Our school vision is; Empowering agency, innovation and leadership. This is the starting point for all that we do; reviewing, decision making, strategic direction, resourcing, budgeting, appointing staff… and as such must be a driver for and be reflected in our approach to professional learning. Thus empowered teachers, the conditions for innovation and the opportunities for for staff to lead their own learning must be present in any approach to professional learning. One of the outcomes was the development of a learner agency self-assessment tool, derived from a matrix, which outlined the skills and dispositions of agency.
Kaye said there had been no formal report to the minister about e-asTTle, but she had been made aware of issues in the course of other matters. There was no counter to that from Kaye, so we can take it the number was accepted. Kaye proceeded to say that e-sTTle was not flawed, though she admitted that there had been consultation with education professionals over December to January to make an alignment.
She continually used the mantra that e-asTTle was just one tool in a range of other things. Kaye then agreed that there had also been a retrospective online adjustment downward of e-asTTle marks without schools being informed in advance.
She then issued a kind of apology, saying that the ministry had always called the implementation of national standards a work in progress.
Kaye then reiterated that the e-asTTle was not flawed. Readers will note that no reference was made to STAR, though it was in the question. Two technical issues emerge for e-asTTle: This has significant implications for all national standards whether in present or PaCT form. Associated with this is the issue of teachers making judgements in a high stakes environment.
That also is beyond resolution: Some of the things said by either ministry people or Evaluation Associates who were involved in the development, marketing, and evaluation of the revised e-asTTle writingmy comments are in bold: Two issues are going to emerge: Rubrics are just a string of objectives converted to criteria then given a fancy name to disguise the fact that rubrics are a worn out concept.
But given a splash of rouge, some flicks of lipstick, an injection here, some padding there, they are then announced as Miss Universe. We have now started entering some results and are quite surprised and concerned over the levelling.
While a piece assessed at R4 gives a curriculum level at 4A gives a curriculum level at 4A. There seems to be a huge leap with few discerning differences.
Nothing about those concerns was communicated to schools in any substantial form till around October-November: What was going on? It is now a cover up. Could you please clarify these concerns? That, however, is for the future; the immediate concern is for the inflationary effects on the national standards results for this year.
But note the barely suppressed frustration of the writer. In a high stakes situation, for writing, e-asTTle is the only standardised test, so it is going to have a significant effect. In all ministry communications about national standards, e-asTTle has been promoted as being of key significance, it is even associated with the national standards legislation in the Explanatory note.
What follows is evidence that e-asTTle is irrecoverably flawed. It is clear that allocating curriculum levels and sub levels is a very imprecise measure, and we understand why this is so. Thus uncovering a great truth: The cat is out of the bag in no uncertain terms.
The recommendation is that e-asTTle results be assigned to bands not numbers or narrow levels.
To have a precise indicator but explain it as imprecise is likely to cause confusion. Criteria of rubrics are not created equal, so to even get within a hundred miles of reliability, different criteria need different weighting.
The writer with brilliant precision makes clear the severe limitations of e-asTTle tests, indeed, all standardised tests, especially ones involving rubrics. This quote should be written in every book on assessment and in scarlet above the portals of every school and education academic office.
The issues need to be raised and clearly explained so that schools retain confidence in the tool. I want to put on record some ideas I will be coming back to in some postings to follow: And, brave principals in putting up a brave and courageous fight, established for us the cast iron promise from Labour and the Greens that national standards would go if they were elected.• The relationship between national norms on a test like e-asTTle and the national standards is not predetermined, and it may be that ‘average’ performance is not good enough to meet the standard.
Illustrating 'by the end of year 4' national reading and writing standard. By the end of year 5 Illustrating 'By the end of year 5' national reading and writing.
e-asTTle Writing resources Marking resources for e-asTTle Writing. Find here all the resources you need for marking e-asTTle writing..
PLD resources for e-asTTle writing. Find here resources for professional learning in e-asTTle writing.. e-asTTle norms and curriculum expectations by quarter: Writing (July ). Apr 14, · Tracey Martin in the end proved to be the one, ahead of other political parties and the teacher organisations, to ask the question (amongst others she asked): 'In the light of the acknowledged flaws in e-asTTle and STAR and the substantial results inflation that followed from these, why hasn't the minister cancelled national standards .
Welcome to Evaluation Associates.
We focus on improving school leader and teacher practice in ways that have a demonstrable impact on student achievement. Making teacher judgments will continue to be an important part of assessing progress and achievement.
While some of the language on these pages refers to National Standards, you can apply the same principles to judging progress and achievement across the curriculum.