It is the best of territories and the worst of territories. We seem to be a place of statistical extremes. That is one of the consequences of being a small, recently created territory with a unique core business: administration.
Usually, the ACT figures well in those statistics that detail things flowing from a high-education base: higher average incomes; lower unemployment; better health; better participation in sport and culture. And we do poorly in the things that smack of a decadent society: high drug-related crime; high suicide rate, single parenthood, high alcohol intake and so on.
It was therefore surprising when the Commonwealth Department of Education placed the ACT last among states and territories for many elements in a survey of computers in schools. What is going wrong? Surely, the ACT is the most highly computer-literate state or territory. The Australian Bureau of Statistics cites the ACT as having the most computers per household. Well, we should not be too alarmed. The department’s report warns us about small sample size. It choose only five of the ACT schools. Also the survey was completed in May, 1998, and since then there has been a concerted effort by the ACT Government to get more computers into government schools. The ACT Government reckons it is on the national average now, according to its audit of all schools.
The exercise, however, reveals some of the drawbacks and some of the strengths of statistical benchmarking. Among the drawbacks are teething problems. Inevitably, when statistics are first collected, there will be problems of sampling and the like, as was apparent with the computer survey. It happened in the early days of gathering divorce statistics after the Family Law Act. The ACT’s statistic included people from NSW who used the Canberra registry. Teething problems should not be a difficulty because ultimately gathering methods are improved. If the ACT Government is right, next year’s computers-in-schools figures will show a dramatic improvement in the ACT position. The only difficulty is that the first figure might go into mythology and never quite be expunged. It has now gone into mythology, for example, that Canberra has the nation’s highest divorce rate, when it is among the lowest after age and registry-warping are removed.
Another drawback is that the statistic is a number, not a reality. Having a lot of computers is all very well, but what if they are old and broken? What if the teachers are not using them effectively? Worse, what if computer use is a hindrance rather than an asset in much education?
Nonetheless quantities, if treated cautiously, are very useful. They are better than guesswork. For instance, the ACT Government recently issued a State of the Territory report. It compares various measurements across states and territories. The report is the more valuable because it is not obsessed with economic indicators, but also quality of life factors: health, literacy, numbers of playgrounds and so on. It was not all rosy. As the years go by this will be an invaluable indicator of performance of government and citizenry in general. It will help governments and citizens tell where efforts should be directed to improve life.
The important point is that statistics are tools for telling us about ourselves; where we are slipping and where we are improving. Used with judgment and an understanding that quality is as important as quantity they are very useful.