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

Cross Party Resistance to Charter Schools

Reposted from Save Our Schools NZ

Introduction.

Yesterday (May 14th) the New Zealand Parliament debated the Education Amendment Bill that will allow for the establishment of charter schools. In this post, Dianne Khan provides an excellent overview of the debate and includes video links of the key speeches from opposition members of Parliament.

———–

 

“Is this change good for education?”  

That’s the question Chris Hipkins tells us to ask ourselves of the proposed charter schools.  And after trawling through mountains of evidence over the past year, I have to say the answer is no.

Like Chris, I believe we should be focused on making sure every student in New Zealand can achieve their potential, in all schools.  We should be raising the bar, focusing on those not achieving their potential, and supporting all of our schools to innovate within and share good practice so that the whole system s brought up and improved further.

Charter schools are not the answer.  They are not about education.  They are not about improving our system.  They do not aim to make things better for all students – not even for all  Maori or Pasifika students.  They are not about collaboration and the sharing of best practice.

They are about privatising schools, pure and simple.

Chris points out that all evidence is clear that teacher quality is a huge factor in the success of a student, and yet this Bill lowers the bar rather than raising it.  Last year the government were saying all teachers needed a Masters Degree – now, apparently, a teacher can be anyone, with no training whatsoever.  Why the change?  It’s simple – the government will say anything to attack teachers, but suddenly change tack when it comes to “private, profit-making institutions”.

Chris’s speech in full is here and raises many issues with charter schools that people (including many teachers)  may not be aware of.  It’s really worth watching.

Catherine Delahunty put it bluntly but correctly, yesterday, when she said “this Bill is ridiculous and it is also quite sick”, going on to point out that it allows for children to be used in an experiment that evidence shows to work very poorly for minority groups.

Catherine pointed out the obvious that when parents in poor families are working very long hours to bring in a pitiful wage, there isn’t a whole lot of time left to help with a child’s education.  Little time to give a hand with homework.  Not much spare to buy computers so kids can work at home.  Nothing left for school donations.

Poverty is a key factor in poor education achievement, as recognised by the OECD, and yet nothing has been done to address that important issue.  While families are facing inequality on the level New Zealand sees, there will always be inequality in education, too.

Why does government not tackle poverty? … Maybe because it doesn’t make businesses any money?

What this Bill is really about is privatisation for the benefit of businesses and corporates, some of whom are not even Maori, Pasifika or Kiwi.  If it were about helping all kids succeed, then ALL schools would be given the same freedoms.

Metiria Turei challenged National and ACT politicians to send their children to a charter school.

They probably would, to be honest.  Not yet, but in the long run.  Because once the pretence of charters being for the poor kids, the brown kids, the lower achieving kids,  is over, the truth is we will see charters appearing for wealthy kids, essentially providing publicly-funded private schools with no accountability.

Be very clear: This is not about the ‘long tail of underachievement’- it is a sneaky and underhand way of bringing in private schools that public money pays for, and in the end those schools will be for wealthy kids.

Tracey Martin gave an outstanding speech, too, outlining why this Bill makes a mockery of the submissions process and democracy  Many on the panel choose to ignore expert and popular opinion, instead listening with deaf ears and closed minds, following an ideology that they were predetermined to accept no matter what.

This is New Zealand under this government – they forge ahead in favour of only themselves and businesses.

Tracey pointed out that Maoridom is not in favour of charter schools.  Submissions from Maori were overwhelmingly against.

She pleads and I plead with Maori and Pasifika people to contact their MPs and tell them how you feel.

Even if you do want charters, make sure you tell them what boundaries you expect, what support, what oversight.

If you do not want them, speak up now, because time is running out, and the Maori Party is about to sell you down the river.

Sue Moroney hit the nail on the head when she said “Our kids are being used as guinea pigs,” saying that it wouldn’t be so bad if we didn’t already know from the evidence that charter schools do not work.  She asked why the select committee ignored the concerns of Nga Tahu, who do not want charter schools.  She asked why the children of Christchurch are being used in this experiment when they are already in the middle of upheaval and stress.

Why indeed.

Nanaia Mahuta acknowledged the thousands of parents, teachers and others who took the time to make submissions to the select committee.

With over 2000 submissions, just over 70 were for charters, about 30 had no opinion, and the rest were against.  Just read that again:  The Rest Were Against.  And those against came from all quarters, from professors and parents, from teachers and students, and from iwi.

Hone Harawira, Leader of MANA, said charters ”represent a direct attack on kura kaupapa Māori, and on public education generally,” pointing out that  ”successive governments have starved kura kaupapa of funding from the get-go, [yet] they remain one of the most successful educational initiatives for Maori by Māori, in the last 100 years.”   Like many observers, he is aghast at the Maori Party for supporting charter school proposals, saying “The Maori Party should be ashamed for turning their backs on everything that kura kaupapa Maori stands for.”  Source.

So let me close by asking you this.

Who does support charter schools?  And why?

Ask yourself that, and really think about it.  Not on political party lines, but as a Kiwi.

Ask yourself what the motivation for charter schools really is.

Ask “Is this change good for education?”  

~Dianne Khan

Share this:

NAPLAN, numeracy and nonsense

Source.

BURKARD POLSTER AND MARTY ROSS:

It’s time for a chat about NAPLAN. To which suggestion comes back the cry “Dear lord, please, let’s not!”

That’s us: that’s your Maths Masters crying out, desperately wishing to avoid this discussion. But it has to be had. This week a zillion Aussie schoolkids will sit down for theirNAPLAN testing and the question is why?

Yes, there has been no shortage of painful promotion. The Federal Minister for Early Childhood and Youth eagerly spruiks on NAPLAN’s behalf. ACARA, the government body responsible for preparing and analysing the NAPLAN tests, indicates two supposed benefits of the tests: first, as a guide for schools to make improvements; second, as a mechanism of public accountability.

We and others are not convinced. Ignoring the issue of the huge resources employed, the question of obtaining value for time and money, we believe that the accountability aspect of NAPLAN, the naming and effective shaming on the myschool website, is needless and nasty.

However, that is not the debate we wish to re-have. Even accepting as possible the purported applications, there are aspects to NAPLAN that appear to have received almost no proper public discussion: what exactly is being tested, who evaluates the tests and who evaluates the testers?

We last wrote on NAPLAN two years ago. Our central complaint was that the numeracy tests were just that: they were tests of numeracy, a poor and poorly defined substitute for mathematics. We wrote about some glaring gaps in what was tested, the overwhelming focus on (often contrived) applications, the unbelievable decision to permit calculators in the years 7 and 9 tests, and we poked fun at some specific, silly questions.

At the time we thought we’d said enough, that that column would be our last word on NAPLAN. Then, foolishly, we decided to take a peek at the 2012 numeracy tests. We were astonished to discover how difficult it was to take that peek.

ACARA has made it extraordinarily difficult to obtain past NAPLAN tests or any helpful analysis of the tests. Yes, there are “practice tests” and yes, each year ACARA publishes avoluminous report on the outcomes of the tests. But not the tests themselves, nor how students on average performed on specific questions from those tests.

Teachers, if they try hard enough, can usually obtain this information. However, little Johnny Public and his mother have effectively no hope. ACARA has an application process but the process and the assistance offered appear to have been modeled on the Yes Minister Manual for Public Service. (We have applied for some data and at some point, when it’s done, we hope to write about the fun of it all.)

The message, intended or otherwise (and we doubt the “otherwise”), is that the tests should be accepted as a gift from the gods. Unfortunately, at times the gods appear to be crazy.

Consider the following question, which appeared on the year 7 and year 9 numeracy tests in 2012:

The question asked was which of the four figures above “looks identical” after a quarter turn? The grumpy and reasonable answer from one of our colleagues was “all of them”. Still, though the wording is clumsily vague, it’s pretty clear what the question is asking, and about 70 per cent of students nationwide correctly chose the first figure.

However, consider the following question, which appeared on the year 3 and year 5 numeracy tests in 2012:

The students were presented an arrow-shaped “tag”, and the problem was to determine how many tags that “look like this” could be cut out from the pictured sheet of cardboard?

About 20 per cent of year 3 students and 40 per cent of year 5 students gave the intended answer of 10 tags, presumably arranging the tags similar to the picture on the left below.

Unfortunately the tag question is ambiguous. If “look like this” has the same meaning as “looks identical” then the tags would presumably have to be oriented the same as the sample tag, and then a maximum of eight tags could be cut from the cardboard (above, right). Indeed, a significant percentage of students gave eight as their answer.

There’s another, larger issue with the tag question. We assume that the intended approach is to enlarge each tag to a 2 x 4 rectangle and then see how many of those rectangles can be cut out of the cardboard. However, that approach can lead to an incorrect answer.

Imagine the dimensions of the cardboard are 8 x 11, rather than 8 x 10 as given in the question. With the approach described the extra column is of no help, and we can still only fit in 10 tags. However, if we interlace the tags as pictured below then 11 tags will fit.

Now, interlacing does not actually improve the answer for the 8 x 10 grid given in the test question, but of course we don’t know that until we try it. Interlacing is an approach that mustbe considered for a thorough treatment of the question.

The tag question is archetypally bad. The more you understand the intrinsic difficulty of the question the less likely you are to arrive at the correct answer.

It is not our intention to nitpick and we don’t want to make too much out of the above questions. We know how difficult it is to write clear and unambiguous questions, and many of the questions on the 2012 tests are well written and the students’ results are genuinely, depressingly, informative. We are also aware that ACARA has its own evaluation procedures and that each year they attempt to improve on the last.

Nonetheless, there is a genuine and general issue. The above questions may be more clearly problematic but they are by no means uniquely so. There are many questions on the 2012 numeracy tests on which the students performed poorly, and it is often difficult to be sure why. It may be that the students have struggled with basic arithmetic, or it may be that their general reading comprehension is poor.

However, for at least some of the questions, we suspect the major problem is simply the students’ failure to cope with the contrived context and contrived wording of the question. And it must be noted: if the NAPLAN tests consisted of fewer context-based questions and included more straight tests of arithmetic skills, the problem of poorly worded questions would be much less of an issue.

That brings us to the overarching issue: accountability. Not that we expect ACARA, or anyone, to accept us as judges of the NAPLAN tests, and indeed your maths masters don’t even agree: one of us considers the NAPLAN tests to be flawed but to serve a genuine function; the other believes that the tests are so bad that they’re hilarious.

But ACARA is, or at least should be, accountable to the public. When less than 5 per cent of students nationally get a test question correct, the public has a right to know that. They have a right to know the question and they have a right to know how the results from that question are being interpreted. They have a right to question whether the results are a reasonable outcome of subtle test design, an indication of some systemic issue with students’ mathematical skills or knowledge, or simply an example of a poorly written question. Currently, ACARA doesn’t lift a finger to enable any of this to occur.

ACARA is proud to promote the value of accountability when it is teachers and schools that bear the burden and the scrutiny. Whether or not that is appropriate sauce for the goose, it is long past time there was arranged some similar sauce for the gander.

 

Burkard Polster teaches mathematics at Monash and is the university’s resident mathemagician, mathematical juggler, origami expert, bubble-master, shoelace charmer, and Count von Count impersonator.

Marty Ross is a mathematical nomad. His hobby is smashing calculators with a hammer.

Can poor children learn?

by Tim Slekar

Reposted from At The Chalkface.

By now the poverty does or doesn’t matter dichotomy is really starting to get old.  Anyone that truly cares about helping children from low socio-economic environments succeed in school knows that all children(even poor ones) can learn.  It’s absolutely ridiculous when education reformers insist that those of us “resisting” are claiming that “poor kids can’t learn.”

In fact, do a GOOGLE search.  Type in “poor kids can’t learn.”  Amazing what the results show isn’t it?

http://eagnews.org/ctus-lewis-increased-accountability-unfair-because-poor-kids-cant-learn/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/natalie-ravitz/lets-stop-pretending-poor_b_774397.html

http://www.alaskapolicyforum.org/2012/05/nea-poor-kids-cant-learn/

Along with the three posts above, it is almost impossible to find anyone “resisting” education reform having said those words.  In fact the “poor kids can’t learn” bullsh!t is typically spread by faith-based reformers while decontextualizing a comment such as, “students that live in poverty come to school with challenges to learning in traditional academic settings.”

In fact, if you read all three of the above posts it is the reformer(s) that declare  ”you just said poor kids can’t learn.”  No!  That’s not what was said.  What was said was that poverty matters.  That’s it.  Not a single claim of a lack of intelligence on the part of children living in poverty.

So why bring this up now?  I mean those of us resisting education reform already are quite aware of how poverty “influences” the learning situations of children.  None of us said, “poor kids can’t learn.”  So can’t we move on? Maybe. Maybe not.

Just last week Mr. Common Core himself (David Coleman)said,

“We have to get serious with each other. It is not okay to say that since poverty matters so much we should use that as a reason to evade reform. It’s not responsible,” Coleman said.

This utterance perplexes me.  It seems as if even Mr. Coleman understands that “poverty matters.”  But what the hell does it mean to recognize that and then demand more “reform?”  Is he saying, “Look, I get it. Poverty sucks.  But we (reformers) have to keep up the pressure. We just can’t let them win! That would not be “responsible.” ?

Huh? If “poverty matters” and the current reforms aren’t working, why would we continue to bash poor kids over the heads with education reforms?  In fact isn’t that IRRESPONSIBLE?

This entire poverty vs reform discussion needs to end and I am going to try to do it now.

In June of 2011 and June of 2012, I along with students and colleagues traveled to Rwanda to work with orphan children.  We had a pretty simple job.  Use grant money to get as many orphans through a health clinic as possible and then find schools that were willing to educate the orphans.  In 2011 we were only successful at getting 200 orphans through a health clinic.  92% of the orphans tested positive for parasites and other infectious diseases.  All were treated with the proper medial attention and given medication.  However, we just didn’t have enough time to find school placements for any of the orphans.

In 2012 I went back to Rwanda.  This time we would work exclusively with a school and try to secure school placements for some of the orphan children.  While meeting with the administration of the Rwandan school we were shocked to find out that the school would not take any of the orphan children.  Admission to the school required  a guarantee that each child had a sponsor willing to pay $14 dollars a month.

Huh? But why?  Don’t you want to help these children?  Look we put them through a health clinic last year and that was the extent of our grant money.  We don’t have $14 a month for each child.  Can’t you just take them?  Don’t these orphan children deserve a chance to go to school?

That was the dialogue in my head and out loud.  The school administrators looked at us with a slightly confused look on their faces.  Again we asked why can’t you take these orphan children?  The answer, very bluntly was “sick and hungry children can’t learn.”

My colleagues and I stood speechless for moment.  At some point one of us managed to ask, “what?” as if we didn’t hear the answer the first time.  Again one of the administrators reminded us that “sick and hungry children can’t learn.”  He then went on to explain that since June of 2011 all of the children that went through the health clinic were probably “sick” again since there was no continued care.  He explained that $14 dollars a month would be used to pay for year round health care, proper nutrition, and adequate clothing.  These three things were “essentials” if children were to have a chance to succeed in school.

After the shock and more time discussing the issue, we came to understand what the Rwandan administrators were saying.  It was still hard to accept but it was hard to argue.  The Rwandan school only had limited resources.  The Rwandan administrators were only willing to use those resources with children that were properly fed, free from parasites and infectious diseases, and properly clothed.

Maybe “sick and hungry kids can’t learn” was a bit harsh.  But were they wrong?

How is it possible for a developing third world country to understand that “poverty matters?”

Someone has to say it!

Poor kids can learn! When they’re not hungry!

Poor kids can learn! When they’re not sick!

Poor kids can learn! When they’re properly clothed.

When education reform means that we are willing to address these three facts then sign me up.  Until then…?

Negative Chit Chat

by Phil Cullen

IT’S NAPLAN WEEK. SORRY KIDS.

We adults will ignore you.

“NEGATIVE CHIT CHAT”

Her I-ness, Honourable Member of The Order of the First-person, Singular-number is determined to ignore the criticism of her pet dragon – zombic NAPLANism – by the thousands and thousands of Australian teachers, parents and pupils who hate it. They’re easy meat for her. Using myths, fears and lies, she set up this NY fear-based Draconian system in 2008, assisted by sciolist measurers and, as she said then: “I will have my way.” She did. Now, she says, “I usually prevail.” [Q&A. 06-05-13]. She is.

Quite true, Your Immenseness. You do ‘arrange’ political control very well. [You do test democratic principles.] Joel Klein, your NY idol is on record as saying that he told you not to take any notice of educators and academics. So…. you padlocked the most important groups first. Good move. Turned them into measurement-mad testucators. If these groups had stuck to normal ethical principles and practices when you told them what you were doing, NAPLAN would never have got off the ground. Their support for a fear-based system of schooling that encourages a diluted curriculum and restrictive teaching styles is an Australian First. http://primaryschooling.net/?page_id=1896

Never before had such large groups knowingly suspended their ethics. Classrooms teachers, then, just had to do as they were told, and suspend theirs; and you deceived all Australian parents by not telling them that they can say NO. Dirty trick. You even have some reputable commentators, albeit sciolists, saying that NAPLAN is a useful assessment tool, but they don’t know dare to explain standardised testing’s relevance to classroom evaluation and its homogenising effect on learning. They seem to like to use scores only to judge the achievements of people, classes, schools, states, countries…..and speak using numbers jargon of measurers to make judgements : Worse. Better. Ahead. Behind.

Your effective control of pedagogic content has now forced every Australian child in every school to try to master the same level of content at the same mediocre level at the same time and, by doing this, create an educational dystopia that believes that entry to toffee-nosed schools, universities and chosen careers will be enhanced by their score on NAPLAN tests.

You are a menace to children’s progress. You sure know how to kill curiosity and individuality. NAPLAN will exit in time, in the way that all learning inhibitors do. With luck, the the next generation of school children will be the first real learners since the 1980s.

Will you or any of your measure-mad testucators please explain the differences and the relationship of testing, scoring, assessment and evaluation as applied to classroom practices?

Your Orwellian hectoring certainly has NAPLAN-centric Christopher Pyne, Peter Gillard’s replacement, on your side. He likes the use of fear and rigour as much as you do. He uses numbers-speak devoid of learning terms. Will he be interested in ‘love for all kids’ and serious, but happy learning? Indeed, your treatment of kids as disposable items seems to have wide-scale political support. NAPLAN doesn’t get a mention in any policy statements of any party. Can we presume, therefore, that Australian politicians of all parties hate all kids except their own? Their support for the junk-science of external measurement, for compliance instead of curiosity, for children having to undergo debilitating stress during the lengthy NAPLAN period, for keeping the truth from parents is shameful.

Pollies! It’s been five years since this sequacious kleinism has suspended the intellectual development of our children. Haven’t you noticed what has happened? No change in scores. Sickness. Distress,

Dilution of health, creativity and other developmental curriculum learnings. You dare to take the high moral ground on other less important national issues and ignore the damage to our children ….to their future? You whimps. Sort out your values, PLEASE.

Is there a Social Justice Party in Australia that I can vote for?

The money-making vested interests are certainly moving in. Big time. Joel Klein and his employer, Rupert Murdoch, and other money makers will be real proud of you, Julia. The test-publishers, the practice-test-publishers, the back-yard test-tutors and test-preparation consultancy firms, the pharmaceutical industry’s pacifiers and stimulants, the toy-makers just love NAPLAN. They all love you.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/brands-cash-in-on-naplan-test-fear-20130510-2jdma.html

Serious class-room supportive educators have been critical of the destructiveness of NAPLAN. You call it ‘negative chit-chat’.

The ‘anti-NAPLAN chit-chat’ is certainly on the move.

More and more people are withdrawing their children from the testing program.

More and more child-centred principals are calling on parents to consider withdrawal.

God bless them.

http://www.saveourschools.com.au/league-tables/canberra-private-school-sets-a-great-example-on-naplan

‘NEGATIVE CHIT CHAT’ – A CHALLENGE

NAPLAN WEEK is a good week to issue a challenge….

 TO: Julia, Christopher, any of the 20+ politicians who receive Treehorn, any NAPLAN glauleiters, any members of various so-called ‘professional’ organisations, any principals, any NAPLAN-centric person.

 DO : Read these two descriptions and challenge any aspect of their statements that you chose to challenge. Any. Send your challenge to Treehorn

Sir Ken Robinson gives reasons for transforming education.

Chris Tienkien describes Standardised Blanket Testing.

If you have read either before, you’ll be challenged again. They are super-special clips.

boycottnaplanoboycottnaplannowboycottnplannowboycottnaplannowboycottnpannow boycottnaplannow

P.S Sir Ken has more to say about systems heading down the road to ?????. Takes 19 minutes.

YOU MUST WATCH THIS

NAPLAN IS FALSE SCHOOLING NAPLAN IS FALSE SCHOOLING NAPLAN IS FALSE SCHOOLING

PRAY FOR YEARS 3, 5, 7, 9 PUPILS PRAY FOR YEARS 3,5,7,9 PUPILS PRAY FOR YEARS 3,5,7,9 PUPILS

_____________________________________________________________________CRUNCH TIME___________________________________________________________________________-

Are you excited by what will happen tomorrow [14 May]? Shhhh. THE PRESS might take notice. Do you think this report will be mentioned?

‘Care for Kids’

Phil Cullen

41 Cominan Avenue

Banora Point 2486

cphilcullen@bigpond.com

07 5524 6443

The Greatest Fight of Our Lives

by Peggy Robertson

Reposted from Peg with Pen

Read about the struggle against GERM in the USA. Their battle is very intense and very important to Australia and New Zealand. What happens in USA finds its way down under. International collegiality in the anti-GERM campaign is vital.

“Be wide awake. And be prepared for the greatest fight of our lives.”

Allan

——-

The Greatest Fight of Our Lives

The admissions of error, the requests for moratoriums, the recognition that perhaps testing has gone too far, are running like wildfire in the last few weeks.

 We have Randi calling for a moratorium.

Bill Gates admitting that maybe testing tied to teacher evaluation is out of control.

Arne wants us to recognize testing mistakes as learning opportunities. 

And they attempt to appease the public by finding testing companies who can do it better.

They continue to push messages that keep the public from remembering that teachers know how to assess – teachers assessing is NOT an option in this brave new world.  Our knowledge must become obsolete in order to profit off of public education. Our knowledge of teaching and learning – our knowledge of how to support learners in becoming more than a test score – must be erased – they do not want students who are more than a test score – this defeats their goal in the global economy where we will serve them.

We need to be clear that any concessions, any admissions of error, any offer to give us time away from those horrid high stakes tests at this moment are simply a ploy to encourage us to sleep away the next few months while they prepare to launch the PARCC and SBAC for our children and anchor the common core into the heart of public education, there by destroying it, along with our teaching profession, our children’s privacy and our democracy. Be very awake.

It is May 2013. PARCC and SBAC testing will be rolled out in the upcoming school year, 2013-2014. Our window of opportunity to stop this train from starting is short and must be aggressive and fearless.

The goal right now is to appease us so that we believe we are making headway and believe that they hear our voices and care.  They do not care.

What is most frightening at this very critical time is the mass of educators who have been swayed to believe they do care. They have been swayed to believe that the intentions with common core are well meaning. I believe we have made some headway in educating the public about the harms of high stakes testing, but we have not made it clear that the common corestandards, curriculum and assessments that come with them will destroy our public school system, our profession, our children’s future and our democracy.

Those of us who work in public schools today find ourselves in  a dark cave – NCLB has stripped away all windows, all light, all sparks that ignite the fire in a child’s soul.  RTTT has come forward to take what is left – the shell of learning and teaching – and recreate it into a form or being that I do not recognize as human or alive – it is death. What we have been left with in the public schools has no heart beat, no warmth, no breath of life.

Those of us who are in the public schools and know what they are trying to force upon us are desperately blowing on the spark, rubbing together the sticks, and attempting to keep learning alive. Because there are many of us in our schools doing this, we are momentarily able to survive and protect the children as best we can under these harsh conditions.

But not for long.

The PARCC and SBAC come next fall. I am frightened for the children – the onslaught of common core lock step scripted curriculum will step forward to embrace the PARCC and SBAC; the slow death of public education will speed forward quickly. The attempt to silence teachers next year will be greater, more intimidating and more punishing than we have ever seen.

The attempt to force us to accept our fate under the guidance of the common core, the mission of the World Bank, the billionaire boys’ club, and RTTT policies will be rolled out in various ways.  They will stifle us with mandates, but then will allow us up for air as they admit mistakes on this exciting journey of learning where we find our way – together. They will send us babbling into arguments about the pros and cons of poorly written test questions, better tests, refined tests, creative online tests, better common core curriculum created by teachers and better technology for testing. They will engage us in discussions as they admit their “bumps” along the way on our new found path; they will try to take our hand and walk with us ascollaborators. They will grant us the grace and time to become more as we embrace the common core standards – during which, we will be contending with teacher evaluation, new legislation and new tasks surrounding creation of common core curriculum in our individual districts. They will keep all of us very busy putting out fires.

There will be more petitions, moratoriums, proclamations, opportunities to offer feedback – and it will all be pointless. Do not engage in this. We must each look at our individual source of energy and use it wisely and in a manner that creates action to dismantle their system.

While all of this is going on, our children will be sitting in classrooms unaware that they are being treated as lab rats. They will look at their teachers with trust in their eyes. The teachers who understand what is happening – who know common core has not been field tested, is developmentally inappropriate and is the cash cow to seal the deal on the privatization of public schools and destruction of the teaching profession –  will do all that they can to treat their students in this experiment with compassion and kindness, attempting to keep them from harm; however, it will not be enough. The teachers who know not what they do, will subject children to great harm, as is already occurring.

The time is now to prepare. As those of us teaching finish up the year, please know that this summer requires serious planning. Parents please know that educating our communities must be the absolute focus of our work this summer. We must launch the 2013-2014 school year with plans to educate, act, and halt the harm done to our children – and we must focus our work with intent – do not be swayed by any form of action that does not end in concrete results that you can see – these results must disrupt or halt their work. They will attempt to exhaust us by creating false opportunities to act – do not engage in any of these – I cannot stress this enough – we have already wasted precious time doing this.

United Opt Out National is in the process of creating an opt out guide tailored to the specific needs of each state, as well as a guide for early childhood education, and special/exceptional education. However, a guide is worthless unless it is acted upon – we must act. Refusing what they offer us is the quickest way to halt their progress.  

We must refuse the assessments and the common core in all shapes and forms.

Parents – you are essential in this fight. Teachers will refuse as best they can, but the parents can lead the way.

They know we are making progress and they are planning strategies to halt our progress now. They will cash in on public education at all costs –  including our children – they do not care about our children. Their children are fine, and they (corp.ed.reformers) have no ability to see, hear or feel what we know – they are not in our schools, and quite honestly, if they do come to our schools, they will not be able to see what we see – they view the world using a business model.  Our work as educators involves heart. It involves soul. We help shape the lives of children, today and tomorrow. It is messy, it is unpredictable and it is impossible to place in a standardized box.

They protect each other and their world. Their heart is simply incapable of understanding our heart. Call it evil. Call it fact. Call it ignorance. Make sense of it however you must, but know that attempting to get those who profit off this madness to understand is futile during these urgent times. Do not waste your time. Look to those who do understand and act. There is very little time left. There is no time to hope for a change of heart.

Their goal is to educate our children so that they are ready for their low level entry jobs – they will save the higher positions for their children. They plan to privatize public education so that what is left is the basics (simply read, write, regurgitate their information), with public tax dollars funneled to profit them while making the public believe that “innovation” is occurring via online learning and assessments that claim to assess higher level thinking.

Those of us who know what is going on will find more constraints placed on us wherever we turn. They will attempt to accuse us of wrong-doings (specifically teachers involved in activism), humiliate us and force us into submission. They will try to make us go away. Be prepared to discover that there are some whom you may have trusted, who will begin to walk a careful line between their world and our world, or simply turn their backs on us.

Be wide awake. And be prepared for the greatest fight of our lives.

How to escape education’s death valley

Sir Ken Robinson outlines 3 principles crucial for the human mind to flourish — and how current education culture works against them. In a funny, stirring talk he tells us how to get out of the educational “death valley” we now face, and how to nurture our youngest generations with a climate of possibility.

Creativity expert Sir Ken Robinson challenges the way we’re educating our children. He champions a radical rethink of our school systems, to cultivate creativity and acknowledge multiple types of intelligence.

 

Does high Stakes Testing (MySchool website) improve education?

Distinguished Guest Writer

 Stephen Breen is the President of the Western Australian Primary Principals’ Association and is also Treasurer of the Australian Primary Principals’ Association.

Stephen has been in primary education for over 35 years graduating from Edith Cowan University and holds post graduate qualifications in computer education and professional accounting

In his career he has taught in a number of city and regional schools and has held the position of teacher, deputy principal and principal of District High schools and primary schools. He has also worked in private industry in a seconded position with the ANZ bank.

Stephen has held the position of President of WAPPA since December 2007 and has been on the Board of Management for over 8 years.

In 2005 he held the position of General Manager of the Western Australian Government Schools Leadership Centre. Stephen also sits on the Boards of the non-profit organisation ‘Millennium Kids’ a self-help youth group who fund and organise projects both within Western Australia and internationally and Nature Play WA a community group setup to get children more involved in outdoor activities.

Phil Cullen

Does high Stakes Testing (MySchool website) improve education?

Stephen Breen

We all know that the existing education bureaucracy and our politicians look upon the MySchool website as their vehicle to develop education as a priority within the Australian culture. The website has been developed by politicians to give the general public a simple and easily understood mechanism to understand if Australian kids were improving in their basic skills.

“Among schools with similar students, those achieving higher student performances can stimulate others to lift expectations of what they and their students can achieve. The schools with higher performing students can be a source of information for others on the policies and practices that produce those higher performances.” (Barry McGaw, Chair ACARA)

The proponents of the MySchool website argue on a choice and transparency platform and the one that I particular like is that ‘the government has to be sure they are getting value for money’.

Other ‘educational experts’ use the left and right political rhetoric slant, “As popular as the league tables were with parents, they also enraged teachers unions and the public school lobby which saw them as the education equivalent to opening the gates of hell.”(Nine Network Investigations Editor Kelvin Bissett)

These reasons for the initial popularity of the MySchool website were easy to understand however they dismiss what is actually happening in schools and what has occurred throughout the world with the introduction of high stakes tests.

High stakes testing in Australia is developing a culture of compliance that is clearly, counter-productive to what the average parents wants for their child. Parents of primary students that I have spoken to clearly want their child to be given an all round education that includes the basic literacy and numeracy skills coupled with social and physical development and most importantly a sense of the world and the ability to get on with their peers.

Unfortunately due to this top down push a greater number of schools are narrowing the curriculum, teaching to the test and developing assessment strategies that use NAPLAN as the sole assessment strategy.

We also have educational authorities (sadly to say nearly all in the government sector) who use the NAPLAN results as the sole gauge of a schools performance while there is little reference to evidence of attainments levels based on socio economic issues. If you have a red mark then you will receive the ‘inspector’ but if your squares are green you will be left to get on with the job. Our leaders are at pains to say that they do not want the NAPLAN results to be such a big issue however when they put such huge accountability on one test no wonder schools have reacted.

The basic fact is that authorities have taken their eye of the ball and now look to NAPLAN as the gauge of school success. After a period where the skills and knowledge of Teaching and Learning where the most important priorities of the profession we now have a compliance culture based on a one off test.

Before I move on it must be said that Principals from around Australia acknowledge that the NAPLAN evaluation process is an excellent analytical tool however due to the development of the MySchool website and its ‘inspectorial’ accountability regime the testing has in many schools negatively affected the average parents’ aspirations and for the school it has become anti-education.

Are we alone in this view, certainly not!

In trawling the internet you can find arguments for and against high stakes testing with the ‘for’ argument highlighting the practicality and ease of the testing, objectiveness and preparation for entry to higher education while the ‘against’ argument centres on equity, stress on students and impediments to improving a holistic education environment and the detrimental development of educationally based assessments

The political ‘experiment’ of high stakes testing has been going on in America for many years with spectacular failures.

“We have had a full decade of No Child Left Behind, and we now know that the law has been a disaster. True, it has documented the shocking gaps in passing rates between different groups of children, but it has done nothing to change the conditions that cause those gaps.” [Diane Ravitch, formally Assistant Secretary of Education and Counselor to Secretary of Education Lamar Alexander in the administration of President George H.W. Bush]

An interesting article can be read at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/education/new-york-city-student-testing-over-the-past-decade.html?_r=1 that chronicle a decade of test scores in New York.

This failure is also evident in England

“Many of the fears in Australia about the dysfunctional effects of national testing, an excessive focus on and unrealistic expectations for standards, the narrowing of curriculum, and high levels of stress for students and teachers have been borne out in experience in England.” The impact of high stakes tests driven accountability”, Brian J. Caldwell

If you believe the argument ‘against’ the highlighting of high stakes testing in Australia and most educators would, we need to ask ourselves what is to be done by the teaching profession if we are to stop the problems escalating within our schools.

The idea of not participating in the tests in many ways is self defeating since we all agree the tests themselves give good information to schools. Our concern, as the association has always articulated, is not the tests themselves but the effects of the high stakes testing on the educational environment within schools and community understanding of schooling.

The answer I believe is a ‘Ghandi like’ approach, proactive non-participation! In that I mean schools should approach the NAPLAN as one of the ‘tools of the trade’ and get on with the work of educating the students but distance themselves from the MySchool website and the whole of system accountability measures.

It would be suggested that schools should not participate in any areas that highlight or assist the high stakes testing of students:

Look very carefully on any program (Department or commercial) that plans a run-up to the ‘big week’ by taking away valuable instruction time in all the learning areas.

Resist scheduling a program of special run throughs of previous NAPLAN questions. This is not to say schools should not educate their students on the interpretation of questioning for tests but it should be completed within a year program and not leading up to the ‘test’.

Do not highlight the NAPLAN score in any article to parents. You could inform the parents the week of the test but keep it very low key.

Try not to publicise any changes in NAPLAN scores from year to year other than in annual reports. Publicity of the MySchool website will simply breed interest.

Debate with line managers and ERG personnel the educational merit of interpreting test scores based on small cohorts, transiency of students, and evidence of research quoting change management takes time, transient staffing issues.

Be openly sceptical with the community on the use and advantage of the MySchool website as a ‘yardstick’ of education improvement.

At every opportunity with both the public and the education community take a stand and point out that the negative aspects of an overemphasis of NAPLAN scores on schools students and resourcing of schools.

Start to use the slogan, “The MySchool website is anti-education”

Do not talk about the NAPLAN testing process with staff other than in the context of the whole school assessment process.

Downgrade the whole MySchool website hype with staff. Resist timetabling whole of staff meetings to discuss NAPLAN results but work proactively with individuals or with small groups to highlight areas of need from the analysis

Above all look to improving the practices of Teaching and Learning as the cornerstone of your educational improvement program, with better teaching comes better results!

The MySchool website is a political animal rather that one based on educational thought. In time it will be modified and hopefully abandoned however it is up to senior leaders in schools to lead the change.

Article and information you might like to use to push the cause:

http://www.myschool.edu.au/

http://fairtest.org/arn/caseagainst.html

https://www.msu.edu/~youngka7/cons.html

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/thestump/2010/02/01/the-misleading-averages-of-my-school/

Canberra Private School Sets a Great Example on NAPLAN

Reposted from Save Our Schools Canberra.

Saturday May 11, 2013

A Canberra private school has sent the following letter to parents about the NAPLAN tests. It sets a great example for other schools in dealing with NAPLAN and informing parents that they can withdraw their child from the tests.

As partners with you in the education of your children, we want to keep you aware of current relevant educational thinking and research.

This year’s NAPLAN testing for students in Years 3, 5, 7 & 9 occurs next week. You need to know that, unlike many schools, we do not spend time preparing students to do this test. Instead, Emmaus Christian School invests time in teaching them to read, write and achieve in Mathematics and every other subject. There is a difference.

I have several issues with the NAPLAN testing regime. One of them is that the results take so long to get back to us (approx 6 months), so long that they do not benefit the teachers or the students. If you would like to see why many other qualified people have issues with NAPLAN, you may like to read about about them at [Literacy Educators Coalition.]

The decision to allow your child/ren to sit the NAPLAN tests rests with you. We will administer the test as required by legislation. However, if you want to withdraw your child, you need to advise me in writing before next Tuesday. As it says on the official website (http://www.nap.edu.au/naplan/school-support/student-participation.html ): …students may be withdrawn from the testing program by their parent/carer if there are religious beliefs or philosophical objections to testing. This is a matter for consideration by individual parents/carers in consultation with their child’s school. A formal application in the manner specified by the relevant Test Administration Authority (TAA) must be received by the principal prior to testing.

Lastly, please don’t hype up the NAPLAN test for your child – this can produce unnecessary stress. It is only 40 questions, not a complete diagnosis of your child. And a child can have a bad day – they are tired, they had an argument with their sibling/parent/friend before school, they are hungry etc etc. If you REALLY want to know how your child is going, ask their teacher!

Yours in education

Name withheld

The Current School Reform Landscape: Christopher H. Tienken

This video is about the USA educational scene, however it is very relevant, in most part, to New Zealand and Australia. A great watch.

‘Is it necessary to have every child master the same exact material at the same level of difficulty?

About Christopher Tienken, from his website:

Christopher Tienken, Ed.D. is an assistant professor of Education Administration at Seton Hall University in the College of Education and Human Services, Department of Education Management, Policy, and Leadership. He has public school administration experience as a PK-12 assistant superintendent, middle school principal, director of curriculum and instruction, and elementary school assistant principal. He began his career in education as an elementary school teacher. Tienken is currently the editor of the American Association of School Administrators Journal of Scholarship and Practice and the Kappa Delta Pi Record.

Tienken’s research interests include school reform issues such as the influence of curriculum quality on student outcomes and the construct validity of high-stakes standardized tests as decision-making tools to determine school effectiveness. The Institute of Education Sciences recognized his research about the effects of professional development on student achievement and the National Staff Development Council awarded him the Best Research Award in 2008.

Tienken has authored over 80 publications including book chapters and articles. His new book, with co-author Don Orlich is titled, The School Reform Landscape : Fraud, Myth, and Lies. He presents papers regularly at state, national, international, and private venues. Tienken has ongoing research collaborations with colleagues at the Universita` degli Studi Roma Tre, Rome, Italy, the University of Catania, Sicily, and he was named as a visiting scholar at both universities.