National Testing
sent to the AGE Wednesday, May 14, 2008
I agree with many points made by Maureen Douglas (Age, 12 May 2008), but I disagree with her opposition to national standardised testing of literacy and numeracy.
Certainly we want more than word and number from schooling, but it is still valid to test for basic academic skills. Without these, the student becomes a second class citizen.
Tests are not necessarily stressful. Teachers can make tests spooky or enjoyable. Teacher embarrassment about results is not a consideration: schooling is for children. Of course, some schools will get lower scores: but we must identify those in need - so that services can be boosted where necessary.
Parents have complained for years about getting waffly school reports that did not reveal their child's progress. They were told students would “come good”, but so often they have entered secondary with inadequate literacy and/or numeracy. If the parents had known, they might have been able to do something.
Then when tests were introduced, schools committed more effort to basic skills.
Teachers’ good intentions are undoubted, but there is nothing as effective as having external test results go home to parents. This is called accountability. The theorists who de-emphasise basic skills thrive in their own careers because they are strong in these skills. Their students deserve no less.
Even if you believe your school doesn’t need external testing, accept it for the benefit of the many children across the country whose education is improved by it.
Co-Founder, Fitzroy Community School
Philip O'Carroll