Dilemmas through the flow test: Schools reluctantly participate or drop out because they no longer trust the test

School director Eva Naaijkens has ‘completely’ had it with testing students in group 8 of primary school, to determine their level for high school. According to the director of the Alan Turingchool in Amsterdam, the flow test that will be taken again from this week, by more than 175,000 primary school students, has gained far too much weight. “It’s one high stake became a test, “she says.

The test in group 8 has not been used since last year as a non -binding ‘Second Opinion’ for the provisional school advice that the teacher has given, but has become leading. If a higher high school level comes from the flow test than the teacher has advised, the school advice must in principle be adjusted. The Alan Turingchool will again participate in the mandatory test this year, but reluctantly. And Naaijkens is not the only one who looks at it like that.

This week it was announced that four primary schools in Noord-Holland will no longer take the test from students, unless parents still want it. According to these schools in Haarlem and Bergen, the flow test is unilaterally focused on arithmetic and language, and says little about the development of children. They find it unacceptable that they should put the advice of the teacher aside if a higher secondary school level comes from the test. The Education Inspectorate has sent the schools a letter in which they are summoned to take the test from all children, on pain of a fine.

Because of the enormous difference I thought: something is wrong here

There are six key providers who make a total of eight different test variants. The digital tests started last Monday, on 4 and 5 February the paper tests will be taken. Hundreds of schools have switched to a different test this year than last year.

No regret of advice

Eva Naaijkens cranked the debate on the flow test last year. She came out with the disappointing results of her school. “I posted a message about it on social media,” she says. “I found that quite difficult, because of course I didn’t want people to doubt the quality of our school.” Her message released a stream of reactions from schools that had also received test results that considerably deviated from their provisional school advice. Naaijkens: “I started to wonder more and more: is the confidence that I have in the tests actually justified? And I wasn’t the only one. ”

The final test in group 8, which was mandatory in schools since 2015, was replaced last year by the flow test. The test moment has been brought forward, from April to February, so that students receive their final school advice before they have to register at high school, in March. The name of the test has also changed. The idea is that the test does not mark the end point in the development of students, but must help with the flow to secondary education.

But the most important change is that since last year schools are in principle obliged to adjust the provisional advice that they have given students if a higher school level rolls out of the test. If a school does not find the adjustment in the student’s interest, it must argue in writing. Last year, 30 percent of the students were eligible for an adjustment, and in three -quarters of the cases the school went along with this. Many schools have started to doubt due to the different test results. Is there something wrong with their own capacity to give students appropriate advice, or isn’t the tests?

According to Naaijkens, the Alan Turingchool is known as a school that “just good teaching” is of paramount importance. But to her great surprise, 10 of the 26 students in group 8 scored lower last year at the flow -through test lower than their provisional school advice. Especially with language care, the figures showed a “dip”. Students who had received the VWO advice from school often often came out of the test: HAVO/VWO. Naaijkens: “We were 100 percent convinced that these children earned a VWO advice, so we don’t regret our advice.”

The school advice does not have to be adjusted, that should only be if the scores are higher. But it is annoying, she thinks, for the students and for her school. Because the Education Inspectorate also uses the scores of the flow test to assess the quality of education.

Interconnect

The feeling of Naaijkens that something was wrong was further strengthened because she also had access to the results of another school in Amsterdam. Since last year she helps improve the quality of education at IKC Tuindorp. At this school, the results of the flow test made up much better than expected. In half of the students, the advice had to be adjusted upstairs. “Nice for the students and nice for the school,” she says, “but because of that huge difference I thought: something is wrong here.”

The two schools did not take the same test. IKC Tuindorp had chosen the student in the picture of Cito, the Alan Turingchool did the elm test. This year, school board Asko, where both schools hear, has called on all 35 affiliated schools in Amsterdam to take the student in the picture. “Then we can in any case compare the results well,” says Naaijkens.

Yet she would prefer to completely stop the flow test, because she believes that it measures too limited a part of education: things like spelling, grammar and vocabulary. “If a student in group 8 cannot spell well, it has hardly any predictive value for follow -up success,” she says. “Think of children who have not been in the Netherlands for very long. It is much too early to have students aged eleven years old for a school level. Then you do late bloomers. “

Not all schools whose results have deviated greatly from the school advice have switched to another test. Jochem Boer, teacher of group 7/8 at primary school De Lichtboei in Westkapelle in Zeeland, also looked up strange last year when the scores of his students came in. It is a small school, with ten students in group 8 who took the elm key. “I had five who deviated from the provisional school advice that we had given.” In the years before, the school was “always accurate” with the advice. “Now three advice is really off. For example, a student with provisional advice VWO who ended up at the flow test on VMBO TL/GL-HAVO. ”

The national rule is that advice in the event of a disappointing test result is not adjusted. The teacher thinks that that might be the reason why VWO students sometimes scored lower on the test. “The test was less important for them.” The opposite was for students with school advice VMBO-Basis, he says. The light buoy thought it was too early to draw conclusions. “We didn’t want to change test after one year, we give it another chance,” says Boer.

Standardization adjusted

Hundreds of other schools do take that step. According to the College for tests and exams (CVTE), which must monitor the quality of the tests, that is less special than it seems. “We already saw this at the final test,” says Maaike Beuving, Program Manager Primary Education. “Schools that achieved somewhat lower scores on the test were more likely to choose a different test the following year. That has not happened more often this year than in other years. “

It is understandable if schools switch to a test that they find better match their education, says the CVTE. Beuving: “The freedom of choice is also meant for that.” But if schools think that one test is more reliable than the other, or that there are higher scores from one test than from the other, they are wrong, she says. “All tests meet the same legal quality requirements. But because schools have to adjust now, it feels different for many schools than in other years. “

Something has changed. Until last year, test providers themselves were responsible for the standardization of their test. The CVTE has been doing this since last year. “Last year, the standardization for all tests was aligned,” says Natacha Borgers, who is concerned with this within the CVTE. “From 2024, only is standardized on the basis of what we call it jointly anchor. That is a set of tasks that are taken in all keys. The test results are therefore better comparable to each other. “

Yet it can decide which test a student makes. Beuving: “One student may benefit from a digital, adaptive test, while another student works much nicer in a paper booklet. That can have an effect on the performance that a student shows. ” What also plays a role, she says, is that “certain schools more often choose certain tests”. It is known that route 8 is often used in special education. These students receive a VWO advice less often.

Motion

The PO Council, the interest group for primary education, argues for replacing the various tests with one central test. The House of Representatives took a motion of D66 in December to investigate whether this is possible. On Tuesday during question time in the Lower House, D66’er Ilana Rooderkerk urged State Secretary Mariëlle Paul (Fundend Education, VVD) to carry out the motion. “Why doesn’t the State Secretary do anything about this?” Paul called that “a bold assumption” and said he was doing it. She promised to come the room with detailed scenarios. But going to one test is not easy, she warned.

She called it a “misconception” that the school would be “bugged” by the flow test during the advice. “That is not the case at all.” Schools have ‘all the freedom’ not to adjust the advice if they do not think so in the student’s interest, she said. “Ultimately, the school together with the student and the parents, with the advice of the flow test, determines, which is the most suitable place.”

To share





Mail the editors