THERE is a lot of debate over whether the Australian government and Education Minister Julia Gillard should publish school performance data and allow the public to compare results. The only people who should fear more transparency are those who have something to hide.
This is a commonsense and necessary step to ensure that parents can make informed decisions about where to send their children to school, and will enable them to hold schools accountable for helping students achieve.
In New York City, the largest school district in the US, we have taken similar steps over the past several years to evaluate schools and hold them accountable for results. One of the most transformational accountability tools we created is progress reports, which assign an A to F letter grade to schools each year.
These reports incorporate three factors: student performance, as measured by scores on state tests or graduation rates; student progress, as measured by students' improvement on these assessments compared to past years; and school environment, as measured by attendance rates and the results of an annual survey in which parents, teachers, and students evaluate their satisfaction with their schools.These reports compare school outcomes with those of similar schools citywide, and are posted online so that families can use them to make decisions about their children's education.
Opponents contend that Gillard's My School website will humiliate children by making public a school's shortcomings. This cynical fear tactic ignores the long-term consequences of allowing students to remain in schools that don't provide them with the education they deserve. For many schools in New York City, a low progress report grade has served as a wake-up call, motivating school leaders to make changes that benefit students and to raise their grades the following year. For other schools, a low grade has exposed persistent weaknesses, resulting in leadership change, restructuring, or closure.
