Teachers under the pump – and over a barrel – and up the creek: Reframing the current debates about 'quality' of education. David Zyngier Monash University Introduction Once again the very people who are responsible for the excellent achievements of our students (in comparison to other OECD countries) are being blamed for their supposed failures! (Shake-up to hit bored teachers, The Age 7/4/2008). And the solution proposed? Encourage so-called disengaged teachers to leave the profession (Pike, 2008), give top education graduates and top teachers financial incentives to work in so-called “failing schools”, publish league tables that would rank schools’ performance to make them more accountable (Dinham, Ingvarson, & Kleinhenz, 2008). The latest debates on the quality of public education and teachers in Australia have been considerably influenced by content drawn from a series of papers by Andrew Leigh and Chris Ryan. These debates have been played out across a range of Australian media – The Australian, The Australian Financial Review and broadsheets such as the Sydney Morning Herald and The Canberra Times as examples. In particular Leigh and Ryan’s papers How and Why has Teacher Quality Changed in Australia? (2006) and How Has School Productivity Changed in Australia? (2008) have also had considerable impact on government educrats, both in Labor state education bureaucracies, as well as the former Liberal federal government, influencing the thinking of successive Howard government Ministers Nelson and Bishop. Leigh, an economist in the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National Universityi lays the blame for an assumed decline in student outcomes on schools, teachers and University education faculties. In this paper I critique the research of Leigh and Ryan, particularly their attempt to show that Australian schools and their teachers’ productivity has declined by some 73% between 1964 and 2003 - compared to an overall increase of 64% across the Australian economy. I firstly address the issue of why teachers are now claimed to be the difference in children’s outcomes at school and then, given the complexity of the factors involved, Leigh and Ryan’s claims of statistical significance and the conclusions drawn from these claims are questioned. I conclude that the claims of Leigh and Ryan do not stand up to close scrutiny as their methodological assumptions and tools are inappropriate and their conclusions at best unreliable. Since when are teachers the difference?

1

During the past 45 years, influential studies such as those reported by Coleman (1966) and Jencks (1972) in the USA, and Plowden (1967) in Britain, “provided evidence that schools and teachers are not effective in enhancing achievement” (Hattie, 1992, p. 9) and that schools have little impact on students’ outcomes. Deficit and compensatory studies and the policies and programs based on them, mirror the dominant social and political discourses subscribing to a view that ethnic and family socio-economic status (SES) background factors constitute the prevailing determinants of students’ educational outcomes and attainments. However, a growing number of researchers have been critical of these findings and have since provided contrary evidence to the earlier claims that relative to home background influences, the effects of schooling are negligible (Rowe, 2003; 2004a, 2004b). Rowe concludes that: Much of the traditional and prevailing dogmas surrounding ‘factors’ affecting students’ experiences and outcomes of schooling throughout their primary and secondary years, especially socio-cultural and socio-economic factors, are now understood to be products of methodological and statistical artefact, and amount to little more than ‘religious’ adherence to the moribund ideologies of biological and social determinism. Above all, a good deal of this ‘discourse’ is not supported by findings from evidence-based research. (Rowe, 2004a, p. 1) From recent research related to educational effectiveness (Darling-Hammond, 1996, 2000; Kleinhenz & Ingvarson, 2004; Rowe, 2003, 2004a, 2004b), much has been and continues to be learnt about key factors affecting students’ general academic achievements, attitudes, behaviours and experiences of schooling. So while much research suggests that outcomes are most influenced by students’ home background and individual characteristics, a continuing feature in educational debates about quality outcomes is that teachers are responsible for a large percentage of the difference recorded between performance of students in school outcomes as measured by such things as State or National tests in literacy and numeracy. As an example, it has been claimed that while teachers “ought to be the leading agents of change, they are instead often the main obstacles to it” (Lowe & Holt, 1998, p. 23); that many students are capable of learning better and significantly more than they do (Lowe & Holt, 1998); and that teaching and learning are the “areas demanding reform and renewal [that] requires a more varied pedagogy” (Lowe & Holt, 1998, p.29). In a more measured reporting of the influence of teachers in between student differences, Lingard et al., (2001) indicate that teachers indeed can tip the balance especially for marginalised students, to which Hattie adds that ‘excellence in teaching is the single most powerful influence on achievement’ (Hattie, 2003, p. 4). The Department of Education and Training (Victoria) also acknowledges that:
2

The most powerful lever for reform is the transforming of teachers’ practice. Teachers have a professional responsibility to continually improve their knowledge and understanding about the craft of teaching and translate that knowledge into practice. (SOFweb, 2003 http://www.sofweb.vic.edu.au/pedagogy/) There would seem to be no doubt that teachers matter in student performance and outcomes. However this does necessarily imply a direct causal link between teachers and any real or imagined decreases (or increases) in the quality of education outcomes. Such over-generalized non causa pro causa arguments rely on a close temporal proximity as the justification of a cause and effect relationship where there is at best a weak relationship so one is left to wonder whether post hoc ergo propter hoc is at play here. However this consideration is not always evident in research reported about this issue. A review (Lowe & Holt, 1998, p. 13) of the research literature into the factors influencing change in schools suggests that “school factors account for some 25 percent of the variance in student performance”. Hattie (2003) claims that teachers alone contribute 30 percent towards student achievement stressing that “it is what teachers know, do, and care about which is very powerful in this learning equation” (Hattie, 2003, p.2). Hattie claims that teachers together with schools make up more than 40 percent of the difference in student achievement, while home background contributes less than 10 percent. He states that: The discussion on the attributes of schools – the finances, the school size, the class size, the buildings are important as they must be there in some form for a school to exist, but that is about it. (Hattie, 2003, p2) Rowe (2004a) concludes that factors related to students’ home backgrounds and individual characteristics account for less than 10 percent of the variance found between students: The magnitude of these effects pale into insignificance compared with class/teacher effects. That is, the quality of teaching and learning provision are by far the most salient influences on students’ cognitive, affective, and behavioural outcomes of schooling, regardless of …student background. (Rowe, 2004b, p.4 original emphasis) While Rowe may be somewhat overstating the case (that the teacher contributes between 30 to 60 percent of difference in educational outcomes), for marginalised young people, for students at-risk of school failure, Rowe’s conclusions are supported by other Australian research (Lingard, et al., 2001). On the basis of the research evidence, ‘good’ teachers can have positive impacts on students’ experiences and outcomes of schooling and ‘poor’ teachers can have deleterious effects. However, as Gale (2006, p. 99) points out “accounts of what is wrong with teaching rarely begin by exploring

3

the politics of schooling and almost never by placing it within broader socio-economic contexts”. Gale, referencing seminal work of the 1980’s (Connell, Ashenden, Kessler, & Dowsett, 1982; and also Hayes, Mills, Christie, & Lingard, 2006) points to a change from “teachers can make a difference to students learning and their lives” to “teachers are the difference.” This “small sleight of hand” (Gale, 2006, p. 108) has had dramatic implications as evidenced by Leigh and Ryan’s claims. Their argument follows the (il)logic that if student achievement is low then it is because teacher standards and quality have dropped so far. If these claims are left unchallenged and if it is to be believed that the teachers are at fault then the University faculties of education are left as the only option to play the real culprits! However, in analysing similar claims in the New Zealand context Nash and Prochnow conclude: In the face of all the evidence, it is unrealistic to expect that the attainment of middle-class and working-class families can be equalized … as a result of pedagogical action by the school. (Nash & Prochnow, 2004, p. 189) Connell put this point more irreverently in 1993, when he stated ‘the best advice we can give to a poor child keen to get ahead through education is to choose richer parents’ (Connell, 1993, p. 22). Lies, damn lies and statistics In their attempt to show that Australian (government) schools and their teachers’ productivity as measured by output per dollar has declined by some 73% with regards to literacy between 1964 and 2003, Leigh and Ryan (2008) use various statistical assumptions that contradict the original independent assessment of student standards. This results in them reaching radically different conclusions from the study from which they drew their data. Leigh and Ryan (2008) claim that: • factors such as demographic or societal changes are not sufficient to explain these changes to school and teacher productivity; • • per child expenditure on education increased by 258 percent over the period 1964-2003; most of the increased expenditure can be explained by a decrease in class sizes and student teacher ratios. Therefore decreased class sizes have not increased educational “productivity” (and are presumably doing the opposite); • • another possible cause of the decrease may be “falling teacher quality” the shift to a “whole-language” approach to teaching reading in the 1970s may have also contributed to the decline.

4

Leigh and Ryan’s (2008) argument that teacher and school productivity has declined since 1964 relies on accepting their interpretation of data in relation to: 1. Changes in “real” per child spending 2. Changes in schooling and the economy 3. Constancy in student demographics 4. Changes in numbers of teachers and lower class sizes These are now discussed in detail. Changes in “real” per child spending Crucial to Leigh and Ryan’s (2008) productivity argument are the increases attributed to government funding per pupil since 1964, which they claim is largely driven by increased teacher numbers. Nevertheless, they overstate the increase in funding. They say that government funding per pupil has increased from $165 (in today’s dollar terms) in 1964 to $7169 in 2003. However, the ABS Year Book for 1964 indicates that per pupil expenditure was in fact $193 that in equivalent dollar terms in 2003 equates to $1791 (based on an ABS recommended formula), not the $165 claimed by the authors. Significantly, in 1964 the vast majority of government spending on education, both Federal and State was on public education. However, since 1996, much of the increased Federal government spending has been in the support of schools within the private sector. While increased spending on government schools rose by 21 per cent, non-government school spending by Federal governments rose by 40 per cent. Despite this rise in funding to private schools, Leigh and Ryan do not assert that private schools and their teachers have caused a decline in standards. Changes in schooling and the economy Leigh and Ryan (2008) have assumed that the regulations governing early school leaving were strictly adhered to by both students and schools. While such adherence appears to be the case in official school census data used by Leigh and Ryan, these are not necessarily reliable as such census occurs early in August, while student testing occurs much earlier in a school year making any link between student results and student populations unreliable. During the 1960’s it was common for schools to ‘encourage’ or turn a blind eye to students leaving school early to take up readily obtained manual and unskilled employment. This acted to skew the school population towards the ‘higher performing’ or more academic students, which in turn affected test score averages. On the other hand, the late 1980’s and early 1990’s was a period characterized by high levels of unemployment, especially in the youth labour market. This together with the redesign of
5

unemployment benefit schemes ending automatic entitlement and the introduction of compulsory training programs effectively and artificially raised the school leaving age even further. At the same time, specialized vocational schools around Australia were closed or amalgamated with mainstream high schools. This occurred as government equity policies changed to include in the mainstream previously segregated students with disabilities. The resultant illusory increase in school retention rates led to substantial pressures in schools to accommodate an increased cohort of non-academic students affecting literacy and numeracy measures. These trends have continued through to current times. Constancy in student demographics In their comparison of the 1964 cohort of student test results with 2003 the researchers use an economic statistical device to ‘decompose’ that is, take into account and breakdown the demographically very different groups of 14 year olds in schools at that time. Leigh and Ryan (2008) use a technique known as the Oaxaca Decomposition (1973) in their attempt to separate the effects of changing demographics. They rely on certain statistical assumptions that were not developed for this particular purpose and that largely ignore or are unable to take into consideration the changes in complexity of schooling in the past 4 decades. Others have critiqued such a use of the Oaxaca decomposition because: The [Oaxaca] technique fails to limit the influence on the probability that the outcome occurs at increasingly high asset levels … and thus is likely to be overstating the impact of student differences in achievement levels on demographic differences. (Fairlie, 2006, p. 9 and 11) Leigh and Ryan themselves warn that their ‘datasets do not contain a comprehensive set of demographic characteristics’. Fox and Iredale (1994) put the issue of demographic change into perspective simply when they state that “undoubtedly, the changes in immigration policy since 1947 have effected vast changes in Australian society and these are reflected in schools and post-school enrolments. The issues of inequity, racial discrimination and access to further training and employment still remain.” In 1964 the children researched were mostly born in Australia (in 1951), and their parents were white and Anglo – while the 14 year olds in 2003 were born in 1989 and came from very different backgrounds. In 1964 according to ABS, the proportion of the overseas-born population had declined to 10%. In comparison in 2005ii, the number of overseas-born Australians passed 4.8 million, representing 24% of the total population.

6

Over the past 40 years, immigration has changed and the diversity of country of birth has increased. Indeed the most outstanding change in the immigrations intake that occurred during the 1980’s has been in the source regions of immigrants. Over the last 25 years, the New Zealand-born (often from Pacifika background) population living in Australia has nearly trebled, and in 2005 was the second largest overseas-born group (9% of the overseas-born population). The percentage of immigrants from Northeast Asia rose from 5 to 20% of the overall intake, and southern Asia's contributions increased from 7 to 10%. In 1991-92, Hong Kong topped the list in terms of permanent net gain with 12 per cent of arrivals. Vietnam occupied third place among the source countries with 9% of arrivals. Overall, net permanent gain from countries of Southeast, Northeast and Southern Asia was 67% of the total in 1991-92 (Fox & Iredale, 1994). Significantly the school retention rates for NESB students in the period 1980 to 1996 is more than 20% greater than the ESB students – many of these NESB students were at that time new arrivals with little experience in formal schooling in general and of course in (English) literacy and Australian teaching about numeracy in particular. These factors have implications for the findings reported in the Leigh and Ryan (2006; 2008) reports. Changes in numbers of teachers and lower class sizes Within the Leigh and Ryan (2006; 2008) reports student-teacher ratio and class size are continuously conflated and confused - indeed contrary to the reports of Leigh and Ryan, class sizes in government and Catholic schools have risen slightly since 2000. In the 1960’s it was possible to suggest that the pupil- teacher ratio was indicative of class sizes, but between 1964 and 2003, the added complexity of education has meant the additional employment of many non class-room based teachers, for example librarians, assistant principals, pupil welfare coordinators, careers teachers, remediation and special language teachers. So while the 2004 student-teacher ratio was 14.3 this does not equate to class sizes of 14 – far from it – for example recent school census figures in Tasmania indicate that 143 state schools had classes with more than 29 students in them. This is also the case in many Victorian primary schools. In an Australian Bureau of Statistics report Burke & Spaull warn: Definitional changes affect comparisons over time. Student:teacher ratio is the ratio of the total number of school students to the total number of school teachers, including school principals, deputy principals, careers teachers etc. It is not a measure of class size (Burke & Spaull, 2001). The most recent statistics available from the ABS annual Schools Australia (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008) indicate that growth in teacher numbers in the last decade in private schools has been more than double that of government schools. This is very significant as it may help explain
7

the growth in Federal government spending on private schools in the last 12 years. In 1964 the proportion of students in private secondary schools was less than 20%; in 2003 it was almost 40% this recent growth in student numbers has necessitated a growth in teacher numbers in nongovernment schools – usually as a transfer from government schools - as well as increased total teacher numbers. Again it can be presumed that Leigh and Ryan would not want to argue that this growth in numbers of private school teachers is actually related to what they have claimed is both a decline in teacher standards (Leigh & Ryan, 2006) and the decline in student outcomes. Contrary conclusions or just misuse of data Leigh and Ryan (2006; 2008) reach significantly different conclusions to one of the principle studies from which the data for their research was drawn. The Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) study on Achievement in Literacy and Numeracy by Australian 14-year-olds, 19751998 (Rothman, 2003) states: The results reported here indicate that the achievements of Australian 14-year-olds in reading comprehension and mathematics have remained constant during the period. For some groups, there has been improvement, most notably for students from language backgrounds other than English. (Executive Summary p. ix) Leigh and Ryan (2008) counter this original finding and dismiss any affect from this result by pointing to the increase of students with parents with a university degree as an offsetting factor, using the Oaxaca decomposition as previously discussed. The LSAY (Rothman, 2003) reports that while students from NESB backgrounds perform on average measurably below that of students from English language backgrounds, between 1975 and 1998, the magnitude of the difference (or variance) decreased by about half, indicating a significant improvement between students from homes where English is the main language spoken and students from homes where a language other than English is the main language spoken. The LSAY report is convincing in its approach to data analysis and given the differences in interpretation of the same data by Leigh and Ryan (2008) and by the LSAY researchers themselves, it is difficult not to call into question the secondary findings. US education researchers, MacLaren and Kinchloe, warn in their latest book (McLaren & Kincheloe, 2007) that such “positivist rigour” as employed by Leigh and Ryan’s type of work, actually “preclude(s) the complex, multidimensional, multi-methodological work necessary to produce meaningful and useable research data … such complexity in everyday life undermines the total reliance on computational methods.’ Non-conclusive statistics

8

In employing a business “productivity” model to study educational outcomes, with supposedly numerically measurable performance outcomes calculated against financial inputs, it is not surprising that Leigh and Ryan (2006; 2008) are prepared to malign, as second rate, teachers through recourse to research that seems to have such strong “scientific credibility” (Gale & Cross, 2007, p. 8). However, as a number of educational researchers have pointed out, such an approach simply does not or cannot account for the range of outcomes and diverse factors that contribute to a modern education and its outcomes. Such an approach does not measure qualitative factors that are important to an individual’s participation in modern society, her or his ability to acquire the skills necessary to survive in the modern workplace, and it does not sufficiently take into account the complexity of “inputs” involved in diverse student cohorts over time. Moreover a study restricted to literacy and numeracy testing in a narrow context involves only a few narrow measures of educational quality and performance. Many other aspects of a broad ranging education such as other subject areas, verbal communication, social skills, knowledge of wider society, as well as abilities to actually use both literacy and numeracy skills in a variety of contexts would need to be examined in order to provide a proper examination of overall education effectiveness. Given the complexity of the factors involved, the claims of statistical significance made by Leigh and Ryan (2008) are open to question, as are the conclusions drawn from them. While Australia ranks towards the lower end of OECD spending per capita on education, it still manages to perform well in international performance indicators, and it is simply difficult to believe that our educational “productivity” is as bad as claimed within these economic reports (Leigh & Ryan, 2006; 2008). The possibility that falling teacher quality led to a disproportionate drop in student performance is similarly not demonstrated or even reasonably indicated. The study (Leigh & Ryan, 2008) has not produced evidence that teaching quality has either fallen over time or that it measures badly by any objective yardstick. In fact wider evidence (Darling-Hammond, 1996, 2000; Kleinhenz & Ingvarson, 2004; Rowe, 2003, 2004a, 2004b) suggests that public school teachers especially do extremely well despite their low salaries. Leigh and Ryan’s support of claims for teacher salary increases rings hollow as they should also be about supporting teachers in their work and encouraging them to stay in the profession. The new Labor government is currently refusing to alter the past Howard Government’s socioeconomic status (SES) funding model, which funds private schools according to the income, occupation and education of parents within the school's census district. Teese and Lamb (2007) say the SES model has unfairly delivered significant gains to some of the nation's wealthiest private schools. They document what they call “the residualisation of state schooling” where schools in
9

poorer areas are becoming smaller and more marginalised, with a higher concentration of disadvantaged students. Unless these issues are addressed, the real risk is that Australia will continue to have an entrenched and discriminatory system that works very well for some families and not others. Then in such a context the marginalised sector of the system will continue to fail and this will ultimately affect young people’s lives and their future opportunities. While conservative journalists may claim that ‘education academics turn out research that bears little relation to classroom reality’ (Lane, 2005) it is interesting to note that the new Federal Minister of Education writes about my critique of Leigh and Ryan that: You have drawn attention to a number of important factors which need to be considered in assessing its findings. I have noted your concerns about some aspects of the report’s methodology, as well as the use and interpretation of data from other sources. … Your review of the work is appreciated. The Australian Government is determined to base new policy directions on a sound evidence base. Independent research is important in helping form the Government’s approach in this area. I also trust that works such as your will lead to a more informed public debate about these important issues. (Gillard, 2008) Where to now? Media driven opinions of “what makes for good teaching” coupled with the government’s intervention in pedagogy, assessment and curriculum through the national assessment, national curriculum and prioritising of a phonics based method of teaching of reading (Rowe, 2005) could lead to what has been characterised as a pedagogy of poverty (Haberman, 1991). Teachers no longer (if they ever did) own their own profession. This is further evidenced by the recent official exhortations of government in Victoria that encourages teacher who ‘have become disengaged’ to leave the profession. Similar programs have been implemented in Queensland. If indeed some teachers are disengaged from education investigating the combination of reasons for this might be productive for systems in terms of investment and succession planning. Many teachers are already overwhelmed with the workload, behavioural problems, administration and working conditions – it is not surprising that teachers too take on a persona of passive compliance – just like many students within schools (Schlechty, 2002). Increasingly the media have become ‘significant players … within the context of influence that produce education policy … in relation to the learning required to know how to teach and what to teach’ (Gale & Cross, 2007, p. 5). Gale and Cross also suggest that ‘while responsibility for
10

perceived [student] problems … are[sic] attributed primarily to teachers … the problems with teachers’ pedagogy tended to be attributed to the poor standard of their education’ (Gale & Cross, 2007, p. 14). Faculties of education are increasingly accused of ‘negligence’ because “teachers claim they had no literacy training” (Buckingham, 2005, p. 18). Despite widespread support of the view that education would “lead to the threshold of a just society in which inequalities due to personal background and circumstances have been eliminated” (Anderson & Vervoorn, 1983), and that “education should be emancipatory in its nature … concerned with social justice, transformation, and redressing social inadequacies” (Gale & Cross, 2007, p. 19), Leigh and Ryan (2008) and other conservative commentators attempt to lay the blame for many of society’s problems at the feet of schools, teachers and the university faculties of education. However their research data is at best unreliable and their methodological assumptions and tools are inappropriate. Their claims do not stand up to close scrutiny. Acknowledgements Many thanks to Peter Job Federal Research Officer Australian Education Union for his valuable contributions to this paper and to Annette Woods for her patience and thoughtful guidance.

11

References Anderson, D. S., & Vervoorn, A. E. (1983). Access to Privilege: Patterns of Participation in Australian Post-Secondary Education. Canberra. Burke , G. and Spaull, A. (2001). Australian Schools: Participation and Funding 1901 to 2000 1301.0 - Year Book Australia, Australian Bureau of Statistics: Canberra. Retrieved 15 December 2008 from http://www.abs.gov.au/ Australian Bureau of Statistics. (1987). Schooling in Australia: Statistical Profile No 1. Canberra. Retrieved 15 December 2008 from http://www.abs.gov.au/ Australian Bureau of Statistics (2008). Schools Australia 2007 4221.0. Canberra. Retrieved 15 December 2008 from http://www.abs.gov.au/ Buckingham, J. (2005, 28 February). The problem with educational research. The Australian, p. 18, Connell, R. W. (1993). Schools and social justice. Leichhardt NSW: Pluto Press. Connell, R. W., Ashenden, D., Kessler, S., & Dowsett, G. (1982). Making the difference: schools, families and social division. Sydney: George Allen & Unwin. Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). What matters most: A competent teacher for every child. Phi Delta Kappan 78(3), 193-201. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives (online), 8(1). Dinham, S., Ingvarson, L., & Kleinhenz, E. (2008). Teaching Talent: The Best Teachers for Australia’s Classrooms. Investing in Teacher Quality: Doing What Matters Most. Melbourne: Business Council of Australia. Fairlie, R. W. (2006). An Extension of the Blinder-Oaxaca Decomposition Technique to Logit and Probit Models (No. IZA Discussion Paper 1917): Institute for the Study of Labor. Fox, C., & Iredale, R. (1994). Immigration and Education: Issues of Equity. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education, Newcastle. Gale, T. (2006). How did we ever arrive at the conclusion that teachers are the problem? A critical reading in the discourses of Australian schooling. In B. Doecke, M. Howie & W. Sawyer (Eds.). Only connect: English teaching, schooling and community (pp. 99-119). Kent Town, South Australia: Wakefield Press in association with the Australian Association for the Teaching of English.
12

Gale, T., & Cross, R. (2007). Nebulous Gobbledegook: The politics of influence on how and what to teach in Australian schools. In A. Berry, A. Clemans & A. Kostogriz (Eds.), Dimensions of professional learning: professionalism, practice and identity (pp. 5-21). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Gillard, J. (2008). Letter to David Zyngier. Canberra: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. Haberman, M. (1991). The Pedagogy of Poverty Versus Good Teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(4), 290-294. Hattie, J. (1992). Measuring the effects of schooling. Australian Journal of Education, 36, 5-13. Hattie, J. (2003, October 19-21). Teachers Make a Difference What is the research evidence? Paper presented at the ACER Research Conference, Carlton Crest Hotel, Melbourne Australia. Hayes, D., Mills, M., Christie, P., & Lingard, B. (2006). Teachers & schooling making a difference: productive pedagogies, assessment and performance. Crows Nest, N.S.W.: Allen & Unwin. Kleinhenz, E., & Ingvarson, L. (2004). Teacher accountability in Australia: Current policies and practices and their relation to the improvement of teaching and learning. Research Papers in Educational Leadership, 19(1), 31-49. Lane, B. (2005, 16 November). No reality on classrooms. The Australian, p. 7, Leigh, A., & Ryan, C. (2006). How and Why has Teacher Quality Changed in Australia? Canberra: Research School of Social Sciences Centre for Economic Policy Research Australian National Universityo. Document Number) Leigh, A., & Ryan, C. (2008). How Has School Productivity Changed in Australia? . Canberra: Research School of Social Sciences Centre for Economic Policy Research Australian National University. Lingard, B., Ladwig, J., Mills, M., Bahr, M., Chant, D., Warry, M., et al. (2001). Queensland School Reform Longitudinal Study: Final report, vol.1. Brisbane: Report prepared for Education Queensland by the School of Education, The University of Queensland Lowe, J., & Holt, M. (1998). Making the Curriculum Work. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. McLaren, P., & Kincheloe, J. L. (2007). Critical pedagogy : where are we now? New York: Peter Lang.

13

Nash, R., & Prochnow, J. (2004). Is it really the teachers?’ An analysis of the discourse of teacher effect on New Zealand educational policy. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies 39(2), 175-192. Oaxaca, R. 1973. “Male-female Wage Differentials in Urban Labor Markets.” International Economic Review 14(3), 693-709. Pike, B. (2008). Blueprint for Early Childhood Development and School Reform: School Reform Discussion Paper. Retrieved. from http://www.education.vic.gov.au/about/directions/blueprint2008/papers.htm. Rothman, S. ( 2003). Achievement in Literacy and Numeracy by Australian 14-year-olds, 19751998. Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) Melbourne: ACER Rowe, K. (2003, October 19-21). The importance of Teacher Quality as a key determinant of students’ experiences and outcomes of schooling. Paper presented at the ACER Research Conference, Carlton Crest Hotel, Melbourne Australia. Rowe, K. (2004a, 26-27 August). The importance of teaching: Ensuring better schooling by building teacher capacities that maximize the quality of teaching and learning provision – implications of findings from the international and Australian evidence-based research. Paper presented at the Making Schools Better conference: A Summit Conference on the Performance, Management and Funding of Australian Schools, University of Melbourne. Rowe, K. (2004b). Submission to Inquiry into the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Teaching Profession) Bill 2004 by the Australian Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee. Retrieved 30 March, 2006, from http://www.acer.edu.au/research/programs/documents/Rowe-Senate_Submission.pdf Rowe, K (2005) National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy Department of Education, Science and Training: Canberra Schlechty, P. C. (2002). Working on the work: an action plan for teachers, principals, and superintendents (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. SOFweb. (2003). Pedagogy. Retrieved 30 March, 2006, from http://www.sofweb.vic.edu.au/pedagogy/ Teese, R., & Lamb, S. (2007). School Reform and Inequality in Urban Australia A Case of Residualising the Poor in International Studies. In R. Teese, S. Lamb, M. Duru-Bellat & S.

14

Helme (Eds.), International studies in educational inequality, theory and policy (Vol. 1). Dordrecht: Springer.

Endotes

15

i ii

http://econrsss.anu.edu.au/~aleigh/contact.htm I have used 2005 figures as the closest ABS data available to the date of Leigh and Ryan’s data endpoint



Add Comment

To add a comment, you need to login or signup (you can signup without leaving this page)