5/18/2008 10:08:00 AM
TO TEST OR NOT TO TEST – THE BIG QUESTION
Sian Griffiths; The Sunday Times 18 May
Robin Alexander, who is leading an inquiry into primary schooling, tells why he believes that parents are right to voice concerns about national tests, but that there are no easy solutions to the problem It was hard to avoid parents’ grumbles last week as they sent their little ones off to sit national tests in maths, English and science. “I can’t see why 11-year-olds should take these tests. It seems so unfair and my son is really worried about them. I never had to sit exams at his age – I was too busy enjoying my childhood,” was a typical reaction, from one dad of my acquaintance. “He’s done nothing but practise for the tests for weeks and now he’s really bored with school.” Robin Alexander doesn’t personally know any of last week’s unfortunate examinees – “My grandchildren aren’t at that age and they are being educated in Scotland, where they have a different system,” he says. But this has not stopped the Cambridge don – who is leading one of the biggest investigations into primary schooling for nearly half a century – from adding his voice to the increasingly strident attacks on the testing regime. The stakes are high: the league table positions of England’s 17,000 primary schools depend on the test results for 11-year-olds, (the performance of seven-year-olds is assessed informally by their teachers). But the tests have been slammed by everyone from politicians to children’s authors such as Philip Pullman. “Research has found that in some schools the tests are dominating pupils’ last two years. We have also reported a strong perception by parents and teachers that they are stressful for children,” says Alexander, speaking down a crackly phone line from his home in north Yorkshire. “People do not like ‘high stakes testing’, with its league tables in the press and all the pressure that goes with that . . . I think there is a pretty clear consensus that change is needed. The evidence is so strong . . . it points in the direction of radical reform.” Alexander, I soon realise, is a terrifyingly precise academic, who rather disapproves of newspapers’ simplification of weighty education matters – but will speak up if he thinks something is worth fighting for. Unhappily for Ed Balls and his ministers, he seems to have decided that tests, and everything else going on in primary classrooms up and down the land, are just such a cause. Sun Times
ASSESSING OUR CHILDREN CAN ONLY IMPROVE THEIR EDUCATION
Chris Woodhead ; The Sunday Times 18 May
The whingeing about tests for 11-year-olds last week was predictable and depressing Last week MPs on the education select committee jumped on what might well now be an unstoppable bandwagon and demanded an urgent rethink of the national curriculum tests in primary schools. Terrified by the prospect of a poor league table position, too many schools were, its members argued, force-feeding their pupils. Joy, spontaneity and creativity have been driven from the classroom. Something must be done, and now. The fact that the problem might lie not with the tests, but with teachers who cannot accept the principle of accountability does not seem to have occurred to the committee. Neither did its members explain how problems in failing schools can be solved if we do not know which schools are failing. At the moment, children are assessed by teachers in English and maths at seven and sit more formal tests in English, maths and science at 11. Two periods of testing in four years of primary education. What’s wrong, moreover, with some preparation for tests if the tests assess worthwhile skill and knowledge? I have to confess to a dreadful sense of déjà vu. Sixteen years ago the then Tory education secretary, Ken Clarke, horrified by the sloppiness he found in many of the primary schools he visited, asked Robin Alexander and Jim Rose to research what became known as the Three Wise Men report. I was the third wise man, parachuted in later to represent the interests of the fledgling national curriculum. Now Professor Alexander is heading up a review of primary education, funded by a charitable foundation, and Sir Jim Rose has been asked by ministers, eager not to be upstaged, to mount his own investigation – though testing has been excluded from the terms of his report. In retrospect, the Three Wise Men report was one of my more amusing professional experiences. At the time it was a nightmare. Jim Rose is a nice man, buthe is not the Clint Eastwood of primary education. Consensus makes his day. I found that Robin Alexander bridled at any challenge to his opinions. He elevated preciousness into an art form. Working with him was marginally less stressful than being married to Heather Mills. Sun Times
REGULAR TESTS 'NARROW CURRICULUM'
BBC 17 May
Regular testing in schools narrows the curriculum, placing too much emphasis on certain aspects of core subjects, a leading academic has told the BBC. It comes after controversy over the marking of Sats tests taken by hundreds of thousands of 11-year-olds in England this week and a critical report by MPs. "Speaking and listening isn't tested, so it doesn't get much attention," Professor Margaret Brown said. But ex-government advisor Conor Ryan said schools had to be "accountable". In an interview with the BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Prof Brown, who specialises in Maths education, said schools were concentrating on core subjects "throughout the whole school period more than they should be". "And also, then within those subject teachers concentrate on particular aspects," she said. "For example, speaking and listening isn't tested, so it doesn't get much attention in Maths. Using and applying Maths doesn't get much attention. It's mainly short, written items. "Some teachers who are really confident can get away with doing the full curriculum and they actually get quite good results. "But most teachers are not that confident and they feel that, really, to make sure that they get good results they have to keep pretty well to practising to the test." But Conor Ryan, who was a special advisor to David Blunkett when he was the education secretary, said tests accounted for a fraction of school time. At the end of six years of primary school pupils were being tested in a "reasonable selection of their knowledge of England and Maths", he said. BBC
Lead Story | Curriculum / Quality Assurance
E-mail a friend |
del.icio.us| Bookmark|
Permalink |
Comments
(0) |
Post RSS