A few weeks ago I showed my staff my own class report from the late 1960s. It showed comments, effort ratings, achievement levels, and, in some cases my place in class. I put it up for two reasons - a bit of a laugh and also to show how far we have moved in our thinking. They certainly laughed and were quite quick to acknowledge my 'work on' areas. They also appreciated how similar it was to the work of just a few, short years ago.1
Our responsibility is to be informed
It actually got me to thinking as well. I have been reflecting on assessment in general and it could be argued that until the removal of the National Standards regime in New Zealand we had not come very far at all.2 Quite sad for a period of 50+ years.
From there I thought about assessment, success, and progress in general and who has the right and responsibility to judge it. Let's be honest, we are judgemental in all we do and there is a moral responsibility to ensure the judgments are informed - whether it be about student progress, success or achievement. But what does informed mean? If it is just a number, a grade, a ranking, have we moved on from Rikki's report of the 60s?
Informed assessment has everything to do with agency
I think informed means that we can support our thinking and that there's agency involved in the judgement. Agency, you ask, what does that mean? Well, for me, and with reference to Bombay School's webpage and tki, students have a sense of agency when they feel in control of things that happen around them and when they feel that they can have influence over their learning. tki states that
learner agency is when learners have 'the power to act'. Agency is when learning involves the activity and the initiative of the learner.3
You are probably also asking, Agency, what does that mean in relation to assessment? Well, for me, it is clear. It is not about being 1st out of 30 in my class with 97.5% on a standardised test. It is more about seeing that I have progressed / been successful in terms of my dispositions, my creativity, the work we have set together.4 It also means that assessment needs to include a variety of types, from a range of people and with a sole focus on me and my learning.
Perry Rush, NZPF President sums it up for me when he says,
It's all about being really human in how we deal with that.
So, if we are being human about this, does standardised assessment fit? Does narrative? Does formative? Summative?
Much to ponder in this space. My belief is that it is something for each school so set, with the whānau, with their communities.
Lesley Murrihy5 (2020) wrote
education has long been held back by its fear of change.6
Brene Brown says that
you can choose courage or you can choose comfort.
Are we afraid, or are we courageous? For our tamariki, it is time for us to be uncomfortable!
Have a wonderful day!
This is not Rikki’s actual report card!
I wonder if the revamp of New Zealand’s curriculum, with its emphasis on learning progressions, is the reappearance of this kind of thinking?
Note those words: activity and initiative. It strikes me that the presence of both is required if one is to get a true sense of a kids ability / potential / growth.
I wonder if Rikki is hinting at the importance of an ipsative approach to assessment? If so, what implications does this have when thinking about and describing learning progressions?
But why? Is it the kids that need to change, not education? Perhaps this tweet captures it