etp401sg-blog

[etp401sg-blog]

External Standardised Testing

Comparison

These two high stakes tests have many differences and both come with their share of positive and negative aspects. Nationally NAPLAN affects ‘3.5 million school students and their families, as well as more than 350,000 school staff and many other stakeholders in education’ (Lingard, 2015, p.1). Due to this there is much controversy on the impact this standardized test is having on these stakeholders. With NAPLAN results published on the MySchool website, ‘parents are encouraged to exercise choice in relation to their child’s school enrolment based on the data,’ which can increase pressure on schools to improve its results (Lingard, 2015, p.5). This then can have a flow on negative impact on staff resulting in ‘narrowing of the curriculum’ and ‘more teacher-centred instructional approaches in an effort to transmit the content required by the tests’ (Rice & Dulfer, 2013, p.644). However, Rice and Dulfer state that NAPLAN does have its ‘usefulness as a diagnostic tool’ (2013). I agree with this statement as it is crucial to know where students are struggling in order to make adjustments to the curriculum or pedagogy. Another positive is that the Federal Government also supports schools who are found to be ‘underperforming’ and are ‘offered support and financial assistance’ (Rice & Dulfer, 2013, p. 641).

Conversely, some students feel that they are receiving pressure to perform and often have ‘anger or anxiety relating to not having enough time to finish, not being able to figure out the answers, and not passing the test’ (Mayes & Howell, 2018, p. 1110). In looking at the PISA test there is much less pressure on individual schools and students to perform as results are only counted towards the countries mean not given individually. (How does PISA work? 2016). This then aids schools around the world to look at the high performing countries and allows them to ‘pay more attention to how they develop and retain the best teachers’ to then improve their own school systems (Singhal 2017).  Despite this, the media still manages to point blame at schools and teachers for average results with headlines like ‘Australia’s tolerance of failure behind PISA results’ (Singhal 2017).

However, I do agree that high stakes test have their place similarly to Mayes and Howell who state that high stake tests ‘can be used to enhance students’ thinking skills and confidence’ (2018, p.1112). Especially with PISA, the test aims to get students to apply what they have learnt in schools to real life situations to ‘prepare them for lifelong learning’ (ACER 2019).  However, standardised testing needs to come with more support for important stakeholders so the focus is on how to improve student learning rather than just the results.

References: Australian Council for Educational Research, 2019, PISA, Australian Council for Educational Research, retrieved 25 March 2019, < https://www.acer.org/au/ozpisa>

How does PISA work? 2016, YouTube, OECD, 27 October, retrieved 25 March, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4RGqzaNEtg>

Lingard, B, Sellar, S & Thompson, G 2016, National testing in schools : an Australian assessment, Local/Global Issues in Education, Routledge, viewed 31 March 2019, EBSCOhost.

Mayes, E & Howell, A 2018, The (hidden) injuries of NAPLAN: two standardised test events and the making of ‘at risk’ student subjects, Taylor & Francis, viewed 23 March 2019, EBSCOhost.

Polesel, J, Rice, S & Dulfer, N 2013, ‘The impact of high-stakes testing on curriculum and pedagogy: a teacher perspective from Australia’, Journal of Education Policy vol. 29, no. 5, retrieved 23 March 2019, EBSCOhost.

Singhal, P 2017, ‘Australia’s ‘tolerance of failure’ behind declining PISA results, says test coordinator’, The Sydney Morning Herald,  28 September, p.1, retrieved 25 March 2019, < https://www.smh.com.au/education/australias-tolerance-of-failure-behind-declining-pisa-results-says-test-coordinator-20170928-gyqlh2.html>

[etp401sg-blog]

Assessment Policy: Education Systems

Venn diagram of similarities and differences between the Victorian Education System and Montessori Education System:

In comparing both of these education systems it is clear to see many differences arise. Especially in terms of assessment the Montessori Education system focuses more on formative assessment, and incorporates this into part of their daily routine monitoring ‘each student’s interests and progress’ and recording this (North American Montessori Education, 2019). As a result of this, the teacher is able to know ‘when to present new material and when to modify previously presented material for additional understanding (North American Montessori Education, 2019)’. Though similarly, the Victorian Education System still focuses on ‘ongoing assessment for learning’, it also focuses equally as heavily on summative assessments (Victorian Department of Education, 2019). Assessment of learning is important in ‘student learning to make judgements on achievement against goals and standards’ according to the Victorian Department of Education (2019). The Montessori system rejects this rigorous testing however, its values focusing more on ‘looking at assessment as a means of enhancing student learning, instead of looking at it as the end-product of education or what students have learned’ (North American Montessori Education, 2019).  

Unlike the Victorian Education system, students take more ownership of their learning ‘through their daily work journal and weekly individual conferences with their teacher.’ These materials paired with ‘detailed daily observations of each child by the teacher, form the basis of reporting to parents’ (Montessori Australia, 2019). The reporting focuses on the individual’s strengths and areas of improvement however the ranking of ‘student’s achievement against the performance of other members of the class’ is not part of the Montessori philosophy (Montessori Australia, 2019). In comparison, in the Victorian Department of Education, ‘both achievement and progress against the achievement standards are required to be included in the student report’ (2019).

In looking at the two education systems assessment policies I do see positives and negatives about both of them. However, I do find it particularly interesting that students are not compared to curriculum standards at all in the Montessori system. I am not sure if I believe that simply through student’s recordings and teacher observations that there will be enough evidence to give a clear understanding of what a student has achieved and where they need to improve. On the other hand, I do believe that student reports should not focus heavily on comparing students to each other but more on the individual and their needs.

References:

Lillard, AS author. 2017, Montessori : the science behind the genius, Oxford University Press, viewed 28 March 2019, EBSCOhost.  

Montessori Academy 2017, What Makes Montessori Different, Montessori Academy, retrieved 25 March 2019, <https://montessoriacademy.com.au/faq-difference-between-montessori-and-playbased-preschools/ >.

Montessori Australia 2019, Montessori Classrooms, Montessori Australia Foundation, retrieved, 25 March 2019, https://montessori.org.au/montessori-classrooms

North American Montessori Education 2014, Formative and Summative Assessment in Montessori Classrooms, retrieved 26 March 2019, < http://montessoritraining.blogspot.com/2014/01/formative-summative-assessment-montessori.html>

Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority 2019, Guide to Formative Assessment Rubrics, Victorian Department of Education, retrieved 26 March 2019, <https://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/viccurric/formative-assessment/GuideFormativeAssessmentRubrics_2019.pdf >.

Victorian Department of Education, Professional Practice- Formative Assessment, Victorian Department of Education, retrieved 26 March 2019, <https://www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/school/teachers/teachingresources/practice/Professional_practice_note_6_formative_assessment.pdf>.

[etp401sg-blog]

Case Study: School Assessment Culture

(Substitute names for the school and people interviewed have been used.)

Over the two weeks of practicum this year and from volunteering, I have come to understand what Sunnydale Primary School’s assessment culture is like and how this impacts the school community. The school is in a fairly high socioeconomic area and its students have a diverse range of backgrounds. I was placed in a year 1 class and have had the opportunity to observe and conduct assessments. In interviewing my mentor teacher Mary Johnson further, I was able to get a deeper understanding on the whole school assessment policy. The school’s assessment policy document outlines in detail the belief that ‘assessment is integral to all teaching and learning’ (see appendix a). Mary states that though the school is “heavily focused on assessment for learning” they don’t have “whole school data meetings but rather focus on team (year level) data” (Mary Johnson, interview, 25 March 2019).

In terms of emphasis on high stake tests when interviewing a teacher aid who had experience in the upper primary years she stated that ‘after the results came out for NAPLAN “they (the school) weren’t too happy so we had a staff meeting as a result” (Maria Lawson, interview 25 March 2019). As well as this, I have had the chance to see the different types of assessment methods personally and conduct some. For example, written spelling tests, verbal maths tests skip counting (appendix b), running records (appendix c). Mary also states that more examples include “oral presentations, powerpoints, inquiry summative tasks, and (appendix d) self-assessment rubrics as well”. (Mary Johnson, interview, 25 March 2019).”

Feedback also plays an important role in assessment at Sunnydale Primary. The assessment policy states “effective feedback for learning is ongoing, timely and respectful of the learner, is specific to the learning goals and aimed at providing information for the learner to improve learning outcomes” (appendix a).  In my mentor teacher’s interview, she emphasises the importance of this saying “the year ones get targeted goals and the communication with parents is open to meetings when they want, as well as communicating through the students’ diaries for their reading and spelling” (Mary Johnson, 25 March, 2019).  Through these pieces of data I have collected, my interviews, and general observations I see that assessment is heavily valued at the school as a tool for learning. However, emphasis is not heavily placed on the results of assessments in terms of school rankings which I find to be a strength of the school.

[etp401sg-blog]

References: Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2017, Australian Professional Standards for Teachers,  Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, retrieved 31 March 2019, < https://www.aitsl.edu.au/teach/standards>

Black, P & Wiliam, D 1998, ‘Inside the Black Box’, Phi Delta Kappan, vol. 80, no. 2, p. 139, retrieved 29 March 2019, EBSCOhost.

Victorian Department of Education 2017, ‘High Impact Teaching Strategies’, Victorian Department of Education, retrieved 26 March 2019, < https://www.education.vic.gov.au/documents/school/teachers/support/highimpactteachstrat.pdf>

Pring, R Bailey, R 2014, John Dewey, Bloomsbury Publishing, 29 March 2019, Proquest Ebook.

Rawpixel 2017, Group of school kids reading for education, photograph, iStock, retrieved 4 April 2019 < https://www.istockphoto.com/au/photo/group-of-school-kids-reading-for-education-gm669853806-122439077>

[etp401sg-blog]

Appendices

Appendix a: Section of Sunnydale Primary School’s Assessment Policy document.

Appendix b. Year one skip counting verbal assessment.

Appendix c. Running record of  a year one student.

Appendix d. Self assessment rubric for end of inquiry unit year one.