Ridgway report offers questionable contribution about student reports

STEPHEN KELLY reviews a consultant's assessment of parents' views on the NSW Government's proposed model of student reporting.

Consultant Bronwyn Ridgway's research on new student reports posted on the Department of Education and Training's website claims to speak for parents in NSW schools. Ms Ridgway has conducted 'parent discussion groups' on the NSW Government's proposed new written reports. What is unclear is how these 'discussion groups' were constituted, what sort of information was provided to parents in these groups and what sort of questions they were asked. These, of course, are important issues in determining the validity of the research process.

What is clear is that Ms Ridgway has produced a report that is a glowing endorsement of the NSW model of student reporting. While Ms Ridgway's report states she observed the policy and position of the NSW Teachers Federation on the new graded reports, there is no evidence in her paper that any of Federation's concerns about the grading of students were actually put to parents. Where she does acknowledge concerns they are glossed over. For example, on page 11 she says: "A small number of parents were concerned about students being labelled, however, on most occasions these concerns diminished with greater understanding of various aspects of the new reports." In assessing statements such as these, we really need to know the nature of the additional information provided, how many parents had this concern and why some remained unconvinced.

In very general terms the report states what parents have had to say but readers are given no information on how representative these views are across the sample groups. There are many quotes included but few that can be considered critical of the NSW approach. Incredibly, readers are led to believe that parents with children who are likely to receive a D or E grade are all for the system. Some of the parents represented in the sample have students in schools that have reported using A-E or equivalent, while others are at schools that have not used the new reports. It is unclear in the way comments are reported which category they fall into. Some have primary aged students and some have secondary students. These are not identified either.

One parent qualifies their personal support for A-E reports by saying, "I can't help worrying about the children in families where the parents don't care," and later, "you get an E, it's a label, isn't it? I'm being a devil's advocate here I know." This parent seems to be aware that this is not the response the researcher is looking for. A serious question that doesn't seem to have been addressed in this research is whether this one-size-fits-all approach is appropriate for all students from year 1 to year 10 in NSW. This, of course, is at the heart of the Federation's opposition to A-E reports.

One aspect of the research that is obvious is that parents want clear information on their children's progress and that teacher comments and parent-teacher interviews are an important part of that process. However, it does not logically follow that A-E or equivalent grades are the best way to achieve this goal. Allowing schools to devise reporting formats in consultation with parents would surely better achieve this.

Research conducted in Victoria by the Australian Education Union found that the new system unnecessarily stifles students and teachers. About half of Victoria's government schools have adopted the new system and there is growing concern that this has been rushed and will have an adverse effect on many students. There is concern that most students will receive a C grade, even if they deserved better. There is much confusion around how advanced a student must be to score an A. Teachers expressed serious concern about the impact of Ds and Es on students. The report said: "Some students will continue to get these grades for most subjects throughout their school life," and, "any improvements they make will not be recognised. They will just be labelled as failures." Similar concerns have been expressed by the Victorian Independent Education Union. Teachers need to make sure that they are not rushed into a retrograde reporting system in NSW that disadvantages our most vulnerable students and lumps most of the rest into a generic C grade.

In the latest P&C Journal, President Di Giblin makes a very different assessment of parent opinion to that contained in the Ridgway report. She encourages parents to play an active role in identifying the sorts of information that needs to be included in student reports. On the issue of A-E or equivalent reports, she states: "Feedback received by the Federation is extremely mixed with parent opinion evenly split on the issue."

On contacting one high school on Ms Ridgeway's list of schools, neither the principal nor the local P&C president were aware of Ms Ridgway's 'discussion groups'. There is little information in her report as to how these groups were constituted or how this research was conducted. It is, therefore, a questionable contribution to the debate on this matter.

Stephen Kelly is a relieving Research Officer.

SA teachers reject A-E reports

For further information

December 2006 contents