Please note: you are not required to enter your name when posting on this forum. If you do chose to enter a name it will automatically appear with your post.
Twitter users, please tweet: https://twitter.com/PlatoQld
PLATO QLD
Queensland School Syllabus Commentary
Χρήσιμο .
I ⅼiuқe this post, enjooyeԀ this one appreciate it for putting
up.
Feel free too visit my web sute :: Visit Ꮃebsite (Twitter.com)
Hi there, its good post on the topic of media print,
we all understand media is a wonderful source of facts.
A lot of thanks for all your efforts on this site. Gloria loves engaging in investigation and it’s easy to understand why. Almost all know all concerning the dynamic means you give helpful items on the web blog and as well encourage contribution from others on that concern plus our daughter is always discovering a lot. Have fun with the remaining portion of the new year. You’re the one conducting a good job.
Thanks for your whole work on this website. My niece takes pleasure in working on research and it is simple to grasp why. We all notice all relating to the powerful ways you render vital tips and tricks via your website and therefore welcome response from website visitors on this topic while our own simple princess is without question understanding so much. Take pleasure in the rest of the year. Your performing a very good job.
Very well written!
I’ll right away seize your rss as I can’t in finding your
e-mail subscription hyperlink or e-newsletter service.
Do you’ve any? Kindly let me recognise so that I could subscribe.
If some one needs expert view regarding blogging then i
advise him/her to go to see this webpage, Keep up the pleasant work.
I am truly happy to glance at this web site posts which contains lots of helpful data, thanks for providing such statistics.
What i don’t realize is in fact how you’re no longer really a lot more neatly-favored than you may be now. You are very intelligent. You already know therefore significantly with regards to this matter, made me individually imagine it from so many numerous angles. Its like men and women are not involved until it’s one thing to do with Woman gaga! Your own stuffs outstanding. All the time maintain it up!
Hola! Gracias por esta información. Llevaba un rato buscando
en internet sobre este tema hasta el momento en que he
encontrado tu página. Está realmente bien el artículo.
Sigue así!
excellent post, very informative. I ponder why the other experts of this sector do not notice
this. You must proceed your writing. I’m sure, you’ve a great readers’ base already!
Your picture will be saved in your new album named as “Saved Pictures”.
The hotter your iPhone gets, the faster your battery will die.
You could also scroll vertically and horizontally,
in between every icon.
Hey There. I found your blog the usage of msn. This is a
very neatly written article. I will be sure to bookmark it and return to learn more of yopur helpful info.
Thank you for the post. I’ll certainly comeback.
Niezwykle szałowy post, drobiazgowe zapisy zalecam
wszystkim literaturę test obciążenia glukozą 75g norma (http://Www.gonzogames.com)
obciazenia glukoza 75 g normy, test obciazenia glukoza 75 g w ciazy
This iss a topic that’s close to my heart… Best wishes!
Where are your contact detaills though?
If you’re hanging pictures that aren’t a “set” and are different dimensions, then here
are some further tips:. These Lord of the Flies chapter summaries free your brain from having to figure out what
happens and allows it to examine why it happened.
A birthday card that arrives on time or early says “I cared enough” much more than a belated card.
I cannot believe how utterly stupid this site is. The QSA responded brilliantly to all these uninformed opinions last year. No effort is made to argue against their compelling logic. I have taught maths in Qld for 30 years, been a HOD for 17 years, a panel member for 12 years. Do you not realize that when a national curriculum was being proposed, all states sent a delegate to a meeting where the systems were discussed. Everyone agreed that QLD had the best system for teaching and assessing mathematics. The QLD delegate when looking at a ‘top’ NSW performance was that she could not give the student higher than a B- because there were no questions of sufficient difficulty on the paper to warrant such a grade. The NSW delegate, after looking at QLD assessment packages agreed. There is no doubt in my mind that the expectations on students in mathematics today, far exceeds those of when I was a student. Whether this is a good thing can be discussed but please don’t wipe out QLD as being lower than NSW on statistics. Our demographic is startlingly different. I have yet to meet an exponent of these views who actually understood the criteria system in QLD maths. Perhaps that is the problem. Better say it’s bad because then I don’t have to show I don’t get it. Some-one said to me very early in my career that most teachers are not that smart. This site does nothing for our reputation.
Just one question. Why do you resort to an anecdotal and unverifiable account of how impressed teachers from other states were with Queensland teaching and assessment of maths? No names mentioned and no data. And, since you brought up the topic of statistics, a conclusion based on a statistically invalid comparison of Qld work with that from NSW. Priceless for a “HOD of Mathematics of 17 years”.
Indulge me. You’ve commented: “Some-one (sic) said to me very early in my career that most teachers are not that smart.” Two more questions. Do you actually have a discipline degree in science (majors in maths) or in arts (major in maths) or engineering? Or do you have a vocational teaching degree? Just asking.
“This site does nothing for our reputation.” And back at you. Your comment does nothing for your reputation.
Let’s end the experiment in Qld. Students, teachers and Queensland deserve external exams and ATAR scores like all other states.
For more information go to: School Watch Queensland – External Exams Now
at:
https://www.facebook.com/schoolwatchqld?ref=br_tf
Three things our nation’s schools need (none is a national curriculum)
An excellent commentary by Adam Shoemaker -completed a four-year term as Chair of the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (VCAA) in February 2014. He is now Academic Provost of Griffith University in Queensland.
http://theconversation.com/three-things-our-nations-schools-need-none-is-a-national-curriculum-24328
Extract
Clearly what we do not need is a ninth scheme of moderation, assessment and tertiary ranking at the federal level. We need an open, common market of assessment and reporting arrangements the length and breadth of Australia. And that market should be consistent, comparable and transferable.
I am a retired academic who went through the Qld system in the “good old days” – Milton State School and State High. That left me, among other things, with a sound grasp of grammar which came in handy when I was writing for Bob Hawke. A product of Perth Modern, I believe, he was a stickler for grammar and punctuation. My kids, products of more “progressive” education, still struggle with these basics, even though they have Honours degrees from reputable Australian universities. Now I have a granddaughter, nearly 3, who will be going to a local school in Singapore, where Mandarin will have to be her Mother Tongue Language. ( It cannot be English, the medium of instruction.) Since G’ma is self-appointed Commissar for Education, I would be interested if anyone can recommend some decent reading on the Singapore system. I have already noted a good deal of propaganda about egalitarianism, for example, which does not entirely square with what I already know – e.g. that the so-called “branded” schools, all in the most expensive areas, give priority to alumni. This leaves very few places for others.
Hello
My son attended a prominent Christian college here on the sunshine coast last year. This year I have chosen to home school him and I found your page on the internet. My son is 14 and was meant to commence year 9 at the college this year. When I was preparing him for going back to school he alerted me to several things that had been happening that I was completely unaware of. To cut the story short it required the immediate intervention of a psychologist. It is with interest that I note you were taken to court about home schooling. As a matter of interest I thought you would like to know that Andrew Powell MP home schools all of his 5 children and I have previously made comments to him that if he feels the education system is not good enough for his own children why does he not do something about the system and change his portfolio to make a real difference in this world. My son has had a terrible time in the state school system and it was decided to send him to a private school for year 8. Unfortunately this has caused a series of different problems that I will not disclose here. For the $8000 it cost last year to send him there excluding uniform etc I can’t say that it did him any favours at all. Home schooling, or more to the point ‘hack’ schooling seems to be the only option for him. I am concerned that this will place considerable pressure on me and am hoping you are able to connect me with other parents in our area that are already home schooling. Kindest Regards A
Well done Peter Ridd for all your work in trying to bring sanity back into Senior sciences and Maths. Let’s all hope the government acts quickly to implement the recommendations. As the government is desperate to make savings in the public sector might I suggest closing down QSA. This would not only save a lot of money it would have a positive and invigorating effect on Qld education. I would like to see how some of them would cope in the classroom trying to implement their airy – fairy theories that they have inflicted on us for so long! My dealings with some of them suggest that they don’t understand it themselves.
Response to Committee (Education and Innovation Committee – Assessment Methods for Senior Maths, Chemistry and Physics inquiry ) queries made during a private meeting on 30 August 2013 -Meeting with teachers, Victoria – Physics-Dan O’Keeffe, AIP (Vic Branch) Education Committee.
An interesting perspective which challenges the QSA’s obsession with creating rubrics that promote discrete curriculum elements.
‘The basics’ and ‘higher order skills’ are not really discrete curriculum elements. There is more a continuum of content ranging from the easily accessible to the more subtle on one dimension and from the fundamental and essential to the peripheral on another dimension. The dichotomy between ‘the basics’ and ‘higher border skills’ is not only naive and seemingly populist, but ignores that fact in some instances the fundamental can be challenging, but once mastered further conceptual development can be straightforward.
Having said all that the terms ‘the basics’ and ‘higher order skills’ have not been commonly used in discussions of physics curriculum. The distinction does not apply. Nearly all of the content is at a level that does require some thought without being either excessively complex and overtly simple.
Government responds to senior maths and science assessment inquiry.
http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2013/12/27/government-responds-to-senior-maths-and-science-assessment-inquiry
Given its inability to admit errors and the fact that, after years of mounting criticism, the QSA has been complicit in enforcing school-based assessment on schools, the authority also needs a radical overhaul.
Dr Kevin Donnelly taught senior school English for 16 years and is a past Year 12 Examiner and member of Victoria’s English Panel of Examiners and Board of Studies.
MY opinion -
The QSA as it stands at present cannot be trusted to overhaul the system. I HAVE HAD TO ENDURE THIS NOW DISCREDITED SYSTEM FOR OVER 30 YEARS We need new blood!
Although the recommendations trod softly on the QSA’s role in Queensland’s assessment fiasco, the question of accountablity must be addressed. This statutory body has pulled the wool over the eyes of every Education Minister dating back to Anna. I hope the Queensland media, both print and electronic, focus on this issue of accountability.
QSA has introduced a Comment button on every page of their website.
This is a great opportunity for teachers at the coalface to express their concerns. A chance to tell your story and make them accountable.
Example
http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/about.html
THE Queensland parliamentary committee report recommending overhauling senior school assessment in mathematics, chemistry and physics, tabled yesterday, is a stunning indictment on those responsible for the state’s education system.
For years, bodies responsible for a substandard and unreliable curriculum and assessment system, such as the Queensland Studies Authority, have argued all is well – clearly, they are wrong.
Read more
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/opinion-queensland-parliamentary-committee-report-recommends-overhaul-of-the-way-senior-students-are-taught-and-assessed/story-fnihsr9v-1226740511256
Senior school students should sit uniform maths and science exams, inquiry into assessment methods finds.
TANYA CHILCOTT, SARAH VOGLER
THE COURIER-MAIL OCTOBER 15, 2013
A HSC-STYLE exam in senior mathematics and science subjects has been recommended for Queensland school students by a state inquiry.
The inquiry into assessment methods used in senior mathematics, chemistry and physics in Queensland schools has recommended students sit a standardised external exam in the subjects.
The exam would make up 50 per cent of a student’s overall achievement mark.
The remaining 50 per cent would comprise of school-based assessments.
A Queensland Parliament Education and Innovation Committee (EIC) report tabled yesterday states the exam would ensure an appropriate focus on, and a commonality in, content knowledge across the state, along with promoting confidence in the validity of a student’s final mark.
The report has been tabled! Go to ‘Related publications tab’ on this site
http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/en/work-of-committees/committees/EIC/inquiries/current-inquiries/QldAssessment
Report
Page 144 | Part Two
Education and Innovation Committee
• The ability of assessment processes to support valid and reliable judgments of student outcomes.
The committee considers that some assessment processes, as they stand, are limited in their ability to support valid and reliable judgements of student outcomes in senior mathematics, chemistry and physics. In part, this relates to a lack of support and a lack of
understanding by teachers (including moderation panel members) of the assessment methods to be used; as well as to an insufficient level of detail being provided in the syllabus. It also relates to a lack of any common assessment tasks that allow direct comparability between the work of students at different schools.
And will QSA still maintain that moderation meetings next week will provide fair, valid and reliable outcomes!
Submission time again – navigating through pages of ticks and more ticks on wordy criteria sheets that then turn into letters on Student profiles!
I am encouraged by the following -
“When it comes to combining evidence across assessment tasks, research in the field of psychometrics suggests that the simplest, most reliable and fairest method is simply to sum marks across tasks.”
http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/committees/EIC/2013/QldAssessment/submissions/058.pdf
Submission to the Queensland Parliament’s Education and Innovation
Committee’s Inquiry into Assessment Methods for Senior Maths,
Chemistry and Physics This submission is made by Professor Geoff Masters and Professor Gabrielle Matters on behalf of the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER).
QSA has introduced a Comment button on every page of their website.
This is a great opportunity for teachers at the coalface to express their support or concerns.
Example
http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/yr10-science-assessment.html
The Queensland Government has commissioned the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) to conduct an independent review of Queensland senior assessment and tertiary entrance processes. In order to assist their deliberations, the reviewers, Professor Geoff Masters (Chief Executive Officer) and Dr Gabrielle Matters (Principal Research Fellow), are gathering information through public consultations, informing papers, research activities, and analyses of data about current procedures and outcomes. The review, which commenced in July 2013, will be completed by the end of July 2014.
The Terms of Reference for the review are vast, some of the issues are universal, ACER’s approach is to look to the future, and the findings of the review will no doubt have relevance beyond Queensland.
To view media releases and Public consultation plan visit
http://www.acer.edu.au/queenslandreview
Professor Gabrielle MATTERS – what an excellent commentary.
Public Hearing—Inquiry into Assessment of Senior Mathematics, Chemistry and Physics in
Queensland Schools
Brisbane – 15 – 05 Jun 2013
MATTERS, Professor Gabrielle, Australian Council for Educational Research
CHAIR: I again welcome Professor Matters. We really appreciate your time this morning. I invite you to make a short three-minute opening statement before the committee members ask questions. Prof. Matters: Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to elaborate on what Professor Geoff Masters and I wrote in ACER’s submission. I will be responding directly to the terms of reference for this inquiry. I will not be talking about Queensland’s position in the assessment world
or QSA’s functions, nor will I be talking about the false dichotomy of internal assessment versus external assessment. A conversation about good assessment and fitness for purpose is for another time.We have three points to make. First, assessment methods should be chosen primarily for their capacity to provide useful information about student learning in a subject such as mathematics
or an area within it such as algebra or geometry. In Queensland you see a philosophical preference for particular forms of assessment—for example, teacher devised. The change that is required is from a philosophical commitment to a single way of assessing to a recognition that different methods are appropriate for different kinds of learning even within the same subject. It is our opinion that factual knowledge and conceptual understandings in mathematics, chemistry and
physics could be assessed by a common external test while laboratory skills and written research reports and so on could be assessed by teachers in schools.
Second, the approach to recording student performance on an assessment task or activity needs to be appropriate to the task or activity. This issue, I believe, was the precipitate for this inquiry. In Queensland you see a philosophical preference for criteria and standards at the task level. It is our opinion that the marking guides in their current form are an unnecessary extension of the principles of valid and reliable assessment—principles that apply in any system including one
that is teacher based. Awarding one of five levels of achievement comes at the end of a course of study when teachers look at results over all assessments over all four semesters and make an on-balance decision about the standard obtained by a particular student. This should be the only place where overarching criteria and standards should be applied. The change that is required here is to recognise that it is not appropriate to impose a single approach—the use of the criterion
standards matrix—for recording results on all forms of assessment at the task level. Maybe it could be left to the discretion of teachers as to how to record performance on individual tasks. Third, the approach to combining evidence from multiple sources or to aggregating scores needs to be appropriate to the assessment method. In Queensland there seems to be a philosophical opposition to arriving at on-balance conclusions numerically. Although some rule
based decisions are made, the practice is to use teacher judgement to arrive at overall conclusions. Teachers have got the message, whether intended or not, that they should not be calculating test scores. The change that is required here is a recognition that for some kinds of tasks such as tests the best way to reach an overall result is simply to add results on individual test questions and then
to interpret the resulting scores qualitatively by reference to the exit levels of achievement and standards as set down in the syllabuses.In conclusion, we believe that the Queensland assessment system must provide the best
possible information about what individuals know, understand and can do rather than being shaped by commitments to past practices or by philosophical objections to the measurement of student learning. Most of our recommended changes to mathematics, chemistry and physics can be implemented immediately within the present system, or at least the spirit of our recommended changes can be captured immediately. Thank you for the opportunity to be heard, Madam Chair.
Link to above commentary
http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/committees/EIC/2013/QldAssessment/trns-ph5Jun2013-PROOF.pdf
Extract from paper by Prof Val Klenowski
The seminar was held in Subang Jaya Malaysia on 3 June 2013
Cambridge Horizons, 3 June 2013
School-based Assessment: Prospects and Realities in Asian Contexts
School-Based Assessment, Standards, Teacher Judgement and Moderation: Messages from Research
By Prof Val Klenowski Faculty of Education School of Cultural and Professional Learning
Queensland University of Technology, Australia
http://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/images/139719-sba-seminar-papers.pdf
“Research Findings
Standards, moderation and teacher judgement are all required. This involves teachers identifying evidence in student work, use of exemplars to guide judgement practice for consistency and comparability and moderation to reach agreement and identify implications for learning improvement. p7
Teachers in the education system are viewed as the primary change agents, who through judgement practices that are integral to the requirements of assessment tasks and expectationsof quality performance, are best placed to identify important steps for students to improve in their learning and to develop useful insights about how best to change pedagogy to meet students’ particular learning needs. The QSA supported research and development to learn of the level of support required for teachers in the implementation of a standards-referenced
system. However, teacher judgement remains under-researched and remains in its infancy.” P8
However, teacher judgement remains under-researched and remains in its infancy.
The QSA submission (129) states on p27
“The system has not remained static during the past 40 years but has evolved in
response to the needs of students and teachers and a changing evidence base. Its
principles are sound, its processes are dependable, its workforce is capable, and its outcomes are fair and accurate. It is well placed to support the assessment of the Australian Curriculum following its implementation in Queensland.”
How is this possible if -teacher judgement remains under-researched and remains in its infancy.
An extract from:
A report to the Queensland Studies Authority
Assessment approaches in Queensland senior science syllabuses
Gabrielle Matters
Australian Council for Educational Research August 2006
http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/downloads/publications/research_qsa_science_assess.pdf
8.1 Sacred status in Queensland
Sadler (2000) states that the term criteria is seen to have sacred status in Queensland and the ‘lack of knowledge about alternative ways of assigning grades has suppressed intelligent discussion and practical progress’. While his criticism was shared with educators in higher education and presumably refers more to them than to educators in the senior schooling sector, the point is pertinent to the issue under investigation in this paper. It would seem to be the case that, more than 20 years after the introduction of criteria-based assessment into Queensland, teachers who are new to the profession and/or new to the State are obtaining knowledge of criteria-based assessment through translations and re-interpretations of the topic from their colleagues in staffrooms around Queensland. Such information giving might explain two things: One, the lack of knowledge of the alternatives (whether these be good or bad) that could be used in the process of assigning grades; and two, the muddiness that now seems to surround some if not all of the four fundamental issues about standards.
“Following Sadler (1985, 1986, 1987), the Queensland approach to assessment in Years 11 and 12 is typically referred to as ‘criteria-and-standards-based assessment’ (though sometimes ‘criteria-based assessment’ or ‘standards-referenced assessment’). Essentially, this involves the use of a rubric (or schema) to represent the conjunction of different criteria (or performance dimensions) with different merit standards.” P5 Are core learning outcomes ‘standards’? http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/3517.html
The QSA has made it clear that ” the use of marks in criteria based assessment is inappropriate….” http://www.platoqld.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Advice-for-Biology-Teachers.pdf
I was surprised to learn that in NSW their HSC syllabi also use a ‘standards referenced’ framework and they use marks linked to criteria.
HSC assessment in a standards referenced framework
A GUIDE TO BEST P19
What marks will be awarded for an assessment task?
It is important to ensure that marks earned on individual tasks adequately reflect the differences in student performance. To achieve this, marking guidelines need to use the full range of marks available for the task. This does not necessarily mean that student marks must be spread across the whole range. ……………….
Students will be awarded marks commensurate with the quality of their response in relation to the marking guidelines. The marking guidelines for assessment tasks should enable teachers to reward work that shows more complex development and higher order achievement with higher marks. At the same time, students whose work demonstrates only a basic level of achievement should receive relatively low marks.
HSC Assessment in a Standards-Referenced Framework – A Guide to Best Practice
http://arc.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/go/hsc/other-bos-resources/
I also found this on the Board of Studies NSW website -
Best practice in a standards-referenced approach
The checklist below shows how best practice can be achieved in relation to:
Checklist
The standards-referenced approach to assessment for the HSC involves schools ensuring that in the:
……………………………………………………………………………
• students are given the opportunity to demonstrate their level of achievement of the outcomes in a range of different task types
• tasks reflect the weightings and components specified in the relevant syllabus
• students know the assessment criteria before they begin a task
• marking guidelines for each task are linked to the standards by including the wording of syllabus outcomes and relevant performance descriptions marks earned on individual tasks are expressed on a scale sufficiently wide to reflect adequately the relative differences in student performances.
http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/manuals/hsc_assessment_std_ref_fwk.html#bestpractice
This is an example in ENGLISH STUDIES LINK
http://arc.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/go/hsc/work-samples-year-11-12-including-higher-school-certificate/english-studies/tasks/we-are-australians-english-in-citizenship-community-and-cultural-identity-speech/#work-samples
Many other example ENGLISH / PHYSICS– LINK
http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/hsc_exams/exam-papers-2007/pdf_doc/english-standard-and-advanced-notes.pdf
http://arc.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/standards-packs/SP02_15330/
This is the PHYSICS link to show how in NSW they use marks linked to criteria in a Standards-Referenced Framework.
http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/hsc_exams/hsc2012exams/
Click on marking guidelines.
An interesting perspective about international best practice in educational assessment.
Submission to the Queensland Parliament’s Education and Innovation Committee’s Inquiry into Assessment Methods for Senior Maths, Chemistry and Physics This submission is made by
Professor Geoff Masters and
Professor Gabrielle Matters
on behalf of the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER). Sub 58
Extract from submission under the heading – Best Practice
“When it comes to combining evidence across assessment tasks, research in the field of
psychometrics suggests that the simplest, most reliable and fairest method is simply to
sum marks across tasks. If an assessment booklet consists of twenty tasks all scored right
or wrong, then the best way of combing responses to those tasks is simply to assign a
score of 0 for a wrong response and a score of 1 for a right response and to sum over the
twenty tasks to obtain overall student scores in the range 0 to 20. If an assessment booklet
contains some tasks with a 3-level rubric (eg, by recognising the partially complete
solution of a task), then the three levels on those task rubrics are best scored 0, 1 and 2,
with scores again being summed across all tasks. If a student performance (eg, in dance)
or a product of student work (eg, a research project or piece of artwork) is judged on, say
three, separate criteria, each with a rubric that defines five levels of quality, then those
levels are best scored 0 to 4 and – if an overall assessment is to be made – summed across
the three criteria to obtain student scores in the range 0 to 12.”
QSA and project officers need to read this. I have always felt that that QSA has a ideological and philosophical stance to assessment. They defend past practices, rather than arrive at a considered view concerning assessment, based on an ‘on balanced judgement’ of current assessment scholarship.
I should have added a warning when reading the ‘extract’ from submission 58. You need to read the full submission so that you do not take the extract out of context.
http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/en/work-of-committees/committees/EIC/inquiries/current-inquiries/QldAssessment
I would just like to share the advice given about the use of marks in Biology from the QSA and the comments made by Mrs Patrea, WALTON Chief Executive Officer, Queensland Studies Authority to the current Parliamentary Inquiry.
Biology Advice for teachers
The importance of instrument-specific criteria and standards:
Moving on from marks
Compiled by the Queensland Studies Authority
“It is not an appropriate practice to “add-up” or aggregate grades to arrive at an overall judgment about a student’s level of achievement within each criterion. The aggregation of marks and application of pre-specified, arbitrary numerical cut-offs for level of achievement decisions tends to disguise the strengths and weaknesses of a student’s work. P2
“An analysis of the underlying assumptions shows that numerical marking systems enjoy a status that is higher than they strictly deserve. The use of marks in criteria based assessment is inappropriate for two sets of reasons. Firstly, the assumptions are not generally satisfied in any form of school-based assessment, and secondly, the use of marks as currency in grade-exchange transactions diverts attention away from criteria, standards, and the processes of qualitative appraisals, and to that extent is educationally counterproductive.”p4
http://www.platoqld.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Advice-for-Biology-Teachers.pdf
PUBLIC BRIEFING—
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
THURSDAY, 7 MARCH 2013
Brisbane
“How is student achievement graded and why? Let me be clear: QSA has not banned the use of marks. QSA has not banned the use of marks.”
WALTON, Mrs Patrea, Chief Executive Officer, Queensland Studies Authority
- 5 –
07 Mar 2013
http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/committees/EIC/2013/QldAssessment/trns-pb7Mar2013.pdf
Biology Advice for teachers
The importance of instrument-specific criteria and standards:
Moving on from marks
Compiled by the Queensland Studies Authority
“It is not an appropriate practice to “add-up” or aggregate grades to arrive at an overall judgment about a student’s level of achievement within each criterion. The aggregation of marks and application of pre-specified, arbitrary numerical cut-offs for level of achievement decisions tends to disguise the strengths and weaknesses of a student’s work. P2
“An analysis of the underlying assumptions shows that numerical marking systems enjoy a status that is higher than they strictly deserve. The use of marks in criteria based assessment is inappropriate for two sets of reasons. Firstly, the assumptions are not generally satisfied in any form of school-based assessment, and secondly, the use of marks as currency in grade-exchange transactions diverts attention away from criteria, standards, and the processes of qualitative appraisals, and to that extent is educationally counterproductive.”p4
http://www.platoqld.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Advice-for-Biology-Teachers.pdf
PUBLIC BRIEFING—
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
THURSDAY, 7 MARCH 2013
Brisbane
“How is student achievement graded and why? Let me be clear: QSA has not banned the use of marks. QSA has not banned the use of marks.”
WALTON, Mrs Patrea, Chief Executive Officer, Queensland Studies Authority
- 5 –
07 Mar 2013
http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/committees/EIC/2013/QldAssessment/trns-pb7Mar2013.pdf
I would strongly suggest that anyone who is genuinely interested in the future of Queensland education should listen to the archived public hearing held 5/6/13. ProfessorJohn Mattick (former Chair of the Queensland Studies Authority (2004-2007) and ProfessorGabrielle Matters both offer credible insights into the ongoing debate.
Link
http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/work-of-committees/broadcast-committee/archive?address=mms%3a%2f%2faux.parliament.qld.gov.au%2fCommitteesArchive%2fEIC%2fEducation_and_Innovation_Committee__20130605_102740.wmv&broadcast_accept=1
Thank you, Enlightening.
I was a teacher who’s school participated in the Extended Trial Pilot of the Senior Physics Syllabus. I left teaching just after the final version of the physics syllabus came out having spent 3.5 years (and many hours of my own time) attempting to make the new syllabus work. Before teaching I worked as a research Physicist both in the Universities and private industry. Unfortunately, when I left high-school teaching I was very worried the new syllabus would not be the success it backers were so confident it would be, but I still tried to keep an open mind.
Over the last two years I have tutored two students in high-school physics. In both cases their biggest problem was with EEIs in year 12. Both students were from very well resourced private schools with fairly small classes (about 12 students in each). In both cases the same problems arose:
- poor basic knowledge of physics (things like units, basic application of simple mathematics, plotting graphs, checking results made sense)
- very poorly designed experiments that had been “signed off” by teachers
- incorrect advice from teachers on many issues including appropriate data analysis techniques, what to do when results didn’t make sense, how to structure the report)
- gaining a patchy knowledge of the physics behind the chosen topic by attempting to only use the parts the student (and sometimes teachers) thought were directly relevant.
- endless time spent paraphrasing information collected from the internet
The list goes on, but the upshot is, even though both cases were from private schools with excellent academic reputations, it was clear the standard of physics teaching was extremely poor and the students were becoming increasingly disillusioned with the subject. It was clear the teachers did not understand the subject matter of the particular topics chosen by the students to a level sufficient to be able to advise the students appropriately.
Sadly, these situations did not surprise me – I had (and still have) the belief that it is not possible to teach physics well using the 2007 syllabus in a real school setting. I do not miss it all, but I do miss teaching kids about the wonders of physics done well – something thew 2007 syllabus does not enable teachers to do.
Dear worried ex-teacher,
I too am a Physics teacher and I am worried about elements of the National Curriculum (NC). I am told there are similarities between what is happening in Qld, the narrowly avoided disaster which occurred in WA and the NC. I am also told this is not surprising given that the authors are the same people: mostly science education academics, not physicists. Their main focus is always on promoting their particular brand of teaching hence elevating themselves to guru status, rather than good Physics.
I am worried about certain aspects of the NC and would appreciate your thoughts.
First the Strands. There are 3 and the documentation treats them equally. Does this mean they are to be weighted equally when assessing the students? If so, this is deeply problematic as Science as a Human Endeavour (SHE) is essentially the history of science mixed in with opinions, environmentalism and cultural slants. Whilst I do not discount the importance of these, they should not be a part of a Year 11/12 high school Physics course. They belong in a Sociology course at tertiary level. How anyone can even begin to assess this strand with any consistency defies logic. So why is it there?
Secondly the Standards are of deep concern. Teachers are to assess students with these generic, content-free, vague and artificially manufactured compilations of random words. They follow some sort of Piagetian progression but use subjective words like ‘simple’ which are totally useless when assessing students’ work as every teacher will have a different definition of what constitutes simple. Simple concept or simple question? The SHE strand is embedded in the Standards so students will need to assessed in SHE in order to obtain a grade and teachers have no choice but to give them an opportunity to demostrate proficiency. Why are the Standards there?
I believe we should be asking our State authorites about the structure of the NC and exactly how much they intend to adopt. If SHE is included in any significant way there will be tears. I also believe we should accept at face value the statements that assessment will be a decision for the States and jettison the Standards. Only then should we begin to discuss the content of the syllabus. Get a valid structure in place before discussing details.
The Federal Government has given each State a box with jigsaw pieces inside but no picture on the cover. If we are all doing our own little section or sections, then the concept of a national curriculum is shattered which begs the question: “Why are we doing this?”
This letter was prompted by the results of the recent PIRLS reading study which found that 25% of Australian students in Grade 4 could not read at their grade level. This result placed Australia at the bottom of English-speaking countries.
An Open Letter to all Federal and State Ministers of Education
In a recent article in the Australian (“Bell tolls for classroom reform”, 12/12/12), Geoff Masters, Chief Executive of the Australian Council for Educational Research is reported as being extremely disappointed (as any Australian would be) at seeing Australia ranked 27th in the PIRLS international survey of children’s reading abilities, and quotes him as urging that we should be looking at such questions as “How well are we teaching reading? How well are we preparing teachers to teach reading?”
These are not new questions.
In March 2004, The Australian published an open letter addressed to Dr Brendan Nelson, then Minister for Education, Science and Training, signed by 26 senior people in the fields of psychology, education, speech pathology, audiology, and linguistics, expressing concerns with literacy levels in Australian children and especially concerns with the way in which reading was typically being taught in Australian schools. The letter asked the Minister to commission a review of the approaches to reading instruction adopted in Australian schools.
The Minister did so, instituting towards the end of 2004 a National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy in Australia and particularly asking the Committee conducting this inquiry to report on the current state of teacher education and the extent to which it prepares teachers adequately for reading instruction. This Committee submitted its report in December 2005. This Report and associated summaries of it has since been removed from the Federal Government’s web site, but the material can still be read at the website of the Australian Council for Educational Research – see http://tinyurl.com/d6v2v9y
The Report made 20 recommendations. Several of these focussed on improving the preparation of student teachers for being able to teach children how to read, since the Committee had found clear evidence that this was currently inadequate. The Report was favourably received by the Minister, and also by various national bodies concerned with children’s reading difficulties, such as Learning Difficulties Australia. But none of the Report’s 20 recommendations was ever acted upon. (In January 2006 Dr Nelson assumed a new portfolio, so there was a new Minister for Education from that date; she did respond to the Report, but not by acting on any of its recommendations.)
In June 2009 the Hon Bill Shorten, then Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services, set up a Dyslexia Working Party to write a report for him proposing a national agenda for action to assist people with dyslexia (difficulties in reading). This report was submitted to him on January 10 2010. It can be obtained from http://www.dyslexiaaustralia.com.au/DYSWP.pdf
The report made 19 recommendations for actions to deal with dyslexia in the Australian population. One of these was that in all teacher-training courses teachers should be made fully familiar with the research on how children learn to read, why some children find it so difficult, and how such difficulties can best be treated.
In September 2012 the Dyslexia Working Party received a Federal Government response to its report, over the signatures of the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth and the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers. This response indicated that the Government proposed to take no action on any of the Working Party’s 19 recommendations.
So Federal Governments have known about this problem for nearly a decade, and have received advice from two independent committees of investigation about how to deal with the problem. This advice has been ignored.
And so the results from PIRLS showing that so many Australian children are now very poor readers, though certainly disappointing, are not surprising to anyone who examines what happens in schools, and compares it to what research has clearly shown to be effective in promoting successful reading development. The 2005 National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy (NITL) pointed to, and urged us to follow, the direction towards evidence-based practice taken recently in both Great Britain and the USA following national reports compiled by eminent experts in reading development. However, little productive change has eventuated at the policy level, much less at the classroom level. Indeed if the recommendations of the NITL were adopted, wholesale retraining of teachers would be necessary to provide them with the understanding of literacy not presented to them in their own teacher training.
We have significant problems in education from the beginning stages, in that we do not teach reading well. We do not use approaches known to be effective in initial reading instruction. As a nation, we do not routinely screen students entering school for underdeveloped pre-reading skills critical for facilitating learning to read, nor do we monitor student progress in learning to read in a manner that allows for successful early intervention with students failing to progress. We do not redress our early system failure during the middle primary years. In the secondary years, we have a significant group of disillusioned students who have lost contact with the curriculum because of these earlier issues. We tend to focus attention and resources upon compensatory educational options instead of emphasising the resolution of our earlier mistakes. The sequence of initial failure-shame-frustration-disengagement-dropout is predictable and ongoing. Currently, it is being addressed piecemeal, as if they were separate problems.
We need a vast shake-up at all levels of teacher training. By turning our gaze to educational practices supported by empirical research we can make optimum use of our resources to complete the task with effectiveness and efficiency.
We, as a group of concerned reading scientists, clinicians and educators, urge your immediate attention to what has become a national disgrace.
Dr Caroline Bowen, Macquarie University, University of KwaZulu-Natal
Associate Professor Lesley Bretherton, Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne
Associate Professor Mark Carter, Macquarie University Special Education Centre
Professor Anne Castles, Dept. of Cognitive Science, Macquarie University
Alison Clarke, Speech Pathologist, Melbourne
Emeritus Professor Max Coltheart, AM, Dept. of Cognitive Science, Macquarie University
Professor Linda Cupples, Dept. of Lingusitics, Macquarie University
Dr Molly de Lemos, Psychologist, Melbourne
Dr Janet Fletcher, School of Psychology, University of Western Australia
Dr Lorraine Hammond, School of Education, Edith Cowan University
Dr Kerry Hempenstall, Discipline of Psychology, RMIT
Associate Professor Virginia Holmes, Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne
Dr Coral Kemp, Macquarie University Special Education Centre
Dr Saskia Kohnen, Dept. of Cognitive Science, Macquarie University
Dr Suze Leitão, Speech pathologist, School of Psychology and Speech Pathology, Curtin University
Dr Alison Madelaine, Macquarie University Special Education Centre
Dr Rebecca Mathews, The Australian Psychological Society
Dr Meredith McKague, Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne
Yvonne Meyer, Committee Member, National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy
Dr Roslyn Neilson, Speech Pathologist, Language, Speech & Literacy Services
Professor Chris Pratt, Australian College of Applied Psychology
Professor Margot Prior, AO, Dept. of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne
Dr Meree Reynolds, Macquarie University Special Education Centre
Dr Tanya Serry, Dept. of Human Communication Sciences, La Trobe University
Dr Karen Smith-Lock, ARC Centre of Excellence for Cognition and its Disorders, Macquarie University
David Stokes, The Australian Psychological Society
Emeritus Professor Kevin Wheldall, AM, Macquarie University Special Education Centre Dr Robyn Wheldall, Macquarie University Special Education Centre
Associate Professor Cori Williams, School of Psychology and Speech Pathology, Curtin University
Dr Craig Wright, Psychologist, Understanding Minds and Griffith University
I was a Committee member on the 2005 National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy (NITL) which investigated how our kids are taught beginning reading & spelling and how our teachers are taught to teach beginning reading/spelling. I would like to answer the post from Pat Whalen (July 15, 2012) about using the USA as an example for us to follow.
While oft-cited, Finland is a very misleading example for us & we shouldn’t follow it because the Finnish Alphabetic Code is transparent (one letter = one sound & vice versa) making it very easy for students to learn to read and spell, whereas English has a pig of an Alphabetic Code (26 letters, 44 basic sounds & 70 common spelling rules that enable the 26 letters to cover the 44 sounds), so beginning reading is very difficult to learn and even more difficult to teach WELL!
Australia should only compare itself to other English speaking countries, USA, Canada, UK, New Zealand & Singapore.
A large amount of evidence-based research into beginning reading comes from the USA, specifically, the National Institute of Child Health & Development. The fact that so few schools in the USA follow the evidence of what works best is not the fault of the Americans who have done the research, but of the educators who do not implement effective instruction.
Australian students, like those in the USA, Canada, UK & New Zealand, fail from their first year of formal schooling because they do not learn to read & spell quickly and easily because of the way their teachers teach these skills. Instead of using those strategies that have been proven to be most effective, most primary teachers continue to use the highly discredited Whole Language philosophy (since re-named ‘Balanced’ and/or 4-resources).
On the other hand, the Singapore Education model is highly successful in both getting a large proportion of students into the highest achievement levels and in getting the most amount of ‘social justice’ by narrowing the gap between advantaged & disadvantaged students by getting a high proportion of disadvantaged kids into the highest achievement levels. (Please, no anecdotes of pushy Asian parents. We have plenty of Aussie pushy parents yet we can’t get anywhere near Singapore results)
While Finland is often referred to as an example we should follow, what is rarely mentioned is that Finnish teachers are required during their pre-service education to design and implement an evidence-based research project. In doing this, they are fully informed about different forms of research and how to evaluate for themselves if research findings are evidence-based and therefore worth following, or if they are the sort of snake oil, ‘I see what I want to see and my mate agrees, therefore what I already believe is proven’ that dominates Education research in Australia & other countries.
I am not posting this to denigrate primary teachers. The Literacy Inquiry was very clear in its findings that pre-service education for primary teachers is woefully inadequate. While COAG accepted the NITL Recommendations, no action has been taken in the intervening 8 years, resulting in more students who are ‘hard to teach’ in secondary schools because they lack the basic reading (and maths) skills they need to access the secondary Curriculum.
The National Curriculum English – beginning reading, continues to reflect the Whole Language philosophy of the people who were given the responsibility of writing it, namely Peter Freebody, co-author of 4-resources.
While there is much wrong with OBE in the secondary curriculum, unless teachers demand better information on how to teach beginning reading, on which all further learning relies, no improvement will be made in student achievement.
Therefore, reforming the OBE Curriculum in the first two years of formal schooling so that it reflects the evidence on how to teach and learn beginning reading most effectively, should be a high priority for all of us that think the current situation of 25% of children in Grade 4 unable to read & spell at their grade level is unacceptable.
PS: Hiya Pat, long time since PLATOWA discussion. Good that you continue the good fight.
I have a request for any of you familiar with the history of curriculum development in Queensland. I am completing a research degree which involves me critically investigating the development and implementation of the CCE and generic skills system in Queensland schools. I am unable however to identify a clear research trail which shows the literature used during this implementation. If anyone can point me to some authors or seminal papers I would be most obliged. Many thanks.
I’ve been teaching for 10 years, the last 9 of those in a private school as the Head of Physics. I have also been on panel for the last few years. The Head of Faculty – Science where I work is also a Physics teacher, which is a bit of a luxury given that in my time at the school we have only ever had one Physics class in Year 11 and one in Year 12. The general idea has been that I would take the Year 11′s one year and follow them through to Year 12, then he would take the next Year 11 group and follow them through, and so on.
I found out from my HOF at the end of last term that the Principal had decided that I would not be allocated a Physics class next year and that the HOF would be teaching both Year 11 and 12. In trying to get to the bottom of the Principal’s decision, I was informed that the reasons related to:
- The length of time it takes me to mark and return drafts and assessment to students
- Students perceiving that some of them get less draft feedback on their ERT’s and EEI’s than others (they neglect to consider that some of them write less or submit incomplete drafts)
- Students feeling that they do not trust that I have fully prepared them for assessment tasks
Hearing that sort of feedback stung as I felt it attacked my professionalism (not to mention that I only found out about it because I bothered to dig further into why I was being dumped from teaching Physics), but the more I have thought about it, the more I feel that it can be attributed to the increasing demands of trying to manage the Physics syllabus, the assessment methods we now have to use and the grading of tasks using criteria that are difficult to implement. I never had those issues on the previous syllabus.
I’ve never been a fan of the new syllabus and while I applaud the attempt at making Physics more accessible to all students, I feel that the new syllabus has had a very detrimental effect on the teaching and learning of Physics in high schools. In one way, I’m actually quite happy that next year I won’t have to deal with the vagaries of teaching the senior Physics syllabus.
Issue 5: QSA has banned the use of numerical marks by teachers
Response from QSA: There is no ban on the use of numerical marks by teachers. I’m responding to issue 5 since this is the one that is the most telling to me.
When they felt threatened, about 2 years ago I think, the QSA made the statement, shown here as issue 5, above.
They changed the language. George Orwell stated that “the last bastion of a failed Government is that they change the language”. He is so right.
In issue 5, the QSA has changed the meaning of numbers to “a symbol”. In other words we can use numbers as a symbol in the same way as we could use A, B, or even red, blue etc. However, numbers used as a symbol are not to function as numbers. In other words numbers are not allowed to be averaged or ranked.
There is a ban on the use of numbers functioning as numbers but not on numbers as symbols.
The QSA, being a statutory authority, speaks as though it’s in a court room. Teachers should not have to put up with such legal semantics. Teachers are busy people!!
It is really strange to argue against a criteria/standards based system by singing the praises of numerical scoring systems. Numerical scoring is just as open to abuse, misuse and ineptitude as a criteria and standards based system. In the reviews of numerical marking systems in practise, incorrect aggregation of scores on a instrument, inappropriate allocation of marks in marking schemes and inconsistency in the allocation of marks to student work are just a few of the more straightforward issues.
When it comes to aggregation of marks across instruments, or even within instruments, the lack of awareness of essential statistical processes when aggregating scores is horrifying. You simply cannot aggregate raw scores yet so many teachers and schools create totally invalid results by doing just that….. and it continues today.
Let’s get rid of the rose. Loured glasses and have a really close look at both criteria based and numerical systems – please?
Mick, the two main pillars of assessment, without which it becomes irrelevant, are “validity” and “reliability”. The so called “criteria/standards” fail on both counts.The Queensland “higher order” assessment, is even more flawed. Numerical marks may not be perfect, but compared to what Queensland teacher are required to do, they are far superior.
Thanks for the reply Pat. I must admit to being a little confused by your answer as issues of reliability and validity of an assessment instrument revolve around the items on the instrument and their construct on an item by item basis as well as a whole of test basis. Reliability and validity are not concerned with the way responses are graded.
Unfortunately any system is open to abuse. It comes down to individual sincerity and experience. There may be teachers out there who are not playing ball but I have yet to meet one. If you want to pull the wool over then what better system to do this then with the current one? As a panel member in the past, I found it reasonably easy to spot the errors that some teachers make and move to correct them. If the instruments were sound then the aggregation of marks tended to be valid. I agree with you that the past system was not perfect but it could have been improved upon.
Many years ago, I remember conversations being exchanged around the idea that the focus should be aimed at improving assessment instrument quality so that only one mark would be needed to report on the success of the student. What a great idea – replace the 3 mark system with a 1 mark system! All the panelist needed to do was to look at the quality of the instruments and if valid then so was the grade allocated. If they were in doubt then advice could be offered and the grade adjusted. So the tertiary sector would see that if a student was achieving at 50% in English and 80% in Physics then he/she is probably a good candidate to enter the Engineering faculty. It would be even better if there were also the big leveller in the form of an external exam to fine tune the result. It may even do away with the panels. Unfortunately, what came out of it was an overwhelmingly complex system that many, such as I, are struggling to come to terms with.
If this system is educationally sound then I would imagine that it must have the backing of the end user and that is the tertiary sector and those other pathways such as TAFE etc who are also accountable to their end users. If they are happy with the direction that Queensland education is taking then they will be sending through many young graduates who won’t struggle with the system and so better prepare our youth for the challenges this century has to offer.
Students with a 50% in English appropriate for an Engineering degree???? I’m sorry, as someone who has been involved in Engineering education at a tertiary institution in recent years, I would have to say that that is a remark that totally misunderstands modern engineering studies. Engineers need to be highly literate people, need to able to interpret and a large volume of highly technical writtern work, and write and present reports, manuals, briefs, tender documents etc as a part of their daily work, and this has been reflected in engineering courses since the mid 90s. The current Physics syllabus meshes well with current engineering degrees.
On the use of marks vs criteria, my recent experience working with graduates at my school is that that they find criteria much easier to mark to, and using marks a real mystery. They just don’t know how to tell whether a question or solution is, say, a 2 mark question or a 3 mark question. Using marks effectively takes experience as well!
Steve
On reflection, 50% for English was a flippant remark and I do apologise. I have had little contact with tertiary institutions for many years so I am uninformed. When I entered Engineering in the early 1970s I earned 6s and 7s in the maths/science and a 2 for English at school. I coped OK but probably would have an easier time of it if I was more literate. Looking at the kids that I teach today, I feel that I was probably an undiagnosed ADHD and mildly dyslexic. (As I type this, I welcome Microsoft’s spell checker).
I am glad that you are able to work with the current system to the point that your students are well informed. Unfortunately, my competence does not extend that far. My students place their faith in my ability to assess, and grade correctly without knowing exactly why. However, I do understand that the current system does have merits that should not be abandoned.
At this stage, there are a lot of comments highlighting the faults but none of the virtues. A viable assessment strategy needs to contain a workable alternative that is constrained within the agreed mandates that this forum is highlighting. May be a committee needs to be formed.
Great letter from Brian. In the short time I have been in Queensland, I have heard many, many teachers complaining about the QSA’s assessment system. Yet I have not seen many letters to the paper complaining about it. Particularly since the Courier Mail, when they castigated the former Government for it’s incompetency, prior to the election, cited “education as an exception”. They claimed that Peter and Anna had education right. Those in the classroom know that is not the case. Let your voices be heard!
A copy of my email to Tanya Chilcott of the Courier Mail which summarises my particular concerns:
Hello Tanya,
I understand you have been following the assessment-in-Queensland-schools debate and would welcome feedback.
I have taught senior Mathematics in Queensland for 14 years and I have deep concerns about:
1) The complicated nature of our syllabus documents and the assessment requirements. The stress and inefficient use of teacher time and resources which stems from trying to understand and implement the system is a significant issue of itself.
2) Yet the workload which results from this system, together with all of the exam setting, marking, etc, is unsustainable – too many teachers and students are burning out or cutting corners. It is probably worse in the sciences, and the English teachers I know often look like walking zombies.
3) Parents and students struggle to understand how student work is assessed. They mostly just ‘trust’ us to be doing the right thing.
4) Complicated systems are not transparent, and so they are very difficult to argue/complain about (I submit there is a reason the rest of the world uses ordinary percentages – they’re universally understood).
5) I have been on a panel which moderates the assessment of other schools and while I personally didn’t see any serious corruption, I could see the inconsistencies and how the system is open to manipulation. I have, however, heard some horror stories.
6) It is nigh impossible to determine how much ‘coaching’ of the harder parts of in-school exam papers has taken place, yet it is extremely insulting to receive advice from panels that our problems are not ‘hard enough’ even though few of our students get the very hard problems solved and we don’t ‘coach’ them about what is on the exam.
I would finally submit to you that most, if not all, of the teachers I have worked alongside in several schools loath this system. But they are too snowed under to complain and/or perhaps don’t want to rock the boat.
I nevertheless hope other teachers come forward to share their concerns.
I’m happy to discuss this further anytime, however, these are my concerns in a nutshell.
Sincerely,
Brian
Kylie Lang’s excellent article in Brisbane’s Sunday Mail, “In the slow class” only addresses part of the reason for Australia’s low standing in education. In the article she mentions that we lag behind Finland, Korea, Japan, Canada and China. Why then do our educational bureaucrats get all their innovative ideas from The United States? The Program for International Student Assessment, which Ms. Lang cites, has the average result from all OECD countries that took part as 496. Australia’s result was 514, 18 points above the average. The United States’ score was 487, 9 points below the average. Although Australia has scored27 points higher than the United States, we continue to get our loopy educational innovations from there. The Outcomes Based Education of William Spady and The Higher Order Assessment paradigm of Robert Carkhuff have both been responsible for the downturn of Australian education. The U.S. State of Washington paid Carkhuff one million dollars to implement his assessment innovation. Within two years it was rejected as leading to poor results. Yet the Queensland Studies Authority, after it was discredited in Carkhuff’s own State, proceeded to mandated it for all Queensland schools.
Many years ago, when she was Federal Education Minister, Julia Gillard once said, “The revolution will come in changing the thinking of teachers so they embrace practices based on the evidence of what works and not the latest scatterbrain idea dreamed up by some dusty academic who rarely enters a classroom, much less teaches kids.” I beg to differ. It is not the teachers who are embracing “scatterbrain” ideas; it is the non-teaching bureaucrats who treat every educational snake oil salesman who crosses the Pacific from the U.S. to Australia as a shining light guru.
I just wish more teachers – whom complain but don’t act – would at least take a moment to write to their local member to say they don’t like the system.
It’d take them 5 minutes tops.
If they did, QSA’s claims that ‘most teachers are satisfied with our system’ would be quickly dismissed.
Hi Brian – you’re right- teachers do need to be vocal. However, they need to be very sophisticated about what they’re vocal about. We often make the mistake that debates are about reason: this one is not about reason-it’s about power. No argument based on reason will win this battle. I guess that trick is to find where the power is- it is not primarily with teachers.
The QSA will have an answer for everything – those that hold the power hold the truth. I think that the power is in the ballot box and it’s parents and teachers combined that will decide the future. I think that maybe a good place to start is asking why Qld scores very low when standards are measured across the state. Maybe teachers have to start asking the right questions.
I would like to affirm the problems I have found of fairness and equity in the panel process. I have been on Math’s B and C panels in Brisbane, Toowoomba and now in the Sunshine Coast. We have 2 hours to check that the schools submission and check that the student’s scripts are of a correct standard and have assessed the syllabus at appropriate standards across the criteria.
I took over the Math’s C at Mueller College in Brisbane after the previous teacher left the school. The school celebrated that the entire 5 students had achieved mid to high VHA. Unfortunately I discovered that this teacher was unethical and gave students the exams and solutions prior to the exam block. The only way to remove this corruption is to have external exams to adjudicate internal assessment. Many other HOD Math’s Departments have told me that they know that students especially from wealthy schools pay their tutors to actually do their assignments.
I have also met so many panel members who were new teachers and told to go on panel to learn the system. This is a poor reflection on the professionalism of the panel system as when a new panel member is paired with an old panel member, the schools package is really being judged by one panel member as the older panel member controls actions taken. The loud dominant panel members also can influence others as well. All the State School verses Private School jealousies and prejudices are an influence in this process as well. Though well-meaning panelists are human.
I agree that the panel system is seriously flawed. Most of the experienced teachers that I know are resigning from panels. The only teachers who seem to be keen to fill panel vacancies are the ones who are currently seeking transfers out of country towns. Ed Qld has, somehow, made panel membership into a useful inclusion on a CV. The system DOESN’T work. I have been on a panel (of some sort) since 1985 and, at present, I can honestly say that I do not know what I am doing !!! From year to year, I do not know if MY work is good or not AND I am expected to sit in judgement of OTHER schools. THIS SYSTEM DOES NOT WORK. World’s best practice ?????? What is the QSA thinking?
SUMMARY OF PROBLEMS CAUSED BY THE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM:
1. Unrealistically huge study and assignment workloads are imposed on students, leading to alarming stress levels for all students of these subjects.
2. Related burnout illnesses and time missed from school for many.
3. Overly long assignments set in all Senior Science courses i.e. EEI’s and ERT’s . Long hours spent and high word counts.
4. Extensive time loss from the normal curriculum as courses become narrower when more class time is devoted to research assignments.
5. Student performance in such lengthy and complex assignments tends to be lower than would be achieved for more traditional assessment. It frequently occurs that very intelligent, hard-working students only achieve B’s (High Achievement Level). There have been many instances of private schools with students of good educational backgrounds having very few or no students graded at A standard. The standards required are too high and are in fact set at levels for which students are not developmentally and cognitively ready.
6. Many students are unable to complete assignments unless they have tuition and guidance from teachers or tutors outside the school. Students have enormous difficulty even getting started such assignments.
7. Very high workloads also for teachers who must design the assignment tasks, the assessment criteria sheets which specify the requirements for the marking of every standard of performance, and also the time required for marking of the student scripts, often at 25 minutes per student and frequently more than this. A Class of 25 students’ work would require a minimum of 8¾ hours concerted work, but this cannot be achieved in one session because the grading requires high level analysis and high concentration levels.
8. Grading of assignments is overly difficult because students usually perform unevenly across the required fields of performance and teacher subjectivity is required
9. Intrinsic inequity caused by combination of Letter Grades (Coarse scale measures) leads to loss of accuracy and precision in results. Different teachers very often will grade the same item differently. Numerical marking schemes are far more accurate and precise and deliver a more fine-grained and valid educational measurement of performance.
10. Huge variation and inequity between schools as no two schools have exactly the same course (curriculum, topics studied, assignments set, exams set). Comparability is moderated but is not necessarily reliable.
11. Inefficiency of the system across the state – teachers across the state are duplicating each other’s work to the extent that the total amount being performed by teachers is multiplied to enormously greater levels than should be necessary. If all schools were following a centrally prescribed curriculum and using the same resources, teachers would be enabled to devote much more time to quality preparation for routine curriculum delivery. Such economies of scale should be utilised across such a large educational system
12. Burnout, illness, absence and dropout of teaching staff as a consequence of such difficult workloads.
And of course let’s not forget that the Qld system of assessment is also responsible for bird flu, earthquakes and almost all cyclones! Please, let’s keep the debate relevant and honest.
The Qld system can be improved,simplified and made less stressful for teachers and students.
Over-statement only damages the argument for change and decreases credibility.
Claims by the QSA of “world-class” system and “extensive consultation” with teachers are over-statements. You cannot improve a system if it is confounded on so many levels. And in 2012 it is being introduced into primary school.
This system has at its core the requirement of teachers to invasively assess the higher-order thinking of students, i.e., “explain their strategies” to get an A instead of checking if the answers are right or wrong.
There has to be a review by international measurement experts. They would drop this system like a hot potato.
What I think is wrong with the High School Maths assessment system compared with other states.
(1) The QCS test is not equivalent to External Assessment. Although the QCS test does reward students who are fast readers, good at comprehending new information, good writers and naturally intelligent, it does not guarantee that individual schools will cover the prescribed syllabus id particular subjects.
The external exams in NSW are written by one group of test writers for each subject. They are written to address the prescribed syllabus in its entirety. This means that all schools must ensure that the entire course is covered to give their students the best chance of succeeeding. If teachers leave aspects of the syllabus out in their school, they risk that their own students will be disadvantaged. In Qld, schools and teachers set their own tests. They are able to then cover most of the syllabus, but leave some aspects out if they run out of teaching time. The QCS test will not and is not designed to pick up on such omissions by schools or teachers. Also, teachers cannot teach the test if it is set extenally.
(2) Students in most Qld schools are over-assessed in Years 11 and 12. I have no problem with the use of formative assessment to give students and teachers feedback on progress (but does not count on a report card). I am totally against too many summative pieces of assesment in any one semester. Students in Year 12 lack breathing space for reflection or learning for pleasure. With continuous assessment, students simply move from one assessment item to the next. It is not unusual for students to have four or five assignments due in the same week. It is very unusual for students in year 12 to have a week when they are not working on some assessment piece in one of their subjects. Because of the heavy assignment load each week, there is insufficient time for students to do regular homework and revision.
(3) There is no guarantee that maths assignments reflect a student’s knowledge of maths. The students who can afford really good private tutors can get their work proof-read and errors fixed prior to submission. Students who cannot afford tutors are at a disadvantage. Tests remove this imbalance.
(4) It does not make sense for the subject which promotes numeracy and numerical analysis to draw conclusions to be disallowed from using numerical methods to assess students. Criteria based assessment is subjective and can vary from teacher to teacher, or school to school.
There is a lot that could be better about the Queensland assessment system, however it seems quite short sighted to ignore all the good reasons the state had for moving away from external examinations.
Those of us old enough or informed enough to remember external examinations and the practices that evolved around predicting questions that would be included on the exam; where students results could depend on how well the teachers could predict specific questions or style of questions.
Surely a balanced review is the best course? Some of the criticisms levelled at the QSA in this debate are completely groundless. Such assertions do not help the cause these people support.
Defending the complete removal of external exams shows some naivety. Reliability is only possible with at least one outside common exam to scale against, and which does not rely totally on human subjective judgment as is the case with the 100% internal system of Queensland.
Predicting what goes into a statewide exam is nothing compared to the soul-destroying assignments that discriminate against lower SES students who do not have the contextual background afforded by well-educated parents to help them with research design and editing.
Groundless claims? Teachers at the coal-face are risking their jobs to reveal the sad stories that are happening to students disadvantaged by this confounded system.
Kids confused
Parents confused
I’m confused.
Please help
I thought the meeting on Saturday was a huge success based on attendance given that there would have been many who could not have attended due to reporting pressures at this time of the term. The one problem I had was that it was a meeting where the preacher was preaching to the converted. I was pleasantly surprised by the one dissenter who probably made many sound points. Wouldn’t it be great if there was enough interest by the media to present both sides of the debate and let the general public decide? I would imagine there would be great interest given that parent teacher nights has become teacher bashing sessions (not joking here!). Unfortunately, the malaise has set in for many, including some of us oldies who have decided not to retire early. Those who continue to speak against the system are now politely ignored. Those who are younger unfortunately have mortgages and so the best way to get out is to get pregnant. The fire has died down. How do we reignite it?
Great comment VB — and very true.
Does any other jurisdiction in Australia -or the world, use anthing remotely similar to the Qld Criteria/Standards model to exclusively determine student achievement, grading and reporting?
If, as I suspect there is none, can QSA point to any independent research, trialing and evaluation which demonstrates that their approach is superior -or even just comparable to other tried and tested models?
Can QSA (or QBSSS) point to any improvment to student performance which has
resulted from the ‘experimental ‘ approach it has pioneered since the 1970′s?
I had a discussion recently with an educational cynic who stated that …….. (cannot mention the organisation here) could not run a chook raffle! Even when they manage to make it happen all the winner gets is some vague verbal feedback rather then the expected $100 and the chook.
Pleased to see on Saturday, at the public meeting, that so many others were also concerned about this “touchy-feely”, invalid and unreliable assessment being used in Queensland schools. How arrogant is the QSA and Queensland Education to think we are the only ones that have it right? The US State of Washington paid Carkhuff $1 million dollars to implement his “higher order thinking” assessment policy. Before Queensland adopted it, Washington had rejected it as a failure! There MUST be an inquiry into the QSA’s adoption of this failed assessment paradigm.