The first annual national assessment tests (ANAs) for learners across South Africa in grades two to seven and 10 are over.
In a letter to parents the department of basic education gave the following reasons for the ANAs:
The tests will set a benchmark on how to improve the children’s literacy and numeracy in the years ahead;
Teachers will be able to find out whether children need academic support; and
The results will assist the department in finding out where it should “intervene if a particular class or school does not perform to the national level”.
In principle, it’s a good quality assurance practice to see whether standards have been achieved. So, for example, the teacher in the grade three classroom needs to know whether his or her learners are at an age-appropriate reading level. If need be, corrective action can be taken. The teacher can also be motivated to raise the achievement bar. Quality teaching is always in a state of never-ending improvement.
However, there’s much debate worldwide about standardised tests. Australia and England have them and their teachers are angry. Last year there were threats of nationwide boycotts in both countries. In England the tests are done in years two, six and nine. The Australian tests are done in years three, five, seven and nine. The Australian education minister at the time, Julia Gillard (now the prime minister), threatened teachers with fines if they boycotted the tests.
Why are thousands of Australian and English teachers so opposed to them? The more familiar complaints are:
Naming and shaming: Results are published in the national media and on education websites. An Australian newspaper published lists of the top 100 primary and secondary schools. One of the findings was that the top 10 in each category were exclusively wealthy private or selective government schools. Schools with poor results are “named and shamed” in the media. Children and staff are humiliated by the negative publicity.
Teaching to the test: Teachers became too focused on preparing learners for the tests. The good name of the school is too dependent on results. Truly rounded education is pushed into the wings while “schooling to achieve superb scores” takes centre stage.
Learners and teachers become stressed: It’s stressful preparing for any test. Just think of the stress levels in homes and Grade 12 classrooms when matric exams are looming. Frequent standardised tests can create an almost never-ending stressful atmosphere for both learners and teachers.
Inspectors prejudging schools on the basis of their results: In England it was found that certain inspectors assessing schools were biased towards or against them on the basis of standardised test achievements. This resulted in some schools having an unfair advantage because their learners performed well in their tests. The converse applied when the learners did poorly.
Lack of recognition for disadvantaged schools: There are schools with huge challenges. Their learners come from disadvantaged backgrounds. When the learners perform well at school, they’ve often faced barriers to learning such as being desperately poor or from dysfunctional home backgrounds. These disadvantaged schools are often extremely poorly resourced. Dedicated teachers have achieved much in spite of the daily hurdles that confront them. Quality learners and teachers should not be unfairly penalised on the basis of raw scores in such tests.
Academics also question whether standardised tests are good for education. Do they bring out the core of an outstanding teacher? James Popham in Educational Leadership (Vol 56 No 6) acutely observes:
“Educators are experiencing almost relentless pressure to show their effectiveness. Unfortunately, the chief indicator by which communities judge a school staffs’ success is student performance on standardised achievement tests.”
We know that a quality teacher does much more than getting a learner to jump successfully through the hoop of a test or an exam. That person educates the learner for life in countless other ways.
Parents want the best for their children. They want to be able to assess the schools their children attend. Standardised tests have schools on their toes to achieve certain levels. When parents make choices about preferred schools, they look at past scholastic results. Matric results, for example, have been seen as good barometers of the academic potential of schools. Will the ANA results guide parents in this way, too?
Matric results have been used by schools to promote themselves and encourage new enrolments. It’s likely that ANA results will be used in similar ways. Parents are entitled to know these results and could request to see them.
How will schools, education departments and the media make the results available? Will there be a “naming and shaming” of under-achieving schools? It’s already being done with matric results. Will they be sensitive to those schools that are tireless in their commitment and sense of dedication but have far to travel in terms of quality education?
Use ANA sensitively and sensibly. Make results available in a manner that ensures that no child, teacher or school is humiliated in the process. Wisely implemented, ANA has huge potential to help turn the “Quality Education for All slogan into a reality.
Richard Hayward, a former principal of two state schools, edits Quality Education News. It is issued under the aegis of the South African Quality Institute (SAQI), which conducts school leadership and management programmes. Poor schools are sponsored