The Forum > Article Comments > NAPLAN fails the test > Comments
NAPLAN fails the test : Comments
By Elizabeth Grant and Fiona Mueller, published 11/8/2010If you're going to set standards, then make sure you meet standards.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
-
- All
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
-
- All
At the end of the day, it is assessing common outcomes: literacy and numeracy. Regardless of the way in which it is achieved, it is the responsibility of each state's curriculum body to produce literate citizens. It is also the responsibility of each body to use the appropriate metalanguage in producing that literacy. A verb is a verb in QLD, NSW, WA - anywhere. A phrase is a phrase, a clause is a clause, the subjunctive mood is the subjunctive mood wherever it is used. If we turn to functional (rather than traditional) grammar, as the Australian Curriculum appears to, then a process is a process and a participant is a participant. A nominal group is a nominal group and a verb group is a verb group. The English language is the same across Australia, so there's no point in complaining that the tests favour one state over another, or that the tests marginalise certain groups of students. It is the responsibility of the states to bring their students to the same level, and to use the same language in the same way. Hopefully the Australian Curriculum will achieve this objective.
The other gaping hole in the NAPLAN system, as I see it, is that it ends with Year 9. Surely the most important measure of successful teaching of literacy comes with the completion of schooling, at the end of Year 12? Do we assume that kids who are functionally illiterate in Semester 1 of Year 9 will be functionally illiterate at the end of Year 12? If literacy is so important, why don't we measure it as an exit outcome? We need to take literacy and numeracy seriously - they are the core of our educational system, but at present they seem to whimper out three quarters of the way through. Why?