What are the potential and limits of the Invalsi tests, which are intended to evaluate the educational system? What can they really tell us about our schools?
The tests to which the National Institute for the evaluation of the educational system of education and training, or the Invalsi, submits students of some classes of primary and secondary school have now entered the routine of the school activity, although they have struggled to establish themselves, between protests and collective absences. It is from the 2005-2006 school year that take place on the national territory and today they foresee Italian and mathematical tests in the second and fifth class of primary school, in the third year of middle schools and in the second and fifth of high school. For the last year of elementary, middle and high school, it is also planned to measure themselves with a test of English reading and listening. In primary school, children still try with a paper test, while in middle and high school the test takes place on the computer. This year the period of testing of the tests in the various school orders will be between March and May and already in many schools the preparations are underway and a variable dose of stress connected to the notorious “measurement” are variable.
Why the tests?
But what are they proposed to measure the invalsi tests? As the institute underlines on its official website and in the related publications, The tests have been conceived as a standardized evaluation tool that allows to verify the skills in some specific basic areas of education, such as the ability to understand a text or to use simple mathematical concepts. Tests that evaluate similar skills take place in different European and non -European countries. Invalsi underlines how the tests can be considered an instrument capable of indicating where to intervene to improve the school system, since the framework that emerges from international investigations would seem to indicate that our students, while spending many hours at school, are more difficult to apply the notions learned. Intervening on this aspect could make school capable of mitigating social inequalities, which is one of the most important purposes of education. In the intentions of the Ministry of Education, the tests are conceived as tools that enhance the skills, the “know -how” instead of notionism and as means to measure the quality of the teaching and the ability to reason.
The importance of the context
Invalsi tests have often moved the criticism of reporting cold and decontextualized data, therefore impossible to interpret. Record the level of a performance without putting it in relation to the context in which the child and the boy find themselves living, and which undoubtedly influenced the learning process, can have little value. Starting from the 2015-2016 school year, the Invalsi data can therefore be compared to the socio-economic context in which the educational institution is locatedto measure what has been called “school effect”. In short, they would measure what the school has managed to do to intervene and enhance the skills of children and young people. The school effect can be useful for the improvement of education.
From intentions to concrete case
But, in the practice of school life, do these praisable intentions translate into concrete results? We talked about it with Alex Corlazzoli, teacher, journalist and author of interesting essays on the role of school in current society, who are inspired by his daily experience as a teacher in primary school. “Over time – he told us – the invalsi tests have certainly improved in accuracy and reliability. For example, an important improvement is represented by the insertion of the English language within the skills evaluated, but many aspects still remain critical issues “.
A distorted perception
Why are many teachers and parents hostile to the administration of the Invalsi tests today? At the base there is perhaps above all a communication defectwhich, despite the intentions, makes these tests perceive as a way to focus on the finger at the work of teachers or as an opportunity to underestimate the skills of children and teenagers, subjected to a kind of race. «In theory, the intentions would be very different, but The teachers feel the pressure of school managers, who often feel questioned because of the results that emerge from the tests and this load of stress is transmitted to children and their families», Corlazzoli notes. “As I have had the opportunity to perceive in my teacher experience, they are above all older children, for example those of the last year of primary school, who begin to realize that they are subjected to an official test and show signs of anxiety”.
An senseless “training” to the test
Precisely because the purpose of the test is often misunderstood, it happens that you think you get around the problem of disappointing outcomes by pushing teachers to “prepare” children to carry out the invalsi tests. «There are schools in which the programming stops to devote themselves to carrying out tests similar to those Invalsi, actually damaging the pupils. In others, students are proposed to the purchase of special textbooks, which the school publishers have abundantly entered the market “, notes Corlazzoli. If the consequences can really be an improvement in performance in these specific tests, The goal of rethinking teaching to meet the needs of students is circumvented and in this way vanified.
The one that escapes a test of this type
If, on the one hand, a standardized test allows a more reliable measurement in some ways, on the other it is necessary to take into account some aspects of equal importance that escape the evaluation of such a structured test. Corlazzoli underlines: «For example, to consider The basic contrast existing between the idea of administering a standardized test and the principle of individualization of teachingwhich takes into account the unique and unrepeatable characteristics of each child, and which is the basis of contemporary pedagogy. How do you reconcile these aspects? Furthermore, What guarantees that the areas examined are really the most important for the development of the skills of children and young people?». Invalsi tests, for example, completely fly over creative and artistic skills, or on digital ones. These are skills that certainly do not seem secondary compared to those evaluated. “In spite of the proclamations – underlines the expert -,, Many of the questions still appear arid and schematic And there seems to be enough space for the critical reworking ability. The “timed” reading tests also arouse a lot of perplexity, which can stress children and transmit the distorted idea that the school should not respect the learning times of each. Finally, these tests are not able to give an account of the development process of the individual ». The latter is a fact that, if on the one hand it exists from the purposes of the surveys, still remains very important precisely to have an idea of that “school effect” that was talked about.
What are the results for?
The problem of the lack of effective basic communication on the purposes of the test has some paradoxical consequences. «It happens, for example, that the teachers focus only on the results of their class, losing the overall vision. Or it happens that the results become a comfortable marketing tool for schools, to be slammed during the Open Day To attract inscriptions », adds Corlazzoli. The distrust of families and schools towards the surveys is then due to the feeling that the results remain exclusively on paper and have no concrete consequences. «Once a deficiency is recorded or a problem highlighted, it would be necessary to establish an agenda to remedy the situation. But at the moment very little has been made to support schools operating in problematic contexts, translating the data into a series of actions that allow educational institutions to really make the difference for their pupils ».
In short, Although over time some aspects have improved, the tests still seem to be missing in large part the objectives that are proposed. “In general, the idea of using learning and efficacy evaluation tools of educational action is not to be perceived as something negative. At the moment, however, the limits still seem so many and for this reason the doubts of schools and families are understandable », concludes Corlazzoli.
