“One thing you may notice when you study these results is that often there is not a consistent relationship between a test’s norms (e.g. stanines, average scale scores for a year level etc.) and the most likely national standard reporting category.

This is not a cause for concern. Test norms are based on what the average student of a given age can do; the standard relates to what all students should be able to do, if they are on track for a successful educational outcome.

In some areas of learning, the two coincide – the average student (i.e. stanine 5) is at the required level. In other areas, there may be a general shortfall – only high-performing students (e.g. stanine 7+) are likely to reach the standard, with others needing to improve their achievement in order to do so.

This is an important feature of national standards, and one of the ways in which they are intended to drive improved learning for all students.”

“You cannot assume that because the student is at the age- related norm according to the assessment tools you are using, that they will be at the standard.”

Teachers and principals will need to explain this to parents – in plain English.

If a student is achieving/working within the age appropriate achievement band but not meeting the standard, this will inevitably create confusion for parents if not clearly explained.

An unclear standard.....Year 5 Writing standard:

By the end of Year 5 students will create text in order to meet the writing demands of the NZ Curriculum as they work towards Level 3. Students will use their writing to think about, record and communicate experiences, ideas and information to meet specific learning purposes across the Curriculum

What does working towards Level 3mean in

practice?

Percentages of children expected to be at or above theNational Standards

Reading After 1 year: 50%At Year 4: 60%At Year 8: 60%

MathsAfter 1 year 80%At Year 4: 70%At Year 8: 50%

(Source: Ministry of Education’s Education Gazette)

The National Standards are

Confused or Flawed!

One of the things the Ministry attempted to do was to try and “align” the “national standards” with existing standardised / normed tests such as PATs ( Progressive Achievement Test ) in Maths, Reading Comprehension and Reading Vocabulary andAssessment Tools for Teaching and Learning (AsTTle)

REALITY – they don’t align!!

Note: According to the “aligned” tool a Year 4 Student would have to be achieving here to be AT ‘standard’ in Maths. Anything lower would most likely be BELOW ‘standard”

A diagrammatic illustration of the

confusion!!

AVERAGE Stanine 4, 5 and 6

“The standards are at best a data free

educated guess about what children should

know”

John Hattie NZ herald 7.02.2010

“This Government is lifting the bar for student achievement, which is why the Standards have been set higher than

national averages, and parents should take this into account. ”

Press release Anne Tolley Monday 28 June

National Standards – how

aspirational are they?

The Government calls the Standards “aspirational”.They may be aspirational for the system, but as one parent said:“How aspirational for a kid is a system that says they have one chance to be great, and three chances to be just OK, crap, or reallly rubbish?”

Further CONFUSION and CONTRADICTIONS....

Another commonly used MATHS assessment tool that schools use is the GLOSS

( Global Strategy Stage) diagnostic test.

The MoE has also “aligned” the “National Standards” with GLOSS

This is an actual example that illustrates the confusion:If you take this school’s current Year 5 and Year 6 PAT and

GLOSS Maths Results they would have the following dilemma......

Year Level

% at Stanine 4and above in PAT Maths

within the‘average’band

% at Stanine 5 and above in PAT maths

“conservative”average

% AT orabove ‘standard’ usingtheNational Standard as “aligned” against PAT Maths resultsStanine 6 & 7+

% At or Above ‘standard’ using the National Standard as “aligned” with GLOSS

Six 95% 77% 32% 75%

Five 80% 63% 30% 87%

WHICH FIGURES WOULD/SHOULD YOU CHOOSE WHEN REQUIRED TO REPORT % above, at, below and well below TO THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION ...

ESPECIALLY WITH THE PROSPECT OF LEAGUE TABLES ?

Note: According to the “aligned” tool a Year 4 Student would have to be achieving here to be AT ‘standard’ in Maths. Anything lower would most likely be BELOW ‘standard”

A diagrammatic illustration of the

confusion!!

AVERAGE Stanine 4, 5 and 6

“ In our view the flaws in the new system are so serious that full implementation of the intended National

Standards system over the next three years is unlikely to be successful. It will not achieve the intended goals

and is likely to lead to dangerous side effects”

Open letter to Anne Tolley November 2009Professor Martin Thrupp ( Waikato)

Professor John Hattie ( Auckland University)

Professor Terry Crooks ( Otago University)

Lester Flockton ( Otago University)

To Illustrate the variations even within the “experts” judgements!!

SCRIPT SCRUTINY

PROCESS

More than 70% of year 3 children scoring 26 out of 45 (Stanine 5) in a STAR test would likely be BELOW STANDARD OR WELL BELOW

• Just over 10% would be AT STANDARD

STAR year 3 reading score mapped to

year 3 Standard

With a scale score of 65 (stanine 7) in a PAT Year 8 Maths test, nearly 50% would be BELOW STANDARD or WELL BELOW45% would be AT STANDARDVery few would be likely to be judged well below or above Standard.

PAT Yr 8 Maths score mapped to

Year 8 Standard

Reporting Bands by Mathematics Scale Score – Yr 8 PAT

Joe’s just turnedsix. Even though heloves reading and hasmade normal progressin his first year atschool, he’s just beentold he’s “belowstandard”.

FAILED?Robert is 10. He has areading age of 11-12 yrsbased on his PAT andrunning record results .But last term he cried in hisroom for an hour after hewas told he was “workingToward the Standard” – oras he saw it: “I'm notPassing am I?”

Theresa is 11. Her recentSTAR test put her at Stanine 8.Her School report said sheWas “WELL ABOVESTANDARD” on the basisthat stanine 5 ‘wasthe average’. But when herSTAR result is mappedagainst the Standards, thisputsher AT or just above theStandard.

The 20% “failing” mantra is very selectively being used by the Minister of Education to paint a negative picture of NZ teachers and as justification for the National Standards policy.

According to the most recent PISA results NZ is 5th out of 59 countries for educational achievement in maths, science and reading literacy.

NZ’s tail of ‘underachievement’ in primary schools is actually 15% – 16% compared with the OECD norm which is 21% !

Reference: Professor Terry Crooks “Education Aotearoa” 2010

PISA 2006 Science ScaleOn average across OECD countries, 1.3% of 15- year-olds reached Level 6 of the PISA 2006 science scale, the highest proficiency level.

These students could consistently identify, explain and apply scientific knowledge, and knowledge about science, in a variety of complex life situations.

In New Zealand and Finland this figure was at least 3.9%: i. e. three times greater than the OECD average

The Minister also invariably fails to acknowledge that virtually every country in the world is grappling with the issue of how to shift those students who are ‘failing’.

The fact that many other countries are concerned about this issue and no one has yet ‘solved’ it indicates that the problem is not solvable by the education system alone......

AND………it is unfair to expect that it will be!

Mrs Tolley’s response to the action by principals was to say that Principals

were:

“ Scaremongering” “Grandstanding”“ Being unprofessional”

“ Putting their students at risk”

NEW ZEALAND HERALD 31 July

And the Minister’s

response...

SUNDAY STAR TIMES 1 August

NATIONAL STANDARDS applied uniformly across every school at every age level are a

hopelessly crude way of raising student achievement

John Hattie NZ herald 7 February 2010