policy & reform
campusreview.com.au
Wright 7 provided slightly more robust
evidence, with larger numbers but still
restricted to one university cohort. In
this cohort, ATAR ranking was positively
correlated to academic success for
students in the three Bachelor of Education
Primary cohorts but was weakly related for
three Early Childhood/Primary cohorts. But
the results were not straightforward. The
significant relationship did not hold for the
Early Childhood/Primary cohort for cohorts
in Years 2 and 4, but it did hold for Y ear 3. In
primary education, the significance held for
Years 2, 3 and 4. Finally, ratings of student
performance by their associate teachers
on preservice teacher placement were
unrelated to ATAR ranking for all six cohorts.
One area where ATAR ranking or its
equivalent shows some predictive powers
is the link between graduation rates and
entry scores. Marks 8 using the Equivalent
National Tertiary Education Rank (ENTER),
a percentile ranking based on VCE study
scores reflecting student performance
relative to all other VCE students, reported
that 94 per cent of candidates with a
ranking in excess of 90 completed their
undergraduate degrees. Only 73 per cent
of students who had an ENTER ranking
between 60 and 69 completed their initial
degree. Nonetheless, there were some
qualifications, with first-in-family candidates
having the lowest completion rates
regardless of ranking. Interestingly, despite
the rhetoric surrounding completion rates,
even partial completion of a university
course was found to be a better aid for
transition into the labour market than
completion of Year 12. 8
So, what is to be made of the current
zeal for high ATAR ranking as a criterion
for entry into ITE? Often, the true intent of
ATAR is overlooked. ATAR is a ranking, not
a measure of intelligence or a predictor
of quality. In a post-Bradley era, some
universities have responded by adopting an
open admission system to provide equity
groups not previously or under-represented
in higher education the opportunity to
achieve a university qualification. This move
has had implications, as universities have had
to adapt to meet the needs of these new
cohorts. In ITE, one implication has been
the use of lower threshold ATAR rankings for
entry. One consequence is that candidates
with lower ATAR rankings tend to come from
disadvantaged schools. Many disadvantaged
schools are unable to counteract or might
accentuate the negative impact of low
socioeconomic status because they offer
a limited subject choice and have fewer
courses available than schools in higher
socioeconomic status areas. 9
Combined with potentially fewer
academic role models to provide
aspirational attainment, those who do
complete Year 12 from disadvantaged areas
are likely to do so with a significantly lower
ATAR ranking. The arbitrary setting of an
ATAR threshold potentially then restricts this
cohort from ITE higher education courses.
An alternative view of the ATAR ranking
is it reflects a candidate’s preparation and
readiness to learn. 10 Stringher suggested
most adults do not know how to learn
irrespective of their level of education. 11
Learning to learn is defined as the ability
to pursue and persist in learning, to
organise one’s own learning, including
through effective management of time
and information, both individually and in
groups. 12 Thus, learning to learn is a process
that needs to be deliberately taught and
is not learned in any sequential manner.
Through this lens, a candidate’s ATAR
ranking indicates their understanding of
how to learn. Thus, a lower ATAR ranking
might indicate that the candidate has not
“cracked the code” about how to learn and
thus is unable to produce what is needed to
achieve success.
There is evidence to support this view,
with research showing that candidates’
study styles are a critical factor affecting
both completion and withdrawal from
a university course. 9 Moreover, the
relationship between ATAR ranking and
performance disappears after the first
year of university, which might suggest
that candidates with lower ATAR rankings
have benefited from some remediation. 13
Universities have responded to the
increasing diverse cohorts entering
university with a range of early
intervention programs designed to
ameliorate the issue of some students
not knowing how to learn. Such cases
come under the guise of many names,
such as “learning to learn at university”,
but all tend to have a focus on addressing
issues such as how to acquire and retain
knowledge, study strategies, learning
in groups, and learning in an online
environment.
This work has been successful. For
example, first-year health science students
exposed to a changed pedagogical
approach resulted in reduced attrition and
success. 13 Finally, Pasi Sahlberg, 14 a Finnish
educator and advisor, debunked the myth
of ATAR ranking and quality teaching. He
recently revealed that it was a myth that
Finnish ITE candidates where selected
based on being the best and brightest. He
explained that candidates are trained in
research-based universities and are selected
based on a combination of many factors.
Thus, having talent in other areas was
balanced against academic performance.
His message was that candidates do not
have to be the most academically gifted to
be quality teachers.
It is time to revisit the notion of
evidence-based decision-making and
rethink how ATAR rankings are used in
tertiary education. Rather than a barrier
that potentially leads to the gentrification
of the teaching profession, 15 ATAR rankings
should be used for what they are, one
piece of information about candidates,
not an artificial hurdle set by politicians
for optics. It is also time to recognise the
heavy lifting that universities do to help all
candidates achieve graduation. Candidate
quality should be judged at the end of the
degree, rather than at the start. ■
Dean Cooley and Annette Foley are
associate professors at Federation
University Australia.
References at campusreview.com.au
15