National standards data has its uses
KING of the activists and nowadays aligned with the Mana Party, John Minto found himself betwixt and between. On the one hand, as national chairman of the firmly Leftleaning Quality Public Education Coalition (QPEC) he was utterly against the Government’s national standards in literacy and numeracy.
He was against the people who had created them, he was against the use of them in schools and he was most certainly against the publication of results.
On the other hand, it was hard for Mr Minto to resist one of the findings from the reported results of the standards. The ‘‘elephant in the room’’ in the analysis of standards results, Mr Minto said, was that the strongest indicator of student achievement was the socio-economic background of their families.
This was a tough call for QPEC and Mr Minto to make. They were among those who, for the past four years, had been consistently dumping on the standards. They had argued there was nothing to be read into the junk data they produced.
Except, now it looked like there was something in the results that lined up with their concerns, the opportunity could not be missed to press the Government . . . to read something in to the data.
Unfortunately for Mr Minto, an email botch-up led to QPEC’s private struggle over this question going public. At the bottom of the QPEC press statement, part of an email trail had been left un-deleted.
‘‘My advice would be to take a slightly different tack. We have argued that the media is wrong to publish the data and that people should ignore them, so it may seem hypocritical to comment on what the half-baked media data shows,’’ the advice from an unnamed individual read.
‘‘My inclination would be to emphasise what they are trying to ignore, not what the half-baked Fairfax data and MoE [Education Ministry] summary claim to show.’’
Many of us have suffered an email blooper like this before. It was more a mildly embarrassing slip-up than a shocking indictment on QPEC or Mr Minto.
But a day after Stuff.co.nz had first published the national standards results of more than 1000 schools, it neatly illustrated a point. The publication of national standards data – notwithstanding its inherent early weaknesses – was capable of moving even the most intractable of critics into discussion and debate on some of the seriously big questions confronting the schooling system.
Yes, it was widely acknowledged narrow, head-to-head comparisons between individual school results would be fraught.
But what if the data could be looked at in some other way? What if it was a spark to light the fire of inquiry at schools where parents asked teachers, and teachers asked principals, and pupils asked parents: what are we doing right here? Where could we improve? What sort of help do we need?
If, for instance, our boys are going well compared with the national score in reading and writing but not so well against maths, can we figure out why that might be?
If the school community can see there is something outside everyone’s control that is skewing boys’ maths result, then fair enough. But what if there isn’t? Has anyone asked the boys what they think about the way they are taught maths at school?
Some schools have started using the national standards in exactly this way. Others say they were already practising ‘‘assessment for learning’’ before the national standards. Many people can see the potential for the standards to cause this well-regarded practice to be used more widely.
Even one of the loudest critics, Principals’ Federation president Paul Drummond, admitted shortly after the School Report site went live last week that the standards had prompted more professional conversations between teachers.
Mr Drummond was even satisfied that the standards could stay if the results were kept between schools and their parent communities, with the Education Ministry making an annual random sample of results to verify they were being used properly.
That would allow the good bits about the standards to work – engaging parents and encouraging schools to more forensically selfreview – but strip away the potential downsides associated with publication and comparisons.
At one point when the standards were being developed it appeared something like that might just happen.
There were suggestions that the data could be quarantined at an organisation like the New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Some suggested a change to the Official Information Act specifying special protection of national standards data.
On reflection, a National-led government was never likely to go for either. It’s just not in its DNA. Instead, it has opted for a version of the MySchool website developed in Australia under then education minister Julia Gillard.
The idea with the New Zealand Government’s version, launched yesterday, is two-fold. First, get as much contextual information around each school’s national standards results as possible. That includes through a campaign by the Education Review Office for parents to get in to schools and ask questions about what’s going on there.
Second, continually improve the quality and reliability of the data.
This year, schools self-reported in whatever format they chose. Next year, there will be fields to be filled out electronically and returned to the ministry. Presumably the contextual stuff will remain, but it is hoped that the data will firm up.
THE Government, schools and the teaching profession overall face a big job improving the strength of the national standards data. Moderation will be developed though the Progress and Consistency Tool (PaCT) – described this week by one expert as something the ministry had run ‘‘hot and cold’’ on.
PaCT is not expected to be fully functional until 2014 and while it is not supposed to lean too heavily on the results of standardised testing, political pressure may well develop to move in that direction, which would set a dangerous path towards a narrowed curriculum.
The best hope for resisting national standards drifting into a national testing scheme is the breadth of skill and support across the teaching profession. If a critical mass of teachers across the country is moderating effectively and reporting results honestly, the standards might just work.
Former education secretary Howard Fancy thinks a new, apolitical, professional body for teachers might help to achieve this. There might be room for something like a Law Society for teachers where knowledge, skill and experience are pooled exclusively for the betterment of the profession.
But if ‘‘high stakes’’ assessment overwhelms national standards, then that maths teacher in the school where too many boys appear to be sub-par is likely to prefer diddling the results for his or her own sake, rather than reporting honestly and looking for ways to improve.
It’s a fine line for the Government, schools and teachers to tread, and a long path ahead. Prime Minister John Key seeks to restore public confidence in the Government Communications Security Bureau after revealing it broke the law when it spied on German internet giant Kim Dotcom.
WINNER
Kim Dotcom:
LOSER
Mr Key:
WALLY
Bill English: Officials asked him to sign a ministerial certificate suppressing all details of the GCSB’s involvement in the Kim Dotcom investigation, but neither he nor anyone in the prime minister’s office thought it worthy of a mention when Mr Key returned from overseas.
KEEPING SHEARER SWEET
Labour Party leader David Shearer is developing a reputation for a sweet tooth and MPs wanting to get on his good side have their desks stocked with plentiful supplies. But Mr Shearer was spotted this week diving into his desk repeatedly and rifling around for his sweets in vain. He reckons his colleagues have been raiding the supplies. But the more likely explanation is his deputy and lolly-cup supplier Grant Robertson is taking part in the ‘‘living below the line’’ challenge to live on $2.25 a day.