With a grand plan to carry out a Foucauldian analysis the A-E reporting system, I have done a little research into what is going on out there ... More to come.
Grade A B C D E
NSW Outstanding High Sound Basic Limited
WA Excellent Good Satisfactory Limited Below
NT Well above Above At Below Well below
ACT Outstanding High Sound Limited Very limited
SA Excellent Good Satisfactory Partial Minimal
Other states' descriptors were unable to be found.
Inconsistencies
The states and territories are not at all consistent with one another when it comes to providing descriptors for each of the grades. This is evidenced, for example, in the descriptor for grade E where limited and very limited are used, and below and well below are used. Limited is a descriptor for both grades D and E, as is below. More anomalies are evident when looking at descriptors for grade B, where high, good and above are ostensibly names for the same level of achievement. Interpretation of these words may vary quite widely. Descriptors for the top grade of A seem more aligned with one another, yet still may remain open to interpretation.
The ‘benchmark’ grade is grade C, and the differences in descriptors for this grade have the potential to cause some problems. Satisfactory and sound seem to be quite different things. Sound may imply that a student has a deep understanding of what is required, yet satisfactory may imply a minimum or base level of understanding (‘just good enough’).
Additional explanations of grades used by states/territories
NSW seems to have gone for more positive language, and indeed this state’s extended descriptions go some way to attempt at ensuring parents and students are not upset by a lower result. For the top grades, the NSW DET uses the phrases “Your child is performing at an outstanding level in this area”, “Your child is performing at a high level in this area”, and “Your child is on track in this area. His/Her performance is sound”. However for the lower two grades, the NSW DET seems to choose words much more carefully and in a way that delimits the statement: “Your child is having some difficulty coping with the work in this area at this time”, and “Your child is finding learning very difficult at this time in this area”. For the top three grades, it seems not to matter that time may have played some sort of role in the students’ achievement of this grade, yet, for the bottom two grades, it does matter. A petty point, and the NSW DET should be commended for its obvious attention to the choices of words used when describing student achievement to parents, as well as extended explanations. The matter of time certainly indicates that there is still time for more positive results, and may well work against detrimental effects. Only the NSW DET includes values in grade level descriptors.
Other states have not made such extensive descriptions publicly available (it is unknown whether or not they have produced such explanations). The Northern Territory quite simply lists the grades as meaning (in order of A-E) well above, above, at, below and well below “the expected level for that year” in a manner of a Likert scale. Additional statements explain that a C grade is ‘standard’ for the age group across the Territory, and that D and E grades can be understood as quite normal for students in different subjects and at different times. The latter two grades can also, according to the NT, be masking significant gains. Again, as with the NSW DET, the NT has felt no need to explain upper grades, but has taken care to soften the potential blow for students and their parents when reading a D or E grade.
The same cannot be said for other states and territories. South Australia has quite simply stated that the grades are indicative of excellent, good, satisfactory, partial and minimal achievement of “what is expected at this year level”. No other evidence of explanation of the new reporting system was found. Western Australia merely states on its website, in a sample report, “Your child’s overall achievement for each learning area is reported by a shaded grade. A Excellent; B Good; C Satisfactory; D Limited; E Below the minimal acceptable standard of achievement”. The use of the phrase “minimal acceptable standard” certainly lies in contrast to the obvious effort to mask any sort of sense of failure from students and their parents! The ACT, while not quite as brutal, also takes a simple approach to explaining these new grades by inserting the words outstanding achievement, high achievement, sound achievement, limited achievement and very limited achievement in the sentence “Your child has demonstrated … of the knowledge, skills and understandings expected".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I did find something for Victoria:
"What exactly do the A-E ratings mean?
The report card's A to E scale will tell you how your child is progressing against the expected statewide standard. No matter which Government school a child attends, the A-E ratings they receive will carry the same meaning. In every school:
A ‘C' rating will mean that a child is at the expected standard at the time opf reporting and that his or her learning is on track.
A ‘B' rating will mean that a child is above the standard expected for their year level at the time of reporting.
An ‘A' rating will mean a child is well above the standard expected for their year level at the time of reporting.
A ‘D' rating will mean a child is below the standard expected at the time of reporting, and an ‘E' rating well below. "
Over the past couple of weeks I've seen two examples of the new reports. Both were using the same template (a NSW DET supplied internet based version). As far as I can see, the major difficulty is going to be with parents not understanding the terminology and how it connects with syllabus outcomes during the relevant Stage. Most parents are still working under the old Year 3, Year 6, Year 7 system and don't know about the Stage system in place in NSW. This can cause confusion amongst parents in the first "year" of each stage where their child might be receiving a low grading based on the stage outcomes.
A good thing on both the reports I've seen was the use of effort scales. Each KLA was given a scale from 1 to 5 (5 being the highest) to show the effort the student was putting into the subject. I'm inclined to think (as a student teacher and parent) that this could be made more prominent. In my opinion, effort should be acknowledged and encouraged so as to assist the student to continue working in an area, even if it's a difficult KLA to gain mastery over. Seeing a C or "sound" grade together with a 4 or 5 for effort can allow the parents to see the totality of what their child has been achieving (or not). Similarly, an E or "limited" grade with a 4 or more for effort may give the parents an indication that some extra assistance in that KLA could be useful, or start the diagnostics for learning difficulties.
The comments on reports are always difficult. I did note the difference between those of a teacher of nearly 20 years experience and an early career teacher. The experienced teacher was far more succinct where the ECT provided a great deal of detail, often with veiled comments concerning the social capacities of the student in question. However, both reports were overwhelmingly positive, probably reflecting the teachers' apprehension towards this new system.
So, from a parenting perspective it's been not as disastrous as initially thought. However, I'm an educated parent, studying within the field and also keeping up to date with the issue. I'm inclined to think that parents who haven't had this advantage may be less than impressed how their children are ranked/graded according to this system.
Hi JournalQueen and welcome ... ;)
Just wanted to post a link to Anna Patty's article in the Sydney Morning Herald:
http://0-global.factiva.com.library.newcastle.edu.au/ha/default.aspx
(I'm not sure if this link will work for most people - apologies if not)
And a question for you, JournalQueen:
Are you saying that parents who are not teachers are less likely to be upset by the new reporting system?
Anna Patty's article really nails a lot of the issues about comprehensibility of the reports for the average, non-teaching and/or highly educated parent. If Iemma couldn't get a grasp on what his childrens' reports meant, what hope does a parent with an average education have?
It's interesting that the Minister's school chose a different wording entirely "achieved" instead of "sound". That has a totally different ring to it - indicating that the student is coping with the syllabus at that point in time.
It is the point in time nature of the reports that parents are going to have problems with (getting to your question mini). As I have a reasonable understanding of the Stage based nature of the NSW Syllabus, and can see that the required learning process for each Stage takes place over a two year period, I can see that a student at the end of, for example, Year 1 is only half way through working with the content and skills for Stage 1. Parents raised in previous systems, or overseas/interstate, may not be aware of this important part of the NSW curriculum and therefore see a report with a C, D or E rating at the end of Year 1 as being a failure for that year.
So the answer to your question is going to be a bet each way. It will depend on the grading given to the child but more importantly, what side of the Stage barrier the child is in.
Post a Comment