Peter Lyons suggests primary teachers have little to fear
from national standards because, he argues, the whole concept
of assessment based on such measures is an illusion.
The introduction of national standards in literacy and
numeracy in primary schools is creating concern among primary
teachers, principals and their union.
They have little to worry about if the experience of their
secondary colleagues under NCEA is anything to go by.
Primary teachers are concerned that the statistics gathered
by these assessments will be used to create league tables of
schools.
Parents will shift their children to successful schools based
on these published results.
The first flaw in this argument is that most parents are
limited in their choice of school based on their ability to
purchase a house in a particular school zone.
It won't be a revelation to anyone that schools that draw
from lower socioeconomic areas will tend to underperform in
any valid measure of academic success.
While there may be some variance between schools in
particular suburbs, parental choice of school is still
restricted by geographic location.
The second reason why primary teachers have little need for
concern is that, as secondary teachers have discovered under
NCEA, the concept of national standards in assessment is an
illusion.
The reason is that the interpretation of standards by
teachers and schools is so variable.
Unless the assessment tasks are going to use simple
true/false or multiple-choice questions, there will be large
variances in marking standards.
Even without these marking variances, are teachers going to
be allowed to prep the students to meet the standards by
drilling them with the answers? Will students be allowed to
re-sit the standards if they feel the result did not reflect
their ability?
These are all questions that secondary schools have had to
answer under NCEA.
Each school has come up with its own answers.
This creates further discrepancies in the application of
standards between schools.
Unless a system of national standards is set and administered
and marked by a central authority, it is open to manipulation
or genuine inconsistencies.
This may be despite the best intentions of teachers and
administrators.
It may also be the result of deliberate manipulation to
ensure a creditable set of results.
If the results are to be used for comparing school or teacher
performance then there is a large incentive for the
manipulation of results.
It may come as a shock to the public, but teachers are no
more saintly than any other profession, particularly when
jobs or promotions are on the line.
The Cambridge High School debacle several years ago is a
graphic illustration of how far a school may go to ensure
that its performance outstrips other schools.
The manipulation of statistical results to paint the best
picture has always been a common practice of secondary
schools.
Under NCEA, some national standards are marked internally
within the school and some are examined externally by an
independent panel of markers.
There is generally a large variance in pass rates in favour
of the internal assessments.
Given that the standards being adopted in primary schools
will be set and marked internally by the teachers, a similar
lack of consistency is likely to arise.
If the Education Minister Anne Tolley is serious about a
system of national standards for primary schools, then for
validity it would need to be externally administered and
marked.
This is very unlikely given the huge amount of resources it
would require.
Ironically, it appears that the New Zealand Qualifications
Authority is pushing for more of NCEA to be marked internally
by schools.
The reason is that administering and marking NCEA to try to
maintain national standards in all subjects is extremely
costly.
The likely outcome of a system of national standards in
primary schools will be a mishmash of dubious statistics.
There will be little basis for valid comparisons between
schools.
This will be partially due to genuine variances in the
application and marking of standards by teachers. It may also
be due to the motives and incentives such a system creates.
Unfortunately, the whole exercise in window dressing will
detract from the time and effort involved in actual
teachingEven if the data collected was valid it would only
confirm what anyone with an interest in education already
knows.
Pupils from deprived backgrounds tend to under perform
academically.
Mrs Tolley would be using her resources more wisely if she
ensured these pupils had access to the best teachers and
facilities.
• Peter Lyons teaches Economics at Saint Peters College in
Epsom.
