In Victoria we have now national tests in English and Maths for all years 3,5,7 and now 9 students. The school results are not published in league tables in newspapers but rather in school’s annual reports which are available on their websites for all to see. My schools annual report is at elsternwickps.vic.edu.au.

As a school we look at the data across three years for trends and patterns and set annual targets based on an improvement on our own performance. This then takes account of the local factors and school cultures.

I belive a rich deep inquiry curriculum that has focused instruction on the needs of the individual will achieve better results on the test anyway.

However my point of posting the comment was prompted by a comment from a senior member of the department who was visitng my school last year who indicated that it was alright for me to work on deep understandings with children for I had already achieved great results but if I had been working in a poorer area I would only have time for the basics. If this feeling pervades sections of the community then we will have students who can do the 19th century basics but feel powerless to use the skills to solve the critical issues facing our youth in the 21st century.

Thank you for your considered reply. The nature of the discussion shows the importance of all partners in education to talk and share from their own perspectives. We encourage all our support staff to challenge and contribute to school policies - very worthwhile.

I’m not sure I could show you a perfect system - we’re trying to do the bestwe can within given (but recently relaxed) guidelines. I do think though, going back to the original question, we still over-assess.

Keep up the nagging for the homework,

I feel that their general education has been sacrificed at the expense of attainment in exams. Something of a conundrum because, as a parent, you want them to do well in exams. Perhaps SGs in S3 allows the less able pupils to focus on their exams and get better qualifications than they might otherwise achieve. For the more able pupils, capable of dealing with a wide range of material, doesn’t it narrow the curriculum very early? For example, my 2 sons have had just one year of art and CDT at High School, and have given up 2 of History, Geography, Modern Studies before they’re 13.

And then they move on to Highers. On the one hand, a 2 year Higher course must, I think, be a good thing, particularly when I see how some of the apparently very able S5s are struggling with a one year course. On the other hand, though, I can’t quite get my head round the fact that at 14 yrs old my son is doing just 5 subjects at school. Where has the wonderfully broad education gone for which Scotland is famous? At this age, I had no idea what I wanted to do in the future and was just choosing O level subjects (OK, that dates me).

As a non-educationalist, I have no idea what the answer is. My children need qualifications to enable them to move on and have choices in the future. But so much assessment does seem to lead to jumping through hoops without any time or scope for the teachers to branch off into other areas that might prove interesting.

All I can hope is that as parents, we’re able to provide some of the background general knowledge and sport that they’re not going to get at school in such a narrow curriculum.

The premise is what is in the best interests of the child. We don’t artificially “cap” any such class and have good examples in English and Maths where pupils, parents - and staff - believe this to be the case.

Get the achievement and the attainment will follow is a good mantra although I can’t claim it as an original one!

PS - if you have big muscles, this is a friendly discussion - right?

So long as we have advancement through our system based solely on age, then HMIE guidelines should be strongly adhered to - that early presentation should only be allowed where it is in the interests of the individual child and definitely not for an entire group. The result of premature presentation, as we increasingly see in Scottish schools, is that courses are driven by assessment and teaching and learning shrink back to the ticking off the learning outcomes instead of actually educating the children. A side effect of this is that Standard Grades are devalued and now, tragically IMHO, are slated to be dropped. The SG courses are, when teachers are allowed to implement the whole arrangements properly, fantastic standards upon which to build later education. It’s a pity they are to suffer because of a perception caused by our ticky box, accountant-driven “quality improvement” processes.

Dear Charles Atlas,

Sincerely…

I’d agree we over-assess in the senior school - NABS, practice NABs, prelims, final exams. One solution has been for some schools to drop the “2-term dash” by introducing senior courses lower down the school - lateral thinking, but does that solve the burden of assessment in S5 and S6?