The NZEI and Principals’ Federation have agreed to meet with me tomorrow on Education Standards. Anne Tolley has got herself into a corner and needs to understand that if she wants to change the law to prevent league tables for primary schools it isn’t that hard. I will check the proposal for a minor amendment to the OIA with education leaders in the morning. The link to the substantive debate is here.
Trevor – can you remind me why parents knowing how well schools are doing at educating children is a bad thing ? Apart from the PPTA being a major sponsor of the Labour Party.
From your previous post Trevor:
“Because if they enhance teaching and learning, they will get professional support. If they lead to useless league tables and competition between schools they won’t. It is as simple as that.”
Looks to me like principals are more concerned about keeping teachers happy than giving parents access to information to allow an informed choice about which school to send their kids too.
EC, the post refers to NZEI and the imagined sponsorship of the NZLP by PPTA does not follow. The important words are NZEI and league tables for primary schools.
Your reference to the PPTA is indicative of two things- your misreading or non reading of the post and secondly, your prejudice towards PPTA and the NZLP.
Jim Anderton should rejoin Labour, Peter Dunne should join National. It would save the tax-payer a few bucks and make everyone’s life a bit simpler.
Jarbury – You may be right about Jim and Peter joining National, but in the meantime you could consider joining the correct thread!!!
Elvis Christ – not related to Jesus by any chance, or are you simply a believer – amateur or professional?
With your post Elvis, you illustrate (to perfection) the harm that League Tables can cause, to perfection. A league table gives no indication of how a school might ADD value to a student, as opposed to exploiting the value already there through socio-economic status.
The added complication with league tables will be in the implementation, when we will almost certainly run into the same kind of difficulties as reported yesterday in NCEA.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/2546167/NCEA-grades-dubious
Moderation, exam conditions, etc – will all become relevant for a 6-year old.
Elvis PPTA Labour sponsors – Yeah right.
This is about primary schools.
And its about freedom of information. Trevor Mallard’s “solution” is directly contrary to the principles of open democracy our OIA regime is founded on, and to the interest-based witholding regime we have gone with. The possibility of the public “misusing”, misunderstanding, or misinterpreting official information has never been a “good reason” for withholding it – and with good reason – that would give Ministers a blank cheque to deny access based on their (politically motivated) fears.
While I don’t like the idea of league tables, I dislike this sort of secrecy around official information even more. If schools collect this information, then under the OIA they must make it public. If people don’t want that to happen, then their only solution is not to collect it. It is that simple.
Constraining the OIA is simply a bad idea. Better to focus effort into explaining differences and promoting understanding of the information. Secrecy in a democracy needs to be sparingly used. Like I/S, while I can see the issues with “league tables” I just cannot countenance secrecy. Accountability and transparency are essential features of the democratic process. NZ led the World in its approach to open government. This may be a small “tweak” for you, but it’s a tweak to the nose of democracy to me. This is nonsense, Trevor.
‘Anne Tolley has got herself into a corner’
Would that be wearing a dunces cap then?
I don’t think the amendment to the OIA is going to fly.
The league tables will be compiled through a series of questions for written answer.
If this is successful, we would hope to see the end of the tide of enrolments at secondary school – of kids that have theoretically been in the system 8 years but are barely literate or numerate. (What have they been doing you might ask)
Primary education is about to be commodified. Which dressing would you like – Italian, French?
Of course we want transparency and accountability in the system. Will Mrs Tolley also demand accountability from the parents that they will send well nourished, well rested and properly clothed and readily equipped children to the classrooms in order for the teachers to at least begin to deliver to the standards… just a thought.
The obession with schools having to ‘compete’ with each other is utter bullshit. Why not just give schools the resources to be able to deliver a decent education. The way I see it, forcing schools to compete with students will just encourage schools to ditch students that arent as bright as the rest to make the figures look good. In essence, schools will put thier reputations ahead of their students.
Logie the message is already going out to parents. The endorsement of the so called anti smacking law will mean that parents will no longer be actually injuring their children.
This is just a first step toward getting parents to be an asset to their children – food, shelter and clothing being the rudiments that all parents will be required to provide in future.
This is all part of the strategy of National supporting Sue Bradford’s bill – I will bet you never thought of that!
I/s I disagree although it is a matter of judgement. At the moment lots of data is collected that is not available – often for privacy reasons – or and this is the most relevant consideration because disclosing the information would prejudice the ability to collect in the future.
The Ombudsman has already supported the Ministry when they declined to release data from (as I remember) PISA survey because its release could lead to identification of schools. But he said it was a decision right at the margins and could well have gone the other way.
If information is collected on the basis that it will not be released then that is a compelling reason not to release it.
Trevor – if it’s the case that the information can already be lawfully withheld, and that this has happened in the past for similar information, then why change the law?
I would also note that information that is withheld for other reasons – e.g. privacy – doesn’t automatically exempt a whole class of information. If you’re wanting to change the law to beef the protections up in relation to cases ‘at the margins’ then the proper change is to strengthen the ground so it applies in the circumstance you fear it doesn’t.
Because the Ombudsman has said that it was a marginal decision – and it is my view that we need certainty. It was the Ombudsman’s view that if Parliament does not want league tables it should legislate to make that clear.
You’re wrong on this, Trevor. Promoting secrecy is not the solution to the problem you’re facing. There are a number of reasons available for withholding information available in the OIA Act. Because some people will potentially misuse or misunderstand the information is thankfully not one of them. I agree that league tables are just a stupid idea but why sacrifice openness and transperancy because of this stupidity? That just sounds like being stupid to deal with stupidity!
Trevor, you say we need certainty. What you mean is certainty the decision is taken out of the hands of an objective arbitrator, the Ombudsman, and placed into the hands of partisan politicians. I’m sure you make OIA requests of Ministers fairly regularly, and can we now assume you favour the removal of the right to appeal to the Ombudsman if information is withheld by a Minister? Yeah, right.
Two points. First there is a real danger that teachers will stop collecting important information because it could be disclosed. Kids will suffer. Secondly parents will use the data to make misinformed decisions and there will be even more flight to high decile schools with transport costs and more importantly massive building costs. The alternative is a very tight US style zoning system.
Jennifer – rubbish – parliament has always written the rules, I know them as well as most and certainly don’t support removing the Ombudsman’s appeal role.
Pulling comments Trev? Balance deleted. Yes when off topic and abusive. You will cop a ban if it happens again Trevor
That’s hardly fair Trev when you challenged me to name an instance of you breaking the rules
On the OIA
Trevor, of course Parliament is sovereign. The issue here is whether Parliament should limit access to public information, paid for with public money, so as to protect an interest group’s position on a public policy issue. Even Muldoon didn’t go down that track. The whole idea of an Ombudsman is to adjudicate on the release of information against the protections in the Act. What you are proposing is screwing the scrum to take that independent adjudication away and write new rules to favour a particular group. No matter how you dress it up, that is bad policy and in my view, should be resisted.
Trevor – I and I’m sure plenty of others here are interested in the Bill you just tried to table. Can you post it up here so we can have a look at it?
This is the first draft, current thinking is heading towards SOP on current Education Amendment Bill but operative clauses as here:-
Official Information (Protection of School Level Assessment Information) Amendment Bill
Member’s Bill
Explanatory Note
There is considerable concern among teachers, parents and other parts of the education community as a consequence of the Government’s policy of National Standards at primary schools.
The Government has indicated that their policy is aimed at providing parents with clearer information about student performance. However, Minister of Education has also stated that schools would not be able to withhold this information if it were requested under the Official Information Act.
The Government has denied that this is an intended consequence of their policy. This being the case, it is important to address this issue by clarifying the Official Information Act to make it clear that schools cannot publicly release school level assessment information.
Clause by clause analysis
Clause 1 is the Title provision.
Clause 2 provides for the Bill to come into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.
Clause 3 sets out the purpose of the Bill.
Clause 4 defines the Principal Act as the Official Information Act 1982.
Clause 5 inserts in section 2(1) a definition of “school level information”.
Clause 6 inserts a new section 6A in the Principal Act.
Hon Trevor Mallard
Official Information (Protection of School Level Assessment Information) Amendment Bill
Member’s Bill
Contents
1. Title
2. Commencement
3. Purpose
4. Principal Act Amended
5. Interpretation
6. New Section 6A inserted
____________________________
The Parliament of New Zealand enacts as follows:
1. Title
This Act is the Official Information (Protection of School Level Assessment Information) Amendment Act 2009.
2. Commencement
This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it received the Royal Assent.
3. Purpose
The purpose of this Act is to amend the Official Information (Protection of School Level Assessment Information) Amendment Bill to ensure that schools can withhold information on school level assessment.
4. Principal Act Amended
This Act amends the Official Information Act 1982.
5. Intepretation
Section 2(1) is amended by inserting the following definition in the appropriate alphabetical order:
“school level information means data which relates to the whole or part of a school, including a class in a school”
6. New Section 6A inserted
The following section is inserted after section 6:
“6A School level assessment information must not be publicly released.
(1) Despite any other provision of this Act, organisations including, but not limited to schools, the Ministry of Education and the Education Review Office, must not publicly release school level assessment information.
(2) Nothing in subclause (1) prevents the release of information:
a. relating to an individual child to the parents or guardians of that child
b. the sharing of information between teachers and staff within a school environment
c. the sharing of information between schools, the Ministry of Education and the Education Review Office.
Teachers are almost overwhelmingly Left-wing and as such have a tendency to gravitate towards the ultra-Left Parties, like Labour and the Greens.
It’s wise to adopt an education policy which is the diametric opposite of that which the teachers propose. Witness the last decade of “education” policy which has left us with functionally illiterate, maladjusted delinquents instead of productive young people.
Teachers and politics don’t mix;
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10581637
Simon spend a bit of time in schools and look at some of your parties polling. You are just not correct.
I’m trying to understand what you think the dangers are. Simplistically I guess you are worried that parents will use this information to decide where to send their children to school. I’m not sure that is necessarily a bad thing and here are my reasons:
1) that those parents who do scrutinise schools to decide where to send their children are acting on behalf of their children to help them get the best education they can within their limits (e.g. financial constraints, locality). Note that this actually helps both the kids who are ahead of the class (by getting them into classes more suited to their abilities – tangential to your ‘gifted kids’ comments on another thread I think) and the kids who are not (by allowing the teachers to work at a slower pace with the whole class)
2) that those schools who find their roll dropping as a result of this will attract more scrutiny into why their results are comparably poor and this will be an opportunity to implement change
And to put it in perspective, I recall you oversaw the closure of a few schools in your time. It would seem sometimes some schools just aren’t justifiable, so perhaps the debate should really be about what metrics to use? I would think letting the parents vote with their feet is a very valid metric.
Letting some schools get huge and others shrivel away is just an incredibly inefficient use of resources. Furthermore, if primary schools start competing against others for students we will probably end up seeing the schools simply focus on testing and standards, rather than broader education.
My daughter has just started school. The most important thing at the moment is for her to like school. The next most important thing is for her to get the basics sorted – which she is doing incredibly well. The last thing I would want to see is for her to sit tests or have her primary school rated against others on the basis of a hugely over-simplified system.
The ERO is already there to measure the standards of a school. Why the heck do we need nastier, cruder methods?
Trevor, nice try. Would it still be possible to simply OIA the Minister for reports from MOE, which will surely contain the ’school level assessment’ information you seek to bury. I’m sure it will be compiled in some form and make its way to the Minister?
Another criticism to add to the pile: our OIA regime doesn’t forbid the release of information. It allows Ministers to withhold it for conclusive or non-conclusive reasons, but they don’t have to – nothing stops them from releasing information even if conclusive or good reasons for withholding apply.
This bill would do exactly that, effectively recreating the Official Secrets Act for schools. It’s offensive to democracy and I hope it is never drawn.
Jennifer: or we could rely on a public-spirited leak. That’s what Trevor wants to take us back to: the days when access to official information was not a right, but a crime. And his reasons for doing so – that we poor serfs might “misunderstand” or “misuse” the information in question – are decidedly authoritarian.
I/S, the old Official Secrets Act crossed my mind too. We can only hope that good sense will prevail and no one else in Parliament will vote for this draconian Bill, maybe even the rest of the Labour caucus. I’d be surprised if Phil Goff supported it. The Attorney General will have a field day on this one.
Todays question and Tolley’s reponse to me. Following the question leave to table the draft bill was denied by Gerry brownlee but a copy was delivered soon afterwards to Tolley’s office:-
——————————————————————————–
PQs: 8. School-level Test Data-Publication
NewsRoom.co.nz Agency Story at 5:48 pm, 30 Jun 2009
8. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour-Hutt South) to the Minister of Education: Will she support a law change to ensure that school-level test data is not made available for publication; if not, why not?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) : I do not intend to express my support, or lack of it, for hypothetical legislation. I note that the member asked a very similar question over a month ago, on 27 May, and I told him that I would consider something if he put it in front of me. I have yet to receive anything.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Will the Minister be prepared to support the reference to a select committee for the select committee to decide whether to do it?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I repeat: this is hypothetical legislation. It is not before a select committee and is not before this House. It is impossible to give that member any answers unless he actually fronts up to me with a suggestion.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Does the Minister support the principle expressed in my primary question?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I remind the member that we are currently seeking feedback from both the education sector and parents on national standards. Part of that feedback is about the reporting mechanisms. I will consider all the options that are put before me, all of the information that comes out of that consultation process.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very direct question about whether she supported the principle, not about whether there was consultation. Although I cannot insist on a yes or no answer, and I understand that, I think that at least having the question addressed would be useful.
Mr SPEAKER: I think the member makes a fair point. His question was very directly related to the primary question. If the Minister would please answer it, as far as she can.
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I will not pre-empt a consultation process.
And the NSW regulation :-
His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor, with the advice of the Executive Council, has made the following Regulation under the Education Act 1990.
Minister for Education and Training
Explanatory note
The object of this Regulation is to remake, without substantial change, the Education Regulation 2001 which is repealed on 1 September 2007 by section 10 (2) of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1989.
The Regulation makes provision for the following matters:
(a) the publication of the results of basic skills testing and School Certificate and Higher School Certificate examinations and related assessments,
(b) the particular kinds of children in respect of whom certain non-government schools may be registered,
(c) the particular kinds of changes to the circumstances of the operation of a non-government school that must be notified and that affect the registration of the school,
(d) the constitution of parents and citizens associations and kindred associations for government schools,
(e) the areas for which a district council may be established,
(f) the constitution of district councils,
(g) the publication of the rules of the Board of Studies,
(h) the saving of certain syllabuses and district council areas.
This Regulation is made under the Education Act 1990, including sections 18A, 53, 63, 64, 65, 115, 130 (the general regulation-making power) and 131.
1 Name of Regulation
This Regulation is the Education Regulation 2007.
2 Commencement
This Regulation commences on 1 September 2007.
This Regulation replaces the Education Regulation 2001 which is repealed on 1 September 2007 by section 10 (2) of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1989.
3 Definition
(1) In this Regulation:”the Act” or “the new Act” means the Education Act 1990.
(2) Notes included in this Regulation do not form part of this Regulation.
4 Publication of results and other matters
(1) This clause applies to the following results:
(a) results of basic skills testing under section 18 of the Act,
(b) results of School Certificate and Higher School Certificate examinations and related assessments,
(c) results of annual assessments of the academic performance of students contained in reports to parents on student achievement.
(2) The following are included for the purposes of subclause (1) (a):
(a) English Language and Literacy Assessment (ELLA),
(b) Primary Writing Assessment,
(c) Secondary Numeracy Assessment Program (SNAP),
(d) Essential Secondary Science Assessment,
(e) OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA),
(f) Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS),
(g) Best Start Kindergarten Assessment,
(h) Year 3 and 5 Basic Skills Test (BST),
(i) Year 3, 5, 7 and 9 National Test in literacy,
(j) Year 3, 5, 7 and 9 National Test in numeracy,
(k) Year 6 National Assessment Program–Science Literacy,
(l) Year 6 and 10 National Assessment Program–ICT Literacy,
(m) Year 6 and 10 National Assessment Program–Civics and Citizenship,
(n) Year 6 and 10 Computing Skills Assessment.
(3) Results to which this clause applies must not be publicly revealed if the results relating to particular students are revealed.
(4) Results relating to a particular student may however be revealed as follows:
(a) to the student or to anyone with the student’s consent,
(b) to the student’s parents (or his or her other caregivers),
(c) to the principal of a school (including a school in another State or Territory) at which the student is enrolling, enrolled or at which the student was previously enrolled,
(d) in the case of results of School Certificate or Higher School Certificate examinations and related assessments–by or with the approval of the Board of Studies, by way of the publication of the results of students who the Board considers have achieved outstanding results.
(5) Results to which this clause applies must not be publicly revealed in a way that ranks or otherwise compares the results of particular schools.
(6) If a school is required (by the appropriate authority for the school) to publish an annual report of school performance but fails to do so by the due date for publication, this clause does not prevent the public release of any results that were required to be the subject of that report.
(7) The “appropriate authority” for the purposes of subclause (6) is:
(a) in the case of a government school–the Department of Education and Training, or
(b) in the case of a non-government school registered as a member of a system of non-government schools–the approved authority for the system, or
(c) in the case of a non-government school registered as an individual school–the proprietor of the school.
it goes on but not relevant.
Part of me says league tables will not make a scrap of difference. Broadly speaking high decile will be near the top of the League Tables, and low decile will be near the bottom.
Families in unzoned areas commonly enter into a few ballots for neighbouring schools, and accept placement at one that is of a higher decile than where they live. Either that, or they go for schools like Avondale – who are not that high in decile, but they are already have a huge roll.
Somehow the public need to be aware that going for high decile schools is not always a pure advantage. It is fit of student to school culture that is most critical, and probably most critical at primary
Are the House debates replayed daily only? I wish I had not missed last week’s, sounds like it was fun.
Tanya, there are audio archives of question time here: http://www.radionz.co.nz/parliament
Don’t think there are video archives, although sometimes there are youtube clips.
on Kiwiblog Mallard said: “DPF when you get back I will take you to a couple of communities where massive measured improvements in literacy have happened where groups of schools have worked together, shared strengths, covered weakness through professional development. The young people benefited. We will all benefit.
All this happened because the schools knew that the extensive testing information would not go into the local papers and cause parents to shift their kids from school to school based on information which at that time was snapshot and didn’t measure progress or value add which is the real test”
The real test isnt the ‘value add’ or progress. What matters (as in life) is results. If the school is not performing by all means do something about it – keep the parents informed. But hiding its underperformance is not the answer.
What you are promoting limits parents from being able to access the data and being able to make a educated choice of where they want to send their children.
The fact that school is making progress dosnt mean anything if its still miles behind the one down the road. The children would quite possibly been better off getting out of the under preforming school. But – you remove that right.
On that note – did you always send your children to the local school regardless of its quality?
Labrat your point one is exactly why this kind of information should not be published because other people as stupid as you will think the results show which schools are the best. This could not be further from the truth, it is almost impossible to rank schools their is simply to many variables. Secondly it does not show added value, that is what the student has actually gained/ learnt in the classroom at their time at the school.
The end results of league tables will be teachers teaching to tests as they do in USA.
Despite what you often read in or papers our education in NZ schools is world leading. Other Nations are trying to move to what we have as quick as they can. Nationals view of education and standards is simplistic and out dated.
“The real test isnt the ‘value add’ or progress. What matters (as in life) is results. If the school is not performing by all means do something about it – keep the parents informed. But hiding its underperformance is not the answer.”
I disagree bikerkiwi. The real test is the level of improvement that individual students receive at school. Basic league tables aren’t going to achieve that.
Having said that, I don’t believe removing the right to put together league tables is very constructive. Parents do have a right to know how their schools are performing.
I would like to see schools develop much more useful performance monitoring of students and teachers, and make that information available to parents. Technology is available now to map relative performance of employees, and their progress and development in key areas over time. I think such a system could be devleped and used in schools.
Craig – the more information to help make the choice the better. You can argue about what metric is best, and that is valid, but I am against suppressing any information and especially information that correlates to student performance. Your implication that parents (as stupid as me) would use only this information to form their decisions reflects poorly on your own reasoning. You have decided (to suit your argument) that parents won’t look at all the information available, but just on comparative test results.
That may be the way you make decisions, but I prefer to have as much information as possible to make mine.
Jarbury wrote:
The ERO is already there to measure the standards of a school.
I reply:
And I’m sure there are plenty of teachers who’ve been on the receiving end of critical (and publicly available) ERO reports who’d be very pleased if it became Labour policy for them to never see the light of day. And funny how often, when they are exposed, the real problem is that they’ve been “misreported” or people don’t “really understand” what the ERO was getting at. Sound familiar?
Of course, I don’t mean to be down on those teachers who do constructively engage with, and take on board, the ERO review process and regard transparency and accountability to their communities as part of the job.
Craig – You and Jarbury raise an interesting question in my mind. Given the choice between an ERO report or a comparison of school results against national standards, which would you rely on as a measure of anything.
I’m going to say National Standards!
I think that National Standards would provide much greater objectivity than the ERO process.
I am sure there bloggers here that could speak of ERO reports that were found to be too flattering in the light of subsequent events. From memory, Cambridge High was a celebrated case, but it was not an isolated case.
The reasons for the over-flattering reports you can probably work out for yourself if you have some idea how the system works.
So here’s an idea for you TREVOR – accept National Standards in some form but scale back or reconfigure the ERO. Teachers should actually find a set goal attractive compared with the unpredictabilities of ERO.
Sorry don’t have time at minute to rehearse issues above but most involved in education understand that i have put in place probably the best system in the world for measuring the progress of primary school kids. I just want it used :- see the primary post http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2009/06/11/education-standards-who-are-they-for/
Trevor
Do you think you were very convincing on this occasion.
It seems from reading Question Time of 1 July that the real issue is National Standards – not to mention highly stressed teaching professionals trying to do their best for ALL individuals while trying to make the school look flash!
– – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - –
6. ALLAN PEACHEY (National—T?maki) to the Minister of Education: What reports, if any, has she received on proposals to change the way schools provide information to their communities?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) : I have received legislation from the Labour Party education spokesperson that proposes a new Labour Party policy to amend the Official Information Act so that “school-level assessment information must not be publicly released.” This legislation, if passed, would ban schools from releasing information about how they, as a whole, or some of their classes, were doing at raising achievement amongst their pupils. Schools could be prohibited from voluntarily providing any of this information to their own school community. That is how much the Labour Party respects school communities.
Allan Peachey: What reports has the Minister received on the effect this would have on schools’ day-to-day business?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The initial advice I have received is that the legislation drafted by the Labour Party education spokesman would mean the following bans placed on schools: firstly, schools would be banned from putting information about students’ achievement levels in their school newsletter because this would be publishing information to the public; and, secondly, school reports would no longer be able to have class averages in them, which means that parents would have no idea how their child was doing against the rest of the class. That is how Draconian and secretive the Labour Party wants to be. It wants to stop schools engaging with their local communities—
Mr SPEAKER: This answer is going on for a long time.
Allan Peachey: What reports has the Minister received on how the proposal will alter the ability of schools to engage with their school communities?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have received initial advice that the legislation drafted by the Labour Party would mean that schools would be prohibited from providing information to their communities on how they achieved against their student achievement targets, just as many schools currently do. Parents around the country are crying out for more information from schools, and the Labour Party education spokesman has drafted legislation that not only slams the door in parents’ faces but also muzzles schools from voluntarily engaging with their communities.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Is the Minister prepared to work with the Labour Party to improve the draft in order to achieve her wish of a trouble-free implementation of a national standards approach?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have said to the member before that if he puts something sensible in front of me, I am prepared to talk to him. I will not pre-empt the consultation process that finishes on Friday. I will not pre-empt that process, and I will not be drawn on hypotheticals. I will not support any mechanism or legislation that muzzles schools from having ongoing dialogue with their communities and with parents.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I am a teacher and a parent. I have no problem with data being released as I think parents should know how their child is performing. I have been annoyed by schools who do not tell us when our child needs help. I also think most parents are intelligent enough to know that literacy and numeracy scores are only part of the picture and the attitude to learning, work and achievement that a pupil gains is more important. Parents are also intelligent enough to see that a decile one school who has a high rate of pupils who are have been advanced from a low level is better than a decile ten which has higher academic scores. Parents do know that lower decile schools can have the best teachers simply becuase in those schools poor teachers would not survive. The concept of value added is a good one and a measure most of us understand. There should be open information and debate about the effectiveness of education. Tables showing the amount of levels pupils have advanced in a school are helpfull, but quality teaching cannot be totally assessment driven.