Gaming the school system

Two ways to improve school performance

MySchool is the major source of information on "school performance" in Australia.

The fastest, cheapest and easiest way to improve any school is to have more high-performing  students with low needs, and fewer low-performing, high-needs students.

The professional alternative is to improve the school's teaching, curriculum, facilities,... in order to improve the performance and reduce the needs of existing students. This latter approach is much more expensive, slower and is limited by the potential and circumstances of the existing students, engagement of families, aspirations...

Why take the easy option?

It makes sense for the schools that can choose their students to take the first option because of its speed, economy (little or no cost), simplicity, and effectiveness.

But there are additional reasons too.

1. All schools want to be "good" schools
2. School are under pressure to approve in MySchool (and similar) rankings
3. Other schools are doing it
4. It will be good for the students we select
5. There is a long history of the practice
6. It will enhance the school's "performance" and image
7. The school will have fewer problems, challenges, and incidents
8. The school will have a stronger focus on learning and achievement 
9. Existing students are likely to benefit
10. Parents want their children to go to a "good" (successful) school
11. Parents want their children to have "good" classmates
12. Parents want to associate with the right class of parents
13. Principals want to be able to attract and select the right class of staff
14. Being a staff member at a "good" school can help one's career
15. ...

Parents do it too !!

It is not unusual for parents to give grandma's address are the home address in order to overcome a zoning restriction that would prevent their child being enrolled in their preferred state school.

Similarly, parents may profess a religious belief that they don't hold in order to achieve enrolment for their child in their preferred non-state school. This probably works better as a two-player game where the school does not actually practice its claimed religious beliefs. For example, the school may not "Suffer the little children to come..." resulting in some other school having to suffer the children they have rejected.

Colateral damage

Unfortunately, this approach results in some collateral damage. Schools that use this approach are, in effect, increasing the demands and challenges faced by the schools that enrol the "ones they reject" (John West style). 

At a system level, this means that advantage and disadvantage are being concentrated in different schools. This outcome can be easily explained away because the total number of schools means that there is an advantaged-disadvantaged spectrum of schools and disadvantage can be explained away by other contributing factors such as aspiration, poverty, levels of education in the community...

However, the collateral damage is not much of a problem for the school doing the rejecting because it tends to occur at times of transition; the rejected students are dispersed across numerous schools, and families who are rejected are unlikely to make an issue of it so that avoid any associated embarrassment.

To help in this process schools can also provide positive face-saving explanations for declining an enrolment application, such as "Unfortunately the year group is full" or 
(sadly) "We think your son would be much better off at school X.  It has a wonderful record of dealing with needs like his".

Gaming the system

Gaming occurs when one party uses what is permitted in a system to achieve an unfair advantage over others, or at a cost to others, in the system. 

Some schools are permitted to select their students. Other schools are not permitted or not able. 

A school that use their ability to select students to avoid the responsibility and cost of educating a student and thus pass it on to another are gaming the system. This is especially true when the strategy enhances the image of the rejecting school and makes it more difficult for the receiving school to gain recognition for what it achieves.

This phenomenon is the major contributing factor to Australia's Two Speed School System.  The fact it is widely entrenched in all sectors of the school system will make it very difficult address. Failure to do so is likely to further increase the cost of schooling and the continual decline of student outcomes.

It is the system!!

The way Australia's school system works is the problem!!

Most claims about the problem with Australia's school system are wrong, at least in part. The fundamental problem is not "poor performing" schools, funding, the quality of teachers, curriculum, lack of aspiration...  It is the way the system works.

Similar per capita funding for all schools together with different rules for different schools is driving our school system backwards while increasing costs and producing poorer outcomes.

The present Australian system works like this...

1. Government funding for schools increases each year
2. Increases and indexation favour non-state schools (1) resulting in
3. Per capita govt funding is now similar for all schools (2) which means
4. Per capita govt funding is similar for state and non-state schools (3) but...
5. Some schools select which students to enrol - no mutual obligation for government funding received
6. Advantaged schools attract students, eg, reputation, scholarships... (2, 3, 4)
7. Some schools select capable, low needs (low cost) students (5,6)
8. Advantage becomes more concentrated particularly in non-state schools (7)
9. Students in advantaged schools do well - teachers have a small range of needs to meet  (8)
10. Higher SES schools "out-perform" lower SES schools (9)
11. Non-state schools "out-perform" state schools (9, 10)
12. Disadvantage becomes more concentrated in lower SES (state) schools (5 -11)
13. Students in disadvantaged schools do worse - teachers to meet have a wider range of needs (12) 
14. Overall outcomes decline (9 - 13)
15. Costs continue to increase as a result of indexation
16. Demands for additional funding for disadvantage increase, eg, Gonski (12 - 14)
17. Costs rise to "fix" the system and improve outcomes (12 -16)
18.  Go to 1. above

Conclusions

• The system separates and entrenches advantage and disadvantage
• The system is undermining itself by generating "two speeds" of schooling
• The cost of the system will continue to rise
• Results will continue to decline
• Effective counter-measures (interventions) will become un-affordable

How to fix the system

    Change the rules* connecting government funding and student enrolment so that schools can no longer advantage themselves at the expense of other schools.

*  See Australia's Two Speed School System

Schools and frogs

Why "Schools and frogs"?

 If you place a frog in cool water it will probably sit there. If you place a frog in hot water it will jump out. The metaphor of the boiled frog suggests that if you heat the cool water very slowly the frog will sit there until it is dead.

Until recently, I had always thought government per capita funding for non-state schools was only a fraction of per capita government funding for state schools.

So I was shocked recently to discover that per capita government funding for non-state schools is now very similar to the funding for state schools. And because of different indexation rates for the school sectors,  non-state schools will soon be getting more government funding than state schools. (more...)

How did this happen?

Like the temperature of the water in the pot, total  per capita government funding for non-state schools has been slowly increasing over the last few decades.

The increases have been masked by numerous factors

• numerous changes over a long period of time have all been small, well-intentioned good ideas ("slowly warming the water")
• government funding for schools is reported in terms of percentages or total amounts per sector rather than per capita making comparisons difficult
• historically, non-state schools have always received significantly less total and per capita government funding
• both state and federal governments are involved in school funding and report separately
• annual increases in funding have been small ("slowly warming the water")
• historically, some non-state schools have been in urgent need of support, especially small catholic schools
• having students attend non-state schools was a saving to government (but this is no longer the case)
• the rationale that all students are entitled to the educational benefits of taxes paid by their parents
• no-one within the system has been monitoring the cumulative changes to the way the system works (or doesn't work)
• ... and so on

What happens at the tipping point?

We have now reached the tipping point. Per capita government funding for all schools is now similar and different indexation rates mean that, from now on, most non-state schools will receive more per capita government funding than state-schools. Who could ever have imagined such a thing?

This will further

• entrench Australia's Two Speed System of Schooling
• increase the movement of students from state to non-state schools
• increase inequality in the education - the very field that is supposed help overcome inequality
• increase the cost of education to both governments and parents

Ultimately, it could mean the decline and death of many state-schools and an unaffordable school system. World-wide there is interest in privatising schools as if they can be managed using a market approach. 

So is this another market-based solution?

Genuine market solutions are based on client choice and should result in falling prices and improved quality, but none of these apply in Australia's system of schooling.

Students have no choice. By law they are required to attend a school and the school is chosen by others.

Parent choice is very limited.  Government zoning policies usually mean that many parents can choose any state-school they like, provided it is the local one (remember the Model T?). 

The idea that parents can choose a non-state school for their children is largely an illusion. Parents can apply but the choice to enrol a student belongs exclusively to the school. In fact, this is often entrenched in legislation.

The cost of schooling to both parents and government is increasing rapidly

Price of schooling  = cost to parents (fees, on-costs) + cost to government

• The cost to parents is considerably higher in non-state schools while the cost to government is now similar. There are no offsets involved except some tax deductions for parents which is an additional cost to government
• The movement of students to non-state schools results in increased enrolments which incurs the cost of additional facilities often involving increased costs to both parents and government

Quality is not improving. Educational outcomes have flat-lined and rankings are dropping. 

Unlike Finland and Singapore, Australia's two speed schooling is increasing the concentrations of advantage and disadvantage. The net result is poorer overall outcomes.  At state and national levels the "top" performance of the advantaged cannot compensate for the "poor" performance of the disadvantaged. 

Will the frogs respond?

The impact of funding arrangements for Australia's schools has heated up and getting hotter.

Key questions:

• Are the  decision makers aware of what is happening? And why? (see It is the system!!)
• Will they "jump out of the present arrangements" and find ways to resource Australia's schools for better outcomes? 

Australia's school vouchers

Q: Does Australia have school vouchers?

YES  !!

The current school funding arrangements are in effect a hidden voucher system. Most schools receive similar per capita government funding for each enrolled student. By enrolling a student the school attracts the funding. The student is his or her own voucher.

Q: Can these vouchers be used at any school?

Maybe.  Conditions apply!!

For most state school students the vouchers are only accepted by local schools because of zoning policies. Coincidentally this also drives up real estate values in areas with "good state schools" - check out real estate advertising.

Typically vouchers will be accepted by catholic and "independent" schools provided that student performs satisfactorily, has low needs and is, with his or her family, socially acceptable.

Q: Do school vouchers allow parents to choose schools?

NOT REALLY !!

Parents can choose the local state school (not really a choice) or ask a non-state school to enrol their child. 

In the latter situation it is the school that chooses. And these school generally prefer high performing, low needs (low cost) students from families with considerable material and social capital. 

What this means is that there is significant inequality in the ability use the voucher system. And that that it favours more successful students and affluent families.

Scholarships and vouchers

In some ways a scholarship is like a voucher - it appears someone else is paying for the cost of tuition. But in Australia's schools they already are!! Levels of government are similar in most schools. See Unlevel Playing Field (Bonnor and Shepherd)

Q: Who pays for scholarships?

Governments, Parents  and other schools!!

In most instances scholarships are quite already funded by the government. That is, the  level of government funding received by the school offering the scholarship covers the actual cost of having the student in the school. The school gets the credit, the government meets the cost.

Most scholarships are offered by non-state schools and they are usually about increasing enrolments and enhancing the image of the school.

Non-state schools frequently offer "half-scholarships" in which the family pays a part of the school fees. This is likely to result in the school making a useful profit on the scholarships it is has "given". 

But it is not only the government and parents who pay for scholarships. When high performing, low cost state school students move to non-state schools it disadvantages state schools they leave by increasing the concentration of need and disadvantage, and by decreasing social capital available to the school and its community.