KEY POINTS:
Educationalists have been faint in their praise of the National Party's plan to make all primary schools test their pupils' reading, writing and mathematics ability, and tell parents how their children and their school rated against national benchmarks. Much of what was being advocated was already being done,
said Irene Cooper, the president of the primary teachers' union, the New Zealand Educational Institute. "What John Key is doing is perhaps fine-tuning," she added, somewhat dismissively. Regrettably, that is not altogether right, and the National leader's announcement deserved a far more positive welcome.
There can be no argument that schoolchildren need to be assessed effectively. Just as the foundation for skills must be laid early, so must any shortcomings, and their remedies, be identified. Nor can there be any question that parents need a clear and precise picture of how well their child is doing. They do not want, as Mr Key suggested, an overinflated school report that reads like a real estate advertisement. Yet an Education Review Office report released just last week suggested much of this work was not being done particularly well.
Its evaluation concluded that some primary and secondary schools were putting a lot of effort into gathering assessment data but then not using it effectively. Thirty-nine per cent of primary schools were only partially effective, with substantial weaknesses, in reporting achievement information to parents, and 10 per cent were not effective. The ERO found that assessment practices could be improved considerably. "Many schools still need help in developing school-wide assessment policies, procedures and practices across all aspects of students' learning," it concluded.
The best means of providing this has been a matter of debate for some time. Nine or so years ago, the Labour Party proposed national tests in reading and mathematics at age 10 for all primary schoolchildren. The then National Government adopted much the same idea but a year later dropped it, saying schools were not widget factories where you could easily measure the product.
At the same time, Labour also turned away from national testing, saying the opposition to it, notably from teachers and principals, was too fierce. That opposition remains, despite the profession's acknowledgment of the need for better assessment. As much was indicated by the NZEI president's relief that Mr Key had not announced a national test similar to that used in the United States and Britain.
In fact, National's latest proposal has some similarities to its fall-back position in 1999. Schools will be able to decide which assessment tools to use. But national benchmarks will be set, against which the tests will determine how well a child is doing. The new policy does, however, place a greater emphasis on reporting to parents on a child's progress and the relative measure of the school against others.
The proposal represents an astute attempt to improve assessment practices, while not risking the alienation of educationalists. Mr Key says he would even seek their advice in setting the national standards and deciding which tests would be approved. But he says he will not negotiate on the need for National's policy. Nor should he. Accurate assessment, and the discovery of the full range of a pupil's deficiencies, cannot wait until secondary school. By then, it may be too late to repair the damage.
If there is not to be national testing, there must be a process that provides reliable and comparable assessment results. This proposal appeals as a big step in that direction. It deserves more than lukewarm applause.
