Tasmania gets front page treatment in the June 2011 issue of Education Review. Tasmania’s education system is, if the hype is to be believed, so bad that students do not wish to continue their education post year ten. The evidence for this is apparently a piece of research that is yet to produce any findings. Only speculation as to what those findings might be. Tasmania’s education bureaucrats are conducting a survey to track every year ten student and to determine why Tasmania’s school retention rates are among the worst in the country. But are they?
Department of Education figures show public school post year ten retention rates, that is students who go on to year 12, are as low as 45.5 per cent in the depopulated south-east, and at their highest of 55.5 per cent in the south, which includes the area around Hobart. The figure for Hobart, with a number of private schools, would almost certainly be similar to that of equivalent size cities with significant private schools in other states. Are we placing too much emphasis on these figures? Colin Pettit, Secretary of the Tasmanian Department of Education, said issues of concern were low post year 10 retention rates and year 12 completions. He said his department was giving high support and funding to the project. “Given Tasmania has the most rurally dispersed population of all Australian states and has a high level of socio-economic disadvantage, it’s important that we understand how these and other factors influence retention and completion rates, “ he told Education Review.
The quoted figures are not at all bad for Tasmania. The Northern Territory, with a high indigenous population, comes out worse with a retention rate of 61.4 per cent. Tasmania, on 70.7 per cent, while second last among the six states and two territories, is not far behind New South Wales on 74.5 per cent, and even the national average on 78.5 per cent. Some big figures boost the average. Any comparison with the public service town of Canberra, best at 91.8 per cent, is false and can be disregarded, for Canberra schools have resources that cannot be matched anywhere else in Australia. The cited figures do not compare regions, and it is here where they fall down. If we were to compare the Riverina area of New South Wales or the Latrobe Valley in Victoria Tasmania would almost certainly look much better. Then there is the issue of what happens to students post year ten. If they enter trade training or the armed forces are they still excluded from retention figures? And what about the small number of Tasmanian students who leave the state and continue their education elsewhere?
Education speak is often about community expectations, parental engagement and family aspirations. These are worthy but their improvement, whatever that may mean, is not necessarily achievable. Tasmanian schools are rarely talked about in a negative way in other states, and some Tasmanian innovations, such as senior colleges, are regarded highly outside the state. Providing students with choices is often desirable, but often government actions, like wholesale school closures, can limit these choices. The National Broadband Network is touted as a way in which such choices can be increased, and it may in fact prove to be a great blessing to the state.
Why should a mainland broadsheet paint Tasmania in such a bad way? Perhaps Tasmanian statistics are too honest. Fudging of statistics is quite common in many political jurisdictions. Can we necessarily believe statistics that might be manipulated? Can we be certain that statistics are collected in the same way in other states? It is very doubtful that we can.
