National standards by stealth? Why the government’s latest plan for schools might fail the history test
Standardised testing has been tried and scrapped before. But with a tender for a new ‘standardised assessment tool’, the government appears to be trying again.
Jade Wrathall, Teaching Fellow, Te Kura Toi Tangata – School of Education, University of Waikato, Marta Estellés, Senior Lecturer, Te Kura Toi Tangata – School of Education, University of Waikato
Under this policy, children were compared against the level of achievement expected for their age and time at school. The goal was to improve results across the education system.
The planned introduction of a new standardised assessment tool is concerning for a number of reasons – particularly when it comes to long-term consequences for schools and student learning.
But what has also raised the hackles of many in education is how the tender process for the new tool happened without warning. Here is what parents, schools and the public should know about the background to this debate.
In 2024, Education Minister Erica Stanford announced plans to allow schools to choose between two tools to assess students, but the ministry has now issued a tender for just one.Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images
A narrowing curriculum
There is plenty of research – from New Zealand and overseas – highlighting the negative consequences of standardised testing in education.
Standardised assessment can, for example, lead to schools being ranked against each other according to their achievement data. A low ranking could jeopardise a school’s reputation and therefore the number of enrolments and subsequent funding they receive.
In this high-stakes environment, teachers can be pressured to focus on assessed subjects, often to the detriment of the broader curriculum. While the curriculum in New Zealand has already been considerably narrowed under the government’s “Teaching the Basics Brilliantly” policy, a standardised assessment could further exacerbate this trend.
Teachers may also be inclined to “teach to the test” and employ rote learning strategies, where children are encouraged to memorise the correct answers. While this may result in high test scores, it is questionable whether deeper learning will occur.
Finally, while standardised tests might promise an “easy fix” to improve educational outcomes, they do not address the deeper socioeconomic disparities which continue to significantly affect educational achievement.
It’s not our intention to pit schools against each other. This data is for parents to know how their kids are going, teachers to inform practice, and as a system to know how we’re tracking.
But according to documents released later the same year, the government already had a plan to rely on a single standardised assessment tool that could produce comparable data.
Principals and teachers can also be held accountable for student achievement, while larger contextual factors, such as socioeconomic inequalities, are ignored. This can ultimately lead to educators being blamed if achievement targets are not met.
Regardless of who wins the tender for the new assessment tool, New Zealand’s recent experience with standardised testing didn’t achieve what was promised. Returning to national standards – either in name or just in spirit – should raise alarms for everyone.
Marta Estellés has previously received funding from The Spencer Foundation, New Zealand National Commission of UNESCO, the Division of Education at The University of Waikato and The University of Cantabria.
Jade Wrathall does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.