Is ranking schools necessary?

Pamela Connell The recent healthy media debate about school and student rankings has brought great interest from both sides of the argument. A recent comment from the public approached it this way: “We are living in the world of competition and ranking based on the achievements is the best way to show that you are or are not competent. Ranking shows your strengths and weaknesses so that you can fill the gaps in the coming future. It also promotes the hard working spirit. Malpractices can be avoided without banning ranking and competition among the schools. Remember that is one of the main roles of education is societal transformation. Do you think our society will be transformed without citizens who understand what it requires for it to be competitive?” Some strong positive points were raised but let us not forget that each student’s results are published and that self-ranking of one’s own strengths and weaknesses is much more powerful to determine an improved self-efficacy on the journey to societal transformation. Any educationalist is aware of the taxonomy from Benjamin Bloom which set out to define the realm of higher order thinking. At the lowest order is the domain of ‘remembering’ which is assessed by examinations. The domain does nothing for a student to produce what they understand, analyse, evaluate, apply or recreate knowledge. If a student does not have the capacity to remember thousands of pages of information to regurgitate in an exam but is able to reconstruct the concepts of a kaleidoscope or create a crude form of telescope, or even stand under the stars and name constellations, is that knowledge worth ranking far more than mere examination results? Is that not a better demonstration of societal transformation through innovation and invention? The example given above is an educational paradigm of competency based curriculum and assessment; quality teaching for quality learning with outcomes demonstrating the intellectual quality, quality of the learning environment itself and the significance to the student, the school and community at large. My argument therefore is these three dimensions represent the classroom practices deserved of ranking. The measure of intellectual quality produces deep understanding of important, substantive concepts, skills and ideas and treats knowledge as something that requires active construction and for students to engage in higher-order thinking to communicate substantively about that they are learning. The measure of a high quality learning environment is a classroom where students and teachers work productively in an environment clearly focused on learning with set high and explicit expectations; in turn develops positive relationships between teachers and students, among students themselves, parents and the broader community at large. The measure of significance is about connecting students with the intellectual demands of their work; in turn produces more meaningful and important learning to students. Significance draws clear connections with students’ prior knowledge and identities and draws upon contexts outside of the classroom with multiple ways of knowing all cultural perspectives. The ranking of any school should also consider the school’s strategic policies for a holistic-child focus, staff development, parent/community partnerships, governance and administration and campus improvement. Ranking is linear whereas learning is a continuum cycle and ongoing evaluation informs planning and programming, assessing and recording. The cycle for learning starts in determining what a teacher wants students to learn; how will they get there and whether they are currently in order to start the cycle all over again. This cycle takes place through evaluation of every lesson in-action and on-action. As first pointed out, “we are living in a world of competition.” Atleast let that measure of competitiveness be holistic and equitable. Buildings and resources, though important for education to take place, do not necessarily produce quality learning. Equally, teachers and students cannot do it alone. Food for thought. The writer is the deputy principal at Riviera High School

Education

Is ranking schools necessary?