In the May-June Senate Estimates, I asked David de Carvalho, CEO of the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) why the National Assessment Program — Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) will no longer report progress through the NAPLAN ban system so that parents can see how their child is progressing relative to others?
In light of the latest disappointing NAPLAN results, which shows one in three children failing literacy and numeracy, I thought you’d be interested to hear his response.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: Thank you for appearing again. Why will NAPLAN no longer report progress through the NAPLAN bands so parents know how their child is progressing relative to other children?
Mr de Carvalho: Ministers decided on 10 February this year to move to a much better reporting system, which actually provides more meaningful information for parents. They will now be getting information that indicates where they are in terms of proficiency standards, which were agreed would be introduced as part of the national school reform agreement. The bands, if you go back to 2008, when they were set up, are essentially a statistical construct. We had a scale of around 1,000 points. The mean we set at 500. It was essentially divided into 10 bands. That number was relatively arbitrary. It could have been more. It could have been less. It’s a kind of a goldilocks number, if you like—a nice round number. The cut points in the bands themselves, unlike the new system, which we are introducing, didn’t have inherent educational value other than simply to be kind of marker points on a scale. It’s bit like telling a parent about their child’s height. They’ve moved from the zero to 20-centimetre band into the 21- to 40-centimetre band. Or, with weight, they’ve moved from the zero to 10-kilogram band into the 11- to 20-kilogram band. What parents really want to know is: is my child actually progressing at the normal rate or do they need additional support? These new standards—
Senator Henderson: I would disagree with that, actually.
Mr de Carvalho: The teacher view has been used to say, ‘What questions should children be able to answer to meet a challenging and reasonable expectation?’ We’ve used professional teacher judgement as opposed to a statistical or arithmetical division to identify the standard expected. That’s the one that we road-tested with parents. We asked them, ‘Would you prefer to see an individual student report with the numerical bands or this more meaningful information?’ They were quite unequivocal about it. They preferred the latter. It’s also not correct to say that parents won’t see their progress. Each individual student report has never reported progress. You need to keep the previous reports. Even if you are in year 3 and then year 5 under the new system, you may increase your NAPLAN score, say, from 250 to 300. You may still be reported in year 5 as strong whereas you were also strong in year 3 but the descriptors associated with ‘strong’ will indicate a higher level of capability. Parents will still be able to see that their child has progressed into a higher skill set. There will be more detailed information, more meaningful information, for parents through the new system.
Senator Roberts: Thank you for that. There are things in there that sound attractive, but I don’t understand it well enough. Perhaps you could tell me what is wrong with this description. Instead of providing a reading score in band 3, 4, 5 or 6, giving parents an idea of exactly where their child is in terms of progression, all of those bands will be replaced by the word ‘developing’. ACARA has said parents found the bands confusing. Isn’t that just an indictment on your failure to explain the more accurate band reports? Could you go into more detail? Tell me what is wrong with that.
Mr de Carvalho: I will go back to the point I was trying to make at the start. Those bands were simply arithmetically derived.
Senator Roberts: So a child was placed in there numerically?
Mr de Carvalho: There is a scale of, say, zero to 1,000. You set the mean at 500 and then you have your statistical categories, your differentials, set just by picking 100 or 200 or whatever the scale is to deliver 10 categories. But what we’re doing this time is using teacher professional judgement. We’ve consulted professional expert teachers about where on the scale they expect children to be based on what they’ve learned in previous years. We have asked which questions they should be able to answer to be able to say, ‘Yes, they’re meeting expectations.’ That was not the case under the previous 10-band regime. Parents will be able to see at a glance. What is really important about the new system is that particularly those children who are genuinely struggling will be identified as needing additional support. That is crucial, because under the old system, we had a category called the national minimum standard. It was broadly recognised that the national minimum standard was set too low. There was a relatively small percentage of children below the national minimum standard. It wasn’t really a call to action. Now we will have more students identified in that bottom category and it will be clear through the name of the category or the name of the level that those children need additional support. It will be a prompt to parents to have a discussion with their teachers about what needs to be done. I think that is a real, important change.
Senator Roberts: So the parent will be able to see the areas in which the child is deficient or strong?
Mr de Carvalho: The descriptors will also be part of the individual student report. It is a paper based report, and you can only put so many words on a paper based report. There will be high-level descriptions for each domain—that is, reading, writing, numeracy, spelling and grammar—and what it means if you are in each of those levels. If you want more fine-grained information, you will be able to go to the ACARA website and get more and more fine-grained information. With that, teachers will be able to have good conversations with parents about what needs to be done.
Senator Roberts: Thank you. It looks like there is more understanding to be gained on my part.
As a former teacher with 40 years experience, I found this gentleman’s explanation very condescending….putting you,Malcolm , in your place.
I found it insulting and arrogant.
What has happened to the good old days where, if your child sat for a test and got 40/100, you knew exactly how he was progressing, and that he needed help .
The same with 99/100, you knew he was excelling.Everybody was happy.
I don’t believe a test in July and one in November achieves anything but stress for the kids.
Small tests monthly…results averaged out for Reports to parents. Results kept by teachers to be shown to parents at Parent-interviews. Less stress on everyone.
When I was teaching they were called A.C.E.R. tests…but we were never told the results.
That was back in the 1950s.
Today, with the teachers receiving results that parents and even some teachers don’t understand, it is plain confusing.
No wonder parents are complaining.
Cut to the chase. Schools are now tools of the globalist controllers. They do not educate, they manipulate. They are the first stage of brainwashing children into their anti-human ideology and their environmental con job that humans have destroyed nature just by existing.
God help the poor souls who go to university and are further brainwashed to accept communism as their preferred way of life. they leave uni with no skills or intelligence of how the world works. They become left wing activists, life time students who never get a job or dolebludgers that turn up to every left wing rally or protest without even knowing what it is they are protesting..
It is time to end the welfare scam that keeps the Labor politicians their jobs and their benefits.
We do not need a government.
The people can survive and flourish without a government.
what a load of crap from this bureaucratic arsehole.
Teach kids how to add up and basic mathematics so they know how much money they have in the bank and how they are going to pay their next bill.
Teach them the English language so they can write a resume to get a job and then keep that job because they know how to spell and write a letter.
Teach kids about respect for older people who deserve respect – veterans, good parents and grandparents, and local people who make their community a better place.
warn the high school kids that their teachers are not perfect and it is OK to think for yourself.
The proposed new system appears to make possible the assessment and reporting the student’s actual learning progress rather than a simple comparison to the student’s peers.
On Malcolm’s part, this is probably an understatement of the real situation,
“Senator Roberts: Thank you. It looks like there is more understanding to be gained on my part.”
There is another situation that must be faced in the above three submissions by the same contributor.
The author appears to lack familiarity with reality, his proposal of violence should be removed in the interest of a dignified exchange of ideas.
Cheers,
Col
Senator Roberts,
education theorists continue with their aversion to objectivity in Canberra, despite their Qld colleagues’ similar attempts at verbal ‘standards’ being conclusively rejected by currently-practicing-teachers, and the public during the 2013 Qld parliamentary inquiry.
Senator, if their system is not clearly understandable to you, then how can it be clear enough for the ‘average’ parent?
For a detailed analysis of this issue I highly recommend (my) submission #28 at this page:
http://www.platoqld.com/?page_id=1706
The education theorists’ aversion to objectivity (numbers) obscures reporting, de-motivates students, and prevents accountability.
Otto and Helen Eikman have spent the last 6months in India building and developing a new education system. Yet when they offered their services to the Queensland government they were refused. Next they are off too Dubai. Clearly showing that their knowledge and experience is more revered overseas.