Page 4715 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 19 October 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
resources to the schools that need the most to ensure that every child in our community has the best opportunity to receive the best possible education and to meet their full potential. I do not think that rating schools publicly helps to achieve this aim, and there are a range of issues associated with it.
The issue of teaching to the test is one particular problem that has been identified by experts in the area, and I think this is an issue that we are all aware of. It is a very important reason why we need to keep these tests in perspective and ensure that they are just part of the broader educational tool kit and do not take up a disproportionate role in our education system.
I am and continue to be concerned about what can be effectively a naming and shaming of the schools that do not perform particularly well, and we have seen some newspapers across the country do this. This is not a productive way to approach the problems facing those schools and it does nothing to help those students and teachers who are facing a range of issues that come about for a range of reasons, most of which stem from outside the classroom.
On the issue of the use of NAPLAN testing, I will briefly turn to the Australian Education Union’s submission to the Senate inquiry into this issue. That submission points us to the experience in the United States, where this type of testing has been relied on extensively to the detriment of educational outcomes. The submission quotes Mr Ken Boston, a former chief executive officer of the South Australian education department, a former director-general of education in New South Wales and a former chief executive officer of the United Kingdom qualification and curriculum authority. At a seminar in Melbourne in 2009 he said:
In England the government’s use of the key stage tests has seriously damaged the breadth and quality of primary education. The tests have changed from an essentially diagnostic test for the purpose of school and system improvement, to a high stakes summative test on which depend—amongst other things—the pay and future employment of the head teacher and staff. As a result the school curriculum is narrower and poorer than it was when the tests were introduced in 1997. In many schools, the time spent on areas of the curriculum which are not externally assessed has contracted sharply.
We need to be very aware of these issues and, as I have previously said, particularly vigilant to make sure that while we exploit the benefits of the tests we do not overly rely on them and we ensure that they do not encroach on all the other tools available to us to ensure that student progress is monitored and learning programs tailored to students’ needs.
At this point it is relevant to turn to the inquiry into the achievement gap and the evidence given to that inquiry and the committee’s findings. Some of the things that came out of that inquiry were issues around some of those students in our community who are not doing as well. But, also, the inquiry’s report noted that we have a lot of students who are doing well in the ACT, and we know that. We are doing well compared to the Australian average. We are doing very well compared to other states. We have a very high retention rate to year 12, and we should celebrate the achievements of our students. It is, indeed, very well deserved praise for those
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video