QTU monitors the School Performance Assessment Framework

The announcement of the School Improvement Unit (SIU) and the School Performance Assessment Framework has caused members to raise a number of issues with the QTU. Subsequent to the announcement, the QTU met with the Director-General of Education and two of the Deputy Director-Generals of Education to discuss the issues raised.

Frequency of review

Desk top audits will be undertaken every year, however reviews arising from these desk top audits will only occur once every four years, unless a crisis review is required. The department advised that should a school be identified as requiring support, it will not be required to have a review every year, and that the same process adopted with respect to quadrennial school reviews will be applied.

An additional audit in addition to existing reviews

All former reviews, including the teaching and learning audit and regional audits/reviews, will no longer take place separately once the new framework process commences in 2015. While the teaching and learning audit domains will form part of the review, the audits themselves will cease from 2015. The department is also looking at ways to incorporate financial audit procedures. The purpose, as advised by the Director-General, is to standardise practices across regions, to provide a transparent model of school performance assessment, and to develop a transparent and consistent form of school assessment model for all schools across the state – as such, separate regional models or variations of school performance reviews will cease.

The reliance on NAPLAN data for measuring school performance

DETE advised that the headline indicators were developed in consultation with principals over a six month period, and that NAPLAN has been used consistently for a number of years, along with other data, to reflect on school performance.

The apparent move from reflecting on the distance travelled by a school to performance measurements in comparison with other schools

The only time a comparison between schools will occur will be on headline indicator four of the framework relating to comparison with like ICSEA schools. The reference to relative gain within the remaining headline indicators refers to the distance travelled by a particular school between one year and the next.

In order to enhance student outcomes within schools, a needs-based resourcing model is necessary

The purpose of this process is to allow for resources to be differentiated for different schools according to need. Where schools require additional resources or additional support, those resources will be provided. The department advised that there is a clear need for change in the role of regions and assistant regional directors, from directing schools on what to do to providing support. Regions will be accountable for outcomes and the support they provide to schools as part of the process.

The consequences for school leaders if annual audits continue to identify their school as requiring support

The Director-General stated that the new framework is not linked to contracts for school leaders, is separate and distinct from the principal performance review process and is not a trigger for instituting managing unsatisfactory performance processes. The underlying purpose of the framework is to assist schools and regions to identify good practice. It is meant to be supportive.

How the review outcomes will be recorded, in light of previous publication of league tables

It is not the intention of the framework to score a school with respect to its performance in particular areas. The purpose is to provide quality feedback and recommendations to allow the school to continue to develop and move forward.

The Union also indicated that the use of private school principals as part of the external review team was a concern. The Director-General indicated that if private school principals are involved, they will not be imposed on schools.

Overall, the department has indicated that it is its intention to further refine the framework following an initial trial, which is likely to commence in late term three or early term four 2015.

The QTU will be seeking a joint statement with DETE regarding the framework and its implementation. One of the key matters that remains outstanding is how the uniqueness of each school's context will be considered through a desk top audit.

The Union will maintain a watching brief on the trial, familiarisation and implementation of the School Performance Assessment Framework. The department has also committed to continued consultation with the QTU. The Union will meet with the new SIU Executive Director, once appointed, to further discuss members' issues.

Kate Ruttiman
Deputy General Secretary

Queensland Teachers' Journal, Vol 119 No 7, 3 October 2014, p13