Stop ranking children and start understanding them

Schools in Australia are still often measured by ATAR scores, NAPLAN results and exam rankings.

But these numbers only tell part of the story.

Even if they are talented, creative and highly intelligent, young people are increasingly leaving school feeling anxious, apathetic and unsure of their strengths. It’s not just about academic performance, it’s about relevance and purpose.

Students silently ask: “Why am I learning this?” They are trying to imagine their place in a future shaped by artificial intelligence, portfolio careers, remote work and constant reskilling.

For decades the social contract was simple; Work hard, get a degree, secure your career. That contract was broken. But our education system is still focused on ranking, standardization, and high-stakes testing.

Research Grattan Institute shows that approximately 40 percent of students are regularly disengaged from class. They’re not annoying, they’re just turned off. Poor exam results are often a symptom of this disconnect. But already struggling teachers do not have the specialist support or structural flexibility to address the underlying causes.

High-stakes testing and rigid streaming could push curiosity and well-being aside and put some of our most promising young minds at risk. At the same time, access to integrated health support in schools remains inconsistent.

Early adolescence is a critical period for brain development. It is also when conditions such as ADHD, anxiety, mood disorders, learning differences, and some endocrine disorders often occur. These difficulties often first manifest themselves in classrooms through poor concentration, change in behavior, fatigue, or decreased academic performance. Better integration of health expertise into schools will enable earlier diagnosis and targeted support, improving both wellbeing and academic outcomes.

In many public schools, a single psychologist may be responsible for more than 1,100 students; This is more than twice that number. Australian Psychological Society One psychologist per 500 students is the recommended criterion. Teachers are often the first adults to notice that something is wrong. But they are educators, not clinicians. They cannot diagnose. They cannot coordinate care. And they shouldn’t be expected to do this.

Without established specialist support, families are pushed into specialized assessment and treatment, services that are expensive and unequally accessible. The result is a two-tiered system where early intervention depends on zip code and income.

Integrating psycho-educational professionals, including psychologists, allied health clinicians and learning specialists, into schools will enable earlier identification of barriers to learning, reduce stigma and improve long-term education and health outcomes. Prevention in adolescence is significantly less costly than crisis management in adulthood.

This model should be funded and managed by health systems in partnership with education departments, ensuring that teachers are supported rather than saddled with additional responsibilities.

But reform needs to go further. We routinely test children to sort them out. We rarely evaluate them to understand them.

If governments are prepared to spend millions to implement standardized testing, they should be equally prepared to invest in evidence-based cognitive and developmental assessment embedded in schools. Understanding a child’s learning profile, executive function, interests, and motivational factors early is not labeling; It is personalized education. This is prevention.

Brains develop at different rates. A child with limited focusing skills in Grade 8 may demonstrate strong executive functions in Grade 12 as the prefrontal cortex matures. Narrowly ranking students’ test performance ignores developmental science and risks, locking them into paths that underestimate their potential.

Integrated learning profiles can guide subject selection, targeted support and strengths-based pathways rather than ranking students against each other. This is how potential is unlocked before disconnection turns into a crisis.

This is not about the medicalization of childhood. This is about recognizing cognitive diversity. Children with different cognitive styles may process information differently and perform differently under timed conditions. This doesn’t mean they lack talent.

Interest-based learning is not tolerant; It is strategic. Engagement improves retention, resilience and adaptability, qualities that employers now prioritize. If students then change direction, they do so with confidence, not embarrassment.

Evidence Australian Institute of Health and Welfare consistently shows that early intervention in childhood is among the most cost-effective strategies to improve long-term health outcomes and reduce future system strain. Early mental health support reduces hospitalizations and chronic service use for decades. Prevention provides both financial and social benefits.

In an age where AI can craft essays and complete standardized assessments, Australia’s competitive advantage won’t just come from producing students who do well on exams. This will come from developing young adults who can think critically, solve complex problems, collaborate and adapt.

International models, particularly in Scandinavian education systems, show that integrating psychologists and counselors into schools, while prioritizing well-being, increases participation and reduces mental health burden.

Investing in children’s mental and cognitive development is not a welfare add-on; economic, labor and health policy.

Introducing school psychologists, funding early assessments and integrating health into education planning would represent true preventive reform that would give Australia a healthier population, a more innovative economy and lower long-term public costs.

Gillian Lodge is a health and life sciences strategist and consultant specializing in prevention and health policy reform.

Support independent journalism Subscribe to IA.