Richard
In looking at your site, I thought the opening cartoon made a good
point. However, when you hold that up against a levelling system that
requires 8 years to move through perhaps two or three levels.. well the
dog would be dead before you knew if it had learnt many new
tricks. That is how parents of primary school children feel when
they are told year after year that there child is level 1 or 2.
If your cartoon had a performing seal, what level of
achievement would clapping flippers be in terms of the dog's
level of achievement;1/ 3? 8?? If most of the population cannot answer
this question quickly and unambiguously, then what hope have we of
comparing levels between the various learning areas eg Drama and
Maths? And more to the point, should we?
For myself, I think the lack of levels available to report in primary
school is indefensible and as for the second, I find the
"one-size-fits-all" mentality disturbing.
Warm Regards
Nigel Miles
Dear Nigel
Many thanks for your response. Sorry for the delay in replying but I
have been overwhelmed with the reaction to the site. I appreciate the
professional level of your response.
I know many people have concerns about what is happening. Parents like
to see some signs of progress on reports, and are comfortable when they
can see that. Without some concrete sign of progress they get worried,
or frustrated.
However, in the old system a student of average ability who was working
well might achieve a 'C' grade in a given subject in, say Year 3. If
the student worked consistently she would probably get a 'C' grade next
Year in Year 4 and probably "C" again in Year 5 and 6 and 7.
If the student was working to capacity the parents probably would not
have complained about the student getting the same grade each year. On
the surface the C grades each year look like a lack of progress, yet we
(and the parents) know she has progressed.
However Levels do convey different information to grades.
Perhaps we need to have the lower Levels subdivided: ie Levels 1, 1A,
2, 2A, 3, 3A, 4, 4A, 5, 6, 7, 8. It doesn't means we have to redefine
the lower four levels. The A Level could indicate an added level of
competence at that level. It then means we would have 12 levels for the
12 years of schooling. But NOT necessarily one per year - they must be
associated with the individual students not the age group.
In Science the 8 levels work out very well. I found it easy to identify
the 8 Science levels in secondary school (where I would have used
Levels 3 - 7 in Year 9).
I know that the aim is to have Levels comparable across subjects. This
might be difficult between vastly different subjects. But we never
worried when the grades were not comparable between subjects. We and
the parents accommodated this.
Can I get your permission to place your response on PLUTO's web site
(with your name or without???)
Best wishes
Richard Rennie
P.L.U.T.O.
(People Lobbying to Uphold the Teaching of Outcomes)
Dear Richard
Thankyou for your considered response. In many ways you seem to agree
with my comment re the lack of discrimination that the levels give
in the early years of schooling. It is worth considering the
following scenarios:
I can assure you that parents find the story told by the grades above
much more informative than the levels! By introducing more levels,
you would be moving towards a better system, However, I deduce
from your comment "they must be associated with the individual students
not the age group." that you are fearful of any kind of norm
referencing. I should draw your attention to the fact
that for many people, a criterion related measure has little or no
meaning unless norm related data is supplied. An example of this is the
growth charts supplied to plot a baby's height and weight. This
would have little value to most parents without the normal heights
and weights being plotted. Interestingly, many reading programs
give "reading age" as a result. This is not because they are not
criterion referenced but for the ease with which most people can grasp
what this means. I know this has been seen as "not politically
correct", and perhaps there we have the nub of it.
As regarding levels between subjects, you say "But we never
worried when the grades were not comparable between subjects." Yes, up
to a point. But I think the moderators at the Curriculum
Council spent an awful lot of time to find out know how much
more or less the mark the grade is based on is worth.
Personally, I have always thought that the idea of getting a score from
almost any range of subjects to meet a tertiary
entrance requirement is a poor one: a course should require
certain prior knowledge and skills specific to that course.
Warm Regards
Nigel Miles
ps you may publish this on your site, if you wish