"Judging all students by one standard"

[Joy]

The following article is from "The Age":

"Judging all students by one standard"

http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/judging-all-students-by-one-standard-20090517-b7fx.html


Caroline Milburn


May 18, 2009


"Teachers will no longer be the sole judge of a student's work, after a landmark decision by the National Curriculum Board to introduce year-by-year achievement standards for pupils.

"For the first time, all teachers in Australian schools will have to use the same achievement benchmarks to measure student progress.

"The decision is aimed at overcoming flaws in the current system, in which assessments by teachers can vary widely between classrooms, schools and states and territories.

"Achievement standards will be developed for each year level from prep to year 12 for English, maths, science and history. Teachers will also be given annotated samples of student work to show the differences in quality and cut-off points for work judged to be worth an A, B C and D grading.

"The board outlines its decisions on standards in The Shape of the Australian Curriculum and other consultation papers. ...."

[Russell]

I thought that we had learned from the smartie chart fiasco that standardising grades is an exceptionally stupid idea.

Student A is trying their hardest but has little support at home. They are in a low socio-economic school, have peers in similar situations and have no chance to compete with students from leafy green schools.  So each year, teacher has to give them a 'D' or somehow find them a scholarship, remove them from their social peers and hope that they can handle the social stigma attached.

The student without a scholarship gets sick of receiving D's (despite their attempts at catching up and working really hard).  This is the same student that given a higher grade would have caught up and done really well in senior school, be a TEE candidate and contribute to urban renewal in low socio-economic areas (this kid was me - which is why I am so passionate about the idiocy of standardisation in this manner).

It also works the other way around.  Student B does bugger all in school, but achieves an A because they have reached the benchmark.  Without the motivation to push themselves further they don't learn a good work ethic.. Two years later they fail senior school as they hit their ability curve and have no drive to fall back on.

It is just such a b*llsh*t idea.  School is about excellence and doing your best - not about standardisation and "fairness" in grading. Anyone with half a brain can see the flaws in it. TEE examinations provide the cross school moderation and that is where it should stay.  I fear though that the drive for standardisation comes from government fear of litigation and the need to defer risk to schools where legislation and procedure provide some protection.

ARGH!

[maxiMIM]

I agree, "School is about excellence and doing your best".

However, I don't see the concept of standardisation as being a problem.  What you are talking about was, in fact, "fairness" in grading. If we try to be "fair", then we add compensatory marks for one's homelife, lack of opportunity, degree of effort, financial standing, etc, etc..  That would be "fair", but not educationally sound if wanting to compare apples with apples.  After-all, what can the kid actually do?  

We need baseline criteria, but this is an impossible ask in many areas of learning, especially the creative arts, of which English is but one. So it always comes down to airy-fairy statements that are neither helpful to the student, nor helpful to the teacher.  People forget that teaching is an art, as well as a science.  There are just way too many variables to account for, when trying to determine criteria. It will be interesting to see what 'they' come up with!

IMO, MCJ forums over the past 10 years have not provided us with sufficient understanding of commonality of judgements, (I'm happy to be corrected, if that is not the case!) so I don't see how National statements will do it!  

Standardisation is a result of our shrinking world and global influences - once upon a time, we only needed to compare ourselves in our local village/state, but now we are on a national, if not world, stage.  

Standardisation could lead to MORE litigation, if schools fail to show how the needs of individual learners are catered for.  I firmly believe mass education, as is currently the govt system, fails to deliver to students what govts espouse teachers should do - teach to individual needs.  Until we get the same resourcing as Kindy, Pre-primary or ESCs, we don't stand a chance of doing that!

[peter george]

Does this mean a form of NAPLAN testing for all years? I am afraid this is yet another way to waste everyone's time ,add more workload no doubt with limited P.D.,these people seem to be making it up as they go along. Surely testing in Year 3,5,7 and 9 as well as the Year 12 exams is enough for the powers that be to judge the effectiveness of our education system . And can someone please explain to me why we continue to use failed U.K and American education ideas and refuse to follow Finland's system.

[Russell]

Standardisation creates the same issues under a different guise.  It potentially dictates that I teach material that is clearly beyond the student capabilities.   I have no problem with suggested standards nor syllabus (syllabii?) but I do have an issue where I lack the ability to modify it where required.  To demand that I teach algebra in term 1 year 7 when my kids can't do simple operations means that I would waste two terms teaching inappropriate material.  To have to fill out twenty pages of documents to justify the delay (I know I'm projecting here but I have some understanding of how bureacracies work) would do my head in.

Whilst we are on the topic of standardisation, to give these same students a standardisation test that tells them they are below benchmark (translate that to dumb in kidspeak) and destroy fragile confidence because the test is effectively two terms early is also wrong.  I'm not sure of the purpose of these tests other than to satisfy curiousity of head office and parents.  If they were internal tools that we could use to guage performance and modify curricula to suit I would support them - but as yet all I have seen is judgements made about students, niggling comments about teachers, and misapplication of developmental/environmental causes rather than teaching or intelligence based assessment.

Either we value the judgement of our teachers or we use standardised testing.  To continue the devaluation of teacher judgement in lieu of creating a better system needs further analysis as I don't think we are doing the education system any favours by pursuing a course of teaching to tests and the associated pressure of high stakes on children.

 

[PPOV]

There are so many variables at play in education that the attempts to boil down theory into "you can make your child more intelligent if you do this" or "We will compare all schools against each other and come up with a league table for parents to judge" are impossible.
Every student arrives at school with different attitudes, morals, values, work ethic, ability, capacity to learn, talent, support from family etc, etc. The "empty vessel" philosophy, that every child is the same blank canvas and the only variable is the school is scientifically flawed. Even comparing two students the same age in the same school is not terribly valid as there are too many variables. Yet, the politicians and educrats continue to foist this nonsense on us. "They" need to take the focus off the assessment end of things and put all the money and energy into the teaching and learning part of education. The saying that constantly weighing the pig won't make it heavier is still very relevant. Some major dollars thrown at teaching people how to be effective parents wouldn't go astray either.

[SET]

I agree with PPOV, you don't fatten a pig by weighing it.

Teachers have won the battle against OBE (Overly Bureaucratic Education) and now we are dealing with NAPLAN to achieve better political (not educational) outcomes through testing.

The most important variable in education is the quality of teaching. What happens in each and every classroom after that classroom door has gently closed is what really makes a difference.

Resources should be devoted to attracting, supporting and retaining educated, skilled and motivated teachers and supporting them with quality instructional materials. Everything else is fluff, spin and public posturing.