Name: Grace Wan

Class: Advanced Writing II, XJS Coaching School

Writing style: Analytical Writing

Teacher: Mr Rubino

Is the NAPLAN testing destroying our children’s learning? Richard Gill in his article "Focus on national tests robs children of true learning" (The Age, 9/2/2011), fervently contends that NAPLAN testing is “stultifying” the creativity of the nation’s students. On the 11th of February 2011 Bryan Long expressed his support in the article "Creative teaching is being strangled" stating that stimulating teaching has been replaced by a narrow and bureaucratically administered curriculum. 

Richard Gill describes the schools that cut back on arts education as “a sort of educational circus in which the children are the trained animals and the teachers the poorly paid ringmasters,” in which he is implying that teachers are training the children, instead of doing their proper job (educating them). In reference to them being “poorly paid ringmasters,” the article suggests that the “educational circus” the “trained animals” attend clearly isn’t the best. 

Using a scathing tone, Gill continues sarcastically, “If we want a nation of non-imaginative robots…” He is trying to create an image of students who lack free thought, imagination and act on command.  By stating “we are well on our way,” Gill is emphasizing that this process is already occurring and that our nation should be seriously concerned.  He then uses the example of the VCA who only “spend half a week on the academic curriculum.” These students do less work than mainstream schools yet do “extraordinarily well” in Year 12. Gill is trying to highlight that the arts seem to enhance academic ability and therefore, should not be neglected. Gill later poses a question “Why then with the evidence so overwhelmingly…?” to have us question the decision making ability of the politicians who have cut funding to the arts. By highlighting the link between music and academic achievement, Gill wants us to value the role of arts in the overall education of our children. When Gill finally asserts that “we are heading into a cultural and education crisis,” he attempts to create fear that our nation is doomed. To get educators and parents to realize the serious nature of our education system and also the world of culture and arts, Gill uses the inclusive “we”, hoping to make the point that the issue of testing has significant ramifications for us all.

In response to Gill’s article, Bryan Long continues to argue in favor that creative teaching has been “strangled” by a syllabus only dependent on what can be organized into boxes, ticked and graphed. Having the experience of “35 years as a teacher, lecturer, deputy principal and acting principal”, Long is in the best position to claim that “the greatest problem in our schools is politicians.”  He then poses the question, “Why is it that the top-performing countries in education such as Finland shun such measures,” where he uses strong language through the word “shun”, as well as an example and reference to the past, “and we slavishly follow the US and Britain, where such micromanagement has obviously failed?” Through this question, he is indirectly criticizing the government in a scathing tone and mocking the politicians, but at the same time trying to have us reinforce the questioning of the decision making ability politicians. 

Both authors strongly criticize the government’s focus on NAPLAN testing. Gill hopes that by directly targeting parents and educators, that they will too lobby the Department of Education for change. Bryan Long supports this issue and seeks to appeal to those who strongly believe that politicians are stifling creative teachers with a curriculum that cares only for literacy and numeracy skills.