Why are Art Students Underperforming in WAs Education System?

As I was awaiting a ticket in Tokyo Station, out of the corner of my eye I noticed what appeared
to be a crudely hand-drawn poster of Japan. At first, I questioned why in such a professional
setting, a grotesque drawing would be permitted by the stations management. However as I
peered closer, I noticed my wrongful assumption. Like Nolans Dunkirk the artwork was a
masterpiece for what it intended to achieve: a creative abundance of helpful hints including
illustrations of different trains with their expected travel times, the location of toilets and
lockers within the station, and even featured caricatures of the staff and their favourite
customers. As I travelled throughout Japan, I noticed such artwork was common place and
characteristic of Japans culture of appreciating the aesthetic. Yet in WA, although I tend to see
students with vivid artistic imagination in primary school; by high school, for many of these
students, it has vanished.
I was one of these students. Despite loving the Arts, I avoided taking these subjects during my
senior high school years to avoid lower scaling. Many West Australian students and graduates
share this view and unfortunately with good reason the Arts are consistently scaled down
each year. But heres the thing, this scaling trend is exceptionally misleading as Artistic students
are actually performing quite well within the Arts themselves (especially the practical
examinations). The reason Arts students are consistently scaled down is usually due to their
poor performance in other subjects. Thats right, WAs education system seems to rationalise
that a poor performance in Maths and English, should incur a poorer performance within the
Arts.
How do we know this? Well, the authorities were kind enough to release the evidence online.
So low and behold, Table 1 demonstrates that the Arts are consistently scaled lower than the
other subjects:
Table 1: Comparison of Average Scaled Marks and the Variance of Select ATAR Subjects

Subject Average Scaled Variance Average Scaled

Mark Difference from Mean
Mathematics Specialist 68.6 0.500 8.6
Literature 67.35 0.037 7.35
Mathematics Methods* 65.6** 0.243*** 5.6
Japanese 65.6 2.180 5.6
Chemistry 64.575 0.156 4.575
Physics 64.5 0.193 4.5
Philosophy and Ethics 63.55 0.170 3.55
Politics and Law 62.975 0.296 2.975
Italian 62.575 1.175 2.575
Music 62.0 0.153 2.0
Economics 61.6 0.060 1.6
Religion and Life 60.525 0.136 0.525
Biology 58.6 0.153 -1.4
Modern History 58.525 0.122 -1.475
Human Biology 57.925 0.216 -2.075
Psychology 57.45 0.217 -2.55
English 57.025 0.109 -2.975
Visual Art 56.575 0.402 -3.425
Drama 56.225 1.089 -3.775
Dance 56.075 1.515 -3.925
Geography 55.575 0.382 -4.425
Mathematics Applications* 55.5** 0.093*** -4.5
Physical Education Studies 54.825 0.096 -5.175
Media Production and Analysis 54.7 0.420 -5.3
Design 53.75 0.657 -6.25
(Source: TISC 2012-2016)
*Mathematics Methods was formerly known as Mathematics 3CD. Mathematics Applications was formerly known as Mathematics 2CD.
**Average Scaled Mark is only the 2016 figure (2016 was when the Methods and Applications courses replaced the originals).
***This variance only applies to the results of the former Mathematics courses of 2012 through to 2015.

When we correlate the Curriculum Councils (2012-2016) combined raw results (derived from
each students raw School and ATAR Examination mark) with TISCs scaled figures above, the
results are inconsistent. The raw performance is generally higher than the final scaled
performance. This is due to TISC measuring performance based on an Art students entire
course-load, rather than just their performance within the Arts.
So is this even a problem? Maybe our Artists should include more geometry in their artwork? Or
perhaps, this scaling system is intrinsically unfair, Arts students are being acquiescent and the
education authorities are being insouciant.
Insouciance such as the TEA, which assures no Art subject will be eligible for the highest ATAR
rank. As of this year, the TEA allocates an extra 10 percent to the Math Specialist, LOTE and
Math Methods subjects. Due to this particular change, a student must select each of these
subjects to qualify for the highest possible ATAR result (99.95). Thus, subjects such as Drama,
Dance, Media Production and Analysis, and Visual Art (the Art subjects) are unlikely to qualify as
a direct contributor to an ATAR of 99.95. Of course, the TEA is symptomatic of the societal
perception that students selecting difficult subjects should be granted certain privileges. Now
whether this perception is accurate or not is irrelevant, as it may surprise you that the
Curriculum Council and TISC dont make that assumption at all.
According to the Curriculum Council and TISC, the Arts syllabi were not designed to be easier
than the other subjects, as all syllabi test a range of ability. This is to ensure the brightest
students will be challenged by at least a portion of the content in every syllabus (which helps
produce that gorgeous bell-curve). As the Arts are expected to challenge students of every
ability, TISC assume their scaling method can be applied across the board. However, even
though the Arts may be difficult subjects, they are still attracting a higher proportion of
underperforming students relative to the other ATAR subjects. Curriculum Council failed to
recognise this disconnect, resulting in the implementation of their disastrous Stage 2 and 3
courses.
The Stage 2 and 3 courses (circa. 2014-2015) deteriorated the performance of Arts students
even further. Stage 2 and 3 were intended to stream the Arts and improve their perceived
performance after scaling. Yet according to Tables 4.11 (Curriculum Council 2014-2015) the
introduction of Stages 2 and 3 courses oversaw an overwhelming majority of Arts students
selecting Stage 3 over Stage 2. Now, the intention of Stage 3 was to test students of a higher
ability than the original syllabus, so you can guess what happened further underperformance
by Arts students during the years (2014-2015) the Stages were in effect.
A pertinent question is still left unanswered following this debacle: why are the Arts
experiencing consistent underperformance, whilst the opposite is occurring in other non
streamed subjects such as Philosophy and Ethics and Economics? The scaling system is
provoking predictable, self-serving and consistent study behaviour, especially in subjects
vulnerable to unfavourable scaling trends.
TISC is misguided as to what extent their scaling system influences student behaviour. TISCs
assumption that scaling encourages students to make sensible choices by choosing courses for
which they are best suited (TISC 2016, 1); fails to acknowledge the implications for the Art
student fearful of scaling.
As a result of this fear, its quite reasonable to expect an Arts student to select a hybrid course-
load as a contingency measure. For example, imagine a student selecting an Arts course-load,
over a math/science course-load (assuming both students select the same English subject):
Table 2: Illustration of Artistic Handicap vs. Math/Science Advantage

Artistic Student Deviation from Math/Science Student Deviation from

Global Mean (60%) Global Mean (60%)
Dance -3.925 Math Methods 5.6
Visual Art -3.425 Chemistry 4.575
Design -6.25 Physics 4.5
Media Production and -5.3 Economics 1.6
Analysis
Drama -3.775 Math Specialist 8.6
Handicap: -22.675 Advantage: 24.875

According to Table 2, a student selecting only artistic subjects will need to score 47.55 marks
(across their entire course-load) to even begin competing with a math/science subject grouping
(thats almost 12 percent of an Art students overall marks). Now does this mean students are
commonly selecting all of these Art subjects? Of course not, those doing so burden themselves
with an immense handicap. Generally, Arts students favour a hybrid course-load and as a result,
many Arts students (especially those who underperform outside the Arts) are experiencing a
Catch 22.
Ironically, Arts students are coerced into a hybrid course-load anyway. As part of every course-
load eligible for a WACE Certificate, each student must select at least one course from both List
A and B:
Table 3: Select ATAR Subjects Divided into List A and List B

List A List B
Literature Mathematics Specialist
Japanese Mathematics Methods
Philosophy and Ethics Chemistry
Politics and Law Physics
Music Biology
Economics Human Biology
Modern History Psychology
English Mathematics Applications
Visual Art Physical Education Studies
Drama
Geography
Media Production and Analysis
Design

In practice, this translates to Art students being compelled to take a math/science subject, yet
no student is compelled to take an Arts subject (selecting an English is required to be eligible for
a WACE Certificate). As a result, the system is ensuring each student must consider the
opportunity cost manifest within an Art students top-four subjects and their overall course-
load average.
Although quite-rightfully condemned by most responsible authorities, we cannot deny the "top-
four system encourages students to preference certain subjects at the expense of their course-
load average. So lets break this down: the top-four subject results contribute towards an Art
students ATAR rank; the students selected Arts subjects (for which they are best suited) are
consistently scaled down and yet are considered no less difficult by the authorities; therefore,
the Art student will self-servingly overcompensate in these subjects to overcome this handicap.
Such behaviour is detrimental to an Art students course-load average, yet is expected to garner
higher results in their top-four subjects. As a consequence, this behaviour produces lower
course-load averages for Arts students and therefore lower scaling.
Conclusion
The inherent problem is that the expected inequitable proportion of student abilities in each
Year 12 cohort; is exploited by the scaling system to further askew the underperformance of
Arts students. This is on account of the education authorities misapprehension that a subjects
proportion of student ability is a fair and equitable method to scale individual performance. The
education authorities fail to recognise that their scaling system perpetuates a self-fulfilling
prophecy whereby: the underperformance inherent within the Arts leads to unfavourable
scaling; unfavourable scaling encourages a student to prioritise the Arts over their course-load
average; and this behaviour perpetuates the underlying underperformance.
We must replace this system with one that influences Artistic students to select and perform in
subjects solely on the basis of their natural artistic ability and aspirations; rather than the trends
of what is effectively an arbitrary scaling model.