Going back to HSC now.. it's really a similar story. One would expect that students pick up this knowledge throughout their schooling (as I said above). It is the responsibility in my opinion of teachers to ensure that students' literacy and numeracy are adequate. NAPLAN occurs at Years 3, 5, 7 and 9 - which gives indications of literacy and numeracy anyway regarding each student.. I don't see the purpose of this one.
I totally agree, and that's why (at least to my understanding) this test is only if the minimum standard isn't met in the Year 9 NAPLAN test. Like, if you meet the requirement in Year 9, you don't sit the test - The test is the extra opportunity to meet the standard.
I see the point of the issues raised with this test, but on an abstract level I do think that if you are graduating with a HSC, you should meet a basic literacy and numeracy standard. Ditto for the test you took for Masters Aaron. Like, clearly, you should pass it. But I like that someone who couldn't pass it by then wouldn't be able to teach.
Having a quick look at the sample
reading test, some of the requirements of the questions seem to be:
- Being able to read a sign and recognise the behaviour required of that sign
- Being able to garner basic facts from a job advertisement
- Being able to follow a given procedure in order
This seems perfectly reasonable. I honestly don't think anyone should be able to receive a HSC if they can't do these things. And if they can't, it represents a serious failure not on their part, but of the education system.
For the sample
numeracy test:
- Estimating original prices of items based on sales
- Basic subtraction to calculate remaining kilometres until a car requires servicing.
- Reading basic detail from graphs
- Identifying streets perpendicular to other streets
- Geometry based problems
For me, some of the numeracy questions don't sit well because they test definitional knowledge - Like, what a similar rectangle is, what perpendicular means - Rather than skills based stuff like subtraction, reading scales, etc etc.
For the writing test, it is just a 500 word response on a broad stimulus. It seems to be marked on relevance, grammar, spelling, syntax and logical flow of ideas/thoughts. I don't see a huge issue with requiring a student to be able to produce a basic piece of writing, requiring the marking scale is fair and realistic to what skills are actually necessary in day to day life.
So I suppose in principle, the idea is sound. I think there should be minimum literacy and numeracy standards and you
can do well in the HSC without some of these right now. Ensuring everyone graduates with these basic skills, imo, is a good thing. And the requirements, on the whole, seem fair - But I do think the numeracy test will be divisive. Even I, in a STEM degree, don't give a damn about similar shapes or polygonal geometry. I think perhaps adapting the NAPLAN to have a separate section/subset that tests the purest of mathematical skills, rather than knowledge, could be a beneficial change. They already do calculator and non calculator sections, so doing this would not be a huge administrative burden on the students. One section tests basic skills, one tests knowledge. You could even give them a calculator for basic skills because everyone has calculators in the real world - If they can read data, understand basic numerical concepts and know what calculations to perform for what purpose - Send em through
Home
Help
Search
Login
