Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)

Matthew Lynch published in International Education

For Australia to improve in maths, policymakers need to make a plan and stick to it

This article was written by Vincent Geiger

Australia is struggling to improve its performance in maths due to a lack of continuity in policymaking.

While Australia tends to plan in three-year cycles, the countries that are performing the best – or making significant improvements – in international rankings for maths, such as Singapore, Finland and Japan – tend to revise their maths curriculum every five to six years.

This allows teachers to become fully acquainted with new initiatives and provides time for the bedding down of any changes to previous practice. It also allows curriculum developers and system administrators to evaluate the effectiveness of innovations.

So what impact has a lack of continuity had on maths education in Australia?

Slipping standards in maths

The last two international tests revealed that Australia is failing to improve in maths education.

In the 2015 version of Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), Australia was 22nd in Year 4 maths, and 13th in Year 8 maths, a decline from 18th and 12th respectively in 2011.

In the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), Australia was 18th in maths, down from 12th in 2012.

The results of these assessments indicate that the performance of Australian students is declining in both an absolute sense and in comparison to students from an increasing number of other nations.

The government and opposition have blamed each other for the situation, claiming the failure of respective policy direction and its implementation.

Impact of continuity in policy

It is hard to ignore the fact that there are nations that have made changes to their approach to maths education and made significant comparative progress.

In the case of Singapore, revision of the curriculum does not mean throwing out all aspects of previous practice and beginning again. Rather, it means a meticulous process of reviewing what has been effective and what needs to be improved or added to prepare students for the world they will move into – not just the world as it exists.

Curriculum is based on knowledge and practices that have served students well in the past, but is also future orientated.

This period of time also provides an opportunity for curriculum developers and system administrators to evaluate the effectiveness of innovations.

The approach to curriculum development is national, focused, carefully coordinated and then thoroughly evaluated.

In Australia, however, education is the responsibility of the respective states and territories. This poses a serious challenge for a coherent coordination of our curriculum development efforts.

Development of an Australian curriculum

The Australian Curriculum was heralded as a landmark in national cooperation in education.

Through the process of negotiation for its development and implementation, however, has emerged a determination by states and territories to preserve their differences and distinctiveness.

Some states have been accused of making superficial efforts to align with a national approach.

State efforts at curriculum development have a tendency to respond to whatever political pressure point is being stimulated at any time. For example, the most recent performance on NAPLAN results are prone to quick fix solutions.

Such flightiness brings into question how any long-term effective change brought about and rigorously evaluated.

Consequently, when looking at our national effort, it appears to be disjointed, unfocused, somewhat ad hoc in its development and close to impossible to evaluate in terms of student outcomes.

Introduction of teaching standards

Australia has created a number of measures to help improve its performance in maths. These include:

  • The introduction of the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) national teaching standards, which include a requirement that all graduating teachers have the ability to promote students’ numeracy capabilities across the curriculum.
  • A numeracy (and literacy) tests for initial teacher education students to ensure graduating teachers have the necessary level of personal numeracy to be effective in classrooms.
  • National programs aimed at strengthening initial teacher education students’ mathematics and science knowledge, such as Enhancing Training of Mathematics and Science Teachers (ETMST).
  • Restoring the Focus on STEM in School Initiative, which aims to support the teaching of science, technology, engineering and mathematics subjects in primary and secondary schools.

These initiatives demonstrate the commitment of considerable federal resources for the purpose of enhancing the nation’s mathematical (and scientific) capabilities.

Taken as a suite, this list seems to represent a comprehensive approach to improving students’ mathematics outcomes – all aspects of curriculum, teacher pre-service education and teacher in-service education receive attention.

So why has this (what appears to be) well thought-out plan proved to be seemly ineffective?

Continuity of funding

Having been part of a number of federally-funded programs aimed at strengthening the teaching capabilities, I think it is fair to say that most have been successful in what they set out to achieve.

Programs such as the Enhancing Training of Mathematics and Science Teachers, for example, were carefully scoped out and then thoroughly monitored throughout their implementation. They are now undergoing stringent evaluation.

But no matter how successful, no program has any chance of securing additional funding. We appear to set agendas, allocate funds, complete projects and then move on to something new – unlike many successful countries that value continuity in their approach to teacher professional learning.

While project leaders will always have in place plans for the sustainability of the work begun through a program, the hard reality is that without further funding those involved will be expected to find new projects and income streams and move on.

The Conversation

Vincent Geiger, Associate Professor and Research Fellow, Australian Catholic University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in International Education

PISA results don’t look good, but before we panic let’s look at what we can learn from the latest test

This article was written by Stewart Riddle and Bob Lingard

The 2015 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) results have been released – and on first glance, it does not look good for Australia.

On global comparisons, Australia performed equal 10th in science (down from 8th in 2012), 20th in maths (down from 17th) and 12th in reading (down from 10th).

There is a steady decline in the results since 2000, both in terms of overly simple international comparisons and absolute mean scores.

No doubt, similar to the response to Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) results last week, the media, politicians and education commentators will go into a panic over Australia sliding down the international rankings, falling standards in classrooms, and poor quality teachers.

Beyond the panicked headlines, what can we actually learn from the results of an international test that compares 15 year olds’ science, maths and reading skills in 72 countries and economies?

We need to have a more considered discussion about these test results rather than leaping to quick conclusions about a failing education system.

Scientific literacy

The main domain of the 2015 test was scientific literacy – the application of scientific knowledge and skills to solve problems.

Australia’s average score was 510, significantly above the OECD average of 493.

However, there has been an overall decline of 17 points since 2006. With the exception of the Northern Territory and Tasmania, most states performed well above the OECD average.

Singapore achieved the highest score of 556, which equates to roughly one and a half years more schooling than Australia.

While 61% of Australian students achieved the National Proficient Standard, only 11% were high performers (OECD average was 8%) and 18% were low performers (OECD average was 21%). This suggests that the majority of students might be doing okay, but few are excelling.

Mathematical literacy

The OECD average for mathematical literacy was 490, with Australia achieving 494. This is significantly below 19 other countries, including Singapore at 564 points. This is the equivalent of two and a half years more schooling.

The number of students reaching the National Proficient Standard in mathematical literacy was 61% in the Australian Capital Territory, but only 44% in Tasmania.

Reading literacy

Singapore achieved the highest result of 535 in reading literacy, equating to about one year more of schooling than Australia’s score of 503. The OECD average was 493.

Once again, the Northern Territory and Tasmania performed significantly below the OECD average, while all other states gained much higher results. Also, the spread between the lowest and highest Australian performers was significantly wider than the OECD average.

What the results mean

It is unhelpful to use the single country ranking to determine how we are going as there are significant variances between states/territories and school sectors (government, independent, Catholic).

Instead, we need to carefully disaggregate the data and consider the social and economic factors that influence performance across states, between schools, as well as the correlations between gender, Indigeneity, class, race, geographical location, and so on.

Australia has one of the widest ranges of student achievement, with what can be described as a long tail of underachievement.

For example, the difference in performance of students from the Australian Capital Territory and those in Tasmania and the Northern Territory is worth considering.

These differences are similar to those evident in performance on National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN).

Furthermore, there is a difference of nearly three years of schooling between students in the highest socioeconomic quartile and the lowest, with similar differences when comparing Indigenous with non-Indigenous students.

Interestingly, boys only marginally outperformed girls on scientific literacy, with girls significantly outperforming boys on reading literacy, with no real difference on mathematical literacy.

It is also interesting to note that since the PISA tests began in 2000, the major federal education policy levers have included:

  • Significantly increased federal funding to private schools under John Howard, followed by a commitment by Julia Gillard that no school would lose a dollar.
  • Failure to implement Gonski’s needs-based funding of all schools.
  • The introduction of NAPLAN, MySchool, the Australian Curriculum and the AITSL national teaching standards by the Rudd-Gillard governments.
  • Increased emphasis on market measures for school provision, such as Independent Public Schools and school autonomy.

Yet over this time, the narrative of steady decline on PISA and TIMSS results continues, while educational inequality is on the rise.

Australia has one of the most segregated schooling systems in the world, and the OECD data provide a strong correlation between high-performing systems such as Singapore and factors of social cohesion and equity.

Further evidenced in secondary analysis of all PISA data over time is the strength of the correlation between equitable funding of schools and systemic performance on PISA.

If we want to address these sliding results then we must address the issue of educational inequality in Australia.

Social efficiency and social equity

There are competing tensions in the agenda of social efficiency and social equity, which is evident in how PISA results inform global and local education policy-making. This includes the emphasis on competing within a global knowledge economy.

It is worth noting how the economic rationalisation for greater educational equity plays out in the global policy field, particularly through testing regimes such as NAPLAN and PISA.

The challenge for policymakers, schools and teachers is how to respond to increasing pressure to lift test results on PISA, TIMSS and NAPLAN, while also addressing systemic inequality in order to ensure that every Australian student is given access to a meaningful
education.

Equitable funding of schools, including redistribution to schools serving disadvantaged communities, remains a pressing policy issue in Australia.

However, it is unlikely that we will see much more than panic and moral crusading in the media commentary over the coming days.

Once the hyperventilating dies down, we need to take a long, careful look at these results and what they mean for a more equitable and high-performing Australian schooling system.

The Conversation

Stewart Riddle, Senior Lecturer, University of Southern Queensland and Bob Lingard, Professorial Research Fellow, School of Education, The University of Queensland

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share