The New South Wales Minister for Education has recently
released a statement about creating ‘Stronger HSC Standards’. This statement
has the subheading ‘Current State, Future State’. The immediate positive is the
development of a Science extension course, and there are proposed changes to
English, Mathematics, Science and History syllabuses, with record numbers of
teachers participating in the review of these changes.
In a short video, Adrian Piccoli explains what the HSC
reforms will mean to students. There are various benefits, like fewer assessment tasks and a revision of some aspects of the curriculum, he says. Of the ‘stronger HSC standards’, the screen tells
us that ‘most students will meet the minimal standards in Year 9 NAPLAN tests’.
Students who may not meet the standard in Year 9 are reassured: ‘don’t worry … you’ll
have lots of opportunities to complete the tests online’. These tests will take
about half an hour to complete in each area. You can read about the reforms and see the minster's message at the following link: http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/policy-research/stronger-hsc-standards/
Now, let’s test some of these claims by considering the numbers, and the
impact on students who don’t meet the new minimal standard in Year 9. Will it
be quite as ‘no worries’ as the minister suggests? In ‘Stronger HSC Standards –
Frequently Asked Questions’, the Board of Studies forecasts that ‘at least 50%
of HSC students will pre-qualify for the minimal standard in Year 9, by
achieving Band 8 in their NAPLAN reading, writing and numeracy tests’. However,
the majority of students in NSW were below Band 8 in writing for the last four
years, even leaving aside reading and numeracy. According to the NAPLAN
National Report in 2015, 67% of NSW students were below Band 8 in Writing, and 48% were
below Band 8 in both Reading and Numeracy. The 2016 report has not yet been released but the projections for writing are no better. If Band 8 is required in each of
reading, writing and numeracy, it follows that the majority Year 9 students will be moving into Years 10-12 with a
cloud over their head as to whether they will reach the minimal standards to
quality for the HSC.
Why set the bar so high? The minimal national standards,
according to ACARA, are indicated to parents as being Bands 5 and 6; that is,
below Band 7. However, the minister has effectively raised the bar to Band 8,
presumably on the basis that students would need to move ahead to Band 8 by the
end of Year 12. While this makes some sense, were the age-appropriate minimal
standard of Band 7 applied, schools could more sensibly be able to deal with
the approximately 25% of students who are below the reading standard, for
example, through targeted programs. Setting the bar higher will affect a great
number of students who would otherwise be essentially on target for sound
results in the HSC examinations.
Another issue to consider is the socio-economic impact. For
example, if the (less than) 50% of students who prequalify for the HSC minimal standards in
Year 9 happen to largely fall in wealthier suburbs or in selective schools,
then these students could move their attention onto the HSC earlier, while the
other students will need to focus on the ‘basics’. We have seen this approach
contribute to great inequalities in the United States, where the ‘No Child Left
Behind’ policy meant that schools in poorer areas ‘dumbed down’ the curriculum
to try to get their students to pass basic skills, high-stakes tests. The
curriculum loses its richness and students fall further behind. In contrast, Finland,
which everyone likes to quote for their incredible PISA rankings, has no
standardised testing, just school-based assessment and high levels of
resourcing.
The only way this could be said to be overstated is if the
online tests to be set for students in Years 10 to 12 are not that difficult to
pass, and are, indeed, set at a lower level than a Band 8 in writing and
reading in NAPLAN. This may well be the case – assessing writing is expensive
and difficult, but the sample online questions are really quite basic. So,
relax and don’t worry? Possibly, but this begs the question: why make half the
State or more go through a pointless exercise? Why unsettle adolescent students
in Year 9 with a demand that they jump through a hoop to gain a qualification
that has been seen as a basic right for many years?
The ‘Stronger HSC Standards Blueprint’ is a more promising
document, with three references to creativity, one to innovation, and one to
interdisciplinary learning – all hallmarks of a progressive education that is
indeed future focused. These three key terms are missing all together in the
‘Strong HSC Standards – Current State, Future State’ document. This, in itself,
may be telling.
A focus on basics, whilst a popular theme, may mean that we
have lost an opportunity to reach for some of the true future state aspirations
of a modern economy: creativity, innovation, and interdisciplinary learning -
helping students make connections across different areas of knowledge.
Comparing the ‘blueprint’ to the ‘current state, future state’ documents makes
me think of the ABC show, Utopia,
where a senior bureaucrat has leant heavily on a policy document to skew the
outcome in the wrong direction. It’s not too late to go back to the fundamental
driver of change: if we want stronger HSC standards, is this the best way to
get it? Or, would we be better to change the driver itself, and simply aim to
develop a stronger, more rigorous HSC?
The opinions expressed here are personal ones.
No comments:
Post a Comment