Originally Posted by hereshoping (Post 6963997)

How exactly does testing improve learning? Summative assessment by it's very nature only assesses what has been learnt.

Now formative assessment is a different matter, but that wouldn't be termed testing.

I do actually agree that there is slightly too little assessment in Oz- for instance there should be some sort of qualification at the end of year 10, i.e. before the end of compulsory schooling.

Originally Posted by scooby3 (Post 6964193)

Well that is simple....kids that can research...evaluate...formulate and present ideas in verbal and written form have more chance of success in the long term than kids that are educated .

Originally Posted by hereshoping (Post 6963934)

Why do you need testing? Testing does not improve learning.

I'm sure a great deal of formative assessment is going on in the classroom to allow children to progress, just because a number is not generated at the end of it does not mean assessment is not occurring.

Unfortunately in the UK people have lost any faith in the professionals educating their children, forgetting that they have undergone years of university and are the experts in this field. The government is I feel mostly to blame for this with the increased demands for 'accountability' and putting across the idea that teachers cannot be trusted to be honest- e.g. all assessment being external or moderated.

In Oz a greater degree of that trust remains, which allows children to actually be educated rather than taught how to pass the next in an endless series of exams, the results of which will be published for everyone to pour over completely out of context.

Originally Posted by NKSK version 2 (Post 6963980)

The trouble with this debate is that it is turning into a UK vs Aus debate. Both systems are at opposite ends of the spectrum on testing and accountability - the UK does too much (or did do), Australia, too little.

Originally Posted by ABCDiamond (Post 6964091)

I think that the national assessments in years 5, 7 and 9, together with the normal day to day assessing, are about enough for the teachers to have a guide..

Originally Posted by NickyC (Post 6963968)

I often wonder how we (who were educated in the UK during the 1950s, 60s, 70s and 80s) ever managed to learn to read and write.

We had no SATs, no NAPLAN tests, no nothing. The only public exam that some of us took was the 11+. There were no public statistics produced to rate our schools, our teachers and our progress. How on earth did we and our parents manage? Poor teachers - must have been like trying to teach with one hand tied behind their backs.

I guess we just have to accept that we're all stuffed educationally, because none of us know which percentile for numeracy we fell into at age 9.

But more importantly - what on earth did our parents have to talk about? :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by NKSK version 2 (Post 6964209)

You're confusing rote learning with assessment.

How will you know how good your child is at critical thinking if you don't assess it?

How will you discover where the gaps are?

Originally Posted by hoveactually (Post 6964212)

I would be perfectly content with "formative assessment" if this included feedback to the student/parent so that everyone is aware of what is expected. The schools can't have it both ways; they tell us on one hand that they believe eduction to be a partnership between home and school but only, apparently, if that means that parents don't ask awkward questions. .

Originally Posted by hoveactually (Post 6964212)

I would far rather have received the full NAPLAN report which shows exactly what questions my children could/could not answer rather than a dot on a scale. I would know then where the gaps are in their knowledge and be in a better position to support their learning.
.

Originally Posted by hoveactually (Post 6964212)

I would be perfectly content with "formative assessment" if this included feedback to the student/parent so that everyone is aware of what is expected. The schools can't have it both ways; they tell us on one hand that they believe eduction to be a partnership between home and school but only, apparently, if that means that parents don't ask awkward questions. So true

I would far rather have received the full NAPLAN report which shows exactly what questions my children could/could not answer rather than a dot on a scale. I would know then where the gaps are in their knowledge and be in a better position to support their learning. agree

I would also question whether teachers at primary level are "experts in this field'. Even Julia Gillard is on record as saying that, because there is such a shortage of teachers, the entry standards are now so low that someone who has barely passed year 12 can now be accepted into teacher training.

Originally Posted by scooby3 (Post 6964237)

I stand by my statement rote learning is not beneficial....simple quantifiable testing at a young age has little purpose either as parent we feel quite comfortable at what stage of education development our children are at without national testing or being assessed agains other kids....its like the drive in the work place to have competency based training...thats what it is training do do a task not an education.

Originally Posted by NKSK version 2 (Post 6964238)

Spot on.


Schools kind of have this information. They receive a report which aligns the NAPLAN spread of results with statements of learning. So to achieve score XYZ you need to have understood certain aspects of maths and English; more abstract statements are aligned with higher scores.

Originally Posted by Safin (Post 6964263)

Nor in QLD

Originally Posted by NKSK version 2 (Post 6964281)

And does this lack of information concern anyone?

Originally Posted by Safin (Post 6964241)

This is why teachers should be accountable. We trust them with our childs academic future and many are barely able to do their jobs. If other professionals fail to perform then they get sacked - but not teachers. I know education isn't just about numbers and stats but they are a part of it and should form a significant part of a teachers own performance assessment. If colleagues consistantly get better reulsts than them you have to ask why?

Originally Posted by hereshoping (Post 6964397)

On the rote learning/ critical thinking argument... it may be useful to know your timestable. But surely you can agree that it's more useful to understand why 6x7 is 42 in abstract terms rather than just recite the knowledge.

Originally Posted by hereshoping (Post 6964397)

but incompetent teachers are not just tolerated. .