National Testing - here we go. Guest post by Allan Alach Halfway through the first week of the term break, and the nonsense keeps being spilled out. The depth of deviousness being displayed by the Ministry of Education MOEno doubt following orders from above, is beyond comprehension. That was only to be expected.
Stories and Satires The Listener article is out: The children who have either lifted or soared are the average and less able ones. A massive obfuscation campaign is underway. It will be very difficult to get at the truth because nearly all quantitative academics are contracted to the government and a particularly powerful grouping of them is formed officially into a designated group.
This has to be another case of teacher power. Standardised tests based on scaling I have designated as post-modern, in other words, worse than useless. It is significant that the first academic who tried to quell the Hikurangi rebellion from was Charles Darr, a senior member NZCER member, and also the NZCER representative on the invidious Progress and Consistency Tool PaCT which is developing a form of national standards focused on individual student projections to provide a value-added component to appraisals soon to be imposed on principals and teachers.
The reason for the revisions of the two tests will, I suggest, be found in the intention to seek consistency in philosophy and practice with PaCT.
This issue is of supreme importance. Without this expose of national standards data, later in the year Hekia Parata would have been crediting national standards and her work as minister for the improved results.
Without this expose of national standards data appraisals soon to be imposed on principals and teachers based on individual student trajectories and added value would have had a free run. And, above all, without this expose of national standards data, the average and less able children, those displaying the most inflation in e-asTTle and STAR, would have continued to have nothing done to really lift their performance.
We are not good at fighting future issues: I want the fight to be between head offices, not the ministry head office and schools. Schools have had enough; I want the teacher organisations to take the heat on this one.
My presentation of what has happened does not dwell on conspiracy but on steps in certain policy directions: Why, seems clear to me, but it is open to discussion.
Another undoubted thing is that both tests have moved to scaling without it really being discussed with teachers generally while the test was in development and, amazingly, not after. Once again that can be discussed.
But the answer seems pretty clears to me. Education policy makers can make education decisions, in apparent innocence, that are politically laden in effect. In an education bureaucracy I resided in one once what is expected by higher management is in the air, recognised as such, never mentioned as such, but acted on as such.
A big cosmic laugh on that one. Education Minister Hekia Parata was unavailable for comment yesterday.
The allegations of flawed tests could place greater pressure on the minister and her department. They both say there has been no deliberate match-fixing, but this is just a straw argument, so are their denials of government influence.
She could be on to something here. The general effect when you fundamentally change anything is usually something pretty different. And I have a feeling that that might be the case for a standardised test as well. Proud no doubt about of this groundbreaking way to approach writing.
Writing is a fairly well established activity around the world now, so to have come up with something fundamentally different to test in writing, is really something.
So what is this testing actually testing now? The new one uses that piece of writing as a starting point, and extrapolates to what the student could probably do with support from his or her teacher and without the pressure of the test.
This account by Chris is excellent classroom practice, but terrible for a standardised test. End of story on e-asTTle. It must be dumped. Chris you can stop the review, such a test would never stand any kind of testing pressure.
Pack up the test and wander off into the desert. Just because you have been using stanines for years is no excuse. And neither is it an excuse that NZCER in the excitement of it all failed in one tiny matter, to actually tell you that stanines are an archaic practice, a no-no. And that old, out-of-date classic bell curve, oh dear.
Welcome, Bruce and many other principals to the new, much curvier bell curve. Silly you for not seeing that. We gave you the clues Bruce, not into cryptic up there obviously.The C3 framework is a national social studies framework that was introduced in October and is aligned with the Common Core State Standards (CCSS).
The C3 was created by social studies specialists from all over the. NCSS Standards 2 form decision-making about and action-taking on public issues.
III, People, Places, & Environments Social studies programs should include experiences that provide for the study of people, places, and environments.
John Hattie to run workshops on e-asTTle and national standards. Recursive writing - students will turn in a paper until the teacher accepts it! And watch this!
Contact Visible Learning High School Classroom Visible Thinking Instructional Coaching Educational Leadership Data boards Social studies.
National Council for the Social Studies first published national curriculum standards in Since then, the social studies standards have been widely and successfully used as a framework for teachers, schools, districts, states, and other nations as a tool for curriculum alignment and development.
NCSS National Standards for the Preparation of Social Studies Teachers 8 to accomplish these purposes. What binds purpose, preparation, and practice together in this document is the College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards, released in (NCSS, ).The C3 Framework is a set of.
Hornby Primary School is a decile 2, state co-educational school catering for Years children. National Standards requirements Continue Teaching as Inquiry practices Writing practice – including e-asTTle Year 1 of programme Principal and team leaders Simon Scott Garry Taylor (Evaluative Associates) PB4L team – Wayne.