{"id":41525,"date":"2017-11-24T11:36:45","date_gmt":"2017-11-24T19:36:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/world.edu\/?p=41525"},"modified":"2017-11-24T11:36:45","modified_gmt":"2017-11-24T19:36:45","slug":"evidence-based-education-needs-standardised-assessment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/world.edu\/evidence-based-education-needs-standardised-assessment\/","title":{"rendered":"Evidence-based education needs standardised assessment"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"
\nThe latest\u00a0Gonski<\/a>\u00a0review aims to improve evidence-based decision-making in Australian school education. It recognises that governments\u2019 educational investment must be based on more than politics, just as teachers\u2019 instructional decisions must be based on more than intuition. Like other professional sectors, Australian education must be guided by rigorous evidence of what works, for whom and in what contexts.<\/p>\n

Standardised assessments, like\u00a0NAPLAN<\/a>, are powerful tools in building a strong evidence base for education policy and practice. As NAPLAN enters its second decade, it is timely to reflect on how Australia can make best use of standardised assessment to drive system improvement. This does not deny valid criticisms of punitive standardised testing regimes. Instead, it considers how we might avoid a \u201cbaby and bathwater\u201d scenario, and retain the benefits of standardised testing with fewer flaws.<\/p>\n

Comparison not competition<\/strong><\/h4>\n

Comparison of standardised assessments across systems, schools and classrooms can guide evidence-based policy and practice in many ways. Analysis of NAPLAN trends can help identify\u00a0policies and practices<\/a>\u00a0that may have contributed to improvements. The first\u00a0Gonski review<\/a>used comparisons of NAPLAN data as evidence to estimate the costs of quality school education.<\/p>\n

Australia participates in international standardised tests like\u00a0PISA<\/a>,\u00a0TIMSS<\/a>and\u00a0PIRLS<\/a>. This is part of a broader global conversation about how to make education systems work better for everyone. Many teachers and school leaders are now using standardised test data to\u00a0guide school improvement<\/a>.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, standardised assessment can fuel unhealthy competition. The worst effects of MySchool can be seen in\u00a0residualised<\/a>schools abandoned by students and families who can afford to go elsewhere. The worst effects of NAPLAN itself can be seen in students placed under pressure to gain the score they need to get into a selective school, or top-stream class.<\/p>\n

Internationally, simplistic PISA league tables risk undermining the global improvement agenda that the assessment was designed to support.<\/p>\n

Standardised testing does not have to be used this way. It is most effective when used for\u00a0system improvement<\/a>, not sanctions or exclusion. Australia has not followed other nations in linking assessment to sanctions for schools or pay for teachers. This is something to be celebrated and sustained.<\/p>\n

Standardised not homogenised<\/strong><\/h4>\n

Standardised assessments work best when they adapt to students\u2019 individuality. For example, through \u201ctailored testing<\/a>\u201d in NAPLAN online.
\n