news
Call for ERA review
Research benchmarking results released
amid calls for a review of the system.
A
ustralia’s universities are celebrating their standing
against an international benchmark, but not all are happy
with the overarching Excellence in Research for Australia
(ERA) reports.
Published by the Australian Research Council (ARC), the State of
Australian University Research 2018–19: ERA National Report looked
at 2603 units of evaluation (UoEs) across 42 institutions.
In her foreword, ARC chief executive Professor Sue Thomas
said not only has the volume of research output increased, but the
quality has been maintained or improved.
“In addition, the number of units of evaluation has increased,
reflecting increasing depth and breadth of Australia’s research,”
Thomas said.
Ditch NAPLAN, experts say
Gonski Institute argues there’s a better way
to collect valid national data.
A
ustralia should scrap the current census approach of
NAPLAN and replace it with sample testing of students, the
Council of Australian Governments (COAG) has been told.
In its submission to COAG’s review of NAPLAN, the Gonski
Institute for Education at UNSW Sydney said a national assessment
4
campusreview.com.au
Since the last report in 2015, 26 per cent of UoEs improved
their rating.
The fourth round of ERA reporting also showed an increase in
the number of disciplines rated at or above world standard.
More than a third (36 per cent) of UoEs were rated well above
world standard, while 30 per cent were above world standard and
just under a quarter (24 per cent) were right on it.
The picture wasn’t entirely rosy – 9 per cent of UoEs were rated
below world standard and 1 per cent were considered well below it.
Go8 chief executive Vicki Thomson said the overall sustained
quality was made more remarkable by the backdrop of cuts to
university funding.
“Against the backdrop of a distorted university funding model, the
Go8 continues to perform extraordinarily well with 99.6 per cent
of Go8 research rated as world class or above,” Thomson said.
She added that while ERA benchmarking is an important signal of
quality, “it is just that and no more”.
“The rationale for doing ERA every three years is questionable
and it is time for a review,” she said.
“ERA requires extraordinary administrative and academic
effort on the part of both universities and the ARC, given its very
comprehensive, labour-intensive and costly data collection process
for no monetary return.
“Compare that with the equivalent UK exercise which, in 2018–19
allocated $1.95 billion in research block grant funding on the basis
of its assessment exercise.”
Thomson said consideration should also be given to not only
accountability for research excellence but also rewarding it. ■
and reporting system should be based on scientific sampling and
have a single, clearly defined purpose.
Professor Adrian Piccoli, director of the Gonski Institute and a
former NSW education minister, said the negative effects of the
current system outweigh any benefits.
“NAPLAN and the publishing of results on the My School website
have imposed a high stakes dimension to student testing, and this
has led to increased student anxiety, teaching to the test and a
narrowing of the curriculum,” he said
“The Gonski Institute supports a national testing system so the
performance of our education systems can be monitored, but we
recommend a better approach.”
Piccoli said replacing the tests with one that is sample based
would mean that the publication of school-by-school results on
the My School website would no longer be possible, dramatically
reducing the “high stakes nature” of the current program.
The group said education policies in Singapore, the
Netherlands, Scotland and China are shifting towards less-
frequent and lower-stakes standardised assessments to give
more room for teachers’ professional judgment in assessment
and reporting.
Pasi Sahlberg, professor of educational policy at UNSW Sydney,
said the purpose of NAPLAN is not to rank schools.
“The assessment should be for use within schools for schools.
It can be done in a way that still provides sound data and national
reporting on system-level performance.”
Piccoli said: “There are much better ways than the current
NAPLAN to provide accurate, timely and useful data back to parents
about how they are performing at school.” ■