An interesting approach, Fickle Pickle. But I still cannot see much advantage.

>>One way to check innate ability and how well a child is developing (or an adult for that matter) is to keep a record of performance for each child<<

So... the answer is to perform regular tests?

That would certainly measure ability.

But I fail to see how it would measure "innate" ability.

Could you perhaps explain a little more?

Individual,

Check this year's NAPLAN results (which, to those QLD teacher bashers, is the Holy Grail of educational failure). QLD is NOT behind EVERY state and territory, and it really isn't far behind ANY state or territory.

Shadow Minister I am not proposing less tests but more. I am however proposing that the emphasis is on the test results of an individual compared to their past results. How well does the individual progress against themselves. A bit like your golf handicap. Of course children, parents etc will compare child against child but the emphasis society can make is child with themselves.

Pericles yes that is what I am proposing. Can it be done? Well yes.

I spent many years devising Q and A tests to measure "understanding" of concepts of tertiary students and the results correlated highly with performance of the tasks the students were to do in the work place. Understanding is something that comes more easily to some students and others never get it no matter how much they try. That is a fact and no amount of effort or study will change it.

The ACT uses the ACT scaling test http://www.bsss.act.edu.au/year_11_and_12/act_scaling_test which is a set of tests that measures innate ability.

Other examples are the time it takes for a nerve signal to move from the brain to the limbs as a measure of innate batsmanship (ever wondered why so many top batsmen are short?)

The sad thing is our testing regimes with their emphasis on sorting and classifying the population only does part of the job. I suggest our testing can better serve society by changing the emphasis to development of the individual

Thanks for the additional detail, Fickle Pickle.

But it still doesn't make clearer any difference between ability, and innate ability,

>>The ACT uses the ACT scaling test... which is a set of tests that measures innate ability.<<

Could you perhaps explain how it does this, as there is nothing in the description that provides any indication.

Or maybe we are having the wrong discussion - what do you personally see as the difference between the two terms?

FP,

You raise some interesting points. I actually believe in testing the abilities of the children precisely to find what they are capable of and where they will need help.

However, I am also a strong believer in streaming the children, as I feel that trying to teach the super bright at the same pace as the challenged is harmful to both.

The testing in these streamed classes will be amongst peers of equals, and will be more about effort than ability. This would be even more effective if the streaming went along subject lines such as science & maths / languages / history, geography etc. So that different strengths in the child could be catered for.

But I must admit that I would hate to be the principle explaining to parents why their kids aren't streamed where they think they should be.