the fact that States and Territories are constitutionally responsible for education in Australia, the laws governing the delivery of education to students for: Compulsory schooling (under 16 years of age) Non-compulsory schooling (16 years and beyond) are set by the State, Territory and Australian Governments. Australian Government Legislation with regard to education such as the Australian Education Act 2013 is only binding on the States and Territories based on the agreements reached through COAG. This means, in practice, that the Australian Government laws and regulations with regard to education can be interpreted differently in each state and territory. There are three sectors of Education in Australia: Public (State and Territory) schools, which are funded, staffed and resourced by the respective state and territory governments. This income is supplemented to a small extent by parent contributions or fees. Non-Government Catholic schools, which are funded, staffed and resourced by the Catholic Church and parent fees supplemented by significant Australian Government funding and a lesser amount by the respective state and territory government. Non-Government Independent schools, which are funded, staffed and resourced by parent fees, supplemented by significant Australian Government funding and a lesser amount by the respective state and territory government, with some funding, in some instances provided by the founding body (for instance the Anglican church). So, Each Australian school receives funding from several sources: The State or Territory Government The Australian Government Parents and care-givers (Note, even in public schools, parents and care-givers pay towards provision of some curriculum resources, but not staffing or buildings, particularly in non-compulsory schooling)
- PISA and TIMMS results and surveys show that Australian performance has declined and Australian education has become less equitable (Thomson et al. ACER 2013). The Australian government and the states and territories have now also had evidence of literacy and numeracy performance at jurisdictional and school level since 2008 and that data also raises questions about the standard of education in Australia. The issue is how do you improve these results one school or even one classroom at a time AND prove that the learning of each student is improving and becoming more equitable?
- As part of the reform process (The Education Revolution), the legislation included a number of other initiatives. [A brief description of each] Each of the initiatives is exemplary in their intent and they are also an attempt to provide clarity for educators across Australia regarding key features of education policy. Their ultimate aim is to improve the quality of teaching and learning and each of the initiatives is supported by research. However, they are also an attempt “to ‘drive’ school improvement by holding those responsible for student learning at a system and school level accountable for improving student results. The theory of action underpinning such initiatives is that, if there is clarity about the areas in which improved student performances are sought, if reliable performance metrics are developed for these areas, and if incentives are attached to improving student performances, then improvements should occur.” “The ultimate purpose of school improvement is improved outcomes for students”. Geoff Masters National School Improvement Tool Guidelines, the state of Queensland and ACER 2012, Page 3 So, Australian governments, faced with evidence of declining student performance from international and national assessments and with evidence of inequitable standards of education across the country, have decided that something must be done. To that end, the Queensland Department of Education and Training approached Professor Geoff Masters, the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Council for Educational Research to investigate evidence based practices which would lead to improvements in teaching and learning and, therefore, improvements in schools. The resulting framework was implemented in Queensland public schools in 2010 and, subsequently, the other Australian States and Territories endorsed what became the National School Improvement Tool. What was different about this approach?
- I will give you a short time to make three quick lists in response to the following questions. Any judgement of “school improvement should be based in part on direct evidence of improvements in what schools are doing (that is, improvements in school practices and processes)” (Masters, 2012, Measuring and Rewarding School Improvement, 45). An essential feature of any school improvement process is that schools must have significant direct control over the matters scrutinised for improvement. Many factors influence the data collected in the initiatives outlined in the previous slide and, hopefully, whilst you may have been able to see ‘learning’ taking place in both of the classrooms pictured, you would have noted similar factors in making any judgements about the ‘actual’ learning taking place. Your list of ‘what else you would need to know’ may highlight some of the practices and processes that Professor Masters found in the literature. Note: Observing classrooms in action is one of the processes involved in the NSIT review. The practices and processes Professor Masters found in common in an inspection of systemic school review processes and the expansive literature on school improvement are summarised in the following nine domains.
- In the foreword to the Tool, Masters states, “ The Tool does not describe everything that effective schools do, but focuses on those practices that are most directly related to school-wide improvements, and thus the outcomes for students. In this sense, the Tool can be thought of as a core element of more comprehensive school improvement programs, frameworks and initiatives.” (Masters, 2012, National School Improvement Tool) The task of deciding how or whether a school has improved is impossible unless school practices, which are supported by the findings from international research, become the basis for the assessment. The beauty of the tool is its apparent simplicity. It can be and has now been used in a variety of ways in many school contexts: Schools write a documented self evaluation against the criteria. Schools write a documented self evaluation against the criteria, under the guidance of the leadership team and/or the governing body or system. Schools write a documented self evaluation against the criteria, which is then validated by a visit to the school by a trained reviewer. Schools invite an external review team, trained by ACER, to conduct a review over an extended period (an average of 2-3 days) and to produce a formal report against the criteria for each domain. I have been involved in all but the third of the above four processes. An example of the criteria:
- I have chosen three of the seven criteria for this domain to use as an example. In Practice this domain proves to be one of the most difficult for schools to self-evaluate. The rubric for each domain in the Tool rates the extent to which a school has achieved each of the criteria as Low, Medium, High or Outstanding. An external team will often highlight aspects of several sections of the rubric and then discuss these observations with the school representatives. The most successful reviews involve as many members of the school community as is possible throughout the process. As I said the criteria are deceptively simple. It has often taken schools a whole school term (around 10 weeks) to respond to the third of the criteria listed here, particularly ‘understanding current student achievement levels’ and ‘change over time’. This always questions what the achievement levels are measuring and how the achievement change can be measured. [only refer to below if there are questions] The criteria that were excluded from this slide were: Explicit targets for improvement in student achievement levels have been set and communicated to parents, staff and the wider school community; School staff are united in their commitment to improve the quality of teaching and learning throughout the school and to address obstacles to school-wide improvement; The school communicates clearly that it expects all students to learn successfully and has high expectations for student attendance, engagement and outcomes; The school has clearly articulated strategies for improving levels of student achievement and wellbeing; and
- I have used the tool in a range of school contexts, in a variety of ways and over different timeframes. In every case the outcome has been clarification of what the school means by student learning and how to improve learning.
- Thank you.