MacRuairc (2009) and Reay and Wiliam (1998) contend that there is bias present in the items in standardised tests. This bias can result in children from minority or working-class backgrounds performing less well than their peers. MacRuairc (2009) states that in his study of middle-class and working-class pupils in Ireland, the difference noted in their standardised test is down to the linguistic capital
52 of the two groups. The middle-class children had more access to the language of the test due to their home background.
The development of various pathologies of childhood can also have a lasting impact on a child’s life. The burgeoning use of labels such as slow learner, ADD, ADHD, ODD, learning disability in the past fifty years can mask underlying problems with the educational system. By labelling the child in this way, the system can excuse itself of its responsibilities. In so doing, teachers and other pupils can create the disability by reacting as if it were a constant presence. Such labels, in Foucauldian terms, are also a disciplinary mechanism of the state. McDermott (2001) argues that children can acquire a learning disability through the process of schooling. He describes how Adam is “the negative achievement of a school system that insisted that everyone do better than everyone else” (McDermott, 2001, p.61). McDermott attributes learning disability to a deficit theory within the educational system which places the blame on the child rather than examining systemic responsibility. He argues that the language of schooling comes to us “biased with the social agendas of a school system that pits all children against all children in a battle for success” (2001, p.68). Children are evenly divided by a normative curve, with teachers attempting to identify deviations and classify children with a label.
In the USA, Espinosa (2005) documents how Black and Hispanic children enter kindergarten more than half a standard deviation below the national average in maths and reading achievement whereas White children scored far above the national average. The context of the school also plays a role in how pupils are identified. McCoy et al. (2012) found that, in Ireland, children attending highly disadvantaged primary school contexts are far more likely to be identified with behavioural problems and less likely to be identified with learning disabilities than
53 children with similar characteristics attending other schools. They demonstrate how boys are more likely than girls to be identified as having a special educational need (SEN); children from lower income families have a higher likelihood of being reported to have an SEN; and that there are much lower levels of SEN among children whose mothers have second-level and third level qualifications, and the converse is also true.
One aim of educational reform policies based on accountability measures is to raise standards, particularly in literacy and numeracy (education policy on assessment is explored in Chapter 3). Research has investigated whether performance-driven educational accountability policy enhances or hinders equity in achievement (Klenowski, 2009; McCarty, 2009; Lee and Wong 2004). McCarty (2009) demonstrates how reading scores for American Indian/Alaskan Natives (AI/AN) fourth- and eighth-graders did not change significantly between 2005 and 2007 when accountability policies were introduced (No Child Left Behind), and in some cases declined, while the performance of non-AI/AN students increased. Similarly, mean mathematics scores for AI/AN students did not change, while the scores of non-AI/AN students increased. He also showed how the emphasis on high- stakes testing tied to state standards in accountability based policies may lead schools to curtail or eliminate Native language and culture instruction. Klenowski (2009) reports similar findings for Australian Indigenous students. She states that Australia’s Indigenous students consistently perform at levels well below non- Indigenous students across all content domains in international comparative tests. She argues that those who set the standards and the content of the tests have the power to privilege certain knowledge and groups, outlining the different social and cultural capital that are privy to some groups but outside the experience of others.
54 Lee and Wong (2004) found that Black-White and Hispanic-White maths achievement gaps have remained the same or have hardly changed as a result of accountability education policies.
The key empirical research findings for this dissertation are summarised as follows:
Table 1 Summary of key research findings in assessment
Heading Findings
Studies on the
purposes of assessment
Assessment policies have changed in some countries in response to international tests
When exams are introduced, teachers teach to the test and narrow the curriculum
This can also lead to the neglect of other areas and higher order thinking skills
Teacher perspectives on assessment
New assessment policies must take teachers’ conceptions of assessment into account in order to succeed
Teachers do not believe in efficacy of large-scale tests Pupil perspectives on
assessment
An assessment approach that focuses on test scores over effort can lead to pupils internalising these scores as fixed points
Pupils shape themselves as learners in response to the assessment approaches used
Feedback is a key influencing factor in pupils’ perceptions of themselves
Cultural issues
regarding assessment
Bias is present in standardised tests
Identification of some SEN is linked to socioeconomic factors
Educational reform policies based on accountability measures do not raise standards for all children. Children from differing cultural backgrounds may be disadvantaged by these policies
55