2
Performance and characteristics of
Victoria’s school system
2.1
Introduction
The Victorian school system1 is undergoing significant change in a period of
considerable challenges. The performance of the school system is comparatively
strong, as indicated by national and international tests which place Victoria in the first
or second quartile of performance. However, there is significant performance variation
within the Victorian system, both across and within the government, Catholic and
independent sectors. Furthermore, the system lags behind a number of international
comparators on common performance measures.
Both the Commonwealth and Victorian governments have announced goals to raise
school performance into line with these ‘top tier’ countries. To achieve this, it will not be
enough to target reforms at ‘underperforming’ schools. Rather, improvements must be
made across the entire system.
A number of current trends will make improving the quality of government schools
challenging. The past decade has seen a pronounced long-term decline in the prior
educational attainment of new teachers. Simultaneously, the movement of relatively
high socioeconomic status (SES) students to the non-government school sectors has
meant the government sector now educates a greater proportion of disadvantaged
students with correspondingly larger educational needs. Past attempts at increasing
the quality of Victoria’s school system have had limited success; expenditure has
increased significantly without a corresponding improvement in student performance
or equity.
Maintaining a focus on improving performance is important because of the potential
economic and social gains. Research indicates that increasing the retention and
achievement of Victorian students increases labour force participation, productivity
and economic growth. These economic and social gains translate into higher living
standards and improved wellbeing for Victorians.
2.2
The Victorian school system performs well
The quality of a school system is measured by a number of characteristics including
student outcomes (learning, engagement, and transitions to employment or further
study) and equity. Victoria’s performance on these metrics is generally strong
compared with its domestic and international comparators. Victoria’s academic
performance and retention rates are among the highest in Australia, and it is classed by
the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) as a ‘high
quality, high equity’ system (Thomson, DeBortoli, et al. 2011).
2.2.1
Student learning
The national assessment program
The National Assessment Program — Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) tests are
conducted annually for all Australian students in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9 (box 2.1). A key
1
Comprised of the government, Catholic and independent sectors.
PERFORMANCE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF VICTORIA’S SCHOOL SYSTEM
7
strength of NAPLAN is that it provides a common basis for comparing student
performance across jurisdictions and through time, although NAPLAN test scores also
have limitations — some of which are mentioned below.
Box 2.1
National testing — NAPLAN
Administered by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, the
National Assessment Program — Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) tests literacy and
numeracy skills developed through the school curriculum.
NAPLAN assessment has been conducted annually since 2008, and tests students in
Years 3, 5, 7 and 9 on four domains: reading, writing, language conventions, and
numeracy. Results are equated to allow comparison across years.
Students’ results are reported on a national assessment scale for each domain.
Each scale comprises ten bands, and all year levels are reported on a common
scale. For each year level six bands are reported, including one which represents
the National Minimum Standard. Results cannot be compared across domains.
Due to the design of NAPLAN tests and the process for equating tests across years,
results may have high degrees of statistical error. Where possible, the Commission
has indicated whether differences between scores are statistically significant.
Source: ACARA 2012b.
NAPLAN test results indicate Victorian students consistently perform above the
Australian average for mean scale scores (Victoria is represented by the horizontal bar
in figure 2.1). Victoria’s results in other NAPLAN domains (that is, writing, spelling, and
grammar and punctuation) tell a similar story. Victoria also exceeds the Australian
average in the percentage of students scoring above the minimum standard for reading
and numeracy across all age groups (ACARA 2012b).
Figure 2.1
NAPLAN mean scale scores, Victoria compared
with the highest and lowest performing
jurisdictions (2012)
Reading
Numeracy
600
600
400
400
200
200
0
0
Year 3
Notes:
Year 5
Year 7
Year 9
Year 3
Year 5
Year 7
Year 9
The horizontal dash in the figure represents Victoria’s performance while the vertical line represents
the range between the highest and lowest performing jurisdictions. Victoria’s performance in
numeracy was not significantly different to the highest performing jurisdiction at Year 3, 5, 7 or 9.
Mean scale scores cannot be compared across domains.
Source: ACARA 2013a.
8
MAKING THE GRADE: AUTONOMY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN VICTORIAN SCHOOLS
International assessment programs
On a variety of international student assessments Victorian school students perform
relatively well (box 2.2).
Box 2.2
International testing — PISA, TIMSS and PIRLS
PISA
Administered by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,
the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) tests general
competencies in reading, mathematical and scientific literacy. That is, PISA
measures how well students apply the knowledge and skills learned at school to
real-life challenges, not how well they have mastered a curriculum.
PISA assessments have been conducted every three years since 2000, and test
15 year-olds in over 70 countries and economies. PISA results are comparable on
each domain (reading, mathematics and science) over time, but are not
comparable across domains.
TIMSS
Administered by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational
Achievement (IEA), the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS) tests mathematics and science learning with a curriculum focus.
TIMSS assessments have been conducted every four years since 1995, and test Year
4 and 8 students in over 60 countries. TIMSS results are comparable on each domain
(mathematics and science) over time, but are not comparable between the two
domains.
PIRLS
Administered by the IEA, the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS)
tests students’ reading ability and trends in home and school contexts for learning to
read.
PIRLS assessments have been conducted every five years since 2001, and test Year
4 students in over 50 countries. PIRLS results are comparable over time.
Sources: Thomson, DeBortoli, et al. 2011; Thomson et al. 2012.
PISA
The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) (box 2.2) assesses a random
sample of students drawn from a nationally-representative sample of schools. It focuses
on young people’s ability to apply their knowledge and skills in reading, mathematics
and science to real life problems and situations. Compared with OECD economies,
Victoria performed above average on reading, mathematical and scientific literacy in
PISA 2009 (figure 2.2).
PERFORMANCE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF VICTORIA’S SCHOOL SYSTEM
9
Figure 2.2
PISA mean scores (2009)
600
400
200
0
Reading literacy
Highest performer
Note:
Mathematical literacy
Victoria
OECD average
Scientific literacy
Lowest performer
Mean scores cannot be compared across domains.
Source: Thomson, DeBortoli, et al. 2011.
Victoria was in the top quartile for reading and scientific literacy performance, and in
the second quartile for mathematical literacy performance (table 2.1).
Table 2.1
Victoria’s position in PISA (2009)
Domain
Rank
Quartile
9th (49)
1st
Mathematics
16th (52)
2nd
Science
11th (51)
1st
Reading
Notes:
In computing rankings, Australia was excluded. First quartile = top 25 per cent; second quartile = the
subsequent 25 per cent. Figures in parentheses indicate the number of economies assessed on
each domain.
Source: Thomson, DeBortoli, et al. 2011.
PIRLS and TIMSS
The Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) and Trends in International
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) respectively assess Year 4 reading ability and
Year 4 and 8 mathematics and science ability. Victoria performs above the average
across all the year levels and domains tested in PIRLS and TIMSS (figure 2.3).
10
MAKING THE GRADE: AUTONOMY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN VICTORIAN SCHOOLS
Figure 2.3
PIRLS and TIMSS mean scores (2011)
600
400
200
0
PIRLS Year 4
Reading
TIMSS Year 4
Mathematics
Highest performer
Note:
TIMSS Year 4
Science
Victoria
TIMSS Year 8
Mathematics
Average
TIMSS Year 8
Science
Lowest performer
Mean scores cannot be compared across domains.
Source: Thomson et al. 2012.
That said, Victoria was outperformed by a number of jurisdictions. For example, PIRLS
results show Victorian Year 4 students were significantly outperformed in reading literacy
by students in 18 of the 44 participating jurisdictions. In addition, 20 per cent of Victorian
students did not meet the nominal minimum reading standards, compared with 14 per
cent of students in the United States, 8 per cent in Finland and 7 per cent in Hong Kong
(Thomson et al. 2012). Victoria lies outside the top quartile of performance in all year
levels and domains tested.
2.2.2
Equity
The equity of a school system is generally considered in two dimensions — variance
within the system, and the impact of students’ backgrounds on their educational
performance.
While PISA results show the variation in Victorian students’ performances were among
the lowest in Australia (measured as the difference between the 5 th and 95th percentile
of students), it was above the OECD average, and significantly greater than some high
performing systems such as Shanghai.
This variation appears to be largely driven by differences in students’ SES backgrounds.
Analysis by the Victorian Auditor General (VAGO) suggests the achievement gap
between students from low- and high- SES schools was wide at all year levels for both
literacy and numeracy — ‘representing 15 months of learning at Year 9 for both literacy
and numeracy’ (VAGO 2009, 4). Analysis of PISA results found, Australia-wide, the
performance gap in reading literacy between the highest and lowest SES quartiles was
equivalent to almost three years of schooling (Thomson, DeBortoli, et al. 2011, 297).
NAPLAN results also show considerable variation of outcomes in the Victorian school
system correlating to SES status (as measured by parental occupation in figure 2.4), with
a significant percentage of disadvantaged Victorian students not meeting minimum
standards of literacy and numeracy. The variation of Victorian scores is however less
than in other Australian jurisdictions.
PERFORMANCE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF VICTORIA’S SCHOOL SYSTEM
11
Figure 2.4
Percentage Year 9 students achieving NAPLAN
national minimum reading standard, by parental
occupation, Victorian (2012)
100
98
97
93
93
89
75
81
50
25
0
Group 1
Notes:
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
Not in paid
work
Not stated
Group 1: Senior management and qualified professionals, Group 2: Other business managers and
associate professionals, Group 3: Tradespeople, clerks, skilled office, sales and service staff, Group 4:
Machine operators, hospitality staff, assistants, labourers, Not in paid work: Not in paid work in the
previous 12 months.
Source: ACARA 2012b, 203.
Equity and disadvantage are discussed further in chapter 11.
2.2.3
Retention
The completion of schooling is strongly correlated to students’ future participation in the
labour force. Early school leavers are more likely to become unemployed, remain
unemployed for longer, have lower earnings, and accumulate less wealth over their
lifetimes (Lamb and Rice 2008, 6). While above the national rate, Victoria’s apparent
retention rate from Year 7 to 12 has hovered around 80 per cent for much of the past
decade (figure 2.5).
Figure 2.5
Year 12 retention rates, Victoria (per cent)
100
80
60
40
20
0
2001
2003
Victoria
Note:
2005
2007
2009
Australia
The retention rate is the number of students in Year 12 as a percentage of their respective cohort at
the commencement of secondary school.
Sources: SCRGSP 2011.
12
MAKING THE GRADE: AUTONOMY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN VICTORIAN SCHOOLS
2.3
There is significant performance variation within
the system
Average measures mask variations in student performance in Victoria. Figure 2.6 shows
the percentage of Year 9 students achieving different performance bands in NAPLAN.
Figure 2.6
Distribution of Year 9 NAPLAN results, Victoria
(2012, per cent)
Numeracy
Reading
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
Exempt Band 5 Band 6 Band 7 Band 8 Band 9 Band 10
& Below
Note:
0
Exempt Band 5 Band 6 Band 7 Band 8 Band 9 Band 10
& Below
Exempt students and those in Band 5 and below, are considered to be below the national minimum
standard.
Source: ACARA 2012b.
2.3.1
Performance variation across schools
Student outcomes reflect a combination of the students’ backgrounds (including SES
status and aptitude) and teacher and school effects (chapter 3).2 Therefore, when
analysing performance data, it is important to consider and, where possible, remove the
impact of students’ backgrounds from school performance. This is particularly important
when making comparisons between schools and across school sectors (box 2.3). As the
results of international assessment are not disaggregated by sector at the state level the
following analysis is based on NAPLAN performance.
For example, the Catholic Education Commission of Victoria cautioned that student ‘engagement and
attitudinal factors’ influence NAPLAN performance (CECV 2013).
2
PERFORMANCE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF VICTORIA’S SCHOOL SYSTEM
13
Box 2.3
Government, Catholic and independent school
sectors
The Victorian school system comprises three sectors: government, Catholic and
independent. The government sector is managed by the Department of Education
and Early Childhood Development and provides free, secular education. The
majority of Victorian students (62.8 per cent in 2012) attend government schools.
Compared with the Catholic and independent sectors the government sector is
largely centralised, although autonomy over areas such as budgets and workforce
management is being increasingly devolved (chapter 4). The majority of funding for
the sector comes from the State Government with additional funding provided by
the Commonwealth, and a small amount of private fundraising.
The Catholic Education Commission of Victoria acts on behalf of Catholic
education in accord with the objectives of the Company.3 Over one fifth of
Victorian students (22.8 per cent in 2012) attend Catholic schools. The Catholic
Education Office and Catholic Education Commission have overall responsibility for
the system’s governance, within a highly devolved system of school management.
The sector is funded by the Commonwealth Government, State Government and
private fees.
In 2012 around 14 per cent of Victorian students attended independent schools.
These schools operate autonomously, are (mostly) non systemic and are each
managed by a board of governors or a management committee. Independent
schools are largely funded by private fees, with some funding from the
Commonwealth, and a small proportion from the State Government.
Caution should be taken when comparing school performance across sectors due
to differences in the relative characteristics of schools and students. Specifically, the
government sector is known to include a greater proportion of disadvantaged
students than the Catholic or independent sectors. For example, analysis by the
Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority found parents of students in Victorian
independent schools are more likely to be university educated and work in more
highly paid professions than parents of students in government schools. Similarly,
research prepared for the Australian Education Union found, that despite having
the greatest number of students with high family incomes, the government sector
has the greatest proportion of students from low income families.
Sources: Gonski et al. 2011; Preston 2013; DEECD 2012r; VCAA 2013.
Absolute scores
Student performance varies significantly by school sector in Victoria (figure 2.7).
However, these results do not account for contextual influences affecting student
performance including differences in prior achievement, SES background and ‘peer’
effects (Masters 2012a, 7). Thus, the test scores shown in the following figures reflect
variations in these factors.
The Company members are the Archbishops of Melbourne, the Bishop of Ballarat, the Bishop of Sandhurst
and the Bishop of Sale.
3
14
MAKING THE GRADE: AUTONOMY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN VICTORIAN SCHOOLS
Figure 2.7
NAPLAN mean scale scores, Victoria (2012)
Reading
Numeracy
600
600
400
400
200
200
0
Year 3
Year 5
Year 7
Year 9
Government
Notes:
0
Year 3
Year 5
Year 7
Year 9
Catholic
These scores do not exactly match the overall Victorian scores published in the ACARA national
report as an alternative methodology was used. Differences between the methodologies are
relatively minor. These scores have not been adjusted for students’ backgrounds. These results
should be interpreted cautiously as details of standard errors and statistical significance are not yet
available.
Source: DEECD 2013a.
In primary years testing (Years 3 and 5), the results of government and Catholic sectors
are broadly similar.4 In secondary years testing (Years 7 and 9), the Catholic sector
achieves somewhat higher scores than the government sector. Some of this difference
may be explained by students moving to the non-government sectors for secondary
school. Analysis by the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority found that
between 2010 and 2012 almost one quarter of students moved school sector between
Year 5 and Year 7.5 Additionally, students who moved away from the government sector
generally had higher NAPLAN scores than those who remained in the government sector,
and students who moved to the government sector generally had lower NAPLAN scores
than those who remained in the non-government sectors (VCAA 2013).
The distribution of school performances by sector is shown in figure 2.8.
4
The Commission acknowledges the assistance of the Catholic Education Commission of Victoria in
interpreting sector-level differences in performance and data limitations.
5
The most common movements were from the government sector to the Catholic or independent sector,
and from the catholic sector to the government sector (VCAA 2013).
PERFORMANCE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF VICTORIA’S SCHOOL SYSTEM
15
Figure 2.8
Distribution of schools’ mean NAPLAN reading
scores, Victoria (2012, per cent)
Proportion of school sector
60
40
20
0
375
475
Government
Note:
575
Mean NAPLAN scaled score
Catholic
675
Independent
Differences across sectors have not been adjusted for students’ backgrounds, nor assessed for
statistical significance. As noted, school performance reflects differences in students’ backgrounds
as well as in-school effects.
Source: Commission analysis based on DEECD 2013a; ACARA 2013b.
School mean performances are narrowly distributed in both the government and
Catholic sectors. The independent sector produced a broader range of outcomes.
Intake-adjusted scores
As student performance is influenced by factors outside a school’s control (chapter 3),
measuring school quality requires isolating these from school performance measures. In
order to do this, DEECD measures schools’ ‘intake adjusted’ performance (box 2.4).
Box 2.4
Intake-adjusted performance
Research shows students’ backgrounds influence their educational outcomes. Therefore,
to accurately measure school quality, it is necessary to remove the effect of students’
backgrounds from school performance metrics. In Victoria ‘intake-adjusted
performance’ is used to compare school performances after adjusting for difference in
the social and academic composition of each school.
A regression analysis is used to plot the average relationship between student intake
measures (such as SES status, language background and remoteness) and outcomes for
all government schools. For each school, the difference between its predicted outcome
(based on the state average) and actual outcome is measured.
This shows schools that are performing significantly better or worse than predicted based
on their student intake. It does not tell us about schools’ absolute performance and
should be used alongside those measures.
Intake-adjusted performance is conducted for a range of measures such as student
learning (including teacher judgements and NAPLAN results), engagement (absences,
connectedness), and transitions to employment or further education.
Currently, intake-adjusted measures are only available for the government school sector,
and are reported in each school’s Annual Report to the School Community.
Source: DEECD 2011d.
16
MAKING THE GRADE: AUTONOMY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN VICTORIAN SCHOOLS
Table 2.2 shows the number of Victorian government schools whose outcomes are
significantly different to those predicted based on the social and academic
backgrounds of their students (for Year 9 NAPLAN results). These schools can be
considered to deliver relatively weak or relatively strong education, compared with
other government schools.
Table 2.2
Intake-adjusted performance, Victorian
government schools 2009-12 (NAPLAN Year 9
reading)
Lower than predicted
Similar to predicted
Higher than predicted
Reading
38 (13%)
219 (75%)
36 (12%)
Numeracy
37 (13%)
217 (74%)
39 (13%)
Note:
Schools scores are predicted using regression analysis based on a range of student characteristics.
Source: DEECD 2013b.
These data suggest approximately three quarters of government schools’ outcomes
can be predicted based on the average relationship between student background
and performance within the system.
Value-add measures
An alternate way to gauge school quality is to measure the educational value-add it
delivers. This is done by assessing the same cohort of students at two points in time and
comparing the increase in their knowledge. The methodology used to measure this in
Victoria is called ‘relative gain’ (box 2.5).
Box 2.5
Relative gain
In Victoria, relative gain is used to compare the level of improvement of students
between testing points. The measure is used at both an individual school level and
system level.
Relative gain is calculated for each student by comparing their relative
performance in the current year NAPLAN assessment to all other students that
achieved the same score two years prior. If their current year result is in the:

top 25 per cent of students, their growth is ‘High’,

middle 50 per cent of students, their growth is ‘Medium’, and

lowest 25 per cent of students, their growth is ‘Low’.
The strength of this measure is that it overcomes the issue that students do not on
average experience linear growth between the four testing points. Relative gain,
therefore, provides a meaningful comparison group for each student.
Relative gain scores do not provide any information about the absolute level of
student performance.
Relative gain scores remove some of the impact of students’ backgrounds but are
not adjusted for SES status.
Source: VCAA 2013.
PERFORMANCE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF VICTORIA’S SCHOOL SYSTEM
17
Figure 2.9 shows the distribution of students’ relative gain across the government and
Catholic school sectors in Victoria. It compares students who sat the NAPLAN reading
test at Year 7 in 2010, and Year 9 in 2012.
Figure 2.9
NAPLAN relative gain, from Year 7 to 9, Victoria
(2012, per cent)
Numeracy
60
40
40
20
20
0
0
Low gain
Medium gain
High gain
Government
Note:
Reading
60
Low gain
Medium gain
High gain
Catholic
Relative gain measures student improvement relative to academic peers, not absolute
performance gains. Results are not adjusted for students’ backgrounds. These results should be
interpreted cautiously as details of standard errors and statistical significance are not yet available.
Source: DEECD 2013a.
A larger proportion of students in government schools achieved low relative gains than
students in the Catholic sector. This may be consistent with there being a higher
concentration of high gain schools in the non-government sectors than there is in the
government sector. But, as noted, these results should be interpreted cautiously as they
have not been adjusted for the different distributions of students’ SES backgrounds in
each of the systems which will explain some of the difference.
High performing schools can be defined either as schools that produce both high
achievement and growth, or schools that produce high growth regardless of their
absolute achievement. Figure 2.10 charts schools’ mean scaled NAPLAN scores (Year 9
reading), against their net relative gain (Year 7 to 9, reading).
18
MAKING THE GRADE: AUTONOMY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN VICTORIAN SCHOOLS
Figure 2.10 School performance and improvement,
NAPLAN Year 9 reading (2012)
Mean NAPLAN scaled score
690
High achievement
Low gain
High achievement
High gain
590
State mean = 581.6
490
Low achievement
Low gain
390
-75%
Low achievement
High gain
-25%
25%
75%
Net relative gain
Government
Catholic
Note:
Net relative gain is the proportion of high relative gain students minus the proportion of low relative
gain students in each school. These results should be interpreted cautiously as details of standard
errors and statistical significance are not yet available.
Source:
Commission analysis based on DEECD 2013a.
Figure 2.10 shows, before adjustments are made for students’ backgrounds (including
SES):

A large proportion of government secondary schools (59 per cent) produce
relatively low educational achievement and relatively low educational growth,
compared with Catholic schools (32 per cent).

A small proportion of government secondary schools produce relatively high
educational achievement and relatively high educational growth (16 per cent)
compared with Catholic schools (40 per cent).

A smaller proportion of government secondary schools (6 per cent) produce
relatively high educational achievement and relatively low educational growth
than Catholic schools (20 per cent).

A larger proportion of government secondary schools (19 per cent) produce
relatively high educational growth and relatively low educational achievement
than Catholic schools (8 per cent).
It is important to note this analysis is based on the relative performance of Victorian
schools. Schools with relatively low achievement and/or relative gain are not
necessarily producing poor outcomes; rather, the evidence suggests they could be
doing better, in line with what other schools in the same system are achieving.
Within the government school sector, intake-adjusted NAPLAN scores can be
compared to net relative gain scores (figure 2.11).
PERFORMANCE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF VICTORIA’S SCHOOL SYSTEM
19
Figure 2.11 Intake-adjusted performance and improvement,
NAPLAN Year 9 numeracy (2012, Victorian
government schools)
Standardised residual
3
Low gain
High achievement
High gain
High achievement
Low gain
Low achievment
High gain
Low achievement
1
-1
-3
-5
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Net relative gain
Notes:
Standardised residual is the difference between a school’s actual and predicted performance
based on the average relationship between student background and performance. A score less
than negative one is significantly lower than predicted, between negative one and one is not
significantly different from predicted, and greater than one is higher than predicted. Net relative
gain is the proportion of high relative gain minus the proportion of low relative gain students in each
school.
Source: Commission analysis based on DEECD 2013a; DEECD 2013b.
Analysis of student performance and relative gain data show even after adjustments
are made for student background, the value-add of individual schools varies across the
sector. This suggests there is scope for improvement in the system, and may be a useful
means for identifying higher performing schools whose methods could be more widely
applied.
2.3.2
Performance variation in schools
As well as variation across schools, significant performance variation exists within
Victorian schools. Analysis of PISA results found that the degree of performance
variation in Australian schools was larger than the OECD average, and far greater than
the variation across schools (Thomson, DeBortoli, et al. 2011, 285). While some argue
that in school variation represents differences in students’ aptitude, it may also be
affected by differences in teacher quality within schools (Sahlberg 2007, 159–160;
DEECD 2012a, 5).
20
MAKING THE GRADE: AUTONOMY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN VICTORIAN SCHOOLS
2.4
There is a large gap between the Victorian
system and the world’s best school systems
Although Victorian students’ PISA scores are above the OECD average for reading,
mathematics and science, they are significantly below the highest performing
jurisdictions (figure 2.2). Compared with these jurisdictions Victoria has more low
performers and fewer high performers. A number of high performing countries also have
more equitable school systems than Victoria.
In its position paper, Towards Victoria as a Learning Community, the Victorian
Government committed to ‘lift the performance of Victoria’s students into the global
top tier’ (DEECD 2012a, 1). In order to achieve this, the entire Victorian system will have
to improve — not just the lowest performers. While some countries have made dramatic
improvements to their schools systems in a short period of time, given current trends it
seems unlikely that Victoria would achieve this goal without significant reform.
2.4.1
Defining the ‘top tier’
There are several ways of grouping jurisdictions by their performance on PISA. For
instance, table 2.1 illustrates Victoria’s PISA test performance was in the first quartile for
reading and science, and the second for mathematics. Toward Victoria as a Learning
Community showed Victoria’s performance was, however, below that of some of its
Asia-Pacific neighbours and well below that of the five ‘top tier’ jurisdictions
(DEECD 2012a, 3). Consistent with this classification, the Commission considers that one
way to look at this question is to compare Victoria’s performance against the five top
performing jurisdictions on each PISA domain (figure 2.12).
Figure 2.12 ‘Top tier’ and Victorian performance (PISA 2009)
Reading
Mathematics
Science
580
580
580
540
540
540
500
500
500
Source: Thomson, DeBortoli, et al. 2011.
PERFORMANCE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF VICTORIA’S SCHOOL SYSTEM
21
2.4.2
Improvement required to reach the top tier
Student learning
Table 2.3 shows the improvement required, on each domain, for Victoria to reach the
‘top tier’ of performers (as measured by PISA scores), and to become the top
performing jurisdiction. Victoria’s performance on reading is the closest to the top tier,
with only a 2.7 per cent increase in mean scores required to reach the top five
performers. Victoria is slightly less competitive on science, requiring a 3.6 per cent
increase to reach the top tier, while on mathematics Victoria would need a mean
score increase of 6.3 per cent. The improvement required to reach the top performing
comparator is greater still.
Table 2.3
Indicative improvements in Victorian PISA mean
scores to match top tier
Current Victorian
mean score
Improvement required
to reach top tier
Improvement required
to be top performer
Reading
513
14 (2.7%)
27 (5.3%)
Mathematics
512
32 (6.3%)
89 (17.4%)
Science
521
19 (3.6%)
55 (10.6%)
Domain
Note:
Percentage improvements shown in brackets.
Source: Commission analysis based on Thomson, DeBortoli, et al. 2011.
It should be noted that these figures assume no change in the top tier jurisdictions’
performances. It is possible these scores will increase in the next round of PISA testing
(for example, between 2000 and 2009 Korea’s reading performance increased by 15
points), and Victoria would therefore need to produce additional gains to reach the
top performers.
Equity
Figure 2.13 shows the performance distribution of Victorian students compared with the
top tier jurisdictions on each domain. Compared with these jurisdictions Victoria has a
larger percentage of students at the lower end of the performance spectrum.
22
MAKING THE GRADE: AUTONOMY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN VICTORIAN SCHOOLS
Figure 2.13 Percentage of students by proficiency level,
Victoria and highest performing economies (PISA
2009)
Reading
Shanghai
1 3
Korea
1
Finland
Hong Kong
1 3
15
35
17
33
33
30
31
13
7
16
31
32
11
9
19
11
20
-25
28
26
30
0
<1b
1b
13
24
25
2
3
1
2
1
3
10
50
1
2
12
17
3
Victoria
5
29
2 6
1
Singapore
13
2
75
4
5
100
6
Mathematics
Shanghai
1 3
Singapore
3
9
15
7
13
Hong Kong
3 6
13
Korea
2 6
16
9
16
Chinese Tapei
Victoria
4
5
11
21
19
23
22
20
24
20
2
22
4
11
11
50
3
8
17
27
1
11
18
22
25
<1
16
26
21
0
27
25
21
-25
24
4
75
5
100
6
Science
Shanghai
3
Finland
1 5
Hong Kong
Singapore
1
3
Japan
Victoria
-25
11
3
3
5
9
7
10
26
15
29
15
29
17
25
16
27
21
2
15
30
11
50
75
5
2
5
14
23
4
3
14
26
3
4
15
33
25
1
20
31
29
0
<1
Note:
36
3
2
100
6
Level 2 is defined as the baseline proficiency level.
Source: Thomson, DeBortoli, et al. 2011.
PERFORMANCE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF VICTORIA’S SCHOOL SYSTEM
23
According to the OECD, one of the characteristics of a high performing education
system is a weak relationship between student performance and SES background
(OECD 2011, 14, 32). Analysis comparing the effect of student socio-economic status on
results found Victoria’s score for equity was not statistically different from the OECD
average, while a number of comparators — such as Finland, Hong Kong and Canada
— performed significantly better than Victoria on both quality and equity (figure 2.14).
Figure 2.14 Equity of performance in reading literacy (PISA
2009)
570
High Quality
Low Equity
High Quality
High Equity
Shanghai – China
550
Hong Kong – China
Finland
ACT
530
Singapore
WA
New Zealand
VIC
510
QLD
NSW
Canada
Australia
SA
United States
OECD average –
490
Quality
United Kingdom
TAS
470
450
430
Low Quality
Low Equity
30
25
20
15
Equity
NT
OECD average –
Reading literacy performance
Korea
Low Quality
High Equity
10
5
0
Percentage of variance in performance in reading literacy
explained by the ESCS index (r-squared x 100)
Not significantly different to OECD average equity
Significantly higher than OECD average equity
Source: Thomson, DeBortoli, et al. 2011, 284.
Reaching the top tier requires improvement from the entire system
Comparison with top performing school systems shows improving only the quality of
Victoria’s relatively weak schools is unlikely to bring Victoria in line with the ‘top tier’.
Instead, improvements must be more broadly targeted and enhance the entire system.
Figure 2.15 shows the Year 9 numeracy performance of Victorian secondary schools
compared with both the current mean NAPLAN numeracy score, and the potential
mean NAPLAN score if Victoria were in the top five PISA performers for numeracy (as at
2009).
24
MAKING THE GRADE: AUTONOMY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN VICTORIAN SCHOOLS
Figure 2.15 Distribution of Victorian schools’ performances
(NAPLAN Year 9 numeracy, 2012, per cent)
Current mean score
Proportion of schools
40
30
'Top tier' mean score
20
10
0
420
Notes:
500
580
NAPLAN scaled score
660
740
The indicative ‘top tier’ mean score represents an increase of 6.3 per cent from the current mean
score (that is, the improvement that would place Victoria’s performance in the top five economies
on the PISA assessment, all other things remaining equal).
Source: Commission analysis based on DEECD 2013a; ACARA 2013b; Thomson, DeBortoli, et al. 2011.
The above figure shows that more than 80 per cent of schools are below the mean
NAPLAN score which would see Victorian ranked in the top five PISA performers. If
Victoria does aspire to this goal, significant improvements to the quality of education
throughout the entire system must be pursued.
2.4.3
Timeframe
The Victorian Government has committed to lifting school performance to the top tier
in the next decade (Victorian Government 2013, 2). Rapid, substantial improvements
on international tests appear possible (for example, from 2000 to 2009 Korea and Hong
Kong increased their PISA reading scores by 15 points and eight points respectively)
(Grattan Institute 2012, 8). However, Victoria’s performance on PISA seems to have
flat-lined (changes in Victorian PISA mean scores have not been statistically significant
in the past decade), and Australian scores have declined by a statistically significant
amount (13 points for reading and 10 points for mathematical literacy) over the past
decade (table 2.6) (Thomson, De Bortoli, et al. 2011b, 16–17). The Commission notes the
measurement of the performance gaps between Victoria and the top tier dates from
2009, and that the performance of comparators is unlikely to have stayed still.
This implies significant improvement in the operation and/or management of Victoria’s
school system is required to generate substantial improvement on international tests.
Victoria’s future rate of improvement will depend on the nature and quality of the
reforms that are already underway or those being contemplated (chapter 4). The
timing of gains in student achievement will also depend on how quickly and effectively
the reforms are implemented.
PERFORMANCE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF VICTORIA’S SCHOOL SYSTEM
25
2.5
Some current trends may challenge Victoria’s
goal to reach the global ‘top tier’ of
performance
Becoming a ‘top tier’ school system will require significant improvement from the
Victorian system — approximately five per cent academic improvement and an
equivalent increase in equity. Some current trends will challenge the system’s capacity
to meet these improvements, especially in the timeframe proposed.
2.5.1
Student population
The proportion of students enrolled in government schools in Victoria is the second
lowest in Australia, and has declined 3.3 percentage points since 1997 (ABS 2012).
Figure 2.16 Students by school sector, Victoria
Students, 2003-12
Students, February 2012
Index: 2003 = 100
125,397
115
197,865
546,436
105
95
2003
2005
2007
2009
Government
Government
Catholic
Independent
Catholic
Independent
2011
Source: DEECD 2012r.
The majority of indigenous students and students with disabilities attend government
schools (table 2.4). While the indigenous cohort has (proportionately) remained basically
static, the percentage of students with disabilities enrolled in Victorian government
schools reportedly increased by around 21 per cent in the five years to 2012 (DEECD
2012p). In addition, about one in five students in government schools are of a language
background other than English, most commonly Vietnamese or Arabic (DEECD 2012p).
26
MAKING THE GRADE: AUTONOMY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN VICTORIAN SCHOOLS
Table 2.4
Student characteristics by school sector,
Victoria (2011, per cent)
Government
Non-government
Total
Indigenous students
1.7
0.5
1.2
Student with disabilities
6.1
3.3
5.0
23.8
29.0
25.7
Students with a LBOTE
Notes:
LBOTE (language background other than English) is a broad category which includes students who
have had extensive schooling in a language other than English, and recent refugees who are
unlikely to have had any formal schooling.
Source: SCRGSP 2013.
There is also evidence suggesting enrolments in independent schools in Victoria have
become more strongly weighted towards high SES students while there has been a
corresponding loss of these students from the government sector (Rorris et al. 2011,
67-68; Preston 2013, 7).
2.5.2
Workforce trends
The challenges facing the Victorian school system take place in the context of
considerable change in the composition of the teaching workforce. There has been a
pronounced long-term decline in prior educational attainment of new Australian
teachers. While this trend is common to both male and female teachers, the drift away
from the profession by the upper end of the ability distribution is more pronounced
among women, occurring over a period in which women gained access to a wider
array of career pathways (figure 2.17).
Figure 2.17 Ability distribution of new female teachers,
Australia (per cent)
Fraction of ability group
working as a teacher
0.15
15
0.10
10
0.055
0.000
Bottom
2
1983
Note:
3
2003
4
Top
Ability distribution determined by results in Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth standardised
literacy and numeracy tests.
Source: Leigh and Ryan 2006, 7.
PERFORMANCE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF VICTORIA’S SCHOOL SYSTEM
27
Relative real wage increases provide some context for these shifts in teacher aptitude.
Between 1983 and 2003 average starting salaries for teachers fell by 13 per cent for
men and 4 per cent for women. Over the same period, real wages for the top quintile
of non-teaching female university graduates rose 27 per cent, while those for
non-teaching male graduates rose 8 per cent (Leigh and Ryan 2006, 29). This has
meant that teaching has become an increasingly unattractive profession to the highest
quality university graduates, particularly females. More recent trends in teacher
remuneration are discussed in chapter 8.
The increasing feminisation of the teaching workforce has continued despite the noted
broadening of employment opportunities available to female tertiary graduates. The
percentage of women in the Victorian government school teaching workforce has
grown more quickly than in the non-government sector (ABS 2012).
Finally, some participants noted Victoria has an ageing population of school leaders
and teachers (Parents Victoria, sub. 6, 3). Although the average age of employees in
government schools has remained broadly constant at 44 years since 2003, the
proportion of teaching staff aged over 55 increased substantially between 2003 and
2012 (figure 2.18).
Figure 2.18 Teaching service employees by age, Victorian
government schools (per cent)
40
30
20
10
0
Under 25
25-34
35-44
2003
45-54
Over 55
2012
Source: SSA 2013, 92.
28
MAKING THE GRADE: AUTONOMY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN VICTORIAN SCHOOLS
2.6
Past attempts to improve performance have
had limited success
Despite past attempts to improve Victoria’s school system, results of Australian and
international assessments show student performance has been basically static over the
past decade. Over a similar period, government expenditure per student increased by
around 50 per cent (in real terms) (figure 2.19).
Moreover, the productivity decline in the past decade appears to be a continuation of
a longer-term trend. According to one estimate, Australian school productivity declined
by 73 per cent between 1964 and 2003 (Leigh and Ryan 2011, 2). Research points to a
broadly similar trend in the United States and some other OECD countries (Eric A.
Hanushek 1996; Caroline M. Hoxby 2002; Gundlach, Wossmann, and Gmelin 2001).
2.6.1
Expenditure
Government expenditure per student increased significantly in the decade to 2009-10
(figure 2.19).
Figure 2.19 Government expenditure on school education,
Victoria (1999-2000 to 2009-10)
$ million (2009-10)
$ per student
12000
12000
8000
8000
4000
4000
0
Notes:
0
Expenditure includes general government operating expenses and gross fixed capital formation on
primary and secondary education in Victoria. Real expenditure calculated using a derived gross
state product deflator rebased to 2009-10. Increased expenditure in 2009-10 was largely due to
increased capital expenditure delivered under the Building the Education Revolution.
Source: ABS 2011a; ABS 2010; ABS 2011b.
The increase in expenditure per student does not, however, appear to have been
caused by rising real teacher remuneration. Using Australian data, Jensen et al
estimated the two key drivers of increased school costs have been:
PERFORMANCE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF VICTORIA’S SCHOOL SYSTEM
29
(1) reduced student-teacher ratios, driven by class size reductions (class sizes are
discussed further in chapter 8)
(2) an ageing workforce (figure 2.20). (Jensen, Reichl, and Kemp 2011)
Figure 2.20 Contributors to increased teacher expenditure,
Australia (2000-01 to 2008-09, per cent)
-0.1
15
7.6
10
16.2
5
8.6
0
Ageing teacher
cohort
Lower student:
teacher ratios
Teacher salaries
Total increase
Source: Jensen, Reichl, and Kemp 2011, 325.
Class sizes
There is no directly comparable measure of class size differentials across school sectors.
However, full-time equivalent student to teacher ratios may be used as a proxy
measure,6 as illustrated in figure 2.21. Victorian government school and Australian
all-sector average student to teacher ratios are both approximately 15 children to each
teaching staff member. As of the February 2012 school census, the average Victorian
primary school class size was 22.1, and the average secondary class size was 21.4
(DEECD 2012r, 27).
6
Student–teacher ratio reflect class size and other ‘within-school factors such as the number of classes for
which a teacher is responsible, the grouping of students within classes and the degree of team teaching’
(Jensen, Reichl, and Kemp 2011, 325).
30
MAKING THE GRADE: AUTONOMY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN VICTORIAN SCHOOLS
Figure 2.21 Student to teacher ratios, Victoria
20
15
10
5
0
1997
1999
2001
2003
Government
2005
2007
Catholic
2009
2011
Independent
Source: ABS 2012.
Government funding for Victorian schools is discussed in box 2.6.
Box 2.6
School funding
Victoria’s government schools are largely funded by the State Government, with
additional funds provided by the Commonwealth (figure 2.22). The level of recurrent
funding distributed to Victorian government schools is determined according to the
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development’s (DEECD’s) Student
Resource Package (SRP). Total recurrent funding for Victorian government schools
was approximately $7 billion in 2009-10 (SCRGSP 2012, 4.5).
Non-government schools receive a small proportion of their funding from the
Victorian government, with the majority of their government funding derived from
the non-government schools component of the National Schools Specific Purpose
Payments. Victorian government funding for non-government schools is allocated in
accordance with the Financial Assistance Model and modified according to
parents’ assessed capacity to contribute to their child’s education.
Figure 2.22 Funding characteristics, Victoria
Funding sources by school sector
(2008-09, per cent)
100
Government real recurrent
expenditure per FTE student 2010-11
$4720
75
50
$1447
25
$11 846
$1603
0
Government
State
Catholic
Independent
Commonwealth
Private
State funding for government schools
Commonwealth funding for government schools
State funding for independent schools
Commonwealth funding for independent schools
Sources: ISV 2013b; MCEETYA 2008.
PERFORMANCE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF VICTORIA’S SCHOOL SYSTEM
31
Box 2.6
School funding (cont.)
Almost all recurrent government school expenditure is allocated as (largely untied)
SRP funding. The majority of this funding is driven by enrolment numbers,
supplemented by equity funding, school-based funding and a small number of
targeted initiatives.
Equity funding is provided for students with disabilities, language backgrounds other
than English, and low SES (based on an index of Student Family Occupation). Equity
funding is allocated to around 50 per cent of schools, and accounts for a small
proportion of total recurrent Victorian school funding. While the SRP includes limited
funding for minor capital works and maintenance, major infrastructure spending
decisions for government schools are managed by DEECD.
Source: Victorian Government 2013.
2.6.2
Performance
Overall student performance results have shown little or no improvement in the past
decade. Given that this outcome was observed during a period when government
expenditure on education increased dramatically, it suggests the funding may not
have been well directed. Alternately, it is possible that changes to the composition of
the government sector (section 2.5.1) meant that increased per student expenditure
was required to maintain consistent results from an increasingly disadvantaged group
of students.
Student learning
NAPLAN results for Victorian students show that, while there have been measured
changes in reading and numeracy performance in several year levels, they have
largely been statistically insignificant (figure 2.23). These results are a continuation of a
longer-term trend. The VAGO report Literacy and Numeracy Achievement concluded that
efforts over the ten years to 2007 had not improved average literacy and numeracy
performance (VAGO 2009, 2).
32
MAKING THE GRADE: AUTONOMY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN VICTORIAN SCHOOLS
Figure 2.23 Change in NAPLAN mean scale scores, Victoria
(2008 to 2012, per cent)
Numeracy
20
Reading
20
10
10
0
0
-10
-10
-20
-20
Year 3
Notes:
Year 5
Year 7
Year 9
Year 3
Year 5
Year 7
Year 9
Statistically significant change
No significant change
Mean scale scores cannot be compared across domains. Changes of similar magnitudes are seen
for each school sector. The difference in mean NAPLAN scale scores for Year 9 numeracy between
2008 and 2012 was zero.
Source: ACARA 2012b; DEECD 2013a.
International test results for Victorian students also show no statistically significant
change over the three PISA assessment domains (table 2.5).
Table 2.5
Changes in PISA mean scores, reading,
mathematical and scientific literacy, Victoria
Domain
Period
Change in mean scores
Statistically
(points)
(%)
significant
Reading literacy
2000-2009
-2.6
-0.5
No
Mathematical literacy
2003-2009
+1.3
+0.3
No
Scientific literacy
2006-2009
+8.2
+1.6
No
Source: Thomson, DeBortoli, et al. 2011, 127, 198, 242.
Equity
Similarly, the distribution of Victoria’s performance on PISA has remained basically
constant over the past decade (figure 2.24).
PERFORMANCE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF VICTORIA’S SCHOOL SYSTEM
33
Figure 2.24 Percentage of Victorian students by PISA
proficiency level, reading literacy
2009
4
11
2006
4
11
2003
2000
-25
4
5
20
30
22
32
9
20
30
10
21
27
0
24
25
12
23
8
26
22
50
11
14
75
100
Source: Victorian Government 2013, 7.
Analysis by VAGO found the achievement gap between students from low- and highSES schools had not narrowed over the decade to 2007. The gap represented
15 months of learning at Year 9 for both literacy and numeracy (VAGO 2009, 4).
2.7
Conclusions
Improving educational outcomes — in absolute terms and relative to overseas
comparators — is important to Victoria’s productivity, and therefore long-run growth
and living standards. Indeed, improving performance is a goal that underpins many
State and Commonwealth initiatives in school education.
While Victoria performs well by national and international standards, some aspects of
Victoria’s performance are cause for concern:

Student performance on national and international tests is above average but has
remained static for some time. This is despite reforms to the structure of funding and
school governance and ongoing targeted state and Commonwealth initiatives.

International assessment has found Victoria’s school system produces average
equity outcomes (measured by the impact of students’ backgrounds on their
academic performance).

There is significant variation in the system, with non-government schools generally
producing higher test results and larger student gains than government schools
before adjustments are made for students’ backgrounds.

Victoria is significantly outperformed by the ‘top tier’ education systems.
Compared with some high performing economies, Victoria has a larger tail of
underperformance and a less equitable education system. Increasing performance
to the level of these systems — a moving target — will require improvements across
the entire Victorian system.

There has been a significant and sustained decline in school productivity, with
increased expenditure producing static outcomes.
34
MAKING THE GRADE: AUTONOMY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN VICTORIAN SCHOOLS
These outcomes are not unique to Victoria, with other jurisdictions in Australia and
overseas experiencing similar outcomes.
Possible explanations for these results in Victoria include workforce management issues
such as the trend to smaller class sizes and an ageing teacher workforce — which may
increase costs and negatively impact productivity — and the long-run fall in the prior
attainment of those entering the teaching profession — which may negatively impact
school performance. Another challenge is the drift of high SES enrolments to
non-government schools and the associated impacts on the government school
system. This has implications for the average performance of government schools and
the unit cost of educating students with high learning needs.
These challenges underscore the need for policy innovation, diffusion of best practice
and accountability to drive improved outcomes in school education. Particularly given
that, if Victoria is to achieve its goal of reaching the top tier of international
performance, the vast majority of schools will have to improve their performance.
PERFORMANCE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF VICTORIA’S SCHOOL SYSTEM
35