Through measurement to knowledge

·         (Need for) ‘well developed systems for evaluating and monitoring performances.’

·         (A recommendation) ‘That all aspiring primary teachers be required to demonstrate through test performance, as a condition of registration, that they meet threshold levels of knowledge about the teaching of literacy, numeracy and science and have sound levels of content knowledge in these areas.’ 

·         (A recommendation) ‘That standard science tests be introduced at Years 4,6,8 and 10 for school use in identifying students who are not meeting year-level expectations and for monitoring student progress over time.’ (ACER propose this because Queensland Year 4 students were ranked last in NAPLAN)

·         (In high performing Victorian schools) ‘Each of the schools has been particularly active in identifying tests and other assessments which contribute to an objective picture of student achievement and to the determination of the value that the school itself adds, through analysis of trends over time.’

Note that all of the above are direct or indirect criticisms of syllabi/curricula and assessments or lack thereof, or tertiary teacher training.

From Jensen’s Measuring what matters: student progress:

‘The ‘My School’ website is considerably better than having no information published on school performance. However, problems still exist because the school performance measures published on the ‘My School’ website may not be accurate. Comparisons of schools’ average test scores, even within like school groups, are prone to mismeasurement and can produce biased results for schools in low socio-economic areas.’ (I agree with the advantages and also with the criticism that injustice may occur to schools with lower socio-economic backgrounds)

Value adding is described as being  ‘A class of statistical models that estimate the contributions of schools to student progress in stated or prescribed education objectives (e.g. cognitive achievement) measured at at least two points in time (OECD 2008)’. (Comment: It is noteworthy that there must be ‘prescribed educational objectives’. It is doubtful if any Queensland syllabi produced by QSA, notably in Senior secondary schooling meet that clarity requirement)

Jensen contends that:

· Value added is more accurate and has been supported by head teachers in UK and is preferred in other European countries.

· Institutions such as teacher unions and school associations in a number of countries have also supported the introduction of value-added modelling as the greater accuracy creates a fairer system, particularly for schools serving more disadvantaged communities, a fact that is important in view of the perceived inaccuracy and injustice in the current system, notably teacher unions.

The maths and numerical science achievements by Australian students are inadequate; in Queensland they are deplorable. The Education Establishment TEE (Boards of Study, University Education Faculties, Teacher Unions and elements within governmental education Departments) does not accept that fact.  They react poorly to criticism and are reactionary in that they object to anything which threatens the status quo.  Data such as that quoted above is dismissed. Bearing in mind that all assessment at all levels in Queensland is non-numerical it is unsurprising that they do not accept what the TIMSS or other data says. Seemingly they want to continue as they are – apparently unaccountable.