On Wednesday, Education Minister Julia Gillard revealed that school-age children across Australia will soon be provided a 'unique student identifier'. This will track their performance over time, regardless of where they study. The Australian Education Union (AEU) was caught by surprise, with president Angelo Gavrielatos excoriating the lack of 'meaningful consultation with the profession'.
Civil liberty groups have also expressed concern, fearing that the program poses privacy risks for young people. The fact that ID numbers will be tracked through the My School website has only added a layer of controversy over the Federal Government's drive for 'transparency'.
It is tempting to reject the new initiative outright, especially when we recall that My School was launched despite sustained resistance from the education sector. As a result of this recent skirmish, the hopes for reform that came with the installation of the Rudd administration have now turned to cynicism over its real agenda.
On the surface, however, the Education Minister's intentions seem reasonable. She has consistently argued that parents deserve access to data. This was her argument for devising an online tool for comparing schools. She has now presented it justify a permanent ID number for students. It is hard to disagree that parents who are involved in their child's schooling will find these programs valuable. Informed decision-making isn't a bad thing.
But other aspects of Gillard's sales pitch are more dubious. For instance, when she says that number-tracking students leads to 'better measures of how schools are going in developing student performance', she inadvertently implies that the National Assessment Program — Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) isn't already an effective tool for driving school improvement.
In fact, schools have used data from the nationwide tests to identify gaps in teaching even before the figures were published online on My School.
NAPLAN commenced in 2008, barely two years ago. Because students are tested biennially at years 3, 5, 7 and 9, the first cohort of year 3 students who undertook the tests will take the tests for only the second time in May this year. So it is too early to conclude that 'better measures' need to be in place if the agenda is systematically to monitor progress over time.
In fact the Federal Government has articulated two distinct agendas as if they were interchangeable — improving school outcomes and providing information.
Educators accept that good pedagogy has to be grounded to some extent on student data. Until this