Indigenous-Education-Review_DRAFT
Indigenous-Education-Review_DRAFT
Indigenous-Education-Review_DRAFT
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>Review</strong> of <strong>Indigenous</strong> <strong>Education</strong> in the Northern Territory<br />
Bruce Wilson<br />
There should also be a mandatory more general reading assessment. The measure most<br />
widely used in the sample of schools visited was the PM Benchmarks reading assessment.<br />
The significant advantage of this instrument (and of other similar items) is that it enables the<br />
mapping and reporting of progress more widely and in a more fine‐grained way than<br />
NAPLAN. In many schools, PM Benchmarks levels for individual children were on display,<br />
progress was celebrated and children had target levels for achievement. This provided<br />
incentive and reward for children and teachers, and enabled the reporting to parents of<br />
evidence of progress even where children had not reached NAPLAN benchmarks.<br />
Such an approach should be linked with Territory‐wide age‐expected benchmarks for key<br />
areas including reading level, phonemic awareness and sight words. These could build on<br />
the T‐9 Diagnostic Net continua.<br />
There is a range of other general and specific literacy assessment tools and instruments in<br />
use in different schools. Despite some areas of success, this open‐ended approach is not<br />
supported. Instead, there should be a consistent approach in all schools involving:<br />
<br />
<br />
the use of a mandatory phonemic awareness test to diagnose student starting<br />
points and to monitor progress through the early years of schooling (T‐3); and<br />
the use of a mandatory general reading test to map student progress over time, set<br />
goals and report progress to parents.<br />
Numeracy<br />
Although the review has examined numeracy data and discussed progress with numeracy in<br />
school visits and interviews, this report does not address numeracy in any detail. The view<br />
taken by the review is that numeracy is not as urgent a priority as literacy, that literacy is<br />
more foundational (i.e. improvements in literacy will probably achieve a degree of<br />
improvement in numeracy) and that for bush schools in particular it is important to focus on<br />
a limited set of goals to achieve improvement.<br />
<strong>DRAFT</strong><br />
The evidence for the view that numeracy is a less urgent task is presented in summary form<br />
in Figure 14. This is equivalent to the reading and writing graphs presented earlier in this<br />
chapter. The key points are:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
the provincial <strong>Indigenous</strong> student cohort sits within the at‐national‐minimumstandard<br />
band;<br />
the remote <strong>Indigenous</strong> student cohort sits within, though close the bottom of, the<br />
at‐national‐minimum‐standard band;<br />
the very remote <strong>Indigenous</strong> student cohort is below national minimum standards for<br />
each year level, but the gap is noticeably narrower than for reading and writing, and<br />
there is some evidence that the gap narrows during the years of schooling.<br />
67