Parents have a right to know how their children are faring at school. Yet lack of national consistency in assessing basics like literacy and numeracy hampers the clarity of school reports. Often, the reports themselves are simply unintelligible.
Last week, Education Minister Erica Stanford announced the release of the new Student Monitoring, Assessment and Reporting Tool (SMART) to measure students’ literacy and numeracy. Its main aim is to provide more nationally consistent information to parents.
Crucially, SMART reporting will emphasise students’ progress over time. Never before have schools been required to provide parents with measures of students’ progress. The provision of progress information has been left to the discretion of schools.
Now, there will be clear expectations on schools to measure and report students’ educational achievement and progress in a way that is consistent across the country and intelligible to parents.
Reporting to parents is one purpose of educational assessment. Another, more important to education itself, is to provide feedback on learning. Assessment used for this purpose, known as formative assessment, is focused on future learning. It is one of the most powerful tools in any teacher’s kit.
While the Minister’s announcement focussed mainly on reporting, SMART will also have formative uses. It will help teachers identify students who need additional attention. That includes students who have made less than the expected progress, as well as those who need to be extended.
The tool is also intended to provide systems-level feedback. It will help to identify schools that need support. Last year’s budget provided for a massive increase of teacher aide hours, learning support and specialist teaching staff. SMART will help allocate those resources effectively.
The provision of additional resources is one way in which systems level feedback can help improve learning. The other is accountability.
Continued underperformance after the provision of support and time to improve should trigger a compulsory change in school leadership. Successful schools should be empowered to take over failing ones.
Putting such a mechanism in place would be an immense political challenge. It would meet resistance. It would require revision of New Zealand’s 35-year-old doctrine of self-governing schools.
Ultimately, though, educational feedback is about error correction. And sometimes the error is the leadership.
Dr Michael Johnston is a Senior Fellow at the New Zealand Initiative. This article was first published HERE
Crucially, SMART reporting will emphasise students’ progress over time. Never before have schools been required to provide parents with measures of students’ progress. The provision of progress information has been left to the discretion of schools.
Now, there will be clear expectations on schools to measure and report students’ educational achievement and progress in a way that is consistent across the country and intelligible to parents.
Reporting to parents is one purpose of educational assessment. Another, more important to education itself, is to provide feedback on learning. Assessment used for this purpose, known as formative assessment, is focused on future learning. It is one of the most powerful tools in any teacher’s kit.
While the Minister’s announcement focussed mainly on reporting, SMART will also have formative uses. It will help teachers identify students who need additional attention. That includes students who have made less than the expected progress, as well as those who need to be extended.
The tool is also intended to provide systems-level feedback. It will help to identify schools that need support. Last year’s budget provided for a massive increase of teacher aide hours, learning support and specialist teaching staff. SMART will help allocate those resources effectively.
The provision of additional resources is one way in which systems level feedback can help improve learning. The other is accountability.
Continued underperformance after the provision of support and time to improve should trigger a compulsory change in school leadership. Successful schools should be empowered to take over failing ones.
Putting such a mechanism in place would be an immense political challenge. It would meet resistance. It would require revision of New Zealand’s 35-year-old doctrine of self-governing schools.
Ultimately, though, educational feedback is about error correction. And sometimes the error is the leadership.
Dr Michael Johnston is a Senior Fellow at the New Zealand Initiative. This article was first published HERE
2 comments:
While tutoring students in the basics , I sometimes had parents bring their child just for assessment of reading age and maths level .
The Burt reading test is still used and is available on line for anyone . Grade level reading tests are also available to check comprehension. Singapore maths on line has arithmetic exercises This and Excel Australian maths workbooks have exercises and tests that could be used for assessment .
I have long since not believed anything on school reports. They are a sham. One parent described them as more like a Sunday School report based on social emotional learning.
Of course it is excellent that schools are now
being compelled to have proper assessments , but one of the barriers is that honesty doesn't dominate because -what can the school do if the child is under-performing academically ? There are frequently neither the staff nor the knowledge competency to help the child.A dyslexic child may need years of extra help.
In exemplary Singapore a teacher directs parents, with a failing child to buy a particular highly structured workbook to work through at home or with a tutor. Parents spend billions apparently on workbooks in Singapore while the state has a smaller education budget than NZ. This I think is part of the answer, leaving only the very intractable children from dysfunctional homes requiring expensive school tuition.
Also parents need to be asked to take more responsibility where possible as well as schools. . It has to be a cooperative effort. Gaynor
When I went to schol in the 1950s and my father 30 years before each subject and overall positon in class was stated .ie 25/43. Parents and the pupil in no doubt where they stood.Regard had to be given to the local level of competition and some pupils were advanced a year and presumably some held back. Staying away proptly attracted the truancy officer.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.