The policy was ended by Labour in 2017 after there was little improvement in international testing results and several criticism from the sector. The National Standards in their Seventh Year survey of teachers and principals found just 16% of respondents said the standardised testing had a positive impact.
The planned introduction of a new standardised assessment tool is concerning for a number of reasons – particularly when it comes to long-term consequences for schools and student learning.
But what has also raised the hackles of many in education is how the tender process for the new tool happened without warning. Here is what parents, schools and the public should know about the background to this debate.
A narrowing curriculum
There is plenty of research – from New Zealand and overseas – highlighting the negative consequences of standardised testing in education.
Standardised assessment can, for example, lead to schools being ranked against each other according to their achievement data. A low ranking could jeopardise a school’s reputation and therefore the number of enrolments and subsequent funding they receive.
In this high-stakes environment, teachers can be pressured to focus on assessed subjects, often to the detriment of the broader curriculum.
While the curriculum in New Zealand has already been considerably narrowed under the Government’s Teaching the Basics Brilliantly policy, a standardised assessment could further exacerbate this trend.
Teachers may also be inclined to “teach to the test” and employ rote learning strategies, where children are encouraged to memorise the correct answers. While this may result in high test scores, it is questionable whether deeper learning will occur.
Focusing on assessment can also be detrimental to children’s belief that they could learn and their attitudes towards learning, particularly when they are labelled according to their level of achievement.
Finally, while standardised tests might promise an easy fix to improve educational outcomes, they do not address the deeper socioeconomic disparities which continue to significantly affect educational achievement.
A lack of consultation
This shift back towards a national testing standard is happening without any known consultation with the education sector.
Instead, the plan to use one standardised assessment tool only became evident when the government tender was released.
But the introduction of a standardised test also doesn’t fit with the Government’s previous public statements on testing.
Last year Education Minister Erica Stanford announced plans to allow schools to choose between two tools to assess students. These tools were selected specifically to prevent comparison across schools because they were so different from one another.
At the time, Stanford said, “It’s not our intention to pit schools against each other. This data is for parents to know how their kids are going, teachers to inform practice, and as a system to know how we’re tracking”.
But according to documents released later the same year, the Government already had a plan to rely on a single standardised assessment tool that could produce comparable data.
Control from afar
While the Ministry of Education says this new standardised assessment tool “will deliver a long-term solution to support all schools and kura”, there are reasons to be sceptical.
Standardised assessment can be used by the Government to control what teachers do in the classroom and provide data to reallocate resources to where they are most needed.
This resource allocation strategy, however, can leave some schools without the funding and support they need.
Principals and teachers can also be held accountable for student achievement, while larger contextual factors, such as socioeconomic inequalities, are ignored.
This can ultimately lead to educators being blamed if achievement targets are not met.
Regardless of who wins the tender for the new assessment tool, New Zealand’s recent experience with standardised testing didn’t achieve what was promised. Returning to national standards – either in name or just in spirit – should raise alarms for everyone.
