Conclusions and recommendations
The need for national testing
1. We
consider that the weight of evidence in favour of the need for
a system of national testing is persuasive and we are content
that the principle of national testing is sound. Appropriate testing
can help to ensure that teachers focus on achievement and often
that has meant excellent teaching, which is very welcome. (Paragraph
25)
The purposes of national testing
2. The
evidence we have received strongly favours the view that national
tests do not serve all of the purposes for which they are, in
fact used. The fact that the results of these tests are used for
so many purposes, with high-stakes attached to the outcomes, creates
tensions in the system leading to undesirable consequences, including
distortion of the education experience of many children. In addition,
the data derived from the testing system do not necessarily provide
an accurate or complete picture of the performance of schools
and teachers, yet they are relied upon by the Government, the
QCA and Ofsted to make important decisions affecting the education
system in general and individual schools, teachers and pupils
in particular. In short, we consider that the current national
testing system is being applied to serve too many purposes. (Paragraph
44)
3. We consider that
the over-emphasis on the importance of national tests, which address
only a limited part of the National Curriculum and a limited range
of children's skills and knowledge has resulted in teachers narrowing
their focus. Teachers who feel compelled to focus on that part
of the curriculum which is likely to be tested may feel less able
to use the full range of their creative abilities in the classroom
and find it more difficult to explore the curriculum in an interesting
and motivational way. We are concerned that the professional abilities
of teachers are, therefore, under-used and that some children
may suffer as a result of a limited educational diet focussed
on testing. We feel that teacher assessment should form a significant
part of a national assessment regime. As the Chartered Institute
of Educational Assessors states, "A system of external testing
alone is not ideal and government's recent policy initiatives
in progress checks and diplomas have made some move towards addressing
an imbalance between external testing and internal judgements
made by those closest to the students, i.e. the teachers, in line
with other European countries". (Paragraph 58)
4. We are concerned
about the Government's stance on the merits of the current testing
system. We remain unconvinced by the Government's assumption that
one set of national tests can serve a range of purposes at the
national, local, institutional and individual levels. We recommend
that the Government sets out clearly the purposes of national
testing in order of priority and, for each purpose, gives an accurate
assessment of the fitness of the relevant test instrument for
that purpose, taking into account the issues of validity and reliability.
(Paragraph 61)
5. We recommend further
that estimates of statistical measurement error be published alongside
test data and statistics derived from those data to allow users
of that information to interpret it in a more informed manner.
We urge the Government to consider further the evidence of Dr
Ken Boston, that multiple test instruments, each serving fewer
purposes, would be a more valid approach to national testing.
(Paragraph 62)
Performance targets and tables
6. We
endorse the Government's view that much can and should be done
to assist children who struggle to meet expected standards. However,
we are concerned that the Government's target-based system may
actually be contributing to the problems of some children. (Paragraph
81)
7. We believe that
the system is now out of balance in the sense that the drive to
meet government-set targets has too often become the goal rather
than the means to the end of providing the best possible education
for all children. This is demonstrated in phenomena such as teaching
to the test, narrowing the curriculum and focussing disproportionate
resources on borderline pupils. We urge the Government to reconsider
its approach in order to create incentives to schools to teach
the whole curriculum and acknowledge children's achievements in
the full range of the curriculum. The priority should be a system
which gives teachers, parents and children accurate information
about children's progress. (Paragraph 82)
8. Whilst we consider
that Contextualised Value Added scores are potentially a valuable
addition to the range of information available to parents and
the public at large when making judgments about particular schools,
we recommend that the information be presented in a more accessible
form, for example graphically, so that it can more easily be interpreted.
(Paragraph 98)
9. We are concerned
about the underlying assumptions on which Contextualised Value
Added scores are based. Whilst it may be true that the sub-groups
adjusted for in the Contextualised Value Added measure may statistically
perform less well than other sub-groups, we do not consider that
it should accepted that they will always perform less well than
others. (Paragraph 99)
10. In addition to
these specific recommendations about Contextual Value Added scores,
we recommend that the Government rethinks the way it publishes
the information presented in the Achievement and Attainment Tables
generally. We believe that this information should be presented
in a more accessible manner so that parents and others can make
a holistic evaluation of a school more easily. In addition, there
should be a statement with the Achievement and Attainment Tables
that they should not be read in isolation, but in conjunction
with the relevant Ofsted report in order to get a more rounded
view of a school's performance and a link to the Ofsted site should
be provided. (Paragraph 100)
11. The scope of this
inquiry does not extend to a thorough examination of the way Ofsted
uses data from the performance tables under the new, lighter touch,
inspection regime. However, we would be concerned if Ofsted were,
in fact, using test result data as primary inspection evidence
in a disproportionate manner because of our view that national
test data are evidence only of a very limited amount of the important
and wide-ranging work that schools do. (Paragraph 102)
12. We consider that
schools are being held accountable for only a very narrow part
of their essential activities and we recommend that the Government
reforms the performance tables to include a wider range of measures,
including those from the recent Ofsted report. (Paragraph 106)
The consequences of high-stakes uses of testing
13. We
received substantial evidence that teaching to the test, to an
extent which narrows the curriculum and puts sustained learning
at risk, is widespread. Whilst the Government has allocated resources
to tackle this phenomenon and improve practice they fail to accept
the extent to which teaching to the test exists and the damage
it can do to a child's learning. We have no doubt that teachers
generally have the very best intentions in terms of providing
the best education they can for their pupils. However, the way
that many teachers have responded to the Government's approach
to accountability has meant that test results are pursued at the
expense of a rounded education for children. (Paragraph 130)
14. We believe that
teaching to the test and this inappropriate focus on test results
may leave young people unprepared for higher education and employment.
We recommend that the Government reconsiders the evidence on teaching
to the test and that it commissions systematic and wide-ranging
research to discover the nature and full extent of the problem.
(Paragraph 131)
15. A creative, linked
curriculum which addresses the interests, needs and talents of
all pupils is the casualty of the narrow focus of teaching which
we have identified. Narrowing of the curriculum is problematic
in two ways: core subjects are emphasised to the detriment of
other, important elements of the broader curriculum; and, for
those subjects which are tested in public examinations, the scope
and creativity of what is taught is compromised by a focus on
the requirements of the test. We are concerned that any efforts
the Government makes to introduce more breadth into the school
curriculum are likely to be undermined by the enduring imperative
for schools, created by the accountability measures, to ensure
that their pupils perform well in national tests. (Paragraph 140)
16. We acknowledge
the reforms the Government has made to GCSE and A-level examinations.
However, the Government must address the concerns expressed by
witnesses, among them Dr Ken Boston of the QCA, who see the burden
of assessment more in terms of the amount of time and effort spent
in preparation for high-stakes tests than in the time taken to
sit the tests themselves. This could be achieved by discouraging
some of the most inappropriate forms of preparation and reducing
the number of occasions on which a child is tested. (Paragraph
149)
17. We are persuaded
by the evidence that it is entirely possible to improve test scores
through mechanisms such as teaching to the test, narrowing the
curriculum and concentrating effort and resources on borderline
students. It follows that this apparent improvement may not always
be evidence of an underlying enhancement of learning and understanding
in pupils. (Paragraph 161)
18. We consider that
the measurement of standards across the full curriculum is virtually
impossible under the current testing regime because national tests
measure only a small sample of pupils' achievements; and because
teaching to the test means that pupils may not retain, or may
not even possess in the first place, the skills which are supposedly
evidenced by their test results. (Paragraph 162)
19. It is not possible
for us to come to a definitive view on grade inflation in the
context of such a wide-ranging inquiry. However, it seems clear
to us from the evidence that we have received that the Government
has not engaged with the complexity of the technical arguments
about grade inflation and standards over time. We recommend that
the Government addresses these issues head-on, starting with a
mandate to the QCA or the proposed new regulator to undertake
a full review of assessment standards. (Paragraph 171)
20. Whilst we do not
doubt the Government's intentions when it states that "The
National Curriculum sets out a clear, full and statutory entitlement
to learning for all pupils, irrespective of background or ability",
we are persuaded that in practice many children have not received
their entitlement and many witnesses believe that this is due
to the demands of national testing. (Paragraph 183)
21. We are persuaded
that the current system of national tests should be reformed in
order to decouple the multiple purposes of measuring pupil attainment,
school and teacher accountability and national monitoring. The
negative impacts of national testing arise more from the targets
that schools are expected to achieve and schools' responses to
them than from the tests themselves. (Paragraph 184)
22. School accountability
should be separated from this system of pupil testing, and we
recommend that the Government consult widely on methods of assuring
school accountability which do not impact on the right of children
to a balanced education. (Paragraph 185)
23. We recommend that
the purpose of national monitoring of the education system, particularly
for policy formation, is best served by sample testing to measure
standards over time and that cohort testing is neither appropriate
nor, in our view, desirable for this purpose. We recommend further
that, in the interests of public confidence, such sample testing
should be carried out by a body at arms length from the Government
and suggest that it is a task either for the new regulator or
a body answerable to it. (Paragraph 186)
Single-level tests
24. Our
predecessors warned the Government about bringing in new tests
with undue haste. We recommend that the Government allows sufficient
time for a full pilot of the new single-level tests and ensures
that any issues and problems arising out of that pilot are fully
addressed before any formal roll-out of the new regime to schools.
(Paragraph 198)
25. Making Good
Progress characterises single-level tests
as integral to personalised learning and Assessment for Learning
yet also the means by which to generate summative data. We agree
with the National Foundation for Educational Research that this
single assessment instrument cannot validly perform these functions
simultaneously and, if it is attempted, there is a danger that
the single-level tests will work for neither purpose. The single-level
tests may be useful, however, if their purpose is carefully defined
and the tests are developed to ensure they are valid and reliable
specifically for those purposes. (Paragraph 210)
26. We recommend that,
if single-level tests are introduced, they are used for summative
purposes only and that Assessment for Learning and personalised
learning are supported separately by enhanced professional development
for teachers, backed up with a centralised bank of formative and
diagnostic assessment materials on which teachers can draw as
necessary on a regular basis. (Paragraph 211)
27. Single-level tests
may have some positive effects and we certainly approve of the
Government's new emphasis on the personalised approach. However,
the Government has structured the single-level testing system
in such a way as to risk a transposition of existing, systemic
problems into the new arrangements. Without structural modification,
we foresee that the existing problems—including teaching
to the test, narrowing of the taught curriculum and the focus
on borderline candidates to the detriment of others—will
continue under the single-level test regime. (Paragraph 215)
28. We believe that
true personalised learning is incompatible with a high-stakes
single-level test which focuses on academic learning and does
not assess a range of other skills which children might possess.
Children who struggle with the core subjects may receive more
targeted assistance in those subjects. However, if this means
that children who are struggling with core subjects get less opportunity
to access the wider curriculum, they risk being put off learning
at an early age. We call upon the Government to invest in ways
to help and, if necessary, train teachers to improve the basic
skills of struggling pupils while enhancing their enjoyment of
learning and guaranteeing their access to a broad curriculum.
(Paragraph 216)
29. We are concerned
about the "one-way ratchet" on the attainment of test
levels under the single-level testing regime and we find persuasive
the evidence that this may lead to an apparent, but artificial,
improvement in performance standards. We recommend that the Government
consider further whether it is in children's best interests that
they may be certified to have achieved a level of knowledge and
understanding which they do not, in truth, possess. We suspect
that this may lead to further disillusionment and children perceiving
themselves as 'failures'. (Paragraph 217)
30. We recommend that
the Government urgently rethinks its decision to use progression
targets, based on pupils' achievement in single-level tests, for
the purposes of school accountability. If such high-stakes accountability
measures are combined with more frequent testing of children,
the negative effect on children's education experiences promises
to be greater than it is at present. We urge the Government to
listen to the QCA, which has already warned of the dangers of
saddling the single-level tests with the same range of purposes
which the Key Stage tests demonstrably cannot bear. (Paragraph
218)
Diplomas
31. We
welcome the Government's stated intentions that both the vocational
and the general elements of Diplomas should be reflected in the
methods of assessment used. We caution the Government against
any haste in shifting this delicate balance in future until the
full implications of such a shift have been understood. (Paragraph
225)
32. Schools and colleges,
who are required to work in collaboration with each other to provide
a rounded education for Diploma students, cannot be expected to
do so effectively when the accountability regime places them in
direct competition with each other. We welcome the introduction
of the Diploma and recognise the determination of all concerned
to make it work, but we have some concerns about how it will work
in a competitive environment. (Paragraph 233)
33. Given its complexity,
the Diploma must, in our view, be given an opportunity to settle
into its operational phase without undue intervention from the
Government. We consider that this is an area best left to the
proposed new regulator who we hope will approach Diplomas with
a light touch and at a strategic level in the first few years
as the initial problems are ironed out over time. (Paragraph
234)
34. The whole education
sector would welcome greater clarity on the future direction of
Diplomas. We urge the Government to make clear what its intentions
are for the future of Diplomas and other 14-19 qualifications
and whether it is, in fact, heading towards one, overarching framework
for all 14-19 qualifications as Mike Tomlinson's Working Group
on 14-19 Reform proposed in 2004. (Paragraph 235)
Regulation and development: the new arrangements
35. We
welcome the creation of a development agency and separate, independent
regulator on the logical grounds that it is right that development
and regulation should be the responsibility of two separate organisations.
That assessment standards will now be overseen by a regulator
demonstrably free from government control and responsible to Parliament
through the Children, Schools and Families Committee is a positive
step. (Paragraph 249)
36. However, the Government
has failed to address the issue of the standards themselves. In
the context of the current testing system, with its ever-changing
curriculum and endless test reforms, no regulator, however independent,
can assure assessment standards as they are not capable of accurate
measurement using the data available. Until the Government allows
for standardised sample testing for monitoring purposes, the regulator
will be left without the tools required to fulfil its primary
function. (Paragraph 250)
| 
