My School 2 website launched today 4 March 2011.

The AEU/QTU campaign that followed the introduction of the My School website in 2010 led to teacher representation on the ACARA working party which recommended significant changes to the My School website.  The majority of the recommendations were accepted by the state Education Ministers at their October meeting.

The key changes are as follows:

1.Enhanced school profile

The school profile includes an expanded commentary on the school context.  It also provides information about the school including school type, enrolments, attendance rates, staff numbers, and information about the student population such as the number of girls and boys and the percentage of students from a language background other than English.  Additional and more nationally-consistent information on senior secondary outcomes is also presented.
2.Improved navigation and security features

Users accessing version 2 of the website are required to enter a “click-wrap” agreement whereby they accept certain terms and conditions of use.  This is to protect the integrity of the website and guard against misuse of the information.

 

The QTU supports this change, which was a major objective of the 2010 AEU/QTU NAPLAN/My School campaign.

3.NAPLAN data presentation changes

NAPLAN results have been removed from the landing/front page and linked to separate pages to make room for additional information. Performance in each test domain (reading, writing, spelling, punctuation and grammar, and numeracy) is presented using graphical displays.  The data includes margin of error and confidence levels.  The proposal to remove the red and green from the data was supported by the working party and some ministers (including Queensland), but it was overruled by the Commonwealth.
4.Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage (ICSEA)

The data used to calculate the ICSEA index has been changed from that used in the previous version however this data will still be compared against national data and schools that are “statistically similar”.  Therefore, the index is likely to remain problematic, largely because the ICSEA will be further complicated through inconsistencies in its calculations.
5.

School financial information

This version of the website will also include school financial information.

For public schools, a pro-rata calculation of total costs associated with running the system will be included.

Private school income will be included, but their assets and total resources at their disposal will not.  This means trusts, bequeaths, property portfolios, share portfolios, overseas investments etc will not be included.

For both systems, this will result in a totally distorted and therefore misleading picture of the resources at the disposal of the school.  This is likely to be the area that media will focus on and may lead to questions of principals.

The following points are relevant:
  • This is the first time that this information has been collected and reported at a school level.  The differing methodology is a major issue in itself.
  • The data has generally been derived from information contained in schools and schooling system payroll and accounting systems as well as from local school finance systems.  This automatically makes the process and outcomes inconsistent.
  • All central and regional corporate costs have been allocated to schools.
  • Factors that effect funding include:
    — enrolment and staffing arrangements
    — types of programs offered
    — the characteristics of the student population
    — location
    — school facilities (age/size/structure).
  • All information is calculated for the school year 2009 which is another issue particularly where BER funding may be involved.
  • All recurrent income and capital expenditure will be included.
  • Schools will not recognise the funding levels attributed to them e.g. where funds are held centrally for programs these resources have had to be apportioned to schools.  A good example is NPA monies.
  • Schools with higher needs typically receive higher per-student funding. These include:
    — special schools
    — specific purpose facilities e.g. hospital schools, detention centre units
    — remote schools
    — small schools.

Three case studies which may be used as examples of inconsistencies:

a.

Enrolment size can effect funding per student

— A coastal state primary school with 30 students is attributed as having $540,000 in recurrent income, or around $18,000 per student in 2009.

— A Brisbane primary school with 525 students receives $4.3 million in recurrent funding or over $8,000 per student. 

This demonstrates the higher per student costs in providing comparable educational opportunities to students in smaller centres.

b.

 Schools with similar enrolments can have quite different net recurrent incomes per student- 

 For example,

— a Brisbane school (with over 400 students) has a net recurrent income per student of over $8,300;

— a rural school (with 400 students) has over $11,000;

— while a north Queensland school (with over 400 students) has $14,000.

  • The rural school receives higher revenue because it has a special education unit that supports a local cluster of schools, as well as receiving additional funds under National Partnership arrangements because of the high number of disadvantaged students from low-socio economic backgrounds.
  • Similarly, the north Queensland school hosts a special education program which provides intensive early childhood support for up to 55 children up to five years of age.
  • The first school has no special education unit or additional facility as part of its program.

c.

 Capital funding will vary from school to school

 — A new school with an initial enrolment of around 200 students in a growth area has almost $24 million in capital expenditure on completed assets reported for 2009.

— A pre-existing school reports $490,000 capital expenditure in 2009.

 

For further details regarding any media concerns please contact the President on 0735129000 or email qtu@qtu.asn.au.