Teachers on free speech about schools: should be a law against it!

The proposed publication of national school performance data now has teachers threatening to boycott  literacy and numeracy tests unless the Government bans the publication of league tables. You have to wonder what the same teachers tell students when it comes to discussion of free speech in the classroom.

In the information age, to argue that taking publicly available data from a Government website ( to be published on My School from 28 January) and breaking it down for comparative purposes in whatever way suits local community, state or other interests, then publishing it in a newspaper or on the internet or in any other way, should be against the law, seems to overlook important points.

Not just that freedom of speech, including discussion and debate of matters of major significance in the community should only give way to other public interests in limited circumstances, and there are no contrary personal privacy, business or government interests to be harmed in this instance; and the strong right to know, transparency and accountability arguments for disclosure of information about what is happening in schools that soak up very large amounts of public money. But  going back to what the Government plans to publish, the evidence in many fields that disclosure of key performance provides ongoing incentive for improvement by the good as well as the not so good, holding out the prospect that publication will have a beneficial effect throughout the school system.

Yet teachers seriously want a law against any playing around with the published data (as already is the case for newspapers and magazines under NSW law) claiming this will lead to shaming kids who attend poor performing schools. Deputy Prime Minister Gillard rightly says league tables aren't the objective, and the experts tell us more needs to be done to educate parents and others in fully understanding what the My School data means. It would help also if some of the media took a deep breath before charging off with sensational headlines on the subject. But Gillard is right to argue that this is about more transparency and better information for all concerned about the education system, and to state the Government has no intention to limit media reporting of publicly available information. I'm with her.

Transparency and school performance

Associate Professor Tony Taylor of Monash University in Crikey today on why we need more accessible information about school performance, and three spot-on suggestions about what can be done to combat silly sensationalism from some champions of the right to know (you know who they are):

"First, the authorities must publish reports that give accessible, clear and authentic information that paints a fair, a detailed and a broad picture, and Barry McGaw, the federal curriculum head honcho, has promised this. It may take time, since it has taken Ofsted eighteen years to get to where they are today (with some major diversions along the way), so be patient. Second, all governments, federal and state/territory, must educate parents and teachers so that they will actively look for the more complex backgrounding and make informed judgements about education, instead of just relying on banner headlines and crude rankings. This approach, presumably, is on its way and may result in an increasingly knowledgeable public disposition about schools and schooling. We live in hope. Third, tabloid journalists must change their ways, look for a deeper meaning in life and disdain league tables. Don’t hold your breath."

Two out of three's not bad.

Cloud cookoo still hanging over some in NSW Parliament

It's been on again this week as the NSW Government had another go at getting rid of the absurd law that would ban print media in NSW from publishing what everyone seems to describe as "crude league 'tables" of school performance. Here is some background if you missed it. It went down by one vote in the Legislative Council on Wednesday. The two Hansard extracts are here and here. . Government's role in all this is to publish and keep up to date accurate information on the best indicators of school performance, to tell us how to best analyse and interpret the information, and then get out of the way. The newly appointed head of the national body responsible for this sounds fully aware of the real issues.The mind boggles at what terrors some will see as Gov 2.0 moves forward and more data on all sorts of subjects becomes available.

Premier Nathan Rees told the PANPA newspaper conference yesterday that the ban on newspapers publishing information in the public domain was ''the greatest assault on press freedom in Australia in 50 years''- even allowing for a bit of rhetoric, it's up there with the best of them, in any event.

''The Greens-Coalition amendment undermines the capacity of our democracy to engage in healthy public debate,'' he said. ''It strikes at the very right of journalists and newspapers to report public issues without fear or favour …''This amendment may well be unconstitutional. It is certainly unethical and indefensible.'' The Herald understands the Government is considering seeking legal advice on whether the fines are unconstitutional. The Minister for Education, Verity Firth, said the Government had given the Opposition the chance to ''see sense on this issue, and they failed dismally''. The amendment would punish newspapers alone for republishing information that's already legally in the public domain''.

"People can do what they do with public information"

Tell it to the NSW Greens and the state Opposition who voted to make it a crime to play around with published data on school performance to produce "crude and simplistic league tables" if published in a newspaper but not elsewhere. And to the NSW Law Reform Commission which says in the report on a privacy cause of action referred to in the previous post [5.28], that publicly available information, say in a paper record buried away somewhere but theoretically available for public inspection, may in some ( they should have emphasised extremely rare) circumstances still retain a privacy character. But the NSW Food Authority has the right attitude to the arrival of an iPhone application, FoodWatch NSW, which brings the Food Authority's list of restaurants that have been issued an order in relation to food hygiene practices near your location to your fingertips.According to the Sydney Morning Herald:

A NSW Food Authority spokesman said it did not have a particular view of such applications, but would encourage the public to use the information wisely. "We don't endorse any of those products," he said. "We just provide the information for anyone to use. We just encourage people to be cautious because the information is frequently changed. They should check back to the original source before they make a decision. "People can do what they do with public information."

An improvement on Railcorp's threat to sue to protect intellectual property over something similar for train and ferry timetables. And the start of what should be a new era for the use and reuse of government information at a time, place and in a format to meet public needs. As to all those copyright and cost recovery policies that have dominated thinking in the past ???

Back in touch.

I'm in Darwin catching up, courtesy of internet access, on developments of a week spent in very remote locations. For me, items of particular interest include:

James Massola in The Canberra Times, brought together the key elements of the open government reforms now moving on a number of fronts in Canberra, and included a well deserved wrap for what the four volunteers behind Open Australia have managed to do with parliamentary information. All very positive. Massola should have included a mention of the Australian Law Reform Commission review of secrecy provisions in Federal laws, due for final report later in the year, which is another plus piece in this picture. Meanwhile as Shadow Attorney General George Brandis pointed out, we still have zilch to show on Freedom of Information legislative reform, described by then responsible minister John Faulkner, as a "high priority" for the Rudd Government (elected 20 months ago).

Reality about accountability strikes when you read Warren Read's account in Online Opinion of the 15 year fight, now settled, between Defence and Russell Vance which has cost taxpayers $15 million, with limited parliamentary or media attention. And no-one's responsible. Ditto for security failings at Sydney Airport.

And reality double take to read on smh.com.au that the Therapeutic Goods Administration only has out-of-date and incomplete information about whether sunscreen approved for sale contains engineered material suspected of causing damage to human cells and DNA. It only cost Lee Rhiannon of The NSW Greens $2000 instead of $4000 to find this out however, after arguing for a public interest discount!

Matthew Moore in the Sydney Morning Herald finally obtained information from the NSW Food Authority about lax approaches to regulatory inspections of compliance with food safety standards by some NSW local councils, with the Authority somewhat belatedly recognising through disclosure, that it's more than "name and shame": there are major public health benefits in opening up the inspection system to public scrutiny. A tick for NSW but as to the rest of the country.....

The debate about publication of school performance information in NSW continues following the remarkable attempt by The Greens and the Opposition to put newspapers and magazines in the dock it they dare to play around with published data to create "simplistic league tables". I don't think this has occurred too often but I'm with former Treasurer Michael Costa, now writing for The Australian:

".. much union criticism of so-called league tables misses the central issue: parents and taxpayers have a right to know how their children and their schools are performing. The unions claim the league tables "are unfair and simplistic" and they could "stigmatise schools and lead to unfair comparisons". Any statistical data can be misused. That is not an argument against collection of the data or publication of the data."

This is the same Michael Costa who in the NSW Legislative Council for years made an art form of rude obfuscation and refusal to respond to legitimate questions from the other side of the chamber about aspects of government performance. Ah, you've gotta love 'em.

Good use by John Warhurst of ANU writing in The Canberra Times, of information dug out of the Federal Government on publicly funded travel by former parliamentarians by the Sydney Morning Herald, to give new life to the debate about the generosity of the Life Gold Pass scheme.

Fiona Hudson in the Herald Sun obtained some information about taxpayer-funded extras fitted to 126 vehicles supplied to Victorian members of parliament but I'd love to see the reasoning for the following knockbacks. Hope she challenges:

"(The) Department of Treasury and Finance staff ruled the cost of the extras was a "trade secret", and refused to release a breakdown of spending. The department also refused to identify which politicians had ordered which extras."

More as the week goes on.

Alice in Wonderland: Alice wants to know about school.

The NSW Parliament yesterday also finalised the Education Amendment (Publication of School Results) Bill with an amendment forced on the Government by The Greens and the Opposition in the Upper House and accepted by the Assembly (Hansard page 4).

Although it accepted the amendment with teeth gritted, I'm struggling to understand the Government's position on league tables, plain, simplistic or crude, or why those who pushed this think there should be restriction on media treatment of publicly available information. The effect of the amendment that The Greens and the Opposition have won in any event seems absurd, given the fact that anyone on-line or outside NSW will not be restrained by the prohibition on publication. But The Greens are trying to solve that problem too. Next they will be off to the UN.

And this in a law that is otherwise promoting more transparency for information about school performance.

(4) A person must not, in a newspaper or other document that is publicly available in this State:
(a) publish any ranking or other comparison of particular schools according to school results, except with the permission of the principals of the schools involved, or

(b) identify a school as being in a percentile of less than 90 per cent in relation to school results, except with the permission of the principal of the school.

Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units in the case of an individual and 500 penalty units in any other case.


(5) Nothing in subsection (4) prohibits:


(a) anything authorised to be done by or under a relevant national agreement, or

(b) the publication of the ranking of the schools in the top 10 per cent in relation to the results of Higher School Certificate examinations and related assessments so long as the information used to determine that ranking is information as to the results of students that may be publicly revealed under subsection (6) (c).

Today's Fairfax papers on the subject, and this Sydney Morning Herald editorial which concludes:

"Unamended, the bill was a grudging concession to Canberra's demands, allowing school results to be published but in as vague a form as possible. Thanks to the Greens and the Coalition, though, it is now an insult to the public. A Greens amendment bans newspapers and magazines - alone - from publishing school league tables. This attempt at suppression is as offensive as it is futile in the internet age. Its only positive achievement is to expose the Greens' fundamentalist and authoritarian streak. Worse, though, is the Coalition, for whom school league tables were once an article of faith. On Wednesday night it sided with the Greens, hoping to placate vociferous teacher unions and pursue votes by abandoning its own principles. The losers from this extraordinary betrayal are the public, sold out to special interests by the people who should defend them. Schools in NSW should be run not for teachers or bureaucrats, but for the children who attend them."

NSW acts on disclosure of school performance information

I'll leave it to the experts to make what they can of the NSW move ( presumably in line with what is happening in all states and territories) to legislate for the publication of information about school performance. Here is what Education Minister Verity Firth had to say in Parliament last week, making it sound like a big step forward, then claiming NSW has been publishing this sort of stuff for years; in any event amending legislation to permit disclosure of performance information to a national body and subsequent publication by others; and still retaining in the Freedom of Information Act for the time being, and in the proposed Government Information Act, an exemption to protect some information of this kind, and a provision that excludes information relating to relevant functions of the Department and the universities in processing this informtion from the legislation entirely.

On this last point, I raised the breadth of this exclusion, going far beyond the need to afford privacy to individuals, in my submission on the new bill, but vacate the space to James King who set out a strong and detailed case for change. King didn't get anywhere but the Government response to submissions acknowledged the strength of his argument.

Anne Patty in the Sydney Morning Herald says the NSW bill will " lift (the) 10-year ban on the creation of school league tables" but whatever else you make of the Minister's statement she sure didn't say that. The Minister again:

"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—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."

Maybe there is a distinction to be made between league tables and crude and simplistic league tables?

Secrecy and transparency in the news

Food inspections report- but no details of which councils inspect, or don't
The NSW Food Authority published a report on the first six months of inspections of food premises under the partnership agreement with local councils. However the report has omitted the names of councils that have undertaken inspections and related details from each council area -"Public left guessing about food check details"-Sydney Morning Herald.

Nursing home complaints on-line-but not details of compliance with standards
Complaints about nursing homes have tripled in a year. "A name-and-shame list will appear on a Department of Health and Ageing website from July 1. But Aged Care Crisis Team spokeswoman Lynda Saltarelli said the information would be more than a year old and would relate only to a small number of homes subject to complaints. "We would like to see a transparent system where a consumer can look at a nursing home and find out the type of ownership and structure; whether it has been the subject of failing standards as well as a complaint; the nature of the complaint; and what the provider did to address that complaint," Ms Saltarelli said. "Our nursing homes in turmoil"-Sun Herald

Pub safety rating scheme developed behind closed doors
The NSW Government "has been accused of deliberately avoiding public scrutiny of its proposed safety rating system for clubs and pubs in an effort to hide the influence the liquor industry is wielding over the development of the scheme." "Too much secrecy over pub ratings"- Sydney Morning Herald


Twelve month FOI battle for dated emergency preparedness reports
"These reports on Australia's capacity to cope with disasters should have been released to the public back when they were completed years ago. Instead the two departments the Attorney General's and Health and Ageing hid them. On the one hand, our government was telling us we all needed to be resilient in the face of disasters by preparing for the worst and not relying on public services to save us. On the other, they were hiding from us the kind of information needed to make sensible judgements about how much help we can expect if the worst happens." Tim Lester NineMSN

Too much transparency destructive say school principals
"High school principals are threatening to withhold results of the national literacy and numeracy tests from the Federal Government to prevent the creation of school league tables... National education ministers have voiced opposition against "simplistic" school league tables, but this has not prevented the creation of school rankings by newspapers in some states such as Tasmania and Queensland.""Stand-off looms over high school league tables"- Fairfax Media

PM puts shoulder to the wheel on increased transparency for schools

Good on the Prime Minister for picking up the ball from his deputy and making increased transparency and accountability in our schools one of the key elements in the next stage of reform of the education sector.Here's part of what he said at the National Press Club yesterday:

"I appreciate there can be debate about the most reliable indicators of school effectiveness. But I cannot understand why public institutions such as schools should not be accountable to the community that funds their salaries and their running costs. Right now, we do not have accurate, comprehensive information to allow rigorous analysis of what schools and students are achieving. This must change.Parents have a right to information to inform their family’s decision making about school enrolment. It is important, too, that this information gives parents the full picture. Simplistic league tables don’t really tell us how well a school is performing. They don’t tell us about the student population that the school started with – and its level of educational advantage.Everyone understands why a private school on Sydney’s north shore might do better than a comprehensive government high school in the outer suburbs. But it is not unreasonable to expect that schools with a similar mix of students and similar starting points should do equally well. What parents most want to know is what difference a school is going to make – in other words, the extent to which it is adding value to the results of their students. Parents overseas can get this information. Australian parents – and students – deserve the same. That is why today I announce that we will be making agreement on individual school performance reporting a condition of the new national education agreement to come into effect from 1 January 2009.Within a year, we want to see increased information available to Australian parents. And within three years, a report that shows not just how their child is doing, but how their child’s school is performing compared to similar schools.Knowing where there is underperformance will help us to target additional resources."

The PM recognised there will be plenty of argy-bargy over this. As The Australian reports today

"For years, state Labor administrations have sided with unions to reject transparency and have aggressively fought media attempts to use Freedom of Information laws to secure information on the relative performance of schools."

He's right to push hard on this one.

Another battle pits vested interest against public benefits from transparency

Of course Acting Prime Minister Julia Gillard is right in taking every opportunity to get the message out that we need greater transparency about school performance. In a long list of interviews she has pushed the issue along in recent weeks with this basic theme:

"I would like to see performance information for schools available in the public domain and available most particularly to parents. And the reason we want to do that is to not create simplistic league tables that tell you nothing. We want there to be rich performance information available. We want to understand who is studying in each school, the number of children in each school who may face some form of educational disadvantage and need extra help. And we want to understand how schools are attaining so we can compare schools in like positions and if one’s doing better than the other, find out why and then spread that best practice. It’s in everybody’s interest, and certainly the interest of every Australian child studying at school today, for the maximum amount of information about our education system and their school to be available publicly and we will be pressing for that."

Mark Coultan offers some lessons on this from personal experience in New York, where the Minister recently saw first hand the performance benefits from greater transparency. As Coultan (and this editorial) in the Sydney Morning Herald points out " it is this sort of information that the entire education establishment, including teachers' unions and state governments, is determined to suppress."Here is a prime example from Western Australia:

"WA Council of State School Organisations president Robert Fry said data about school performance and demographics should be kept secret because it would invite unfair comparisons between schools."

Go Julia!