6. “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.”
7. “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.
8. 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
10. Percentages of children expected to be at or above the
National Standards
Reading
After 1 year: 50%
At Year 4: 60%
At Year 8: 60%
Maths
After 1 year 80%
At Year 4: 70%
At Year 8: 50%
(Source: Ministry of Education’s Education Gazette)
11. 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 and
Assessment Tools for Teaching and Learning (AsTTle)
REALITY – they don’t align!!
12. Note: According to the
“aligned” tool a Year 4
A diagrammatic Student would have to be
illustration of the achieving here
confusion!! to be AT ‘standard’ in Maths.
Anything lower would most
likely be BELOW ‘standard”
AVERAGE Stanine 4, 5 and 6
13. “The standards are at
best a data free
educated guess about
what children should
know”
John Hattie NZ herald 7.02.2010
14. “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
15. 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?”
16. 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......
17. Year % at % at Stanine % AT or % At or
Level Stanine 4 5 and above above Above
and above in ‘standard’ ‘standard’
in PAT PAT maths using using the
Maths the National
National Standard
within the “conservative” Standard as as
‘average’ average “aligned” “aligned”
band against PAT with
Maths results GLOSS
Stanine 6 & 7+
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 ?
18. Note: According to the
“aligned” tool a Year 4
A diagrammatic Student would have to be
illustration of the achieving here
confusion!! to be AT ‘standard’ in Maths.
Anything lower would most
likely be BELOW ‘standard”
AVERAGE Stanine 4, 5 and 6
19. “ 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 2009
Professor Martin Thrupp ( Waikato)
Professor John Hattie ( Auckland University)
Professor Terry Crooks ( Otago University)
Lester Flockton ( Otago University)
20. To Illustrate the variations even within the “experts” judgements!!
NY
C RUTI
SCR IPT S SS
E
PROC
21. 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
22. STAR year 3 reading score mapped to
year 3 Standard
23. With a scale score of 65 (stanine 7) in a
PAT Year 8 Maths test, nearly 50% would
be BELOW STANDARD or WELL
BELOW
45% would be AT STANDARD
Very few would be likely to be judged
well below or above Standard.
24. PAT Yr 8 Maths score mapped to
Year 8 Standard
26. Joe’s just turned
six. Even though he
loves reading and has
made normal progress
in his first year at
school, he’s just been
told he’s “below
standard”.
27. FAILED?
Robert is 10. He has a
reading age of 11-12 yrs
based on his PAT and
running record results .
But last term he cried in his
room for an hour after he
was told he was “working
Toward the Standard” – or
as he saw it: “I'm not
Passing am I?”
28. Theresa is 11. Her recent
STAR test put her at Stanine 8.
Her School report said she
Was “WELL ABOVE
STANDARD” on the basis
that stanine 5 ‘was
the average’. But when her
STAR result is mapped
against the Standards, this
putsher AT or just above the
Standard.
29. 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
30. PISA 2006 Science Scale
On 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
31. 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!
32. Mrs Tolley’s response to the action by
principals was to say that Principals
were:
“ Scaremongering” “Grandstanding”
“ Being unprofessional”
“ Putting their students at risk”
36. 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
