Contesting educational assessment policies in Australia
Assessment is a major component of education, significant in directing what is identified as valued student learning. This paper is framed within an understanding of imperative and exhortative policy. Two paradigmatically different, and potentially contesting, assessment policy directions in Austral...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of education policy 2019-11, Vol.34 (6), p.836-857 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 857 |
---|---|
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | 836 |
container_title | Journal of education policy |
container_volume | 34 |
creator | Cumming, J. Joy Van Der Kleij, Fabienne M. Adie, Lenore |
description | Assessment is a major component of education, significant in directing what is identified as valued student learning. This paper is framed within an understanding of imperative and exhortative policy. Two paradigmatically different, and potentially contesting, assessment policy directions in Australian education - educational accountability to monitor school and teacher performance, and teacher assessment practices to improve learning (assessment for learning [AfL] or formative assessment) - are examined for their impact on teacher professionalism. Both approaches have official endorsement in Australian policy. Mandated participation in national tests is indicative of educational accountability assessments under national direction. While also endorsed nationally, AfL implementation is reliant on state and territory direction. Our examination reveals tensions in the alignment of both policies. This is evident in the impact of accountability assessment on AfL implementation, in particular, teachers' understandings of valued assessment evidence. We conclude that a paradigmatic shift to support student learning in Australian schools is a policy imperative that includes the need for professional development and learning support for teachers. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1080/02680939.2019.1608375 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>eric_rmit_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_eric_primary_EJ1230142</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ1230142</ericid><informt_id>10.3316/aeipt.225146</informt_id><sourcerecordid>EJ1230142</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c391t-f4684a1419c8d28ce4554337e17ada6fd01f5d133383b4c9a04608b60ecc424e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kM1OwzAQhC0EEqXwCJXyAile23GcG6Uqf6rEBc7W1nGKURpXtivUtychhSOnPcw3sztLyAzoHKiit5RJRStezRmFag6SKl4WZ2QCQoq8ACrPyWRg8gG6JFcxflJKhWRiQsql75KNyXXbzNYHg8n5DtsMY7Qx7myXsr1vnXE2Zq7LFoeYArYOr8lFg220N6c5Je8Pq7flU75-fXxeLta54RWkvBFSCQQBlVE1U8aKohCclxZKrFE2NYWmqIFzrvhGmAr7s6jaSGqNEUxYPiXFmGuCjzHYRu-D22E4aqB6aK9_2-uhvT61732z0WeDM3-e1QswTkGwXr8f9bBzSaN1-6Q_UtpHXWNC7brG_yg-bHXt3bCNc5AnkrGif24fcjeGjDh--dDWOuGx9aEJ2BkXNf__zm_Za4Ii</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Contesting educational assessment policies in Australia</title><source>Taylor & Francis Journals Complete</source><creator>Cumming, J. Joy ; Van Der Kleij, Fabienne M. ; Adie, Lenore</creator><creatorcontrib>Cumming, J. Joy ; Van Der Kleij, Fabienne M. ; Adie, Lenore</creatorcontrib><description>Assessment is a major component of education, significant in directing what is identified as valued student learning. This paper is framed within an understanding of imperative and exhortative policy. Two paradigmatically different, and potentially contesting, assessment policy directions in Australian education - educational accountability to monitor school and teacher performance, and teacher assessment practices to improve learning (assessment for learning [AfL] or formative assessment) - are examined for their impact on teacher professionalism. Both approaches have official endorsement in Australian policy. Mandated participation in national tests is indicative of educational accountability assessments under national direction. While also endorsed nationally, AfL implementation is reliant on state and territory direction. Our examination reveals tensions in the alignment of both policies. This is evident in the impact of accountability assessment on AfL implementation, in particular, teachers' understandings of valued assessment evidence. We conclude that a paradigmatic shift to support student learning in Australian schools is a policy imperative that includes the need for professional development and learning support for teachers.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0268-0939</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1464-5106</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/02680939.2019.1608375</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Routledge</publisher><subject>Accountability ; Alignment (Education) ; assessment policy ; Critical analysis ; Educational Assessment ; Educational Policy ; Evaluation methods ; Foreign Countries ; Formative Evaluation ; National Assessment Program, Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) (Australia) ; National competency tests ; National Curriculum ; Policy analysis ; Primary secondary education ; Professional development ; Professionalism ; School Effectiveness ; Student assessment ; Student Evaluation ; Teacher Effectiveness ; teacher practice</subject><ispartof>Journal of education policy, 2019-11, Vol.34 (6), p.836-857</ispartof><rights>2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group 2019</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c391t-f4684a1419c8d28ce4554337e17ada6fd01f5d133383b4c9a04608b60ecc424e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c391t-f4684a1419c8d28ce4554337e17ada6fd01f5d133383b4c9a04608b60ecc424e3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-3874-397X ; 0000-0002-1013-0218 ; 0000-0001-9221-7677</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02680939.2019.1608375$$EPDF$$P50$$Ginformaworld$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02680939.2019.1608375$$EHTML$$P50$$Ginformaworld$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,59620,60409</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ1230142$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cumming, J. Joy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van Der Kleij, Fabienne M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Adie, Lenore</creatorcontrib><title>Contesting educational assessment policies in Australia</title><title>Journal of education policy</title><description>Assessment is a major component of education, significant in directing what is identified as valued student learning. This paper is framed within an understanding of imperative and exhortative policy. Two paradigmatically different, and potentially contesting, assessment policy directions in Australian education - educational accountability to monitor school and teacher performance, and teacher assessment practices to improve learning (assessment for learning [AfL] or formative assessment) - are examined for their impact on teacher professionalism. Both approaches have official endorsement in Australian policy. Mandated participation in national tests is indicative of educational accountability assessments under national direction. While also endorsed nationally, AfL implementation is reliant on state and territory direction. Our examination reveals tensions in the alignment of both policies. This is evident in the impact of accountability assessment on AfL implementation, in particular, teachers' understandings of valued assessment evidence. We conclude that a paradigmatic shift to support student learning in Australian schools is a policy imperative that includes the need for professional development and learning support for teachers.</description><subject>Accountability</subject><subject>Alignment (Education)</subject><subject>assessment policy</subject><subject>Critical analysis</subject><subject>Educational Assessment</subject><subject>Educational Policy</subject><subject>Evaluation methods</subject><subject>Foreign Countries</subject><subject>Formative Evaluation</subject><subject>National Assessment Program, Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) (Australia)</subject><subject>National competency tests</subject><subject>National Curriculum</subject><subject>Policy analysis</subject><subject>Primary secondary education</subject><subject>Professional development</subject><subject>Professionalism</subject><subject>School Effectiveness</subject><subject>Student assessment</subject><subject>Student Evaluation</subject><subject>Teacher Effectiveness</subject><subject>teacher practice</subject><issn>0268-0939</issn><issn>1464-5106</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kM1OwzAQhC0EEqXwCJXyAile23GcG6Uqf6rEBc7W1nGKURpXtivUtychhSOnPcw3sztLyAzoHKiit5RJRStezRmFag6SKl4WZ2QCQoq8ACrPyWRg8gG6JFcxflJKhWRiQsql75KNyXXbzNYHg8n5DtsMY7Qx7myXsr1vnXE2Zq7LFoeYArYOr8lFg220N6c5Je8Pq7flU75-fXxeLta54RWkvBFSCQQBlVE1U8aKohCclxZKrFE2NYWmqIFzrvhGmAr7s6jaSGqNEUxYPiXFmGuCjzHYRu-D22E4aqB6aK9_2-uhvT61732z0WeDM3-e1QswTkGwXr8f9bBzSaN1-6Q_UtpHXWNC7brG_yg-bHXt3bCNc5AnkrGif24fcjeGjDh--dDWOuGx9aEJ2BkXNf__zm_Za4Ii</recordid><startdate>20191102</startdate><enddate>20191102</enddate><creator>Cumming, J. Joy</creator><creator>Van Der Kleij, Fabienne M.</creator><creator>Adie, Lenore</creator><general>Routledge</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3874-397X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1013-0218</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9221-7677</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20191102</creationdate><title>Contesting educational assessment policies in Australia</title><author>Cumming, J. Joy ; Van Der Kleij, Fabienne M. ; Adie, Lenore</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c391t-f4684a1419c8d28ce4554337e17ada6fd01f5d133383b4c9a04608b60ecc424e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Accountability</topic><topic>Alignment (Education)</topic><topic>assessment policy</topic><topic>Critical analysis</topic><topic>Educational Assessment</topic><topic>Educational Policy</topic><topic>Evaluation methods</topic><topic>Foreign Countries</topic><topic>Formative Evaluation</topic><topic>National Assessment Program, Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) (Australia)</topic><topic>National competency tests</topic><topic>National Curriculum</topic><topic>Policy analysis</topic><topic>Primary secondary education</topic><topic>Professional development</topic><topic>Professionalism</topic><topic>School Effectiveness</topic><topic>Student assessment</topic><topic>Student Evaluation</topic><topic>Teacher Effectiveness</topic><topic>teacher practice</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cumming, J. Joy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van Der Kleij, Fabienne M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Adie, Lenore</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Journal of education policy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cumming, J. Joy</au><au>Van Der Kleij, Fabienne M.</au><au>Adie, Lenore</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ1230142</ericid><atitle>Contesting educational assessment policies in Australia</atitle><jtitle>Journal of education policy</jtitle><date>2019-11-02</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>34</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>836</spage><epage>857</epage><pages>836-857</pages><issn>0268-0939</issn><eissn>1464-5106</eissn><abstract>Assessment is a major component of education, significant in directing what is identified as valued student learning. This paper is framed within an understanding of imperative and exhortative policy. Two paradigmatically different, and potentially contesting, assessment policy directions in Australian education - educational accountability to monitor school and teacher performance, and teacher assessment practices to improve learning (assessment for learning [AfL] or formative assessment) - are examined for their impact on teacher professionalism. Both approaches have official endorsement in Australian policy. Mandated participation in national tests is indicative of educational accountability assessments under national direction. While also endorsed nationally, AfL implementation is reliant on state and territory direction. Our examination reveals tensions in the alignment of both policies. This is evident in the impact of accountability assessment on AfL implementation, in particular, teachers' understandings of valued assessment evidence. We conclude that a paradigmatic shift to support student learning in Australian schools is a policy imperative that includes the need for professional development and learning support for teachers.</abstract><pub>Routledge</pub><doi>10.1080/02680939.2019.1608375</doi><tpages>22</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3874-397X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1013-0218</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9221-7677</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0268-0939 |
ispartof | Journal of education policy, 2019-11, Vol.34 (6), p.836-857 |
issn | 0268-0939 1464-5106 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_eric_primary_EJ1230142 |
source | Taylor & Francis Journals Complete |
subjects | Accountability Alignment (Education) assessment policy Critical analysis Educational Assessment Educational Policy Evaluation methods Foreign Countries Formative Evaluation National Assessment Program, Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) (Australia) National competency tests National Curriculum Policy analysis Primary secondary education Professional development Professionalism School Effectiveness Student assessment Student Evaluation Teacher Effectiveness teacher practice |
title | Contesting educational assessment policies in Australia |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-04T23%3A29%3A01IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-eric_rmit_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Contesting%20educational%20assessment%20policies%20in%20Australia&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20education%20policy&rft.au=Cumming,%20J.%20Joy&rft.date=2019-11-02&rft.volume=34&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=836&rft.epage=857&rft.pages=836-857&rft.issn=0268-0939&rft.eissn=1464-5106&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/02680939.2019.1608375&rft_dat=%3Ceric_rmit_%3EEJ1230142%3C/eric_rmit_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ1230142&rft_informt_id=10.3316/aeipt.225146&rfr_iscdi=true |