NAPLAN is driving our students backwards

Reposted from the Sydney Morning Herald.

Date: May 15, 2013

Peter Job

The ranking system does more harm to learning than good.

The 2013 round of NAPLAN tests are under way this week. With results not supplied until September they will be of little use to teachers as a guide to student learning.

When results are finally released, however, teachers and schools know from experience what to expect. Schools will be compared with each other by local media, some lauded as successes and others derided as failures.

Competition between jurisdictions will also be evident, with state and territory results compared, discussed and ranked, conjectures and theories put forward to explain different levels of achievement. Students will take home reports to allow parents, supposedly, to monitor their child’s progress in relation to their peers.

In light of this, it is interesting to compare these results with another prominent test of educational achievement, the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) tests of reading, mathematics and science for 15-year-olds run every three years by the OECD. Comparative results for states and territories are markedly different.

Victoria, which ranked second after the ACT in NAPLAN Year 9 reading in 2009 ranked only fifth in PISA. Queensland, which ranked a lowly seventh place for Year 9 NAPLAN ranked a more impressive third in PISA that year.

Of the two tests, there is good reason to believe PISA is the more reliable. As a sample test rather than a full cohort test, it is not subject to distortions brought about by accountability and teaching to the test.

Yet, to a large extent, this is to miss the point. A key rationale of NAPLAN has always been so-called transparency, with parents encouraged to judge schools by their comparative NAPLAN results posted on the My School website and the test supposedly used to identify successful and ”failing” schools. Yet even states and territories display markedly different results in different tests of the same measure of the same age group held in the same year.

Studies in the US and the UK, both of which have conducted full cohort accountability testing for many years longer than Australia, have also indicated limitations in the use of testing for school comparisons or improvement. A study by the University of California, for example, found that test score volatility made it very difficult to accurately compare schools and that this results in ”some schools being recognised as outstanding and other schools as in need of improvement simply as the result of random fluctuations”.

In the UK, a 2010 parliamentary report noted that the Achievement and Attainment Tables of school test results, the UK equivalent of the My School website, had ”inherent methodological and statistical problems”, which led parents to ”interpret the data presented without taking into account their inherent flaws”. As a result, schools felt constrained to teach to the test, narrow curriculum and push students towards ”easier” qualifications in order to maximise performance data.

In Australia, Melbourne University academic Professor Margaret Wu has also noted the limitations of NAPLAN as a test of individual student achievement or progress. The magnitude of measurement error in a test conducted on one day is such that not only is it a problematic measure of individual student achievement, but when this uncertainty is compounded over two tests a fall or rise in relation to peer test performance could well indicate simple statistical uncertainty or particular circumstances on test days rather than an actual change in achievement.

Parents should be aware that a quality report by a professional teacher encompassing a range of measures over time, preferably accompanied by a face-to-face discussion, is a far better indicator of student capabilities than a NAPLAN report.

Evidence of the damage of test-based accountability regimes is clear in the US and the UK. Subjects not tested, such as history and art, are marginalised and even those tested narrowed to improve test results. There is also evidence that such regimes create incentives to exclude students who some schools perceive as liabilities, further increasing educational segregation and inequity.

Here in Australia, NAPLAN is increasingly unpopular with teachers, creating as it does an incentive to value test results over the long-term educational wellbeing of our students.

High standards of literacy and numeracy are a fundamental responsibility of schools and teachers. However, there is little evidence that testing accountability regimes such as NAPLAN improve these areas.

On the contrary, countries that rank above us in PISA, such as Finland and Canada, take a very different approach, emphasising a broad creative curriculum, equity and a high degree of teacher trust rather than the test-based model prevalent in the US and the UK. Both the latter countries fall well below us in PISA, and it is ironic that they, rather than those nations that do better, have served as models for change here.

Supporters of NAPLAN laud such an approach as ”evidence based”, providing ”hard” data to monitor achievement and assist in the preparations of road maps for improvement. The evidence simply does not support these claims.

NAPLAN is driving us backwards, not forwards.

Peter Job is an English and humanities teacher at Dandenong High School. His master’s thesis was National Benchmark Testing, League Tables and Media Reporting of Schools.

Follow the National Times on Twitter

Our bubble-headed, zombie-creating reliance on high-stakes testing

Reposted from http://www.newsobserver.com

By Ilina Ewen and Pamela Grundy

How are standardized tests like zombies? They’re mindless, and they just keep coming. For more than a decade, North Carolina schools and students have suffered from an onslaught of high-stakes standardized tests. These zombie tests have invaded our schools, sucking time and money from teaching and learning. They’ve deadened creativity and original thought, squashed imagination, stripped both teachers and students of dignity.

Like zombies, these tests just won’t die. Despite conclusive evidence that the explosion of testing under No Child Left Behind did more harm than good, the numbers and the cost of tests continue to multiply.

It’s time for state leaders to do what they can to end the madness.

Learning is a lifelong pursuit. Schools should inspire students, not enrich corporations. They should ignite curiosity, not quell it.

As the parents of North Carolina public school students, we have seen the harm these tests have done to schools and to students of every background and ability level. We have felt the tensions that pervade school hallways as test season approaches.

We have seen inventive, hands-on work pushed aside in favor of drilling for higher test scores. We have even seen English classes enshrine “test preparation” as a “genre,” placing it alongside fiction, poetry and drama.

We have seen otherwise creative children lose interest in school and complain about having to attend. We have watched these creative spirits wallow in worksheets, practice tests, assessments and rote memorization instead of writing, learning through play and immersing themselves in challenging projects.

We have sympathized with the many highly skilled teachers who have left public schools rather than fight against a system increasingly driven more by “data” and dollars than by children.

And contrary to the claims of test-makers, the tests aren’t getting better. Despite hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds, they’re getting worse.

Case in point: this year’s new math tests for grades 5-8. In an unfortunate effort to meld an open-ended test with a computer-scored bubble sheet, the tests call for students to calculate an answer and then bubble that answer on a grid. Unfortunately, that’s easier said than done. So in addition to learning math, our children are forced to spend time studying a complex bubbling technique that has no value beyond this particular test.

The math tests are part of an onslaught of dozens of new state tests that North Carolina students are scheduled to take in the next two years. The math and English tests being introduced this year will be replaced in two years with online Common Core exams. In addition, the state Department of Education is ramping up new tests in science and social studies, part of the requirements of the state’s federal Race to the Top grant.

Most of the cost of administering these new exams will fall on local districts.

In addition, experts have clearly indicated that the limitations of standardized testing mean that the new tests will not effectively assess the skills our children most need to develop: creativity, entrepreneurship, collaboration, real-world problem-solving.

It’s crazy.

We in North Carolina cannot stand by idly and watch a generation of zombies arise before us. We call on parents, teachers and concerned community members to join us in urging our elected officials to change course.

Our state legislators can take the first steps. Senate Bill 361, the so-called “Excellence in Education Act,” contains provisions that will heighten the stakes attached to these growing numbers of tests and thus intensify the damage they do. Legislators can remove them.

The bill claims to “maximize instructional time” by limiting the time available for testing. That provision, however, fails to acknowledge that the greatest problem with high-stakes tests is the way they warp the entire educational enterprise by narrowing the curriculum and creating a “teaching to the test” mentality. Neither limiting the number of practice tests nor reducing the testing window will stop that.

The most problematic proposals are the test-based A-F grading system for schools, with a required “wide distribution” of results, and the call for a performance pay system based substantially on test results. Both attach real-world consequences (high stakes) to test scores and will intensify teaching to the narrow range of material that will be tested. Legislators should remove both provisions.

Instead, we should place at least a three-year moratorium on the high-stakes use of any test results, giving the state time to examine the many successful examples of comprehensive assessment strategies that do not rely heavily on standardized tests, including portfolios and peer review. While these strategies contain few opportunities for handsome corporate profits, they will serve our children well.

North Carolina will not thrive with a generation of zombies at its helm. Let’s stop the madness now.

Ilina Ewen of Raleigh and Pamela Grundy of Charlotte served as the 2012 and 2011 North Carolina delegates to Parenting Magazine’s Mom Congress. Find out more at notestingzombies.com/.

NAPLAN science tests unlikely to improve science education

By Greg Thompson

Reposted from The Conversation.

The federal Labor government’s proposal to expand the National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) franchise and include science literacy is not a surprising move.

Once national testing regimes start, they tend to spread and intensify.

The government continues to give strong indications that they see testing as the best means to improve student achievement. This political obsession has been most recently enshrined in the Education Bill 2012 where the Prime Ministerformalised her aim to be in the top five schooling systems by 2025 on international tests.

But these tests, along with NAPLAN, are problematic. It’s assumed that they can measure what it means to be a quality school, a quality teacher, a quality education and what we should aspire to as a nation.

If quality can be determined in approximately 120 minutes of tests taken every four years by a sample of students (as is the case with the international PISA tests) then it is a neat trick.

Data impact

It is not that standardised tests have no use or place in our education system, nor is it that what is generated from the tests cannot be informative. However, we must always be alert to the ways that the data being used impacts on students and their learning.

The idea that the NAPLAN tests are logical, objective and merely assess what schools should be teaching is persuasive, but the ways the data is being used as an ad hoc measure of quality brings to mind Campbell’s Law:

The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor.

David Berliner discusses Campbell’s Law and the affects it has on education and the corporate world. (Youtube)

The question is not whether science literacy is important (it is). Nor is the issue whether schools and teaching should continue to improve achievement in science (they should). What we should be asking is whether the overemphasis on NAPLAN will distort the learning experience of students in Science and make improved achievement less likely.

If, as the research shows, a broad curriculum focus, opportunities for students to engage deeply, think critically and be supported in developing their learning are all less likely under NAPLAN, then clearly the disadvantages far outweigh the benefits.

Widening the tests to include science literacy, or any other subject area for that matter, does little to address these concerns and may not improve student achievement.

Standing still or going backwards

Since 2008, significant improvement across Australia in NAPLAN can only be seen in Year 3 Reading, Year 5 Reading and Year 5 Numeracy. In other words, there have been no statistically significant improvements in 17 out of the 20 categories since NAPLAN began. Most categories have stayed fairly static.

A troubling result given the time and cost associated with NAPLAN – it would appear NAPLAN is not the best mechanism to drive improvement in student achievement.

It may also not be a great mechanism for improving equity of achievement, for example ACARA’s 2012 NAPLAN Summary Report showed fewer Year 9 students met the minimum standards in Reading, Spelling, Numeracy and Writing in 2012 than in 2008 (ACARA, 2012).

Granted some of these differences are small, and in the case of writing probably reflect a change in assessment, but it remains an issue of concern.

So why is this happening? It is most likely because of theunintended classroom consequences of standardised tests like NAPLAN; that it narrows curriculum, is not inclusive of student needs, increases anxiety and requires teachers to teach to the test.

Education expert and statistician Margaret Wu argues that these unintended consequences are exacerbated by theMySchool website, which is in practice used as the measure of quality in schools, ignoring the fact that what is reported only represents a fraction of what schools do and that there are problems with the reliability and validity of the data for this purpose.

Science experiment

Two questions are worth asking when it comes to including science in NAPLAN.

First, given that ACARA assesses science literacy already on a “rolling 3 yearly basis” using a representative sample of Year 6 students, what extra information will we receive from yearly NAPLAN testing?

Second, what will be the likely effects of sitting science literacy tests every year?

If the argument for the science literacy testing is that increased accountability in science will lead to improved student achievement, it’s important to remember international research shows test-based accountability is unlikely to improve student achievement, and may even have a negative impact on the least advantaged students.

There may be pragmatic reasons, testing science literacy may aim to align NAPLAN with TIMMS and PISA which both assess science.

Another pragmatic reason might be the previously mentioned Australian research showing an excessive focus on literacy and numeracy because of test pressures leads to less time being spent on subjects not tested like science.

Of course, the pressure to focus on literacy, numeracy and science literacy will further squeeze curriculum choice – bad news for subjects such as History, Languages, Drama, Arts and Physical Education to name a few.

At least until we can test them as well.

But with little evidence to prove that NAPLAN drives improved student achievement in Australian schools, there must be better ways to assist teachers and students.

The Standardised Testing Racket

Reposted from Save Our Schools Canberra.

Monday April 8, 2013

It is NAPLAN test week next month in Australia. It is also testing season in the United States which has coincided, once again, with another round of cheating scandals highlighted by the dramatic indictment of one of the nation’s top school superintendents on racketeering charges for cheating on test scores.

Testing is now a national obsession in the US. First used to assess students, test scores are now used to assess teachers, principals and superintendents, as well as schools, districts and even states. Governments are developing new tests in grades and subjects not currently covered by state tests. Some states and school districts are looking at introducing tests for all subjects, including choir and gym.

Teacher-evaluation and payment schemes have been put in place in numerous cities and states that are heavily weighted by student standardized-test scores. Big bonuses are won based on test scores, and jobs are lost. Schools are lauded or closed and replaced by charter schools according to their test scores.

There can be little wonder in this environment that schools and teachers become focused on test scores rather than the actual learning of students. As the Pulitzer-prize winning columnist, Eugene Robinson, wrote in the Washington Post recently, the US obsession with testing has become a “racket”.

It is time to acknowledge that the fashionable theory of school reform — requiring that pay and job security for teachers, principals and administrators depend on their students’ standardized test scores — is at best a well-intentioned mistake, and at worst nothing but a racket.

This was highlighted by the dramatic indictment last month of the former high-flying superintendent of the Atlanta public school district, Dr. Beverly Hall, on racketeering charges. Hall was charged, along with 34 other school administrators, principals and teachers, for cheating and manipulating test scores in Atlanta schools.

Atlanta’s testing scandal was so broad and deep that a grand jury indicted Hall and other administrators and educators under a law that had been used to prosecute members of the Gambino family – a notorious Mafia crime syndicate. Yes, that’s right – the cheating was so widespread that officials resorted to laws used to pursue the Mafia! Prosecutors in Atlanta allege that Hall had run a “corrupt” organization that used test scores to financially reward and punish teachers.

In 2009, Dr. Hall, was named as National Superintendent of the Year by the American Association of School Administrators for increasing student test score results in Atlanta. She was lauded for turning the system “into a model of urban school reform.” The improvements proved to be phony, just as they have in many other school districts in the US – remember the phony increase in test scores in New York City under Schools Chancellor Joel Klein before he left to work for Rupert Murdoch.

The indictment alleges that Dr. Hall and the others cheated on state exams, hid the cheating, and retaliated against whistleblowers who tried to expose it. Many of those who were charged, including Dr. Hall, received hundreds of thousands of dollars in performance bonuses that were based on the fraudulent scores. Dr. Hall alone received more than $500,000 in performance bonuses.

According to a teacher who turned state’s witness the cheating had been going on in her school at least since 2004 and was overseen by the principal, who even wore gloves so as not to leave her fingerprints on the answer sheets that were being changed. She told the New York Times “the cheating had been going on so long…. we considered it part of our jobs.”

She said teachers were under constant pressure from principals who feared they would be fired if they did not meet the testing targets set by the superintendent. Dr. Hall gave principals three years to meet their testing goals. Few did, and in her decade as superintendent, she replaced 90 per cent of the principals.

As the New York Times noted, cheating “is not just an Atlanta problem.” The national obsession with test results has produced a plague of cheating scandals across the US. Cheating has increased as standardized testing has become a primary means of evaluating teachers, principals and schools.

In El Paso, a superintendent went to prison recently after removing low-performing children from classes to improve the district’s test scores. In Ohio, state officials are investigating whether several urban districts intentionally listed low-performing students as having withdrawn even though they were still in school.

A survey recently published by the National Center for Fair and Open Testing, or FairTest, found incidents of test cheating in 37 states and Washington DC in the last four years. It documented 50 ways in which schools have manipulated their test score results. These include changing answers on test sheets, excluding low-achieving students from enrolling and pushing out low-scoring students, reporting low achieving students as having been absent on testing day.

These and other strategies are widespread across the United States according to FairTest Public Education Director Bob Schaeffer. “These corrupt practices are inevitable consequences of the politically mandated overuse and misuse of high-stakes exams”, he said in releasing the survey.

Another columnist at the Washington Post, Valerie Strauss, wrote in her Answer Sheet blog that “these cheating scandals have been a result of test-obsessed school reform.” She said that “the obsession with test scores turned schools into test-prep factories and narrowed curricula so teachers could concentrate on the subjects that are tested.” Now policy makers have decided that all subjects needed standardized tests so teachers could be evaluated by the scores, and so the subjects and grades that are tested have expanded.

Even Bill Gates is having second thoughts about the monster he helped unleash. No one has done more than Gates to raise the stakes in testing by using test scores to evaluate schools and teachers in the US, but he has now recognised the dangers of what is happening. He recently wrote in the Washington Post that in the rush to implement new teacher evaluation systems, there is a risk that states and school districts will “use hastily contrived, unproven measures”.

Gates gave as an example a 166-page evaluation manual to be used in Ohio to hold physical education teachers accountable for meeting state targets in physical education. Standards for K-3 students include consistently demonstrating “correct skipping technique with a smooth and effortless rhythm” and “able to strike consistently a ball with a paddle to a target area with accuracy and good technique”.

He expressed concern about relying on test scores to determine a large part of teacher salaries.

I have talked to many teachers over the past several years, and not one has told me they would be more motivated, or become a better teacher, by competing with other teachers in their school. To the contrary, teachers want an environment based on collaboration, in which they can rely on one another to share lesson plans, get advice and understand what’s working well in other classrooms. Surveys by MetLife and other research of teachers back this up.

He noted that in top-performing education systems accomplished teachers earn more by taking on additional responsibilities such as coaching and mentoring other teachers and spreading effective teaching techniques. “Such systems are a way to attract, retain and reward the best teachers; make great use of their skills; and honor the collaborative nature of work in schools.”

While it is significant that Gates is dismayed at the direction being taken by many states and school districts with test-based accountability, it is the result of policies that he and other philanthropists have used their wealth to pursue over the past decade or more. Gates still wants to use test scores along with other measures to evaluate and pay teachers. How he expects to promote collaboration between teachers while encouraging them to compete with each other for salary increases he is yet to explain.

The testing obsession in the US is producing a backlash as a revolt against testing is growing around the country. Some teachers are refusing to administer tests; some students are refusing to take tests; some parents are withdrawing their children from tests; many school boards have passed resolutions against high-stakes tests; and academics are warning about the consequences of using standardized-test scores as an assessment tool. Communities are fighting against their schools being shut down based on test results and turned over to charter schools.

In Australia, the Federal Government and state governments are pushing down the same test-based accountability path. School NAPLAN test results are published on the My School website together with local area league tables and are used to publish national and state league tables in newspapers. The Federal Government offers reward payments to state governments, schools and teachers to improve their NAPLAN results. The Federal Opposition wants to extend national testing and supports performance pay for teachers based on test results.

These are all incentives for officials, principals and teachers to rig results in the same way as in the US. While it is early days in Australia with test-based accountability, the NAPLAN tests have already taken over the curriculum for much of the year as schools resort to practicing tests for weeks on end. NAPLAN test booklets are now amongst the biggest selling education texts.

We only have to look to the US to see what lies ahead. The Washington Post columnist, Valerie Strauss, put it in a nutshell:

Reformers keep pushing their bankrupt test-based accountability system…..despite overwhelming evidence that it has failed to improve schools and made a mess of school districts and communities. The saddest thing: There’s no end in sight.

The equally sad thing for Australia is that both sides of politics and education officials refuse to look at the evidence and continue to put blind faith in test-based accountability policies that have failed to deliver in the US.

Trevor Cobbold

Personalised not standardised.

The Treehorn Express

Prepared and presented by Phil Cullen,

proud anti-NAPLAN geriactivist thinking of kids.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Treehorn story? http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/print.asp?article=11697

The Treehorn Express Theme song: ‘Care for Kids’

Politicians : 

Told your party-room colleagues that NAPLAN destroys the love for learning

[as you well know] ?

bannaplanbannaplanbannaplanbannaplanbannaplanbannaplanbannaplanbannaplanbannaplanban

Personalised not Standarised

As soon as one mother read “Say NO to NAPLAN” last Tuesday, she withdrew her child from the forthcoming testing program and wrote to each member of the organising committee http://www.literacyeducators.com.au to thank them and tell them what she had done. She said, “I want my child’s education to be personalised not standardised.”

A standardised child is a popular Australian product however, neatly packaged, approved by Teachers Union and Principals’ Associations who easily succumb to being ‘stared down’ by the more powerful; and compliant with the edicts and mandates of their storm troopers. Even some large corporate executives believe that ‘best in test’ and ‘top scorers’ means ‘best school’ or ‘top school’.  Serious concerned parents, however, would need to be wary.  They are trying to convince gullible parents, as concerned as they might be, into thinking that results in last year’s contest apply to this year’s judgements. Steady, Mum and Dad, before you change schools! Use that crap detector of yours.

Year 3 Standardisation

The poor little ankle-biters  -  7-8 years of age – imagine – next week – lining up in desks in that bare room [they might get hints from something left on the wall by the teacher] – heads down – bingo-style – silence reigns – bubbles are marked on a test paper – strict time limits [or the teacher-supervisor says goodbye to a career] – tense atmosphere.

How can you monstrous measurement freaks and your supporters impose this on kids so young? How can you do this on school premises which are supposed to be saturated with love, respect for the young, happiness, eagerness to learn, fun, laughter?

If you know any parent who has a child in Year 3 [where the “heat of Year 12 exams has been turned on Year 3s”], encourage them to talk to each; and share thoughts about these nasty tests with each other…..as the parents of Kimberley College [Clearly the best of the top schools in Q’ld because it thinks as a school] did last year.

Isn’t 7-8 years of age too young to be subjected to the rigours of paper-and-pencil blanket testing?   You do know, don’t you, that children in most European and other advanced countries do not start school until they are 7 years of age.

[Finnish children start school at 7 years and, despite the country’s dislike of blanket testing, lead the world in the PISA tests. How come, we might ask?]

In this world of compare, contrast, measure, compete, drill, kill….Year 3s in other countries are two years older than ours, aren’t they?

Do the tests enthuse one as young as 7 years to become a keener learner ? If not, what is the purpose of the test?

MUM.  DAD. Take this seriously. My advice to every one of you is to withdraw you child from all NAPLAN blanket testing asap.  Permitting someone else to do what they do to little Year 3s is not nice. Measurement fadsters with little respect for children.

Even if kids from other countries are 9 years of age in Year 3, that age is still too young for their learning spirit to be mutilated.

Listen to this Dad………….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dAujuqCo7s

o0o0o0o0o

OtherTreehorns ? :   Check Recent Posts and Archives in the sidebar.

Maintained by outstanding NZ educator, Allan Alach

Phil Cullen

41 Cominan Avenue

Banora Point

Australia 2486

07 5524 6443

cphilcullen@bigpond.com

http://primaryschooling.net

More songs coming soon by Barry Lane

[“veteran educator, popular author, a true warrior against the ongoing insanity”]

{If you wish to get ahead of the game, click http://soundcloud.com/barrylane55 }

Why blanket tests should be banned.

 Treehorn recommends

that you read this article.  Say hello to Treehorn on the attachment; and feel sorry for his condition [adult apathy].

Click on

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/the-complete-list-of-problems-with-high-stakes-standardized-tests/2011/10/31/g/QA7fNyaM_blog.html

or google ‘The Answer Sheet 2011/10/31’

It’s from the Washington Post. While it refers to American schooling,  it lists a number of reasons that apply for Naplan to be ceased in Australia. It concludes with a parent’s wish: “Do not subject my child to any test that doesn’t provide useful, same day or next-day information about performance.”   Marion Brady lists 25 reasons for the termination of blanket tests as they reveal their immorality, uselessness and damage to schooling…

Thank you Valerie and thank you Marion.

 Blanket tests administered from afar should be banned because they…

• focus so narrowly on reading and math that the young are learning to hate math and school;
•  measure only the ‘low level’ thinking processes;
• put the wrong people – the test manufacturers – in charge of American [& everybody else’s] education;
• allow pass-fail rates to be manipulated by officials for political purposes;
• simplify test items and trivialize learning;
• provide minimal to no useful feedback;
• are keyed to old deeply flawed curriculum issues;
• lead to neglect of physical conditioning, music, art and other non-verbal ways of learning;
• unfairly advantage those who can afford test preparation;
• hide problems created by margin-of-error computations in scoring;
• penalize test-takers who think in non-standard ways;
• radically limit the ability of teachers to adapt to learners’ differences;
• encourage the use of threats, bribes, and other extrinsic motivators;
• wrongly assume that what the young will need in the future is already known;
• emphasize minimum achievements to the neglect of maximum performance;
•  create unreasonable pressures;
• reduce teacher creativity and the appeal of teaching as a profession;
• are culturally biased;
• Have no ‘success in life’ predictive power;
• lead to the neglect of the best and the worst students, as resources are channeled to lift marginal kids above the ‘cut lines’;
• are open to massive scoring errors with life-changing consequences;
• are at odds with deep-seated values about individual differences and worth;
• undermine a fundamental democratic principle that those closest to and therefore most knowledgeable about problems are best positioned to deal with them;
• dump major public money into corporate coffers instead of classrooms;
• do psychological damage to children who are not yet able to cope;
• are blocking policy-makers from what, Marion believes to be the greatest educational innovation of the last century –the use of general systems theory as it developed during WW II as a tool for reshaping and radically simplifying the ‘core curriculum’.

It is a 21st Century phenomenon that any thoughtful school would entertain national or systemic blanket testing.

Where they do, parents need to let their schools know that they want their children to ‘OPT OUT’.

Phil Cullen

Towards Digigogy

 The Treehorn Express

Treehorn? http://primaryschooling.net/?page_id=1924     Theme song:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQj-6F7yPM8

“””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””

Treehorn Express is dedicated to the cessation of Kleinist NAPLAN testing in Australian.   Kleinism is a New York version of fear-driven schooling which  uses the blanket testing ‘wmd’ called NAPLAN to destroy the reputation of  public schooling.      This weapon was introduced to schools in Australia in 2009. It disrespects children, devalues teachers’ professionalism and threatens the developmental future of Australia.     Ideologically, NAPLAN is immoral, politically driven, curriculum destructive, extremely costly, unprofessional, interruptive and very divisive. It is clearly aimed in a malicious manner  at public schooling and its teachers.  It also strives for mandated, standardised mediocre achievements in only a very few aspects of a full school curriculum in all schools.  It will survive until enough good people say, “Stop it.”

Click on the Naplan site for more details : http://www.nap.edu.au/information/FAQs/index.html

“”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””’

COME ON ADULTS. START TALKING, DISCUSSING, QUESTIONING, READING, CAMPAIGNING.

Our young Treehorns need you. Why are you neglecting their plight?

____________________________________________________________________________________

TOWARDS  DIGIGOGY

http://leading-learning.blogspot.com/2011/10/smoke-and-mirrors.html

This is a posting on Bruce Hammonds’ leading-learning site by Allan Alach, a New Zealand primary school principal who reads in his sleep. He must; he reads so much. Actually, he has been blessed with quick-reading and high-absorption skills and shares his readings and knowledge generously.  Dedicated readers of The Treehorn Express are all professionally richer for having access to his advice and readings.

In this article he raises an issue that professional, teacher-industrial and subject associations everywhere need to regard very, very seriously. How do school leaders handle top-down cunning and secrecy? Allan indicates that New Zealand’s digitised politico-bureaucrats are preparing to institute computer programs that will enable tests and examinations to be delivered online, with results recorded and scores assigned without ‘interference’ from a teacher. This classroom intrusion is likely to be introduced in  other formerly-democratic countries….especially not-much-interested-in-schooling-Australia. It is a first step for the flood of other technologies.

Such technologies set the stage for Rupert Murdoch’s grand design and the development of digigogy [Rick Ogston].

Check http://truth-out.org/news-corp-will-save-our-schools-and-other-scarily-seductive-reforms/1319434215

This is an article that deals with the issue of responsibility, that needs vast and intense discussion…the responsibility of caring for our children’s learning development…trained school teachers or corporations’ machines.

“The debate…is really about fundamental ideological differences over how traditionally-public institutions ought to be run and who ought to be responsible for nurturing the nation students: publically run schools accountable to voters and their communities or private companies accountable to their shareholders.” says author Julianne Hing.

Few adults want to acknowledge that, pre-May each year, Australian schools are forced to operate under a fear-driven, concentration-camp style of schooling.  Adults prefer to take no notice. If they are schoolies, they favour waiting for the evil to go away and, in the meantime, just do as they are told.

That’s why Rupert has spent $500 billion on the development of digital schooling. He is no fool  and understands the market place.  He will have his way, world-wide for sure. He will make the most of our timidity and tell the politicians what he wants.

As his mate Gordon Gekko said,

“ I own. We make the rules, pal. The news, war, peace, famine, upheaval, the price per paper clip. We pick the rabbit out of the hat while everybody sits out there wondering how the hell we did it. Now you’re not naive enough to think that we live in a democracy, are you buddy? And you’re part of it. Stick around pal. I’ve still got a lot to teach you.”

A perspicacious sixteen-year old high-schooler reacts to ‘who does what to whom”’, on http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nikhil-goyal/post_2586_b_1034887.html with

“The education system really sucks. We continue to toil in a 19th century factory-based model of education, stressing conformity and standardization. This is all true even though globalization has transformed the world we live in, flipping the status quo of the labor market upside down. The education  system has miserably failed in creating students that have the dexterity to think creatively and critically, work collaboratively, and communicate their thoughts.

Over the past decade, when government has tried to muddle its way through education, it has gotten fairly ugly. President Bush passed No Child Left Behind and President Obama passed Race to the Top, infatuating our schools with a culture of fill-in-the-bubble tests and drill-and-kill teaching methods. Schools were transformed into test-preparation factories and the process of memorization and regurgitation hijacked classroom learning.”

This lad is writing a book on schooling. It should be interesting.

This student’s crowd-rallying counterparts in his and other countries are concerned about the future, especially the privatisation of schooling. Under existing circumstances, private schooling can be a very profitable and privileged enterprise.

If you read Trevor Cobbald’s  Government Largesse of $6 million for Geelong Grammar on http://www.saveourschools.com.au you will see that the annual fees for Geelong Grammar, which“…serves some of the wealthiest families in Australia have risen to $30,000 for 2012” while neighbouring schools that serve severely disadvantaged families struggle to survive.

This government enlargement of the gap between ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ has led to wild re-action in other places. If you bother to read http://ism-global.net/coordinations_november2011 make sure that you view the video clip towards the end. The high-schoolers are serious.

They’re asking big questions about their futures at school, these young folk. Private? Public? Privileged? Learning-based? Test-based? Laissez faire? Narrow curriculum? Diverse learning choices? Face-to-face? Face-to-laptop? Measureable subjects? Learning attitude? Learning-to-learn?  Learning facts? Creativity? Social attitudes?

We are muddling through the greatest schooling revolution in world history – no doubt – and we can’t even handle the basics; like helping teachers to teach better, without threat or stress. We can’t sort out the proper years of compulsory school, the best age to start formal schooling, whether to have a rigid or advisory curriculum, who supplies the curriculum…so many basics. Adults, especially teachers and parents, don’t really worry too much about these things.

All of the pain and heartache related to testing could have been prevented in Australia if our schools and/or their representatives had just told the great Julia to jump in the lake when she sought their support for fear-based schooling. They were conned, and it will take a decade or two to tidy up the mess, which will be compounded, big time, by this onslaught of digitized schooling. We don’t even know what we want for our schools now; and we are on the threshold of a new era!

As Alfie Kohn says on http://alfiekohn.org/teaching/edweek/botsnjtt.htm “What troubles me is the rarity of discussion, the absence of questioning, the tendency to offer instructions about how to teach to the standardised tests, before we have ever asked whether doing so is a sound idea.”

Amen, Alfie. Onya.

o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o

No apologies for the time that it will take to read through this and associated articles.

The issues  need dedicated thought…..NOW.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Another Fantasy 

In the previous issue of Treehorn I fantasied about the progress that Australia would have made if a boffin was appointed [as is our wont] to control Australian schooling; one who had an intense background in the study of classroom interaction instead of in testing.

This time I should like to share another fantasy.  Supposing that Andrew Wilkie, MHR decided that he wanted Parliament to get rid of the immoral, destructive NAPLAN blanket testing. Wouldn’t he save years of enormous personal distress to pupils, parents and teachers and open up for discourse, on which way we want our country to go….before the next elections.  Schooling and Testing would make Page1.

   ___________________________________________________________________

Re-form  Compulsory  Schooling.

Start at the classroom.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 Like to check the recent ‘Treehorns’ ?    Click on Recent Posts and Archives.

Phil Cullen

41 Cominan Avenue

Banora Point

Australia 2486

07 5524 6443

cphilcullen@bigpond.com

http://primaryschooling.net

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

On the Road to Nowhere

The Treehorn Express

Treehorn? http://primaryschooling.net/?page_id=1924    Theme song: “Care for Kids”

“””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””

Treehorn Express is dedicated to the cessation of Kleinist NAPLAN testing in Australian.   Kleinism is a New York version of fear-driven schooling which  uses the blanket testing ‘wmd’ called NAPLAN to destroy the reputation of  public schooling.      This weapon was introduced to schools in Australia in 2009. It disrespects children, devalues teachers’ professionalism and threatens the developmental future of Australia.     Ideologically, NAPLAN is immoral, politically driven, curriculum destructive, extremely costly, unprofessional, interruptive and very divisive. It is clearly aimed in a malicious manner  at public schooling and its teachers.  It also strives for mandated, standardised mediocre achievements in only a very few aspects of a full school curriculum in all schools.  It will survive until enough good people say, “Stop it.”

Click on the Naplan site for more details : http://www.nap.edu.au/information/FAQs/index.html

“””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””

‘Looking Ahead’ -  We are ‘On a Road to Nowhere’

These are the titles of two of a number of articles forwarded by Allan Alach, NZ Principal.

In Looking Ahead http://edge.ascd.org/_Churchill-38-Burke/blog/5233779/127586.html  Walter McKenzie displays a photo of and a quote by Winston Churchil: “You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something in your life.”  and then says ‘Standing up for education is different. It’s not about reacting to an immediate crisis…it’s about advocating for the future. It doesn’t carry that immediate call to action to fend off an immediate attack. Nonetheless, it requiries those of us invested in the cause, to speak up for what we know to be good and true and right about public educator’s role in the future of our civilization. Yet most of us in education today have our heads down and are trying to quietly get along during difficult times. As one colleague remarked,”Educators know what is at stake. But they are too scared to do anything about it.

Fear is an understandably human emotion…one that can powerfully impact our motivations and actions. Will you speak up for what is right and good for public education, even as your leaders and colleagues continue to plod along with business-as-usual? Or will you settle for the status quo and allow the future of public education to be co-opted by political and commercial interests who do not have your insight and investment in the value of a free education for all? Speaking out is a moral imperative…we need your voice… now.”

{“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” –Edmund Burke 1729-97}

o0o0o0o0o00o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o

In http://www.pasisahlberg.com/blog/?p=23 Finn Pasi Sahberg compares the UK and Finland’s attitudes to school. “Many countries are obsessed by test rankings.  These league tables let policy makers benchmark their school system not only across countries but also within them. Administrators and principals in the UK, for instance, can access the strengths of their schools by comparing England to Wales, or Scotland to Northern Ireland. As the stakes – both political and economic – get higher, the temptation to create policies and employ practices that help to boost the test scores is growing. [See ‘Courier Mail 5 October2011 P.4:’Test results fail targets’] As a consequence, teachers teach to tests and schools turn away children who are not effective learners to guarantee greater success in forthcoming student assessments.

A typical feature of teaching and learning in Finland is high confidence in teachers and principals as respected professionals. Another involves encouraging teachers and students to try new ideas and approaches rather than teaching them to master fixed attainment targets. This makes school a creative and inspiring place for students and teachers. These policies are the result of systematic, mostly intentional development that has created a culture of diversity, trust and respect within Finnish society in general, and within its education system in particular. The result is a cocktail of good ideas from other countries and smart practices from the tradition of teaching and learning in Finland.

Experience from Finland shows that through high quality teachers committed to and capable of creating deep and broad teaching and learning it is possible to have powerful to have powerful, responsible and inspiring schools in an increasingly self-regulating profession. In Finland teachers design and pursue high quality learning and shared goals. They improve their schools continuously through professional teamwork and networks without being disturbed by standardised teaching, frequent testing or competition. You did hear what Diane Ravitch said about her visit to Finland on http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4409 didn’t you?

o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o

So, while the UK –and Australia, New Zealand and the U.S.A. continue downhill on the road to nowhere, there is hope. The OPT-OUT crusade, encouraging parents to tell their school that they do not want their children to contest the standardized blanket tests, is gathering momentum. It’s wonderful news. Australia needs a few thousand more to drop a note to their school. It can be done at any time. Why not do it NOW?

Here’s what Prof. Tim Slekar of Penn State Uni wrote to his school. “Stop treating my child as data. He’s a great kid who loves to learn. He is not a politicians’ pawn in a chess game designed to prove the inadequacy of his teachers and school.” Prof Slekar appreciates how people feel about whether to opt-out or not and asks them to consider five things…

1.KNOW YOUR RIGHTS Although schools don’t speak about it, parents have the legal right to say no to standardized tests. Children are allowed to attend school on the days of the test and it is expected that they will be learning as usual.

{Apropos: Ken Woolford of Toowoomba writes on Oct.6: “…talking with parents and teachers we are finally hearing that some local schools are accepting and acknowledging that the Naplan tests are NOT compulsory (despite statements to the effect that they were compulsory in this year’s Q’ld Distance Ed. Year 9 Information to Parents). Welcome to Planet Qld.” Ken suggests that Qld is much more obsessive with results of Naplan than NSW is.}

2.IMPLICATIONS If the school suggests that the refusal will affect the school’s test score, parents need to remember that waivers are allowed and accounted for.

3.STRENGTH IN NUMBERS  In the USA, to find other families exploring the opt-out option, mums and dads are turning to Facebook. Florida-based Facebook group called “Testing is not Teaching” boasts 13,000 supporters.  Another called “Opt Out of the State Test – The National Movement” attracted 600 members in its first few days online. {Google both for more information}

Australians will like the Bartleby Project where Year 9s are encouraged to write “I prefer not to take this test” on each test, to sit calm and respond politely to each question or comment, not to get upset and just answer “I prefer not to do this test.” The argument is maintained that kids and parents should not be forcibly subjected to tests that “ pervert education, are disgracefully inaccurate, impose brutal stresses without reason, and actively encourage a class system which poison the nation’s future.”  Year 9s will know this.

4.THE SIX PER CENT RULE  Yung Zhau maintains that, if more than 5 per cent of parents opt out, the validity of statements about schools is very uncertain. There is too much doubt for anyone to believe the statistics.   Which State School is “The Worst” will not be able to be indicated, as did the Gold Coast Bulletin 15 September 2011’

5.THE END TO TESTING While corporations, banks, publishers and political parties control schooling, the end is not expected any time soon. The rug has been pulled from under the feet of kids, parents, principals and teachers. They need to stand up for kids at school and be loud in their insistence on better schooling than fear-driven testing can offer.

[See  http://www.takepart.com/article/2011/09/30/opting-kids-out-standardized-tests-5-things-you-should-know ]

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Wouldn’t 2011 have been a wonderful year if Andrew Wilkie had taken up the banner for kids; or if another independent politician decided to do so, instead of having to wait for 2013 when each candidate will be asked if he or she supports NAPLAN testing. Poker machine addiction is so passe by comparison. A stance by an Independent at this time would save so much anguish.  Well Rob, Tony, Bob …how about it?  Caring for kids would be talked about !  It’s a new political idea.

With hope for a better Australia, Kleinism and Naplan will certainly share No.1 issue for the next federal election and state elections if enough Real Teachers and Fair-dinkum Parents take sufficient interest. Just watch this space. Hang in there, Treehorn.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Have you checked Recent Posts and Archive menus in the sidebar, to catch up on previous  comments?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Phil Cullen

41 Cominan Avenue

Banora Point  2486

07 5524 6443

cphilcullen@bigpond.com

http://primaryschooling.net

Please send this to as many readers as possible, Diane Ravitch has 20,000 readers.

Treehorn only has a hundred or so.

We’ll keep trying, kids.

The Reality of What is Happening

The  Treehorn   Express 

Who’s Treehorn? http://primaryschooling.net/?page_id=1924

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Treehorn Express is dedicated to the elimination of  the Kleinist-based NAPLAN in Australian schools . Kleinism is a New York version of fear-driven schooling which uses the blanket-testing ‘wmd’ called NAPLAN to destroy the reputation of public schooling and its teachers. It was introduced into Australia in 2009 without discussion or thought for the consequences.  It disrespects children, devalues teachers’ professionalism and threatens the social and financial future of Australia.  Corporation-initiated NAPLAN is immoral, politically driven, curriculum destructive, extremely costly, unprofessional, interruptive, and very divisive. While it is clearly aimed at the destruction of  public schooling and its teachers, it sponsors standardised mediocrity in all schools. Click on the ACARA website for more details  http://www.nap.edu.au/information/FAQs/index.html

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This is a very important video clip.

It puts each of us clearly in the picture regarding the background to NAPLAN and Kleinism, copied from our friend up-over.

YOU WILL NOT SPEND A BETTER HOUR THAN WATCHING THIS

Imagine each of the speakers is Australian and is speaking about our schools. The comments apply.

It is a pity that it does not get a chance to circulate around schools.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4409

[P.S. Notice the coffee cups : ‘Don’t Trust Corporate Media’. Yes Rupert gets a mention. See previous Treehorns]

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________-

Have you checked the recent Treehorns? Check Recent Posts and Archives on side bar.

Phil Cullen

41 Cominan Avenue

Banora Point

Australia 2486

07 5524 6443

cphilcullen@bigpond.com

Please make sure that as many people as possible see this video clip. 

It is like attending a critical conference.

Allow a full, uninterrupted hour.

Validity & Reliability of Tests

until blanket testing is ‘dead, buried and cremated’.

The Treehorn Express

If Treehorn, the hero of Florence Patty Heidi’s The Shrinking of Treehorn. was to set a test for those adults who constantly judged him and made certain assertions about him and his condition…as pro-Naplanners are wont to do with all children…one has to wonder just what questions he might ask! Would you care to send some to me at cphilcullen@bigond.com?  ….apart from the obvious :”Why don’t you take any notice of me?”

Please send one or two or more. I‘d love to list them.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Validity & Reliability of Tests

Blanket testing is a device used by the unprincipled and inexperienced to annoy children, with whom they won’t or can’t discuss individual learning progress.

{Called NCLB in U.S.A.; National Standards in N.Z.; National Testing in the U.K.; Naplan in Australia}

The tests pretend to measure some half-dozen or so hard  competencies of young children, too intimidated to explain anything to anybody.

Even though they know of its evils, the unscrupulous use their findings to make gross statements about pupils’ general competencies, teacher ability and over-all school performance. They allow the publishing of the names of the ‘best’ schools and the ‘worst’ schools.

These classroom sciolists, camp followers and professional illiterates believe that the testing is valid and reliable ; and that the tests can distinguish the holistic differences between children, teachers and schools accurately. They have the political power to pretend. Basic professional ethics, human child feelings and parent concern just don’t matter.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -

Since I am a convert from an earlier-generation Kleinism [fear-based schooling], I can describe blanket testing with such politeness. I didn’t worry about the validity or reliability of those term and annual tests that I gave to pupils in my developmental-principal years. Tagging kids with numbers and scores was good enough for most parents. That’s all they seemed to want. Since then, wider experience, deeper professional reading and a colleague-developed, deeply-entrenched ethical standard have assured me that such blanket tests are useless, evil and dangerous. They should not exist. They tag everything with numbers!!

Now…with reform-based Kleinism,  those, more expert than I, believe that the validity and reliability aspects need to be considered more deeply than they are…

Professor Brian Cambourne, Australia’s distinguished literacy guru says:

This acceptance [especially by the media and education bureaucrats] has given NAPLAN high ‘face’ validity with the general public and this face validity has been conflated to equate with what psychometricians call ‘construct’ validity. Nor has what some new breed psychometricians call ‘consequential’ validity ever been researched. (Consequential validity addresses the question ‘Are the consequences of applying this test worth the pedagogical costs of using it?’)

Brian goes on to express the hope that the community itself would come to question the validity of NAPLAN. He expresses concern about…

1. The number of kids who have been classified as “failing” or “poor” readers who are avid effective readers of complex books, web sites, etc. I’ve a;lready met a number of parents and teachers who look at their children’s NAPLAN results and shake their heads in amazement because they know that these kids are very effective readers. (Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could somehow collect and share hundreds of these stories?)

2. I’ve seen some eye-movement comparisons of effective readers and ineffective readers reading normal book-based or paper-based text of appropriate level and standardised test texts. The evidence is that reading the standardised test is a substantially different process from reading a “normal” text.

3. One school I visit is worried that its kids did poorly in the spelling section of NAPLAN, yet in their writing at school they clearly demonstrate high spelling ability. Have you looked at the spelling section if NAPLAN? It’s not a test of the kind of spelling knowledge that supports written communication.

Brian reckons that if he could find $50K for the eye-movement technology mentioned in#2 above, he could collect some VERY HARD data which shows just how invalid NAPLAN is. Anybody know a mining magnate or CSG operator who could spare this amount out of Petty Cash?

He believes that there is a need for  detailed research into the nitty-gritty details of the processes and assumptions underpinning the construction, use, application and scoring of NAPLAN type tests.

Seriously, if you have the address of a philanthropic rich person who is looking for a children-benefit project…why not send him this Treehorn and highlight this section. You never know! It seems that SOMETHING MUST BE DONE.

Thanks to Dr. Marian Lewis of USQ, support for this view comes from the U.S…..

Whoever Said There’s No Such Thing As a Stupid Question Never Looked Carefully at a Standardized Test

It can’t be repeated often enough: Standardized tests are very poor measures of the intellectual capabilities that matter most, and that’s true because of how they’re designed, not just because of how they’re used. Like other writers, I’ve relied on arguments and research to make this point. But sometimes a telling example can be more effective. So here’s an item that appeared on the state high school math exam in Massachusetts:

n 1 2 3 4 5 6

tn 3 5 __ __ __ __

The first two terms of a sequence, t1 and t2, are shown above as 3 and 5. Using the rule: tn = (tn-1) plus (tn-2), where n is greater than or equal to 3, complete the table.

If (a) your reaction to this question was “Huh??” (or “Uh-oh. What’s with the teeny little n’s?”) and (b) you lead a reasonably successful and satisfying life, it may be worth pausing to ask why we deny diplomas to high school students just because they, too, struggle with such questions. Hence [Deborah] Meier’s Mandate: “No student should be expected to meet an academic requirement that a cross section of successful adults in the community cannot.”

But perhaps you figured out that the test designers are just asking you to add 3 and 5 to get 8, then add 5 and 8 to get 13, then add 8 to 13 to get 21, and so on. If so, congratulations. But what is the question really testing? A pair of math educators, Al Cuoco and Faye Ruopp, pointed out how much less is going on here than meets the eye:

The problem simply requires the ability to follow a rule; there is no mathematics in it at all. And many 10th-grade students will get it wrong, not because they lack the mathematical thinking necessary to fill in the table, but simply because they haven’t had experience with the notation. Next year, however, teachers will prep students on how to use formulas like tn = tn-1 + tn-2, more students will get it right, and state education officials will tell us that we are increasing mathematical literacy.[1]

In contrast to most criticisms of standardized testing, which look at tests in the aggregate and their effects on entire populations, this is a bottom-up critique. Its impact is to challenge not only the view that such tests provide “objective” data about learning but to jolt us into realizing that high scores are not necessarily good news and low scores are not necessarily bad news.

If the questions on a test measure little more than the ability to apply an algorithm mindlessly, then you can’t use the results of that test to make pronouncements about this kid’s (or this school’s, or this state’s, or this country’s) proficiency at mathematical thinking. Similarly, if the questions on a science or social studies test mostly gauge the number of dates or definitions that have been committed to memory — and, perhaps, a generic skill at taking tests — it would be foolish to draw conclusions about students’ understanding of those fields.

A parallel bottom-up critique emerges from interviewing children about why they picked the answers they did on multiple-choice exams — answers for which they received no credit — and discovering that some of their reasons are actually quite sophisticated, which of course one would never know just by counting the number of their “correct” answers.[2]

No newspaper, no politician, no parent or school administrator should ever assume that a test score is a valid and meaningful indicator without looking carefully at the questions on that test to ascertain that they’re designed to measure something of importance and do so effectively. Moreover, as Cuoco and Ruopp remind us, rising scores over time are often nothing to cheer about because the kind of instruction intended to prepare kids for the test — even when it does so successfully — may be instruction that’s not particularly valuable. Indeed, teaching designed to raise test scores typically reduces the time available for real learning. And it’s naïve to tell teachers they should “just teach well and let the tests take care of themselves.” Indeed, if the questions on the tests are sufficiently stupid, bad teaching may produce better scores than good teaching.

_____________________________________________

1. Cuoco and Ruopp, “Math Exam Rationale Doesn’t Add Up,” Boston Globe, May 24, 1998, p. D3.

2. For examples (and analysis) of this kind of discrepancy, see Banesh Hoffmann, The Tyranny of Testing (New York: Crowell-Collier, 1962); Deborah Meier, “Why Reading Tests Don’t Test Reading,”Dissent, Fall 1981: 457-66; Walt Haney and Laurie Scott, “Talking with Children About Tests: An Exploratory Study of Test Item Ambiguity,” in Roy O. Freedle and Richard P. Duran, eds., Cognitive and Linguistic Analyses of Test Performance (Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1987); and Clifford Hill and Eric Larsen,Children and Reading Tests (Stamford, CT: Ablex, 2000).

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -

Next Issue

Since the holiday period allows more time for deep professional reading, I hope to concoct a list of appropriate readings that you might enjoy. Aren’t we lucky these days to have so much available at our finger-tips [so to speak] that gives meaning and pride to the teaching-learning enterprise?

Don’t Forget

Can you send a question that Treehorn will put on his test for his adult ‘carers’?   AND  If you do know the address of a magnate or person who might sponsor research into aspects of NAPLAN mentioned above, you can send it to me, if you prefer. I shall send it on. It could help our kids and show them that we like them.

Phil Cullen

41 Cominan Avenue

Banora Point  2486

07 5524 6443

cphilcullen@bigond.com

http://primaryschooling.net