Tweet
An opportunity for public education
Wesley Barrett
Monday, June 29, 2009
Wesley Barrett
The present annual spotlight on the results of the Grade Six Achievement Test (GSAT) and Caribbean Examinations Council (CXC) examinations should provide an opportunity for public education on these examinations and the related issues. The available facts should be shared so that the public is more fully informed. If done, the country could possibly be spared the hype, anxiety, tension, condemnation and disappointment that accompany the release of the results of these examinations.
These two examinations are high-stakes examinations and they promote intense competition, anxiety and emotional strain. For some it is virtually "life and death". We note that the Grade 4 Literacy Test seems to be on the way of becoming high stakes as well. We could do without all these conditions. Also, we should carefully consider the social effects of these examinations and modify them as we go forward. Timely, accurate, comprehensive and relevant information is vital though.
Of concern is the impression sometimes given and received that the existence of the examinations is to be blamed for much of our educational and social woes. That examinations are a fact of life and vital in all education systems is not sufficiently communicated. Of course, the examinations are not to be unduly difficult so that only a handful of students can pass them, or so easy that everyone passes without effort.
Two concepts that are not difficult to understand but not presented for information and discussion are those of test reliability and validity. If a test or its alternate form in an examination produces fairly consistent and stable scores that don't vary widely from one administration to another, then this condition describes test reliability.
If a test does not measure what it claims to measure or does not allow us to make appropriate and meaningful inferences or conclusions on the basis of the test scores then it lacks validity. For example, if a test is constructed to measure mathematical ability or literacy skills and in fact it really measures attitudes to maths or literacy, then it lacks validity. In particular, if test items do not relate to the content prescribed and taught, then validity won't be achieved. If the test lacks reliability then it will lack validity as well since reliability is a necessary though not sufficient condition for validity.
Normally, a good achievement test should function to discriminate between more able students and less able ones. The results should help in making decisions about placement, selection, promotion or certification or a combination. Of course everyone who takes a test would like to obtain the maximum scores possible, but the wish won't materialise in tests that seek to compare performances such as in those we administer.
Are the students who mostly receive relatively low scores from poor families or attend school irregularly?
A key question is whether meaningful inferences can be drawn from the various tests administered on the basis of students' scores. If the answer is yes, then major focus should be shifted away from the tests to the factors that produce the test scores in the first place. Specifically, if the GSAT tests have validity and reliability then it is the factors relating to poor performances that should be the focus of attention. Is this the thinking by most? We note that alternate forms of the tests administered every year are based on the primary school curricula for grades four to six and they produce similar test score results. On the surface, reliability and validity seem not to be an issue!
That is not to suggest that the technical matters relating to our tests should not constantly come under scrutiny. They should. However, we should bear in mind that curriculum (content), instruction (teaching) and assessment (tests, examinations, performance tasks and so on) go hand in hand and should be addressed in combination. Equalising opportunity to learn should be the overriding goal in the long run.
Like its predecessor, the GSAT has been blamed for the social divide in the education system. But the truth is that it's not the examination per se that is the problem, but how the country plans, organises, supports and assesses the education system. All high-stakes exams will suffer the same fate if timely policy actions are not taken to deal with school attendance, learning support, applying modern technology in teaching, overcrowding in schools, ongoing teacher training and rationalisation, all of which speak to issues of planning, organisation, resourcing and assessment on a large and co-ordinated basis.
Designed as a set of achievement tests, the GSAT should inform us about the achievement of students at the end of their primary school education. Almost all countries administer a similar examination. Of course, the GSAT has been used also as an instrument, wisely or otherwise, to place students into high schools based simultaneously on choice of school and performance relative to the school chosen. If some parents blame the examination for their children's relatively uncompetitive performance for a place in a particular school, they should be persuaded otherwise, assuming test validity and sound placement practices.
Another critical issue to consider is that, as in the case of universities, quality and standards at secondary schools vary from institution to institution based on differences in classroom conditions, the profile of the student-intake, availability of learning materials and equipment and in staff competence and experience. Students' ability to cope differs too. Only with more time and with some affirmative action will the gap between schools be narrowed resulting in an increase of quality places to satisfy demand.
So long as quality places are in short supply, nationally or regionally, those available will be rationed by some means. The most objective and feasible means is through the examination process. To reduce the decisive effects of exams, quality places must be increased. Simply put, more effort and resources must be put into our schools particularly those that have the greatest deficiencies. Both longer and newly established early childhood, primary and secondary schools should be clinically identified and targeted for help and support. Stigmatising or ridiculing any level or group of schools is unwise.
Let's expand the coverage of technology in our schools and train our teachers to integrate it with teaching and the curriculum as we address nutrition and school attendance problems. The 22,000 teachers are not the only factor. All relevant truths must be told!
wesebar@yahoo.com
Wesley Barrett
Monday, June 29, 2009
Wesley Barrett
The present annual spotlight on the results of the Grade Six Achievement Test (GSAT) and Caribbean Examinations Council (CXC) examinations should provide an opportunity for public education on these examinations and the related issues. The available facts should be shared so that the public is more fully informed. If done, the country could possibly be spared the hype, anxiety, tension, condemnation and disappointment that accompany the release of the results of these examinations.
These two examinations are high-stakes examinations and they promote intense competition, anxiety and emotional strain. For some it is virtually "life and death". We note that the Grade 4 Literacy Test seems to be on the way of becoming high stakes as well. We could do without all these conditions. Also, we should carefully consider the social effects of these examinations and modify them as we go forward. Timely, accurate, comprehensive and relevant information is vital though.
Of concern is the impression sometimes given and received that the existence of the examinations is to be blamed for much of our educational and social woes. That examinations are a fact of life and vital in all education systems is not sufficiently communicated. Of course, the examinations are not to be unduly difficult so that only a handful of students can pass them, or so easy that everyone passes without effort.
Two concepts that are not difficult to understand but not presented for information and discussion are those of test reliability and validity. If a test or its alternate form in an examination produces fairly consistent and stable scores that don't vary widely from one administration to another, then this condition describes test reliability.
If a test does not measure what it claims to measure or does not allow us to make appropriate and meaningful inferences or conclusions on the basis of the test scores then it lacks validity. For example, if a test is constructed to measure mathematical ability or literacy skills and in fact it really measures attitudes to maths or literacy, then it lacks validity. In particular, if test items do not relate to the content prescribed and taught, then validity won't be achieved. If the test lacks reliability then it will lack validity as well since reliability is a necessary though not sufficient condition for validity.
Normally, a good achievement test should function to discriminate between more able students and less able ones. The results should help in making decisions about placement, selection, promotion or certification or a combination. Of course everyone who takes a test would like to obtain the maximum scores possible, but the wish won't materialise in tests that seek to compare performances such as in those we administer.
Are the students who mostly receive relatively low scores from poor families or attend school irregularly?
A key question is whether meaningful inferences can be drawn from the various tests administered on the basis of students' scores. If the answer is yes, then major focus should be shifted away from the tests to the factors that produce the test scores in the first place. Specifically, if the GSAT tests have validity and reliability then it is the factors relating to poor performances that should be the focus of attention. Is this the thinking by most? We note that alternate forms of the tests administered every year are based on the primary school curricula for grades four to six and they produce similar test score results. On the surface, reliability and validity seem not to be an issue!
That is not to suggest that the technical matters relating to our tests should not constantly come under scrutiny. They should. However, we should bear in mind that curriculum (content), instruction (teaching) and assessment (tests, examinations, performance tasks and so on) go hand in hand and should be addressed in combination. Equalising opportunity to learn should be the overriding goal in the long run.
Like its predecessor, the GSAT has been blamed for the social divide in the education system. But the truth is that it's not the examination per se that is the problem, but how the country plans, organises, supports and assesses the education system. All high-stakes exams will suffer the same fate if timely policy actions are not taken to deal with school attendance, learning support, applying modern technology in teaching, overcrowding in schools, ongoing teacher training and rationalisation, all of which speak to issues of planning, organisation, resourcing and assessment on a large and co-ordinated basis.
Designed as a set of achievement tests, the GSAT should inform us about the achievement of students at the end of their primary school education. Almost all countries administer a similar examination. Of course, the GSAT has been used also as an instrument, wisely or otherwise, to place students into high schools based simultaneously on choice of school and performance relative to the school chosen. If some parents blame the examination for their children's relatively uncompetitive performance for a place in a particular school, they should be persuaded otherwise, assuming test validity and sound placement practices.
Another critical issue to consider is that, as in the case of universities, quality and standards at secondary schools vary from institution to institution based on differences in classroom conditions, the profile of the student-intake, availability of learning materials and equipment and in staff competence and experience. Students' ability to cope differs too. Only with more time and with some affirmative action will the gap between schools be narrowed resulting in an increase of quality places to satisfy demand.
So long as quality places are in short supply, nationally or regionally, those available will be rationed by some means. The most objective and feasible means is through the examination process. To reduce the decisive effects of exams, quality places must be increased. Simply put, more effort and resources must be put into our schools particularly those that have the greatest deficiencies. Both longer and newly established early childhood, primary and secondary schools should be clinically identified and targeted for help and support. Stigmatising or ridiculing any level or group of schools is unwise.
Let's expand the coverage of technology in our schools and train our teachers to integrate it with teaching and the curriculum as we address nutrition and school attendance problems. The 22,000 teachers are not the only factor. All relevant truths must be told!
wesebar@yahoo.com