Education Amendment (Publication of School Results) Bill 2009

About this Item
Speakers	Piccoli Mr Adrian; Deputy-Speaker; Paluzzano Mrs Karyn; Hancock Mrs Shelley; Aquilina Mr John; Acting-Speaker (Mr Thomas George); Provest Mr Geoff; Williams Mr John; Piper Mr Greg; Hopwood Mrs Judy; Moore Ms Clover; Hazzard Mr Brad; Fardell Mrs Dawn; Roberts Mr Anthony; Harris Mr David; Baird Mr Mike; Constance Mr Andrew; Stokes Mr Rob; Humphries Mr Kevin; George Mr Thomas; Firth Ms Verity
Business	Bill, Message, Agreement in Principle, Passing of the Bill, Motion

EDUCATION AMENDMENT (PUBLICATION OF SCHOOL RESULTS) BILL 2009

Page: 16733

Agreement in Principle

Debate resumed from 18 June 2009.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee—Deputy Leader of The Nationals) [10.35 a.m.]: I place on record the views of The Nationals and the Liberal Party on the Education Amendment (Publication of School Results) Bill 2009. I say at the outset that every member of the New South Wales Nationals and the Liberal Party is absolutely opposed to the publication of league tables. I am pleased to see the member for Riverstone and former Minister for Education and Training, the Hon. John Aquilina, is in the House because he responded appropriately to a Daily Telegraph article in 1997 in which a class at a New South Wales high school was labelled by that newspaper as "the class we failed". In response to that article the Government made appropriate changes to regulations in New South Wales prohibiting the publication of league tables, and it was the right thing to do. Now, 12 years later, we are undoing the protections afforded to students and teachers in schools under those regulations in exchange for money from the Commonwealth.

The most disturbing thing about this legislation is the agreement under which it is being introduced. It follows negotiations between the Federal Labor Government and almost exclusively State Labor governments across Australia and places schools in New South Wales in jeopardy or under threat of seeing their schools ranked in simplistic league tables. It is the agreement that is of most concern. Labor education Ministers, both State and Federal, sat around a table and negotiated away the protections that have been in place for 12 years, particularly in New South Wales, and that were supported by every political party in the New South Wales Parliament—and that continue to be supported. That is the agreement that was negotiated by Labor. This Federal-State partnership agreement is a 100 per cent Labor agreement.

I know that a substantial amount of funding is at stake and we are not in a position to put that funding at risk, so we will not be opposing the legislation, unfortunately. The reason this legislation is being introduced and the reason the community is so concerned about the publication of league tables is that this is an agreement made by the Labor Party, at both Federal and State levels. They make a great song and dance about their support for public education and for schools in low socioeconomic status areas. However, we all know that the schools most at risk from league tables are those in low socioeconomic status areas. I have them in my electorate and my great fear is that as a result of this Labor agreement that opens the door to league tables one of our esteemed media institutions will get that data from the Commonwealth.

I know the media cannot get the data from the New South Wales department; the protection is still in place in New South Wales. But the protection is not in place at the Commonwealth level. New South Wales will hand over all its data to the Commonwealth. In that Labor agreement that has opened the door to league tables, the New South Wales Government did not go in to bat for New South Wales schools and say to the Federal Government, "We will not sign on the dotted line unless you put the same protections in place at the Commonwealth level." If the Daily Telegraph or any other organisation wants to obtain New South Wales results through the Commonwealth under freedom of information legislation, they will get them and we will see a repeat of what happened in 1997. That is the failure of this agreement, and that is the failure of New South Wales Labor. I remind members that this agreement is a 100 per cent Labor agreement that has opened the door to league tables in New South Wales. It is 100 per cent Labor's fault.

I am very concerned that schools in my electorate—as I am sure all members of Parliament would be concerned about schools in their electorate—will appear on some league table produced as a result of whatever data a media institution gets its hands on and that those schools will be labelled as failures, even though the students are doing the best they can, the teachers are doing the best they can, the principals are doing the best they can, and the parents are doing the best they can. If one of the schools in my electorate is labelled like that, I will be very angry with the Labor governments in New South Wales and federally. I have no idea why the governments have put those schools at risk.

The argument is that transparency will lead to increased choice for parents. A number of towns in my electorate, as I am sure is the case in many other electorates, have only one high school. The nearest other high school is 100 or 150 kilometres away. If that high school is labelled as the last or the fifth-last school in New South Wales based on some test result, what option do the parents have? They have no option in that community but to send their kids to that school. The label will have a direct impact on the students of that school and the teachers at that school, who will be labelled as the teachers who taught at such and such a school that came last or fifth-last in New South Wales. The principal of that school will always be labelled as the principal who taught at that school. The test results, which may be made public by the media and others, may suggest that the school is a failure, when in fact the school may be working harder than any other school in New South Wales to improve the results of its students.

The agreement will have consequences not only for the schools concerned. It is often very hard for people in some regional towns and communities to find a doctor, a nurse, a solicitor, an accountant, or any other professional. If a doctor is looking at one of those regional towns to set up a practice and he or she has kids at high school, and if that school has been labelled as one of the lowest-performing schools in the State, the difficult task of encouraging the doctor to enrol his or her child at that school will be made almost impossible. This Labor agreement, which opens the door to league tables, will have consequences not just for the schools, students, teachers and principals, but it will have consequences for the whole community that surround and support that school.

This is a very serious piece of legislation. There are significant consequences for league tables. Almost every school organisation, both government and non-government, is opposed to the legislation. The Federal Government and the New South Wales Government were lobbied very hard by the government sector, the Public Schools Principals Forum, the Primary Principals Association, the Secondary Principals Council, the Teachers Federation, and the Federation of Parents and Citizens Associations. Both governments have also been lobbied by individual principals and teachers. They have also been lobbied by the non-government sector. Those non-government organisations include the Association of Heads of Independent Schools of Australia, the Australian Council for Educational Leaders, the Catholic Secondary Principals Association, and the Independent Education Union of Australia, just to name a few. I have one letter—which has probably been seen by a number of members—listing about 20 different organisations that oppose the Labor agreement that was signed off in March this year.

It is very difficult to find anybody, except a government member, who thinks the agreement the Government signed with the Commonwealth is a good idea. This is a 100 per cent Labor agreement. It is a joy for members opposite to have a Federal Labor Government and State Labor governments. The New South Wales Government rolled over for the money, because the Government has run out of ideas. The New South Wales Government does not debate ideas anymore. In 1997, when that front-page article appeared, Government members debated that. There was a moral issue about how we protect students.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Penrith will come to order.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: At that time the member for Riverstone rightly took the action he took. There was a debate then. This time there is no debate. The Government simply says, "We need the money." This was a grab for money. The Government did not think, "What happens to the kids at the school in western Sydney who are labelled next time as the class we failed." Joe Tripodi and Eric Roozendaal were barking in the background: "We're broke. We need the money." Forget about the ethics, forget about the morals, forget about the values that we represent in Parliament and protecting the weakest! The schools that will come last are the weakest schools, the ones that have kids from low socioeconomic areas, the ones that have lots of kids, including lots of indigenous kids, and the ones that have lots of kids with parents from non-English speaking backgrounds. They are the kids who will go to the schools and who will be labelled.

[Interruption]

Members opposite can bark at me all they like. I am not the only one saying this. These words are being echoed by virtually every school organisation right across Australia. What the Government needed to do in its negotiations as part of this national partnership agreement was to say, "We have the right protections in New South Wales, which have been fine."

Ms Verity Firth: And they are remaining.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: I grant the Minister for Education and Training that the protections are remaining in New South Wales. However, the Government knows that once it hands over that data to the Commonwealth it is no longer protected. What difference does it make whether you put in a freedom of information request to the New South Wales Department of Education and Training or the Commonwealth education department? It makes no difference to whoever is putting in the freedom of information request. The fact is that that data is not protected. The New South Wales Government should have said, "I am not signing the agreement until there is legislation in the Commonwealth Parliament—or a regulation; the same way the Minister did it here—to protect the data in the same way that it is protected in New South Wales. But, no, the Government signed the agreement in exchange for the money. The Commonwealth gave it a little scratch on the tummy, and it rolled over for the money. Had it been the previous Coalition Federal Government that had done this, there would have been screams of blue murder.

Ms Verity Firth: They also wanted to do it.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: I know they wanted to do this too. And I think you might not have signed the agreement had the previous Coalition Federal Government been in office. But your Federal colleagues gave you a little scratch on the tummy, and you rolled over and agreed to it. Now this 100 per cent Labor agreement has forced this legislation, in exchange for the money. In opposition, the Federal Coalition did not get to be part of those negotiations. We would have loved to be there; I would have put in my two bob's worth. We were not there, and the Government has signed the agreement for money. We are not going to oppose it, because we are not going to put that kind of funding—

Mr David Harris: Because of the money.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: That is right, because of the money that you have negotiated. I am simply saying that the Government should not have signed the agreement until there was legislation in the Commonwealth Parliament to protect the data. I understand what the Commonwealth is doing. It wants the data, and it will use that data to ascertain how future funding will be provided, et cetera. That is all fine. The only condition the State Government had to put on the agreement was that the Commonwealth put in place the same protections that are in place in New South Wales. That is all the State Government had to do, but in its lust for cash it signed the agreement. When Michael Costa was Treasurer this Government negotiated with the Commonwealth but he held out when the Commonwealth offered New South Wales the money for computers in schools. At that stage he did the right thing and said, "You have offered us this money—

[Interruption]

It was well done; Michael Costa did an excellent job. I do not credit him with much but I give him credit for having the guts to stand up to Kevin Rudd—not many people in the Labor Party do—and to say, "It is one thing for you to offer us money for computers but it will cost the State Government however many hundreds of millions of dollars to bring schools up to date with information technology, IT support and the like. If you give us this money we will be faced with additional financial burdens and we think you should cover at least part of those costs." Michael Costa held out for about a year, but a couple of weeks ago that program started to roll out—

Ms Verity Firth: Today.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: That program started to roll out today—almost two years after the Federal election. The Government did the right thing: It held out and it got a better deal from the Commonwealth for New South Wales. The Victorian Labor Party did the same thing: It negotiated with the Howard Government and it then negotiated with the Rudd Government over funding for the Murray-Darling Basin system. At the time Morris Iemma wanted the money and he signed the agreement so quickly that smoke was coming out of his pen. As usual, the Victorian Government outdid the New South Wales Labor Government.

The Victorian Government was smart; it held out and said, "Hang on a second. That sum of money and that agreement are not nearly enough for us." The Victorian Government held out for more than a year and it got $1 billion more than New South Wales. I know that not many people in the New South Wales Labor Government have had experience in negotiating and signing agreements in the private sector. We saw what happened with the Cross City Tunnel and all those sorts of things. I am sure that the member for Murray-Darling, who is a former car salesman, would have done a much better job. He would know how to negotiate an agreement such as this. He would have gone in to bat for his principles, his ethics and his morals. A car dealer with some experience in the private sector would have done a much better job.

That is the crux of the problem with this legislation and the Labor deal being done over league tables. This Government did not stand its ground and it did not back what it knows to be a morally and ethically correct issue. This system, which has been in place for the past 12 years in New South Wales, has worked effectively to protect schools. When this Government negotiated with the Federal Government, Julia Gillard said, "You will sign", and it signed. Unfortunately, under this 100 per cent Labor agreement, it signed away the protections that had been put in place for the most disadvantaged schools in New South Wales, which I think is a great shame. That agreement has been linked to the New South Wales budget.

We will not put at risk the New South Wales budget, but unfortunately what we have to endorse today is a 100 per cent Labor agreement—an agreement made by a Labor Government in New South Wales that purports to be a supporter of public education for low-income families and low socioeconomic status schools. It sold out public education ultimately in exchange for cash from the Commonwealth. That is the shameful situation with which we are faced today. We will not oppose this legislation, as we do not want to put at risk funding for schools. However, the New South Wales Government should never have signed this agreement. In her agreement in principle speech the Minister gave a number of undertakings. One related to the protocols agreed to in the meeting of the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, which states:

Governments will not publish simplistic league tables or rankings—

we do not think the Government will do that, but we are worried about other institutions—

and will put in place strategies to manage the risk that third parties may seek to produce such tables or rankings.

We want to see what those strategies are. I hope that the Minister, when replying to debate on this bill, tells us about some legislative or regulatory procedures that will be put in place at a Commonwealth level. I am happy with the protections that are in place in New South Wales but we want to hear about the strategies that the Commonwealth will be putting in place. Giving an undertaking in an agreement in principle speech is not good enough, in particular, when we consider some of the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs key performance measures for schooling in Australia, which were reported in the newspapers the other day. The original key performance measures referred to the ethical principles underpinning the publication of reports and stressed the importance of:

... the avoidance of harm to members of the community: this could occur where the privacy of individuals would be compromised or where the reputation of an institution or group of people would be damaged through the publication of misleading information or stereotyping.

The interesting words in that statement are "the avoidance of harm". The Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs said that any data that is produced, or any data that is publicised, must not harm any individual institution. It is interesting that the reference to "avoidance of harm" was left out in the final agreement that was signed. Some people might say it was an omission or an error, but I do not think so. The report in the Sydney Morning Herald a week or so ago did not state that somebody had left out the words "avoidance of harm". The Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, of which the New South Wales Minister was a part, consciously agreed to leave out any reference to the avoidance of harm to individuals or institutions through the publication of any data.

That indicates that the Federal Minister, Julia Gillard, the New South Wales Minister and the other Ministers recognised that the new protocols requiring the publishing of data could cause harm to individuals or institutions—and schools come under the category of "institution". That meeting in Tasmania recognised that this new protocol, thrust upon us all by this 100 per cent Labor agreement to remove these protections on league tables, potentially would cause harm to schools and individuals. How could the Minister in New South Wales sign an agreement such as that? How could Julia Gillard sign such an agreement that could cause harm to schools? Perhaps that provision was foolishly included in the first place and then, embarrassingly, it had to be removed.

I hope that every member of Parliament is committed to avoiding the causing of harm to schools. This legislation is opening the door to the causing of harm to schools. That omission is clear recognition of the fact that this agreement potentially will harm schools and, in particular, the individuals at those schools. The Government can say what it likes about why it agreed to sign that agreement, why it accepted the money and the like. Strategies will be put in place to protect schools from league tables. However, the very agreement that this Government signed—I assume that the Minister and her staff scrutinised every word of the agreement—recognised that harm could be done to individuals or to schools. That single omission in this Labor agreement is a damning indictment of the Minister for Education and Training and the New South Wales Government.

In the next 12 months we will see the consequences of this 100 per cent agreement. In the next 12 months we will see the consequences of the New South Wales Government rolling over and removing the protections that have been in place for the past 12 years. In the next 12 months we will also see how this pans out. But the Government has already foreshadowed that the agreement is going to potentially cause harm to some schools. That is a most damning indictment of the Government and the clearest indication yet that the Government is corrupt in every sense of the word. But most importantly when it comes to schools, the Government is morally corrupt and has completely and utterly lost its moral compass in its chase for cash. The Government is completely morally corrupt to sign an agreement such as this—

Mrs Karyn Paluzzano: Point of order: My point of order goes to language in the House. The shadow Minister for Education and Training has been given leeway in this debate but I find the words "morally corrupt" offensive. I ask the member for Murrumbidgee to withdraw those words.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! Does the member for Murrumbidgee wish to withdraw those words?

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI:

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Murrumbidgee used the words "corrupt in every sense of the word".

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: I withdraw my comment about "corrupt", but the Government is certainly morally corrupt. It has completely lost its moral compass, which it had a number of years ago when these regulations were initially put in place.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! Has the member for Murrumbidgee withdrawn the word "corrupt"?

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: Yes. But the signing of this agreement that allows harm to be done to schools in New South Wales shows that the Government has completely lost its moral compass. The next 12 months will show how this legislation pans out.

Mrs KARYN PALUZZANO (Penrith—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.01 a.m.]: I support the Education Amendment (Publication of School Results) Bill 2009. Coming from a teaching background, I support the bill. I note that a number of former teachers are members of this House or the Legislative Council. The portfolio of education, like all portfolios that the State is responsible for, is one of change. The shadow Minister commented that there have been a number of changes in education. The most recent change, and the most profound change, has been to the school leaving age. That change has been extensively negotiated and will be implemented from 1 January 2010. The Government supports education and that is but one example of the results from the negotiation of that policy.

Last weekend I met with the President of the Leonay Golf Club to celebrate the seventieth anniversary of the club. The most important aspect of that night to me was that the president is the father of a student from the very first class I ever taught. Members of this Parliament who were former teachers would acknowledge that the first class you ever teach is quite special. In my first year of teaching I taught Kinder Red at Emu Plains. The Education Reform Act, the Teacher Institute Bill or the National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy, referred to as NAPLAN, did not exist at that time. In fact, we did not even have basic testing. There have been changes in schools and this Government funding will continue to help.

In 2008 the Council of Australian Governments agreed to a new national performance reporting framework to promote greater transparency and accountability in school performance and student outcomes. The intent of this framework is to ensure parents have useful information about the performance of their child's school. The Commonwealth has made the implementation of the new performance reporting framework a condition for funding for 2009 and beyond. The National Education Agreement requires that schools comply with the new performance reporting framework in order to receive Commonwealth funding. This legislation aims to ensure that schools in New South Wales comply with these requirements. If New South Wales does not comply with these requirements it would forfeit over $1 billion per annum in funding for the public schools of this State.

As a former teacher I know that all teachers would welcome the additional $1 billion funding. After a decade of underfunding by the previous Commonwealth Government this is a loss that public schools cannot afford. Similarly, any non-government school not complying with the same requirement would also be ineligible for Commonwealth funding. New South Wales will not forgo funding that will go towards providing teachers with the right expertise to lift educational outcomes for our most disadvantaged students. After teaching Kinder Red at Emu Plans I spent time teaching at Noumea Public School near Mount Druitt. I am well aware that the expertise and funding required for teaching students in those areas is great. This funding will go towards those educational outcomes. That is why I support the bill.

In April education Ministers agreed on a framework for publication of comparable information about school performance and context, including NAPLAN data. The intent of this framework is to ensure parents have useful information about the performance of their child's school. I have a daughter in year 9 and a son in year 10. Last year my son undertook the first NAPLAN testing and as a parent I received great information about my son's education from that. The intent of that testing is to ensure that parents use that information about their child's school.

New South Wales has agreed with all other States, Territories and the Commonwealth that parents have the right to more transparent information. Education Ministers have all agreed that these reforms are not about simplistic league tables. I was a teacher at Mount Druitt at the time when the front page of a newspaper referred to the school, as the Opposition education spokesman mentioned. Having a simplistic league table using those students was simply outrageous. New South Wales has consistently argued against the use of simplistic league tables. States and Territories have worked with the Commonwealth to develop principles and protocols for reporting on schooling in Australia. At the meeting of 12 June the education Ministers agreed to these principles and protocols.

The protocols have been developed to help ensure privacy regulations are adhered to. The primary purpose of reporting is to assist each school to improve outcomes for students. The protocols include specific statements to prevent the public identification of individual students, unlike what occurred many years ago with the front page of that newspaper. This is a key document for establishing the intentions of governments in reporting on school performance. The protocols make clear that it is not the intention of the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments to construct simplistic league tables. It is not the intent of any level of government to construct simplistic league tables.

The focus in the document is on ensuring that contextual information is provided. Data is only reported where it is assessed as reliable. The privacy of individual students is protected and the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority has put in place strategies to manage the risks of data misuse. General principles have been included to make clear that governments are committed to reporting, that it is in the public interest, that it is valid and comprehensive, and that it balances the community's right to know with the need to avoid the misuse of data. Education Ministers will continue to work on the best way for deciding appropriate comparisons between schools that take into account the very different context in which schools operate. The comparisons will be made with similar or "like" schools. New South Wales has specifically requested that any methodology developed for like school groups be made transparent and all education Ministers have agreed to this requirement.

The Government will be providing information consistent with the national reporting agenda approved by all Australian education Ministers. The amendment to the Education Act before the House continues to provide protection for individual students against the unauthorised comparison of particular schools. It maintains a clear opposition to the construction of simplistic league tables, while allowing the provision of New South Wales information and data to the Commonwealth. The legislation is necessary and appropriate. It maintains the integrity of the New South Wales position and will give parents more information about the strengths and weaknesses of individual schools. We are unequivocal in our support for the Commonwealth's position. We also are unequivocal in our opposition to simplistic league tables. This legislation reflects both positions. I commend the bill to the House.

Mrs SHELLEY HANCOCK (South Coast) [11.09 a.m.]: I clearly understand the consequences for this State in not supporting the Education Amendment (Publication of School Results) Bill. The Minister for Education and Training in her agreement in principle speech noted that this bill should be passed urgently since New South Wales is required to provide data to the Commonwealth under the terms of the national education agreement, tied to which is $4.8 billion in funding over the next four years. We are all in a difficult position. All of us, on both sides of the House, are in the unenviable position of being forced into supporting this legislation, despite our very real concerns—at least on this side of the House. I have learnt from the Government speakers this morning that it is all about money. They are acceding to an agreement which, philosophically, they should oppose. Members have been denied a robust debate on the issue of whether this bill is about league tables and, if not, the potential for league tables.

The Minister spoke of the urgent need to pass this bill so that information can be passed to the Commonwealth within weeks to enable national publication towards the end of the year and to ensure that the conditions of the receipt of the funding have been met. Almost as an afterthought, the Minister stated that if this bill is not passed parents will be denied access to information about the performance of their children's schools. That is totally unacceptable. Further, the member for Penrith alluded to the fact that parents would be denied access to information about the performance of their children and schools. Parents already have an enormous amount of information provided to them under various testing regimes. Parents and students are provided the results of the National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy [NAPLAN] tests. The claim that parents will be denied information is utter rubbish. It is a way for the Government to justify the signing of this agreement.

I preface my comments on this bill by reminding the House that before entering this place I was a high school English and history teacher for 27 years at Ulladulla High School on the State's South Coast and before that for two years at Lake Illawarra High School and Warilla High School in the Illawarra region. I retain a strong interest in education in this State and I was a member of the New South Wales Teachers Federation throughout my entire teaching career. I want to recount a conversation I had with a friend of mine. He was a friend before I joined the Liberal Party and he is still a friend. He is a very strong member of the Labor Party. He once stated to me that on the day the Teachers Federation disaffiliated itself from the New South Wales Labor Government, the Labor Government stopped listening to the Federation. That is the truth—the Labor Government stopped listening to it and working with it. He said that as most teachers will always vote Labor, despite the contempt with which the Labor Party holds them, the Labor Party could continue to treat them with contempt. That is what the Labor Government is doing. My message to the Teachers Federation is that the concerns of teachers about this bill have been ignored, even though they are correct.

The State has been bullied into agreeing to this legislation by the Deputy Prime Minister, who saw the concept in the United States and thought it would be easily transported to Australia. That is not the case; conditions here are very different. The Liberal-Nationals Coalition is opposed to league tables whereby the publication of school results based on various tests may lead to new, educationally unsound comparisons between schools. I am vehemently opposed also to limited test results being used to compare schools in order to supposedly provide clear information to parents. For example, the NAPLAN tests provide only a very small snapshot of a student's ability or a school's particular strengths or weaknesses. The NAPLAN tests are based on literacy and numeracy. They may be a very useful diagnostic tool for teachers to ascertain useful information about a student's ability in either literacy or numeracy, but teachers also use a number of other assessment tools in order to more fully understand their students, and they do so on a daily basis.

The NAPLAN tests tell us very little about the talents of student in, say, music, the performing arts, public speaking, debating, visual arts or sporting endeavours. They tell us very little about a school's strengths or weaknesses. They tell us very little about a student. Using these types of tests to compare schools across the nation is educationally unsound. It may lead to unfair comparisons between schools and a failure by the Government to recognise the achievements of school communities—parents, students and teachers. This bill, as part of the Council of Australian Governments [COAG] agreement, has the dangerous potential to reduce the performance of a school to the performance of its students in two one-hour tests. It does nothing to ensure that our schools and teachers are encouraged to inspire the imagination and creativity of students in all areas of learning or to encourage diversity within our schools. It reduces a school's performance to a lowest common denominator and may lead to unfair comparisons between schools, despite the Minister's assurances that it will not.

In relation to the Minister's assurances, I and many members on this side of the House will watch with interest as the provisions of the COAG agreement unfold. Should the national program be used to make unfair comparisons, we will express our outrage, given the Minister's comments last week. The Minister in her agreement in principle speech expressed her opposition to the league table concept. She said it is a concept that labels schools as either winners or losers. She stated that this is unfair, damaging, anti-educational and not in the public interest. I hold her to her words and her opposition to league tables. I am hopeful that she is committed to her comments, despite the ambiguity of some of her following comments. She said that the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA] will be able to publish relevant nationally comparable information on all schools. It sounds very much like league tables to me. However, we will judge the Minister's ability to ensure good educational outcomes for the students in this State.

I want to place on record and comment on some of the concerns of the New South Wales Teachers Federation. They are worthy of consideration, even though they have been ignored, as usual, by the Government. The Teachers Federation states that it opposes league tables because the ranking of similar schools, like for like, is meaningless. The Minister said that information about schools within relevant groupings would be separately publicly available and that parents should have the right to detailed information about the performance of their schools which presents a fair comparison of their school's performance against that of other similar schools. That is like for like. It is impossible to compare any school to another school. Every school is different, every student is different, and every teacher is different. The strengths and weaknesses of every school are different. How is it possible to compare like schools with like schools, especially in rural and regional Australia?

What choice will parents have if they do not like the results and the performance of their child's school? Can they change schools? Can they take their children from one school to another? No, they cannot. Can they take their children to the private system? Some can, but many will not be able to because they cannot afford that choice, as the member for Hornsby rightly said. Many parents do not have a choice if they are not satisfied with the publication of the so-called performance of their schools. The Teachers Federation is right: it is difficult, if not impossible, to compare like schools with like schools. The Teachers Federation also says that each school is unique and exists in a context not able to be captured by rankings. I refer to my previous comments in that regard. Each school—whether it is in Broken Hill, Hornsby, Nowra or Ulladulla—is different and exists in a context that is appropriate to the education that the teachers provide in that school.

For example, a school in the heritage township of Milton may focus on local history because it is surrounded by local history. It will have a very different focus from that of a school in Ulladulla, Nowra or Bomaderry. Every school is different. We cannot compare schools in this context. League tables will show only one tiny aspect of performance, and I have talked about the NAPLAN test being used for this purpose. The Teachers Federation is again correct: NAPLAN tests—two one-hour tests per year—show nothing about the ability of students in so many other areas, such as music, debating, drama or sport; they test only one small area of performance.

The Teachers Federation also says that winners and losers are created. That is already the case. Schools with students who are in the top echelons of NAPLAN testing love to publish their results, but those schools whose results are a bit more disappointing do not do that. There is a potential for schools to compete with each other rather than enhance the performance of their students. Basing a school's comparison on testing leads to teachers teaching for the test only, focusing only on the NAPLAN tests for very much of their teaching day. It is unfortunate that teachers, because they know that the outcomes of the tests are crucial for the school and the publication of the school's results, teach for the test. As pointed out by the Teachers Federation, it is a very sad outcome for teachers, who obviously want to inspire creativity and imagination amongst their students but who are forced so many times to teach only for the test, perhaps to the detriment of every other subject area, to make sure that each student performs well in that test because the results will be published.

The Teachers Federation also says that tests should be used for diagnostic purposes not school comparisons, and I could not agree more. These kinds of tests are extremely useful for diagnostic purposes only: for the teachers and the parents to understand more about the student's ability; to understand how they may intervene in the education of a student; and to provide assistance where it is needed to students who are perhaps suffering some kind of disability or who have learning problems. I fear that NAPLAN tests and other kinds of tests will be used for school comparisons, not just within New South Wales but across the country. How can we compare schools in Sydney or, for example, the South Coast with schools in Perth or anywhere else? Every school has its own individual mark and schools should not be compared. There is no way that we could find a group of schools that are alike.

League tables do nothing to address the real problems of proper resourcing. Testing has been used on a number of occasions to assess the performance of various schools but it has not led to the proper resourcing of schools as a result, and I suspect that this will be the case in this situation. Parents and teachers from schools that have performed poorly in various testing regimes have requested intervention by the Government in the form of resourcing for students who are struggling, but it has not happened. There is no guarantee, even from the Minister's speech, that there will be proper resourcing. I could go on all morning talking about the problems with this piece of legislation but I know that a number of other members wish to speak on the bill. I take the assurances of the Minister for Education and Training on board and I take her at her word. I think she believes what she says, that these tests will not be used to make unfair comparisons between schools.

But I ask the Minister: If these tests are to be passed to the Commonwealth, what is the purpose of them? The purpose must be to compare schools; there can be no other purpose. But this morning all we have heard from members on the other side are arguments that we have to sign the agreement because it is all about the money and that if we do not agree we will lose $4.8 billion worth of funding for our schools. Those on the other side have not talked about NAPLAN testing and they have not talked about any of the issues raised by the Teachers Federation or any other educational organisation opposed to this legislation. I am disappointed at the level of this debate. I am disappointed that members on the other side have been bullied. I am disappointed that the Minister has been bullied into agreeing to this piece of legislation. It is all about the money. I am disappointed that all of us in this place this morning have been placed in an unenviable position of having to— [Time expired.]

Mr JOHN AQUILINA

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! Members on both sides of the House will come to order.

Mr JOHN AQUILINA: I am extremely proud to be speaking on this legislation because this is a natural extension of a process that started 12 years ago when a Labor Government in this State—and I happened to be the Minister for Education and Training at that time—decided that it was about time that parents got an accurate report on how well their children were doing at school and the community got to know precisely what was happening in our schools. That is how annual reports started in 1997. We introduced a process that was welcomed by parents. At that time the Opposition had a go at the Government because it felt we were not going far enough: the Opposition wanted us to introduce league tables. Before we get a version of history from people who have only been in this place a short time but who profess to know a lot about what happens—

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! Members on both sides of the House will come to order. The member for South Coast will come to order.

Mr JOHN AQUILINA: It behoves the Opposition to look at what happened and to research the history properly. Not only have members of the Opposition not researched the history; they have not read the legislation. Much of what members of the Opposition have said is absolute nonsense and bears no relevance whatsoever to what is in the legislation. Section 18A (3) states:

Members opposite are talking about league tables. The Act precisely prohibits league tables. Members opposite need to drop the rhetoric and start looking at the facts. They need to stop rewriting history and start researching exactly what happened. They need to look at what has been happening. As I said earlier, I am extremely proud to support the legislation, not because it has anything to do with money but because it is an appropriate extension of the annual reporting of schools, which started 12 years ago and which should continue to develop.

All Australian governments have now agreed that opening up the reporting of school performance around the nation, provided it is done according to responsible education protocols, is in the public interest. What we are doing with this legislation is in the public interest. We are arguing about what is in the best interests of schools and what is in the best interests of parents and students. As the Minister said in her agreement in principle speech:

Mr John Williams:

Mrs Shelley Hancock: Why aren't you supporting teachers?

Mr JOHN AQUILINA: I am very tempted to respond to that interjection but I will bite my tongue. As I was saying, the Minister said in her agreement in principle speech:

The bill, which enables reporting on a nationally consistent basis, will build on that growing tradition of giving parents a clear picture of how their children's school is performing. Since 1997 New South Wales government schools have been required to produce an annual school report providing a detailed picture of their activities to their communities.

At the time, the Opposition said that that annual school report did not go far enough. I probably agreed to some extent, and we are now taking that step. It is about time the Opposition was consistent in its approach. Instead of being caught between a rock and a hard place, members opposite should come on board and support this legislation. The Government is taking the legislation one step further towards what the Opposition said it should do in 1997. I am happy to support this legislation. In one year approximately 850,000 annual school reports are printed and dispatched by schools to members of their school community. Prior to 1995, when the Coalition was in government, schools were given considerable flexibility with regard to what they included in their annual reports.

In fact, they had so much flexibility that virtually everyone agreed the reports were meaningless. They had no authority, they contained practically no useful information and there was no transparency. A lot of time was taken to produce a worthless document. However, since 2007, schools have been required to include the following information in their annual reports in a specified manner: reports on attendance; staff retention; teacher qualifications; expenditure and teacher participation in professional learning; proportion of students meeting national benchmark standards in reading, writing and numeracy in years 3, 5, 7 and 9; changes in benchmark results since the previous year; average standardised test results for years 9 and 10 students; senior secondary outcomes; the proportion of year 9 students retained to year 12 or equivalent; post-school destinations; and student, parent and teacher satisfaction.

They are all very worthwhile reporting mechanisms and data that enable the Government, communities, parents and students to assess the value-adding our schools are achieving. This is a rich set of information that enables parents and the community to look deeply into how a school is performing. We on this side of the House believe parents have a right to that information. I firmly believe that, despite the political stance they are taking, members opposite also believe that. There is no legislator or parent in this State who would walk away from increased transparency and accountability as far as education is concerned. This is not about money; it is about ensuring that our children get the best possible education. That is what this legislation aims to achieve.

It is important for the wider community to have access to this information for a number of reasons. It enables us to identify schools that are performing well and to spread their best practice. In previous years the Department of Education and Training has undertaken a number of research projects that have identified high performing schools, documented the practices in those schools and disseminated that information to other schools. The department is presently involved in such a project focusing specifically on the performance of rural primary, secondary and central schools. Publication of school results also enables to us to shine a spotlight on areas that need more support. I reiterate the Minister's comment in her agreement in principle speech: This is not about punishing schools; this is about assisting those schools that require assistance. It is about assisting the students in our schools who require that assistance and ensuring that resources are directed in the appropriate way.

The Department of Education and Training already has an annual process to identify schools that are performing below their cohort. Schools identified become part of the focus support school program and are provided with additional support to assist them to bring their outcomes up to the expected level. Of course, for comparisons of this type to be meaningful we must ensure that they are also fair. A conclusive body of international research has demonstrated that socioeconomic status is a significant predictor of academic success. We in the Labor Party feel very strongly about that. For many of us it was education that enabled us to improve our life. We acknowledge the fact that education is a great liberator. It liberates children from poverty or from a background of menial work. It provides children with opportunities.

Irrespective of one's background in a working class suburb or a rural community, education is what it is all about. Greater transparency and accountability enrich students and ensure that we do not write off schools and school communities because they are in a poorer or neglected outback area. We ensure that those children become part of the focus support school program and that we are able to direct resources to help them. We should all feel passionate about that, because it is fundamental to our role in this place. Instead of saying, "Let's not produce more data and results," we should be saying that we owe it to these students, teachers and schools to have as much refined data as possible so that we can do the right thing by them and continue value-adding to their education. If a school in a wealthy community is producing better test scores than a school in a disadvantaged community, we cannot necessarily conclude that the first school is teaching its students more effectively. That is why the Department of Education and Training has developed sophisticated—

Mr John Williams: You were going to make only a brief contribution.

Mr JOHN AQUILINA: As I said, I am very passionate about this.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! The Leader of the House will be heard in silence.

Mr JOHN AQUILINA: I know that the member for Murray-Darling is passionate about the schools in his electorate. That is why I am sure he will make a contribution in support of this legislation. The like school group data ensures that schools are compared only with schools that are socioeconomically and geographically similar. This enables the department to evaluate school performance in overall terms and in their community context. Again, it is about value-adding. If a school performs extremely well because it is in a privileged area and privileged parents are able to provide privileged facilities for their children, it does not necessarily mean that that school is adding much value to its students. It is only by comparing that school with similar schools with similar backgrounds that we are able to meaningfully compare performance. We need to be able to evaluate in overall terms and also in the community context.

A new Commonwealth statutory body, the Australian Curriculum, Assessment Reporting Authority, is now working to refine like school measures on a national level. The rich history of reporting performance in annual school reports that we have in New South Wales will now be extended one step further. The reports will now be made publicly available on a national website within a nationally consistent reporting framework. About five years ago we did not think that would ever be possible in our lifetime. I congratulate the Federal Government for being able to do this. It will continue to paint a rich picture of the performance of every school in the country—government and non-government. The concept of reporting on like school groups will continue, but the groups will be determined on a national basis.

Just as New South Wales individual school reports have not given rise to the need to publish overly simplistic league tables, we expect that the national reports will allow a rich picture to develop about each school. Just as in New South Wales we have been able to use the data and reporting system to spread best practice from best performing schools to others, so, too, will that occur on a national basis. I conclude by rejecting some of the spurious arguments that have been put by the Opposition. Members opposite have said that this is all about money. This has nothing to do with money. This is a natural progression on what happened 12 years ago. It is about accountability, transparency and ensuring that the most underprivileged of our students have access to the best education possible and that they can obtain the best results possible from our education system. That is what this legislation is about; it is about enriching, value adding and empowering our students and teachers. That is why I support this legislation.

Mr GEOFF PROVEST (Tweed) [11.39 a.m.]: I speak to the Education Amendment (Publication of School Results) Bill 2009. All members in this place would have one object in this regard: to ensure that the children of New South Wales have an effective and successful education. We are all of the same opinion: the children of New South Wales are our future. We should be able to invest in them to ensure a positive outcome. I refer to comments that members have made. The shadow Minister for Education and Training stated that through the signing of this deal—the agreement between the State and Federal governments—no mechanism was put in place to ensure that once the data leaves New South Wales it does not become eligible for freedom of information through any Commonwealth agency and does not become publicly released. This is of extreme importance.

There are a number of high schools within my electorate. In the short time I have been the member for Tweed—I am 100 per cent for that area—rumours and innuendo have been spread about one or two of the high schools. That has caused a great deal of concern among parents. Being a father myself, I know one always wants the best for one's children. A number of applications have come to me and to the regional director of education within the Tweed for the transfer of children from one school to another. There have been issues regarding enrolments of new students into year 7. A number of parents have made formal applications for their children to go elsewhere. A lot of that decision-making process was based on information they gleaned officially and unofficially. The downside is it has caused one of those schools to slip in the number of students, which has therefore led to a slip in the number of teachers, which has therefore led to a slip in the number of courses.

In all cases those schools have excelled in areas not picked up in this testing. The member for South Coast made the point that the testing related only to certain subjects and missed important things such as public speaking, music and sports. The Tweed has a diverse population and a variety of levels of income. We have one of the highest levels of youth unemployment in the State, as well as adult unemployment. Some of our schools excel in the areas I just mentioned. They may not rank in this current form of testing, but the schools are successful because they engage children in sports, public speaking and music, which are considered great attributes in the outside world. However, as I said, they are not picked up by this testing. The main issue with this bill is there is no guarantee where the information will end up once it is passed to the Commonwealth. That concerns me greatly. I have seen the damage done to schools by rumours and innuendo.

I meet on a regular basis with our Teachers Federation representatives. Unlike many other members, I am not a former teacher, although my father was a school principal—as is my brother and sister-in-law—at Ulladulla High, in the area of the member for South Coast. I had a rather formal educational upbringing. I have noted the continual concern and representation of the Teachers Federation. As I say, I meet with teachers on a number of issues. I am always impressed with their dedication and commitment to the delivery of education to the youth of New South Wales. I admit that I am guided by them, as they are at the coalface. I am a great believer in talking to people at the coalface. It would appear various rifts are developing between the federation and the New South Wales Labor Government. It seems to be an ongoing battle—different priorities. Ultimately, I would be guided by the teachers and back their stance on the bill.

However, we need to take the Minister for Education and Training at face value. She has made various commitments and we need to trust her to honour them. My chief concern is what happens when that information goes to the Federal Government. At the signing of the agreement we could have put in place a safeguard mechanism, but we did not. I disagree with some earlier speakers who said this is not about money. I think it is. Our schools have been neglected for some 12 to 14 years. All members of this place, including Government members, would have schools in their electorates that urgently require funds for various programs and maintenance. Once again, I am 100 per cent for the schools in the Tweed. I will not be opposing the bill.

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS (Murray-Darling) [11.45 a.m.]: I will speak briefly to the amendments contained in the Education Amendment (Publication of School Results) Bill 2009. Since the election of the Federal Labor Government I have been amazed at some of the ideology and head in the cloud stuff we have seen from it. Certainly, Julia Gillard has been caught up in this crazy ideology and belief that what works in the United States of America will work in Australia. At one stage she suggested—and brought out an expert to agree with her—that we should start paying incentive payments for teachers, give them some sort of productivity bonus. That idea was sheer stupidity. Kevin Rudd was talking about every child in school having a laptop they would be able to take home. That showed how out of touch these people really are.

What we see here today is not only ideology; it reflects the elitist nature that has developed in the Labor Party. This is elitism at its best. The Government seeks to grade schools in New South Wales—indeed, they will be graded throughout Australia. It believes that this sort of ideology can be rolled out and that we will have the perfect system. It does not recognise the fact that the education system is supported by professional teachers. We recognise them as professionals; we trust them as professionals. We put them in charge of the education of our children. They are of a professional status. This bill does not recognise their professional status. It suggests that all schools will attain the same level, regardless of the challenges.

There are great challenges for teachers in the Murray-Darling electorate. Teachers are responding to challenges every single day—challenges created by cultural differences, challenges created by the lack of recognition of education as an absolute priority, and challenges created by the things teachers need to do simply to get children to attend school on a regular basis. Children come to school with different skills that they have to develop. The National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy [NAPLAN] tests have a narrow band-width. They recognise certain aspects in education, but they do not recognise the challenges and the personal development that teachers are trying to get out of students who might not have the skills that match good test results in this area.

During my visits to various schools in my electorate I have seen magnificent developments that demonstrate the professional nature of teachers. They have recognised the various sporting, musical or cultural attributes that some students have and they have developed programs tailored to their individual abilities. As a result, we have excellent citizens who have been able to develop these natural skills. This system will deny students this opportunity because teachers will be focusing on achieving NAPLAN results—full stop. They will not be seeking to develop the individual skills of students.

The system is a one-size-fits-all. It is about having a homogenous education system rolled out in the State; it is about having a beautiful, crazy belief that everything should be the same across the State, without accepting the challenges that our professional teachers face in regional areas. The other problem is that when people move to a regional area they have certain educational expectations of their children. Everyone wants their children to go to the best school and to receive the best education. Unfortunately, the system does not allow that to happen, particularly in the western area, where the tests will have wide and varied results. There is potential for students to achieve high academic results, but recognition is not given to that fact. I am concerned that this bill might act as a deterrent for people relocating to regional areas because they believe that their children will not receive education in line with that being provided in other schools throughout the State.

The wide and varied results in my area do not allow for the perfect system. That may happen in Sydney, where elitist schools can be developed. The Labor elitist schools, the blue ribbon schools that this Government is focusing on, will be developed. All the students in New South Wales will be enrolled in those schools while the rest can be washed down the drain. This is a sell-out. It is about the Minister negotiating a better deal without having a gun held to her head. This is the power of negotiation. It is a rollover. It is what we saw with the Murray-Darling arrangement—we were expected to take it on the chin and let the Federal Government dictate the terms of the payments.

Mr GREG PIPER

The stigma of being educated at a poor-quality school could have lifelong impacts on individuals, and lead to a reduced opportunity in further education and employment. Worse, it could lead to reduced self-esteem at both an individual and community level. The situation will be created whereby suburbs will be considered to be of lower social status, at least in part because the local school is seen to be a comparative failure. It is utterly inappropriate to apply a norm-referenced rating to schools, with the unavoidable result of half of them being below average.

Anyone responsible for the wellbeing of our children and the future of New South Wales as a whole should be educating to a particular minimum standard and taking appropriate steps to help schools reach that standard and beyond if they need help. I acknowledge that there would not be one person in this House who does not want the best education outcomes for our children. However, their approach as to how this might be achieved will vary and the risks to getting the best outcomes will vary with the approach. The New South Wales Teachers Federation has raised real concerns about the changes associated with this legislation and the potential to have data misused or misunderstood, leading to the detriment of individual students, schools and communities. I can only agree with them. I have not yet heard any convincing argument supporting the legislation that sets aside their concerns.

The potential for this data, supplied to a national database, to be selectively drawn on and to become part of the unofficial league tables—even though they are, by the legislation, ruled out—appears to me to be very real. Schools within the New South Wales system should be assessed and the information should be used to continue to raise the standards within under-resourced and underperforming schools. Comparing the performance of schools is valid as a management technique, but disclosing information that detracts from a school's role in its community is not. The intention of the legislation may be good, but the risk is that the data will be misused to the detriment of at least half the schools that may find themselves tested and ranked unfairly.

This bill will pass through the House—that is the reality. Let us all hope that the concerns that have been raised do not come to pass. If they do, the burden will be on individual students, families and communities in most cases, without an opportunity to revisit this important part of their education. The die will have been cast. I agree with much of the argument put on the record by the Opposition. I am surprised that the Opposition will not oppose the bill. There is a strong argument for the bill to be voted down in the Parliament and for amendments to be made that would make the outcome workable and supportable by the community of New South Wales.

Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD

Education Act 1990

I agree that all members have the best interests of children at heart. Children are our future. We all want the provision of educational excellence for them so that they may live worthwhile lives and have opportunities to realise their dreams. I have no doubt that every member shares those views. I have had an extremely good relationship with the Hornsby Teachers Association over a long period of time. Like other members, I share a good relationship with schools and school communities in my electorate. I, along with all members of the Coalition, do not support league tables. I do not approve of the apparent decision to provide an increase in cash in New South Wales in relation to this legislation. Parents already have information available to them, and in my opinion this legislation will create opportunity for unfair comparisons. Two one-hour National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy tests will not show the many other talents and skills of students.

The Labor arrangement with the Federal Government leaves a lot to be desired. We certainly have some checks and balances within the legislation, but we need the same checks and balances in the Federal sphere so that the spectre of league tables can be curtailed. The legislation obviously involves the transfer of funding to New South Wales, and therefore it is not insignificant in relation to the needs of New South Wales schools. The necessary funding for the State's schools has been depleted over many years and a large number of maintenance works need to be done in schools. Schools have been crying out for funding for many other projects and needs that have not been met over the past 12 to 14 years.

With regard to freedom of information access federally, it does not appear that this type of data will be protected. The data certainly needs to be protected. As I have said, the same checks and balances are definitely needed at a Federal level. Not all schools and students are the same, and therefore they cannot possibly be compared like with like. Schools in low socioeconomic status communities will be particularly prey to any such comparisons. There are fantastic rural schools. I have visited a number of them, having relatives and friends in rural areas. I know that the opportunities are very good for rural students, but in some areas they are not as good as in others. I refer to an article published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 19 June entitled "Ban Lifted on School League Tables" by Education Editor Anna Patty, who is a very experienced journalist. She encapsulates the fear that this legislation is engendering not only within members of this House but also in the wider community. The article reads:

The president of the New South Wales Teachers Federation, Bob Lipscombe, said the Government had maintained a public impression of opposition to league tables, while doing everything necessary to allow their creation.

In conclusion, I again express my concerns about the spectre of league tables and restate my opposition to them.

Ms CLOVER MOORE (Sydney) [12.03 p.m.]: The Education Amendment (Publication of School Results) Bill 2009 will require the publication of individual reports with information about a school's performance in comparison with other schools with similar characteristics. Information will include national test results, attainment rates, student population characteristics, teaching staff and financial resources. I understand that the Government's aim is to improve schools' performance, but the education community is really alarmed over the impact that publishing performance data will have on education and on schools, particularly in lower socioeconomic communities. The Teachers Federation tells me that 16 education associations have expressed grave concern about this approach, including the Australian Council for Educational Leaders, the Australian Secondary Principals Association, the Catholic Secondary Principals Association and the Independent Education Union of Australia, as well as parents, principals and teachers' organisations.

While the bill aims to publish comparative data between similar schools, establishing groups of similar schools is overly simplistic. Each school has a unique situation that cannot be meaningfully compared. I share the concern that schools in lower socioeconomic areas will be overrepresented in lower rankings and that students will suffer from poor self-esteem, and opportunities for young people in already disadvantaged communities will be reduced. The Teachers Federation points out that publishing performance information on schools will worsen the gaps in achievement between rich and poor, and along racial, religious and ethnic grounds, creating winners and losers in schools rather than creating equal opportunities within our communities. I am also concerned about how manipulating this kind of simplistic data can damage communities that are overrepresented in the media in a negative light.

While the Government's argument is that schools will aim to lift their game and achieve better results, the nature of this kind of simplistic information will create competitive markets in schools, making it difficult for lower-ranking schools to improve their performance. The Teachers Federation points out that the United Kingdom experience with leagues tables reduces the diversity in education because the curriculum's focus on tested criteria increases, to achieve a better rank. In conclusion, education is about so much more than just what can be tested; schools should foster creativity and community values. I am concerned about this approach, and I call on the Government to undertake a comprehensive review of the implications of this bill and report it to the House.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [12.06 p.m.]: Any legislation that puts at risk the certainty of schools in their role as educational facilities and that seeks to expose schools to the possibility of being listed and compared has to be a cause for concern. The Minister for Education and Training already has a pretty poor track record when it comes to educational issues. You can smirk and laugh, but it is still a serious issue—

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! The member for Wakehurst will direct his comments through the Chair.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: The response from the new, young Minister is to smirk and laugh. I am simply saying that when we have all the major educational groups lining up to express concerns about the issue that the Minister is bringing before the House, instead of smirking and laughing the Minister should be listening. She should also be finding the right balance.

Ms Verity Firth: You don't think the balance is right? You don't think parents have a right to know about their local school?

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! The Minister will have the opportunity to reply to the debate. Members will direct their comments through the Chair. I ask the Minister to listen to the member for Wakehurst in silence.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: I will respond to the Minister's interjection, because it was better than the smirks and the laughing. There is no doubt that parents need access to appropriate information. But when the release of that information also has as a consequence the possible damage to their children's schools, or to other schools, then it is an issue that must be handled very carefully. As I said, the Minister's track record is not fantastic. I remember seeing the Minister on television talking about computers being rolled out to schools, which was a promise her Government had made. The Minister took the first opportunity she could to appear on television and blame her Federal colleagues for a failure to get the rollout that the State Government subsequently promised.

The Minister was quite happy to jump out from under, when her Federal colleagues announced they were going to put funding into computers, and appear on television and publicly blame them, saying, "Gee whiz, they are not actually doing what they need to do. They are not actually providing the additional funding necessary for the electricity connections and so on." Good on the Minister for at least being aware of that issue. What that indicated to me was that this Minister has to be carefully watched. The Minister is quite prepared to blame whomever, so long as the New South Wales Government is not taking responsibility for the failures in education. There have been many failures and they will continue.

The release of information is a challenging issue. Parents are entitled to have appropriate information about their child's school and the educational progression of their sons and daughters. The concern is that this legislation opens up the very real risk that schools will be judged on a very simplistic basis. I do not know the background of the Minister. I do not know if the Minister was a teacher. I was a teacher and I still have many colleagues who are professional educators. In the course of my time as shadow Minister for Education I visited many schools across the State. The criteria that are chosen to form any comparisons are extremely challenging and potentially very dangerous.

Schools in this State do an amazing job within the social and economic framework in which they are operating to get students to come to school on a daily basis, to get students to understand their role in society and how they may be able to contribute, and to get those students to understand the necessary aspects of living within a community. The problem with the criteria that the Minister has jumped headlong into—the Minister is blaming the Federal Government but she is part and parcel of the problem—is that she was happy to sign up to a national agreement notwithstanding the fact that it is unclear from that agreement as to how exactly over time this material will be developed and/or made public.

I remember speaking to a principal in a particular part of the State—I will not say where—who said to me, "Brad, you have to understand that if we can get our children through the front school gate each day we are doing very well". I also remember speaking to a number of other principals in another part of the State who made the similar point that in their socioeconomic circumstances, getting children through the gates, and making sure they understand the basic skills of life, was a major plus for the educational outcomes of those children.

Ms Verity Firth: Don't you think they should aspire to higher standards than that? Is that okay for those kids?

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! Members will direct their comments through the Chair.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD:

Ms Verity Firth: Do you think that it is okay for kids from low socioeconomic backgrounds?

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: You show a remarkable lack of understanding and a propensity to reduce arguments to an over-simplistic level.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! I remind the Minister and the member for Wakehurst to direct their comments through the Chair.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Of course we should aspire for every child to achieve their maximum potential, but that covers a whole range of factors. It is not necessarily displayed through the sort of objective criteria that the Minister and her colleagues at the national table are inclined to consider as appropriate. There are some things that are difficult to quantify and parents are happy to know that their children are benefiting from. The Minister can understate and undervalue the role of teachers who are addressing those issues but I do not—I actually value them. I taught students who have academic capacity in a selective school. I understand what students with an academic capacity can do but that is not the issue. We are talking about children who have a long way to go before they can even get to the point where those sorts of academic outcomes are going to be achieved. New section 18A (3) states:

this proviso should be an embarrassment to the Minister—

On the face of it that may have some superficial appeal but what has to be understood is that this Minister, inexperienced as she is, and a number of other Ministers have sat around with their Labor colleagues in Canberra and given the nod. The question is how much of the nod was actually driven by the financial imperatives from the Federal Government. How much of it was driven by a sound understanding of educational principles and outcomes?

This Minister needed to stand up and make it very clear that Federal funds should not be used as a weapon to demand outcomes when she does not even know how those outcomes are to be translated. There are a bunch of junior Labor members in the Chamber at the moment and one of them, the member for Wyong, is interjecting across the Chamber. Let me inform that member that when the former Federal Government was in office, and I was the shadow Minister for Education at the time, there was a debate going on about school report cards. Not for one second did the Opposition hesitate to make sure that Brendan Nelson and his successor knew the State Opposition held concerns about those issues. When the Federal funding issue was put out there the State Opposition made sure that the former Federal Government knew its position was not to take over the primary role of the alternative State Government. We made it very clear that we would stand up to our Federal colleagues on matters of principle and issues and we would not be held to ransom like those on the other side are prepared to be.

Mr Anthony Roberts: We made it very clear.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Very clear. The bottom line is that this proposal has no real guarantee that students will not be damaged through the publication of school results and that the schools will not be damaged. I visited many schools as the shadow Minister for Education and every school I went to had good things happening—government and independent schools.

Ms Verity Firth: Let's talk about them. Why don't we allow other people to know about those good things? But you do not want that.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: The Minister wants to interject yet again. I will explain to the Minister one of the problems. I will give the Minister a little example for her to focus on. Maybe they do not bother you because you are the Minister and you do not want to listen. You already have the pre-prepared view that because you are the Minister you will tell them that this is all great. Well, that is not necessarily so. Schools that are being evaluated under this system are also on the receiving end of the Minister's funding model. That funding model does not guarantee that a principal or a school will receive the funding they need in order to do the best possible jobs for their students.

I have only got a couple of minutes left so I will give the Minister but one example. Recently I was told of a school on the northern beaches where a student, who had been identified as very problematic and had some very challenging behaviour, had punched another student. The parent of that child rang and spoke to me. I told the parent that the problem is that the Government does not have any facilities for students on the northern beaches of that child's age to cope with or modify their behaviour. What the Government has—and if the Minister is interested I will speak to her privately about it later—is a class that operates in a school further away than the school this child attends. That school caters to children with challenging behaviour from kindergarten to year 2. That means children on the northern beaches who have challenging and problematic behaviour in years 3, 4, 5 and 6 cannot be dealt with. There are certainly other discipline schools but the discipline school on the northern beaches, which does a first-class job—

Mr Robert Furolo: Are you being wound up, are you?

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: No, I was not actually; precisely the reverse. That may be what they do to members on your side because they do not want them to speak. The Government wants its members to stand up and parrot whatever the Minister tells them to say. That is the difference between the alternative Government and this Government.

Mr Andrew Fraser: They have their speeches written for them.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: They do have their speeches written for them by the bureaucrats and checked off by the Minister. Then they come in the House and parrot the same words. Let me finish the story.

Ms Verity Firth: Please do.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: I know the Minister is not interested, but she should listen and then she might be interested in doing something for this child and the school.

Ms Verity Firth: Tell us the story.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: The Minister has indicated excitement and an interest in this issue. I ask for an extension of time. [Extension of time agreed to.]

This particular problem reflects the broader situation. This child, who has challenging behaviours and, as far as I can establish, has been enrolled in at least three other schools before this school, has a lot of potential. This is the sort of issue that the Minister referred to. He has great potential, but the funding system and the education system that the Government offers do not provide that child with the opportunity he needs.

Mr Anthony Roberts: It fails them.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: It is failing this little boy.

Mr David Harris: There were no facilities like that when you were in Government, not a single one. They did not exist. This Government introduced those facilities.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: The member for Wyong is a complete twit.

Mr David Harris: Point of order: The member for Wakehurst referred to me as a twit.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: A complete twit, actually.

Mr David Harris: If that is the standard of his argument, then I accept that is a personality trait problem. However, I ask that he withdraw the comment. I have more than 20 years' experience in education. I certainly know what I am talking about.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! The member for Wakehurst has been asked to withdraw his comment.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: I was observing that he was a complete twit by interjecting when he should not. But if he does not want to be called a complete twit, then I will withdraw the remark.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! The member for Wakehurst has withdrawn his comment.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: This child is having a substantial impact on the other 31 children in his class. He is not getting the education input and services that he needs to address his issues. As a consequence, a parent has rung me to say that this child had punched her child. That school will be evaluated on the Government's independent criteria and the results published. That school on the northern beaches, and other schools, will suffer because the Minister and the education system have failed to adequately address the funding needs of that school. The Minister has failed to ensure an alternative venue where these children are provided with the professional assistance they need. My concern, and I am sure the concern of all educators, is that schools will be evaluated, but the Government will not provide the resources that the schools need to address the educational issues at their schools. It would be more appropriate for the Minister and the Government to be evaluated.

The member for Wyong interjected that no such facilities were available prior to this Government coming to office. The member may not know anything about the northern beaches. It is obvious the Minister for Health does not know anything about the northern beaches. There were a number of services for children, particularly in relation to literacy and numeracy issues, but they were removed by predecessors in his Government, or a metamorphosed version of his Government, long before he arrived.

Mr David Harris:

Mr BRAD HAZZARD:

Ms Verity Firth:

Mr BRAD HAZZARD:

Mrs DAWN FARDELL

There are various types of schools in my community, ranging from large high schools and schools of excellence to smaller central schools, which are my favourite schools. The smaller schools teach students from kindergarten through to year 12. The work the teachers at those schools do is amazing. Those schools have difficulty attracting teachers. Even Condobolin, which is outside my area, has staffing issues. A teacher at those schools who is trained to teach secondary mathematics may also be required to teach geography, business studies and other subjects, which they are not highly qualified to teach—although their students still get a good all-round education. Every year when the Higher School Certificate results are published, we see the same public schools at the top of the list. They achieve remarkable results, as do many other schools. One of the reasons the same schools are at the top of the list, for example, James Ruse High School, is that they pick the cream of students in years 5 and 6.

I digress a little and relate to the House a good story of a person who has come from an outback area and who has excelled, but through difficulty. Yesterday a news release reported that Michelle Trudgett is the first indigenous person to be awarded a prestigious $70,000 postdoctoral research fellowship at Macquarie University. Michelle is a descendant of the Wiradjuri nation in my area. She was born in Dubbo but has lived in Sydney for most of her life. Dr Trudgett completed her doctorate via distance education, so she knows how difficult that can be. She said that external studies are very isolating. In her studies she will look at ways to increase participation in and completion of postgraduate degrees by indigenous students.

Dr Trudgett's doctoral dissertation investigated the support available to indigenous postgraduate students in Australia and resulted in 26 recommendations that could be implemented by government and universities. Dr Trudgett would like to see an increase in funding for indigenous studies, an increase in social interaction opportunities and a national website and chat room to connect indigenous students with each other. It is a remarkable story from a remarkable young woman. Members of her family still reside in my area.

I have mentioned the central schools and the Higher School Certificate but I must also acknowledge the significant amount of infrastructure funding that has gone into my area, which I have publicly welcomed. Our Federal member, Mark Coulton, has not. He has found ways to criticise. I cannot but support the amount of Federal and State government funding in my electorate, particularly in the area of TAFE. Right across the system we will see much improvement in TAFE studies in my area and I give my support to the Federal and State governments on the implementation of that funding, through the hard work of Carole McDiarmid and her team.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS (Lane Cove) [12.30 p.m.]: The Education Amendment (Publication of School Results) Bill 2009 amends the Education Act, overturning an existing regulation prohibiting the Department of Education and Training from publishing data that could be used to generate league tables—the ranking of schools. The bill is introduced in response to the Commonwealth's requirements that more school data should be made available as part of a 2008 national partnership agreement.

I place on record correspondence I have received from educators within my electorate. I take this opportunity on behalf of the New South Wales Liberal-Nationals Coalition to acknowledge and pay tribute to the hardworking and professional teachers across the system. It is a shame that they and their views on this ranking system are being held hostage by a Federal Government that is, effectively, holding a gun to the head of the State Government with respect to funding—a State Government that seems paralysed when it comes to negotiating a better deal for the teachers and schools of New South Wales. I have received correspondence from a teacher who currently teaches at a North Shore high school and who stated:

I want to register my concern that recent changes to the legislation allow the creation of league tables, as it has been called, and the ranking of public schools based on their performance. I imagine that the community would expect it to perform well. This is as much to do with the students as it is the teachers in the school. Students in—

a North Shore school but I will not divulge the name—

Once again, I will not read out the name of the North Shore school because, as the member for Wakehurst knows, when it comes to public servants addressing issues facing this State, quite often they are the subject of bullying and harassment within the system, so I am protecting this individual. The correspondence continues:

As shadow Minister for the portfolio area of citizenship I share with the rest of my colleagues not just distrust relating to the inaccuracy of the league tables system but also the concern that if they are introduced all they will do is further stigmatise schools in areas where there is a high English as a second language percentage of the population. I see the Minister for Education rapidly scribbling. I in no way question the Minister's sincerity in this matter, but my major concern—and I believe it is the general feeling in this House—is that we are opposed to league tables because of the stigmatism, and my colleagues spoke before about the example of St Marys school. Children from that fateful class will be stigmatised in other classes for the rest of their lives. We cannot afford to allow that to happen. What is in the public interest is different from what is in the interest of the public.

Whilst I do not oppose the legislation, I ask the Minister to attempt to do what she did so well when it came to the computer rollout and take the fight to the Federal Government. We cannot afford to lose this money. It is unfortunate that we have a Federal Government that wants to hold us to ransom as hostages in return for funding. A Federal Minister should not introduce a New York style of assessment; it just does not work in New South Wales. I remind the House that New South Wales is not Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong. There is a vast part of New South Wales beyond the sandstone curtain.

By not opposing this legislation we are placing the onus on the Minister to ensure that we do not have a repeat of league tables being distributed and schools being stigmatised in the future. I ask the Minister in her dealings with the Federal Government to ensure that significant protections are in place—as I am sure she will do—so that we do not have a repeat of the St Marys front-page fiasco.

Mr DAVID HARRIS (Wyong) [12.40 p.m.]: I congratulate the member for Lane Cove on the majority of his contribution, which was well thought out. I also agree with many of his sentiments. Unfortunately, a number of the contributions to today's debate have been devoid of understanding of the issues. This debate involves two issues. The first is simplistic league tables. As the member for Lane Cove said, no-one believes that they should be produced. This legislation transfers the authority to publish the information from the regulations to the legislation. Secondly, we have a responsibility to ensure that we provide educational resources where they are most needed.

I joined the education system in 1987 and left in 2007. During that time I saw a vast improvement in the way in which data was collected. I first worked in what were called disadvantaged schools but which are now called priority funded schools. I worked with many students who had disabilities or learning difficulties. One of my main aims was to ensure that those children got the resources and help that they needed. Data collection techniques developed over those 20 years. In days gone by when we determined that a child needed help we had no data to support our judgement. However, through the Basic Skills Test and now National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy [NAPLAN] we now have that data.

One of the important issues involves a national curriculum. I have great reservations about a national approach to curricula. We know that our curriculum is probably the strongest in the country. I have pointed out to this Minister and to the previous Minister that if we were to accept a national curriculum it should not involve this State dropping its standards—we should not say that we will accept a lower common denominator to facilitate the implementation of a national curriculum. The same applies to data. With a national curriculum we must be able to demonstrate across the different States how different students perform so that resources can be allocated to best effect. Raw data about the performance of each student does not assist in that regard. We must look at value-added data. That involves assessing a student at a set point—it is now at the kindergarten level—and then following that student's progress, hopefully to the School Certificate or the Higher School Certificate level.

By doing that we can determine what the school and the curriculum have added to that student over time. That is very important data because we know that children starting school have a range of skills. Some children, through no fault of their own—they might have parents with literacy and numeracy problems—do not get the support that they need before they go to school. Those children start school relatively disadvantaged when compared with children who have had more opportunities. Children who attend early childhood education generally perform better in the first few years of school than children who do not. Provision of those resources is a priority at both the State and the national level.

This proposal will not involve ranking schools from the bottom to the top; it involves comparing similar schools. Statistically it will compare schools that have similar socioeconomic and geographic characteristics. When that process was used in the Basic Skills Test program I was fearful that the disadvantaged schools in which I worked would always come out near the bottom. However, when comparisons were made with similar schools those schools were seen to perform quite well. Using value-added statistics we were able to demonstrate that children who came into the education system with low skill levels improved over time—that is, we were achieving a high level of value adding. That is very important data.

Parents do not want to know how their child is performing in comparison with a child attending a private school with every possible facility; they want to how their child is performing compared with children in a similar situation. They want to know that their child is performing to the best of his or her ability. I always told my students that their final results were not the issue; the issue was doing their best. That is all I ever asked of them. As the principal of four schools, that was also the criterion I set for teachers. I made it clear that we had a responsibility to ensure that children were given the opportunity to do their best.

These testing regimes have been improved since the Basic Skills Test was first introduced. Over time we have been able to implement individual education plans. We develop case management plans for children in band one, and hopefully in band two, and we work with those children to improve their educational outcomes. Case management has been important, particularly with Aboriginal students. It first came to light in a program called Dare to Lead. It was a voluntary program to which many schools signed up so that they could improve the performance of Aboriginal students. We developed individual learning plans and teachers had to report to me about how those students were performing. We were able to ensure they had additional resources and we used that evidence to make applications for behaviour and disability support funding. We had better information.

I remember that when I first went into the education system we would sit around the table and discuss student progress. We would decide that we really wanted to help a particular student and we would make an application for extra resources. We would then cross our fingers and hope for the best. Now case management teams—which include support teacher learning and district support teachers—diagnose specific areas of need and include them in the application, which is a great help in the argument for funding. Without these testing regimes we would not have that level of information.

It is important to note in this debate that we do not want simplistic league tables. The real onus is on the media. The media will concoct cheap tables to sell newspapers. However, they have a duty to deal responsibly with the education sector and young people. The self-image of a young person is very fragile. We have a high level of youth suicide and drug and alcohol abuse. We must all be mindful of the effect of these cheap headlines. At the same time, we should not shy away from the fact that this data must be collected because it helps our children and it ensures that we do a better job.

When I was involved in education we would get the results of the Basics Skills Test—it is now the NAPLAN test—and we would go through each question to determine where the children had gone wrong and why they had made mistakes. We were then able to come up with teaching strategies to help teachers help those children who had made mistakes and to implement strategies so that other children coming through the school did not face the same issues. It is very technical. The Department of Education and Training provides fantastic packages to support the SMART data process. My wife is an assistant principal and of an evening when we are in our office she goes through test results and produces individual profiles. It is a lot of work but it ensures that our education system meets the needs of every student.

No-one wants cheap, easy-to-do league tables which damage children's self-esteem and which do not prove anything. We need sensible collection of data that is appropriately analysed to help cater for individual student differences. That is of utmost importance. I hope the Federal Government is sensible and does not allow this information to be used inappropriately. It has the potential to do a great deal of good. It can guide the way in which our schools operate and ensure that important financial resources get to the right places. At the end of the day, this is all about ensuring that students have the best opportunities in life.

As I said, I am sure that is what the Federal Government wants to do; I know it is what the New South Wales Government wants to do. I am sure all members support that sentiment. The onus is now on the media to make sure they do not do the wrong thing, that they do not take the easy line as they did in the United Kingdom. I was reading this morning how many extra issues the United Kingdom Telegraph sold when it published simplistic tables about what is the best school to send your kids to. That is what we do not want. The media have to take on board that responsibility—not go for cheap headlines but make sure this data is used for the right reason, and that is to help kids.

Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [12.49 p.m.]: I speak on the Education Amendment (Publication of School Results) Bill 2009 and acknowledge the contribution of the member for Wyong. It is terrific to have in this place people with different experiences, and certainly his experience in education and his contribution to the debate are appreciated. He has far more understanding of the issue than I could ever have, and I acknowledge his contribution and the benefit to educational outcomes that some of his information could provide. I speak from a personal and a passionate point of view, but certainly not from a technical point of view. Our shadow Minister, the member for Murrumbidgee, argued vehemently about the damage that simplistic league tables can cause. That remains a concern and I will get to that. We support him on this issue and put the onus on the Labor Government for what happens in the future.

I acknowledge the experience on our side of the House. The member for South Coast, Shelley Hancock, is a teacher who has taught thousands of kids. League tables fail to tell the real story. Shelley knows the story of Wes Smith, a young manwho did not enjoy school and who left school early. Shelley Hancock put a twinkle in his eye. She made school interesting for him and enabled him to leave at a level sufficient for him to get into the Navy. He remembers fondly his time in her class and the lessons she gave him. He is now moving to Canberra with his wife, Kristie Morgan. who did an outstanding job working for me and who will be dreadfully missed. He is on a career path that may well take him to the United Nations. Someone like Wes would not feature on a league table, but the power of education is there for all to see in his story and where he is going in the future. I understand the premise of the bill. As the member for Wyong said, getting information, applying it diagnostically and improving educational outcomes across the State and the countrycomes with a heavy responsibility. The Minister said in her speech:

The provision of school information to the community should be done in such a way as to enhance community engagement and understanding of the educational enterprise.

The Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs agreed with that statement. I understand that premise but we point out that we are passionately concerned about league tables. In her speech the Minister talked also about a well-known example and the damage that it had caused. I share a personal example. A league table on Higher School Certificate results was published for a local school. Not surprisingly, when that school was at the bottom of the list, it caused considerable damage to the community. It was not just a one-off event. The implications of that remain with the school. A new headmaster who was vibrant, energetic and passionate about educational outcomes was doing an outstanding job at the school and the wind was taken out of his sails. The wind was taken out of the sails of teachers who were trying to provide a future for these students and they and the broader school community were impacted. There was a collective mourning—a whole group of people in the school community that was working hard to change the lives and futures of these kids was dismissed with a single box on a league table, which is not right. It is not a reflection of that collective effort.

One of the things I have done in this job is to learn to love my schools passionately. I cannot believe the work that they do, and I cannot believe the work that principals and teachers do day in and day out. The Minister has agreed to visit one of my schools at the end of the year to see the incredible outpouring of emotion in a new generation. Most importantly, in Manly Vale Primary School she will acknowledge the parents, the teachers and the principal and thank them for what they are doing for this new generation. We are connected in a real and tangible way with our schools and communities, which is why there is so much emotion on this side of the House. We are giving the Minister significant responsibility: we are asking her to ensure that league tables are not published. She said in her speech that there was agreement between State and Territory Ministers that governments would not publish simplistic league tables and rankings, and that they would put in place strategies to manage the risk that would emanate as a result of third parties seeking to produce such tables or rankings. We cannot underestimate the importance of those comments. We are giving the Minister responsibility to protect our schools and communities and to drive educational outcomes and provide the resources where they are needed the most.

The member for Murrumbidgee and shadow Minister is a strong advocate for getting resources to those across the State who need them most. We support him in that 110 per cent. We ask the Minister to fight for funding and for a constructive use of the data. Under no circumstances can we entertain the pain that might be engendered in a school and in the broader community as a result of simplistic league tables. We ask the Minister to take on that responsibility and we will be holding her to account. She has our support in achieving what she is trying to achieve with the bill, that is, improving educational outcomesby ensuring that simplistic league tables do not see the light of day.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega) [11.56 p.m.]: In making my contribution to this debate I indicate likewise that I oppose league tables but I will not be opposing the Education Amendment (Publication of School Results) Bill 2009. The principal reason for not opposing the bill rests in the indication from the Minister that of the order of $4.8 billion in funding over the next four years is contingent on this bill being passed. It is sad that the Commonwealth is able to require the New South Wales Government—New South Wales Parliament, for that matter—to produce this type of bill. The Minister, in her agreement in principle speech, said that all State and Territory Ministers had endorsed the important principle that public reporting should not be by way of crude league tables.

I am intrigued to know what the Minister means by "crude". We do not want to see the reporting of any league tables. We are opposed to league tables in the form that is recognised by everybody in this House. State and Territory Ministers have met and said that they endorse the principle, but I ask the Minister: What guarantee and what protection is there in a legislative sense at the Commonwealth level that gives the same protection in relation to the reporting of league tables that currently exists at the State level? We want to see such legislative protection in place but there is no such framework at the moment. The New South Wales Minister for Education and Training will be held to account by the enormous number of parties involved in education in New South Wales who are opposed to the publication of league tables. They range from the Catholic Secondary Principals of Australia through to the Teachers Federation.

We want to know what guarantees and what legislative framework will be in place by the Commonwealth to ensure that we do not see people putting in freedom of information requests, gaining access to the information and then reporting it more publicly. Reporting more publicly can do enormous damage to school communities and beyond. One of the main reasons I am concerned about league tables is that many country communities have only one school and comparisons could be made that may deter professionals from moving to the area. Country communities struggle to attract doctors, and doctors with children of school age could be deterred from relocating to or setting up practice in country communities because of the crass reporting of league tables, which may not be indicative of education afforded to children in those communities.

League tables do not provide an accurate assessment of the direction of a school, although I accept that in some instances within government agencies they might provide a good diagnostic instrument for resourcing. I am concerned that we do not have an indication from the Government of the protection to be afforded to this information so that it does not end up in the hands of the media and that schools are not reported in the manner they have been reported in the past. I ask the Minister in reply to indicate what she means by her description of "crude" with respect to league tables. The Opposition has been asked to accept the guarantees through the Council of Australian Governments process, but I ask the Minister to reflect closely on what legislative protections are in place at the Commonwealth level to mirror the situation in New South Wales because that is the key to this debate.

In light of some of the statements made by the Minister, the Opposition will hold the Labor Party to account if any information obtained by the Commonwealth is misused. The Minister has made some big statements, which could come back to bite her down the track. She can rest assured that the New South Wales Liberal-Nationals Coalition, along with the various education organisations, will hold her to account. If by chance the production of league tables or any other information that damages the reputation of New South Wales schools does occur, we will call on the Minister to resign. That is how serious we regard the matter. The Minister has set the benchmark. At the moment she has agreed with the Commonwealth on the basis of a meeting at which Ministers sat down and agreed to a principle that has not ensured legislative protection is in place.

There is one simple test, that is, to apply the protection in New South Wales versus that of the Commonwealth with respect to the production of material and to whom it is made available, whether through a freedom of information request or a decision by Julia Gillard to release information publicly. I emphasise that the impact could be significant for country schools. Having said that, I agree with the need for openness and accountability so that parents can make decisions about school. Nevertheless, we do not need crass reporting of league tables to damage country communities in New South Wales. The Minister for Education and Training has used a few words that are of concern. To that end, I look forward to her giving a guarantee in reply that the legislative protection afforded to school communities in New South Wales will be in place at the Commonwealth level.

Mr ROB STOKES (Pittwater) [1.04 p.m.]: I make a contribution to debate on the Education Amendment (Publication of School Results) Bill 2009. Like other members, I have strong objections to the publication of league tables identifying the performance of individual schools on the basis of extremely limited and potentially misleading data. As with other members, I was alarmed at the title of this bill, which directly mentions the object of publishing school results.

League tables are totally misleading. They do not reflect the enormous geographic, economic and demographic differences between schools, between students. League tables focus on so little data—just the outcome of a couple of short, limited tests. League tables take no account of the wonderful diversity of programs and strengths between schools. My community of Pittwater is served by some wonderful schools, including a Montessori school, two wonderful Armenian schools, a German school, a Japanese school, the Northern Beaches Christian School and the peninsula community of schools, a collection of government schools that have banded together to share their strengths and to use their diversity to promote even stronger and better opportunities for students. They are using their differences to create a stronger education network by acting together.

One can see quite quickly, just with these few examples of the diversity of schools in one local community of Pittwater, that any comparison between such a diverse range of schools would be so vague as to be utterly meaningless if taken out of context. League tables threaten to completely and unfairly stigmatise schools and teachers—let alone students—based on incomplete information. I have listened to the protestations of members opposite that the safeguards in the bill will ensure that data collected will be used solely for the purpose of improving school performance and student opportunities. They are essentially asking to be taken on trust or, at least, that we should take the Federal Government on trust. In particular, I noted a couple of the Minister's statements in the agreement in principle speech on this bill. I read them again because this is crucial to the bill. First, she stated:

Later she stated:

Finally, the Minister noted:

Fundamentally, we have little choice but to accept these guarantees since almost $5 billion in Federal funding under the National Education Agreement is effectively tied to this legislation. The Realpolitik of funding means, as the member for Lane Cove put it, we have a gun at our heads in relation to this bill. I hope that the Minister's commitments that school data and student data will remain safe from misuse and not just genuinely given—as I am sure they are—can also be practically delivered.

Mr KEVIN HUMPHRIES

The cause for concern has always been the authorisation that the State hands over. If one compares it to other authorisations that the State has recently handed over—one being the sign-up to the Murray-Darling Basin agreement—the parallel is that the State hands over the authority to the Federal Government and we tend to lose our decision-making in regionalisation and local input, to a point where we get done over. As previous speakers have said, part of the difficulty in handing over responsibility for data collection to a Federal authority, particularly when it relates to school student performance, is that we end up with more centralised authorities which potentially can become more easily able to be manipulated and controlled, I believe, and therefore it becomes more of a political agenda than an educational agenda.

Julia Gillard went to New York, I believe, soon after the last Federal election. It is interesting to note that that is when league tables hit the media front. Schools in the United States are not run by State authorities; they are very much controlled by the local entity. I believe they are highly political. The examples that Julia Gillard related to were very much around naming and shaming schools, in publishing the information in order to, I believe, politically and in a manipulative way, highlight the weakness of some of the schools that were not performing. The question must be asked of the Government: Will this information sharing be used for purposes other than educational and planning purposes? I am aware that quite a deal of information, in both government and non-government sectors, goes from the States to our Federal authorities. I understand that there already is an information sharing exchange there. Or will that information be used for other means? As previous speakers have asked: Is it really to hold New South Wales to ransom for much-needed funding for our education system in general? I look forward to hearing the Minister's response with regard to that aspect.

Naming and shaming schools in difficult areas, which is where Julia Gillard focussed—basically the analogy was that you would shame schools into either closing down or performing better—is a pretty crude strategy. There are ways in which one can obtain information to justify and target funding. Whilst no member on this side of the House has any problem with—and would indeed encourage—data collection, it should focus on a wider area than just a narrow side of the curriculum, being literacy and numeracy. As the member for Pittwater said, our schools are very much focussed on the provision of the curriculum, particularly in country areas where no two communities are the same, and in electorates like mine where we have a large number of Aboriginal people, which in many cases requires a potentially different approach and different forms of engagement. As a side analogy, I would be interested to know how the data will translate back to local communities. One community in my electorate is Walgett Secondary School. For example, more secondary indigenous students attend boarding schools in Sydney under a philanthropically supported scheme than attend Walgett Secondary School. More than 70 indigenous students attend school in Sydney at the moment.

I ask the Government: Will that basic skills testing translate back to the schools and reflect their performance, or will it translate back to the current socioeconomic status code, back to where the students come from? A few questions have not been answered in the Minister's agreement-in-principle speech, nor have they been addressed in the bill. As I have said in this House before, another matter that concerns me is where students who currently are not attending school sit. We know that in many of our communities, both urban and rural, and certainly in remote communities, basic skills testing in secondary schools is not happening. That is because the students are disengaged from the system and they are not attending school.

I am not sure where the information sharing will come into play with targeting some of the extremely disadvantaged schools. Whilst The Nationals and Liberals support accountability and transparency in reporting, both to parents and our funding agencies, we need to be clear about what this information sharing will result in. Will it mean better educational outcomes for many of our disadvantaged communities? If that is what the information and data gathering is meant to achieve, to date it has not worked. Indeed, last year Walgett Secondary School, to which I referred earlier, was the most expensively run school in this country—to the point where more staff than students were present at the school at the end of the year. I am not sure where the information produced in league tables will go, but it may help improve the lot of people living in some of the disadvantaged communities.

It has been said that many of our country communities do not have choice, and that ranking our schools will not necessarily give parents any more choice. In fact, in most cases parents do not have any choice. The other issue, which our city counterparts experience, is that we still have school zoning in place. Will publishing information to the general populace who have school-aged children improve their access to other schools? The Government cannot publish information and give people more choice, while it still has policies in place that refer to zoning. Whilst the zoning, I believe, is still reasonably discretionary, it is still a policy, I suspect, that would be in contrast to the big issue around giving parents more choice. I would much rather see a concerted effort into improving the educational outcomes for all schools, and for the 70,000 teachers that we have in this State across the public and private systems. Many members of this House have asked that the Minister actively pursue and articulate that the information sharing that potentially we are about to embark on is not used for other purposes around naming and shaming but is specifically used to drive more realistically targeted funding to help improve the educational enterprise of this State.

Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [1.18 p.m.]: I speak to the Education Amendment (Publication of School Results) Bill 2009. Members on this side of the House have outlined and, I believe, justified the Opposition's concerns about the bill. A number of teachers have expressed to me their concerns about the legislation. I must declare an interest: my wife is a teacher. The teachers' main concern is that there will be no league table. The Minister seems to have assured us—and we accept her assurance—that the information will not be given out through the Commonwealth via any means. I place on record that I accept the Minister's assurance, on the basis of the way the bill has been presented to the Parliament. I have also received representations regarding the bill from Dave Hanley and Gae Masters from Richmond River High School, Peter Campbell, the Principal of Lismore High School, and Ralph Taylor from Wyrallah Road Public School, who are well-respected people. I pay tribute to the teachers.

Ms VERITY FIRTH (Balmain—Minister for Education and Training, and Minister for Women) [1.20 p.m.], in reply: As I said earlier, the capacity to report on the results achieved by schools in the New South Wales education system has been the subject of a regulation since 1997. This prevents the publication of school test results in a manner that ranks, or otherwise compares, the results of individual schools. It also protects the publication of results that reveal the results of particular students without their consent. The New South Wales Labor Government introduced these limitations on the publication of data to protect school communities from simplistic league tables. The Government is unequivocally opposed to measures that rank schools in such a way.
What the Commonwealth will be doing is to provide parents, systems and schools with a rich array of data that allows informed decision-making. The Government makes no apology for providing parents with this information.

The Government already provides substantial information to parents in New South Wales, and has done so for a decade. The new Commonwealth requirements recognise that Australia is a country of 20 million people and that a common national approach to information provision is long overdue. What this legislation does is retain our opposition to league tables, while maintaining our support for the Commonwealth's position on the appropriate publication of data. Despite the protestations of the Opposition, on a bill that it has nevertheless agreed to support, New South Wales will be the only State or Territory that retains its opposition to league tables in legislation—that is no small thing.

The Opposition is opportunistic and hypocritical. For 10 years their colleagues at the Federal level tinkered with ludicrous reforms that insisted on flagpoles and posters. New South Wales complied with these ridiculous demands because they were preconditions for funding. What did the New South Wales Opposition say at that time? Nothing. Not a peep. When the Rudd Government provides significant funding attached to real reform the Opposition begins to take note of education policies for the first time in a decade. Behind the words of the member for Murrumbidgee lies a deep scepticism of the performance of public schools and, in particular, public schools in rural areas. These words are defensive and their tone is offensive. Public schools in country New South Wales are fine schools and will continue to be able to demonstrate their capacity and the work that they do.

I would also like to address the issue of "like school groups" and the Commonwealth protocols. Like school groups will allow appropriate comparisons between schools serving similar populations in similar communities. The Commonwealth's publication of school information will not rank schools on a single measure. Like school groups are designed to prevent this occurring. The member for Riverstone made a very good point about what value-added data means. The member for Wyong pointed out that value-add is basically about the value that the school adds to that child's education. I place on the record that, unlike members of the Opposition who seem to believe that it will only be public schools that will lose from this process, public schools will perform incredibly well when it comes to looking at this value-added data. This data will help the fantastic and amazing achievements that happen in our public schools every day to be demonstrated to the world.

The Commonwealth protocols will ensure that like schools are compared to like schools. As Minister for Education and Training I can already access this data. In fact, like school comparisons are already occurring in New South Wales, and are being voluntarily publicly reported by 60 per cent of schools. Indeed, school rankings are set out in school annual reports. I will re-emphasise the meaning of like school groupings for those Opposition speakers who did not appear to quite understand its meaning. Like schools are when you compare schools with similar populations. We know from the data we already have access to that some schools do better than others and we need to learn from that. Why are some schools with very similar populations performing better than others? We need to identify those schools in need so that we can provide them with the support required to achieve better educational outcomes for the children. They need to be provided with extra resources.

Contrary to what the shadow Minister for Planning said, there are significant extra resources on the table. In fact, the national partnership is worth $719 million for schools from a low socioeconomic background, for teacher quality and for literacy and numeracy programs—significant resources for the schools that most need them. What is wrong with using a transparent public process to identify the schools that need extra support and help? The Government will be using the data as a diagnostic tool for better teaching outcomes. The member for Wyong made an excellent contribution to the debate. He spoke passionately about the role that data has played in our schools and in improving educational outcomes for our children.

Teachers in all public schools in New South Wales have access to how each child in their class performed in each question in their National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy [NAPLAN] tests. The teachers can see if there is an area in need of classroom work or if there is a group of questions that the children in their class did not answer so well. Teachers can then tailor lessons to meet the needs of those students. Teachers can strike a better educational outcome for their classes and from the real data they can work out what needs to be done. This is an incredibly diagnostic powerful tool for better learning outcomes for our children.

The member for Lane Cove, and many other members of the Opposition, is a little confused as to what is going on. The member for Lane Cove believed this legislation was about simplistic league tables and that it would inevitably lead to a listing of schools from the richest to the poorer suburbs. I place on the record yet again that when this data is provided to the Commonwealth it will not be used to rank schools in a simplistic manner. It will not be used to prepare league tables. In fact, the member for Lane Cove will find that the children in most of the schools in his electorate will be compared with children of similar backgrounds in other schools on the lower north shore.

If the media publishes any simplistic league tables I guarantee to the House that I will be the first to stand up and publicly condemn those publications. Moreover, I will be telling the parents and the citizens of New South Wales that they do not need to pay attention to the simplistic rankings of the newspapers because all the information they need is publicly available on the Internet. The information is publicly available, with the results displayed in the full context of a school's socio-economic status, population, level of funding and so on. There will be no need for parents to look at any simplistic rankings that newspapers may decide to publish because they will have that rich data already provided within that context.

The Commonwealth protocols are an additional safeguard. The avoidance of harm to schools and communities protocol, which the Opposition has referred to, is clearly implicit in all of the protocols and is supported by the like school group concept. The alternative is for communities, parents and systems to have less information than bureaucrats and ministers. Despite arguments that every school is different, which is a motherhood statement if I have ever heard one, parents make decisions about schooling every year. At the moment they are making decisions on the basis of available information. They often make decisions on the basis of rumour or innuendo from what they heard from Mrs Jones down the street, when she said so-and-so school was not good but another was. It is not based on real information or an analysis of what that school is achieving for the children in the classroom every day. The bill will assist in the process of providing parents with actual information in that context and with the protection provided by the protocols.

It is the height of hypocrisy for the Opposition to come into this place and seek to lecture the Government about league tables and unfair comparisons of schools. I have in my hand a freedom of information application dated 9 May 2009 from the Leader of the Opposition. That freedom of information application seeks for every secondary school the number of Higher School Certificate awards and the number of students with a university entrance rank above the median. In other words, precisely the information that would be required to construct a simplistic ranking of schools. Precisely the information needed to construct a simplistic league table. Precisely the information that Opposition speakers this morning say would be of great damage to schools across the State were it to get into the public realm. The Opposition wants to have access to this information for political purposes but it does not think the public should have access to it. The Opposition apparently does not think that parents in New South Wales should be able to see that information about the schools to which they send their children.

It is also interesting what the Leader of the Opposition does not ask for. He does not ask for any contextual information about the schools for which he wants results. He does not ask for the schools' socioeconomic status, the proportion of indigenous students, attendance data and the like. The school reports that will be published by the Commonwealth will contain all this contextual information so that the public can make sense of the accompanying test results. The Commonwealth's reports will make sure that comparisons of schools are fair and constructive. The Leader of the Opposition will not. That is not his intention. He simply wants to be able to rank schools for political purposes and wreak havoc on low-performing schools—a position that Opposition speakers have had the gall to masquerade in this place as one they oppose.

Section 18A makes provision for continuing present practice whereby a testing authority—the Department of Education and Training or the Board of Studies—may give a school or system of schools its own results. This does not amount to publicly revealing those results. For example, the government school system, the Catholic Education Commission or any other recognised system of non-government schools are entitled to be given the results of schools within their system and this does not amount to publicly revealing that information. The amendment also ensures that no student or school-level data will be forwarded by the State to the Commonwealth or to an authority established by the Commonwealth without it also being available to the relevant school and system of schools.

The intention of section 18A is also to take account of the present situation whereby some of the data, such as the National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy tests, are under the jurisdiction of the director general and other data, such as the Higher School Certificate, are under the jurisdiction of the Board of Studies. These are important issues for the Catholic and independent schools systems, which are supporting the passage of this legislation. As I said in my agreement-in-principle speech, all State and Territory governments and the Commonwealth have agreed that for the first time in 2009 there will be nationally uniform reporting about the results of individual schools. The Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs [MCEETYA] endorsed the principle that:

The provision of school information to the community should be done in such a way as to enhance community engagement and understanding of the educational enterprise.

I seek leave to conclude my reply.

Leave granted.

As well, all State and Territory Ministers have endorsed the important principle that public reporting should not be by way of crude league tables. Instead, the national agreement replicates the best features of the system we have developed in New South Wales—that is, individual reports for each school with rich information, rather than a single numeral. The protocols agreed by MCEETYA Ministers on 12 June specifically state:

Governments will not publish simplistic league tables or rankings, and will put in place strategies to manage the risk that third parties may seek to produce such tables or rankings.

This bill gets the balance right. It builds on the record of increasing transparency about school performance, a record that New South Wales is proud of. Parents in New South Wales should have the right to detailed information about the performance of their child's school and presents a fair comparison of their school's performance against other similar schools. At the same time, this legislation leaves in place in New South Wales the protections that have been developed to prevent simplistic rankings that are not in the public interest. It is vital for the education of children across New South Wales that this bill is passed urgently by this Parliament. New South Wales is required to provide this data to the Commonwealth under the terms of the National Education Agreement. Tied to this national agreement is $4.8 billion in funding over the next four years. That is around $1.2 billion per annum, or roughly 20 per cent of the annual cost of employing public school teachers and other school staff.

This bill not only is about funding but is also required in order for New South Wales to receive Commonwealth funds to run New South Wales schools. Crucially it is also about transparency and parents' right to know. All parents and communities should be able to use the richest array of contextual information when looking at schools for their children. As I said previously, parents already are making these choices. But they are making their choices based on innuendo, rumour and supposition. Leaving a child at a school gate for the first time is a significant act of trust. Parents have the right to information that builds this trust. They have a right to information that is factual and true, and provided in an appropriate context. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Passing of the Bill

Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.

[The Assistant-Speaker (Mr Grant McBride) left the chair at 1.35 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]

PARLIAMENT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Education Amendment (Publication of School Results) Bill 2009

Legislative
Assembly

Legislative
Council

Members

Bills

Committees

Hansard

Research Papers

Engaging with Parliament

External Links

PARLIAMENT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Education Amendment (Publication of School Results) Bill 2009

Legislative Assembly

Legislative Council

Members

Bills

Committees

Hansard

Research Papers

Engaging with Parliament

External Links

Legislative
Assembly

Legislative
Council