Monday, December 15, 2008

standards and education

We've recently had an election, won by the conservatives who, as part of their electioneering, decided that standards weren't good enough in our education system (despite PISA and TIMMS results to the contrary, and existing accountability and evidence processes in place). Their answer was to ram ahead with legislation forcing schools to test and report on primary school kids' achievement results.

Generally, I admire Pita Sharples' comments- they're usually sound and sensible. However, I have to say that his outpouring on behalf of Maori students, as a justification for intensifying testing regulations per se, is ill judged. That is not to say that Maori students have not been well served; his answer regarding testing just isn't the right one.

I think this new administration have forgotten to look at the evidence from elsewhere about the effects of such accountability. The evidence is easy to find, and is reported on in peer reviewed academic journals. Basically, it means at least the following are possible scenarios:

1. that a testing regime mooted by this government appears to assume, on the face of it, that all schools and students and all teachers are the same, with the same resources and opportunities (ie, that educational achievement is affected by neither poverty nor wealth, nor visual nor aural ability, physical dexterity (eg in holding a pen or using a keyboard), verbal or mathematical skills, or existing cultural capital/habitus students and teachers bring to school; or that all teachers are all highly competent and knowledgeable about their subject matter, students, and have a wide pedagogical repertoire to draw on, or that no classes contain disruptive students)... Given that this government wants to increase the amount of state money to private schools it is hoped it will also increase the the amount of money available to state schools, so that all can better balance the opportunities for learners.
2. that educational achievement is not affected by levels of maturity or readiness (in some domains of learning, there is documented evidence for specific levels of maturation before particular concepts or motor skills can be readily introduced)
3. that making results of primary-aged students' achievements public (ie via school/year etc) will not adversely affect teachers' and schools' desire to support all students, compared with those who will make them look best (as has sometimes happened at NCEA levels, where some students have been steered away from entering certain Achievement Standards and/or not counted in the school's attainment levels in order to improve the overall look of the published achievement rates)
4. that teachers won't begin to teach to the test, and forgo/bypass actual learning - which can be cumulative and gradual; there is quite a lot of evidence about the relationship between teaching to the test and suboptimal learning opportunities
5. that experimenting with risk-taking in learning wouldn't be in jeopardy, because when learners take risks with their learning, it often destabilises learning in the short term. In such cases, students and teachers can become disheartened, because it looks as if introducing this new concept/skill has had an adverse effect - they may be looking to the test, not the potential for learning - when it is temporary, and necessary in order to restabilise with the new knowledge/skill in place after practice.

I hope that this new regime will not end up with a withered plant- like the cartoon I saw years ago. A farmer kept pulling up a growing sapling to check the state of the roots as a measure of how well it was growing. Eventually, the plant withered and died from the exposure of the roots.