Unless there is investigation into why these children are not able to access the curriculum, unless there is some in-depth knowledge about the factors underpinning their learning capabilities, it is going to be difficult for these children to become functionally literate and numerate, even if offered the $750 per student in additional tutoring. It isn’t just five or ten children; it is 51360 children, and their lives being affected… Some of these children will be identified as children with learning disabilities, but the bulk of them are children of normal cognitive and operational function who are trying exceptionally hard to achieve. It seems completely logical to 5energies staff that the focus – politically and educationally - should be to identify these children early, early, early and to do that by screening each child in the key areas underpinning learning from a developmental perspective.  The relatively small amount of money poured into finding out WHY they are unable to access learning in the same way as their peers, and then into intervention programs that actually assist them long -term, seems a good investment in the future of Australia.

How can we help these 51360 children further? Who do we need to contact politically to ensure these children have both advocates and a ‘voice’ in demanding a change of focus, funding and assistance?

I fear that this grand policy, announced with much gusto and fanfare, will serve to alienate good teachers further. I am also perturbed about how easy it is to kill the messengers – for it is teachers and school staff who honestly facilitate the testing regime and originally had great faith in its ability to identify the children who needed genuine help to achieve functional literacy and numeracy. Have teachers been sacrificed at the alter of political convenience?

I fear this is the year that the use of benchmark results has taken on a life of its own. What was originally touted as a ’snapshot’ of student abilities will be the future standard for principal and teacher sackings and for comparisons between schools (a process similar to comparing chalk and cheese). Someone please correct me if I am wrong in my interpretation. Will this year also go down in history as the start of a mass exodus of teachers who have submitted to the imposition of arbitrary guidelines judging their quality - yet industrially are amongst the lowest paid of professionals, are still battling for simple things like permanency of employment and all the rights inherent in that status, and are stil responsible for fundraising in fetes and cake stalls for essential equipment for their schools…

I acknowledge that there are an increasing number of children failing to achieve minmal literacy and numeracy benchmark standards. At a conservative estimate of 15% of children in any school – but estimated by many teachers to be as high as 65% in some schools - 77000 children is a significant statistical figure who are failing to learn, and therefore failing to achieve the minimal level (benchmark) of literacy and numeracy acquisition… And let’s not mince words here: right now, today, there are at least 77000 reasons why the Federal government feels they need to take this action.  

But where are the analyses of every single one of those children as to WHY they are failing? Where are the interviews with parents about what they know about their child and his/her learning potential and struggles? Where are the health (physical, mental and emotional), eye-sight and hearing tests of these children? Where are the assessments by the occupational therapist (gross and fine motor skills, visual perception and processing, crossing mid-line, etc) and speech pathologist (receptive and expressive language, phonological awareness, auditory processing and perceptual skills, etc)?  Where is the teacher notation about the child’s first language of home and community, the child’s previous learning history and potential for achievement of functional literacy and numeracy in English? Where are the social workers’ comments about the family, and its potential to support a child to achieve literacy and numeracy? All far too hard…

An analysis of the testing regime itself might have been appropriate to gauge if the guidelines, content, administration and analytical processes are just, fair, valid, appropriate and adequate. Does a quantitative process adequately explain the qualitative nature of schools, teaching and learning? Are 77000 children the direct result of inadequate, faulty and poor teaching and inept teachers?

We spend a lot of time at 5energies building up a picture of each child, long before the test takes place: the earlier the better. We look at ten domains (on a fifty point scale) to see why a child cannot access learning and we work darned hard to ensure that teachers, those in the front-line, have this information for themselves. It really need not be that hard, to find ways to upskill teachers and make sure they have the evidence to show improvements, and the strategies to cater for the genuine needs of each child.

Is it only me who was so saddened this week?