FORMAL MINUTES
Wednesday 7th May 2008
Morning sitting
Members present:
Mr Barry Sheerman, in the Chair
Annette Brooke
Mr Douglas Carswell
Mr David Chaytor
Paul Holmes
| Fiona Mactaggart
Andy Slaughter
Mr Graham Stuart
|
Testing and Assessment
The Committee considered this matter.
Draft Report, proposed by the Chairman, brought up and read.
Draft Report, proposed by Mr Douglas Carswell, brought up and
read, as follows:
"No need for State-run testing
1. In the late 1980s there was a de facto nationalisation
of testing with the introduction of national criteria for GCSEs
and, more generally, the introduction of the National Curriculum.
From the evidence available to us it is clear that this system
has been a failure.
2. The results of GCSEs and national curriculum tests have become
debased currency, because of grade inflation and consequent lack
of validity (that is, the judgments that someone might make about
the capabilities of a pupil reaching a certain level are undermined
by, amongst other things, variations in pass marks over time and
teaching to the test). By moving away from 'hard' results by using
contextual value added (CVA) scores in national curriculum tests
certainty is lost along with reliability (that is, confidence
that pupils reaching the same level of performance gain the same
outcome). Furthermore the outcomes, particularly the CVA scores,
are incomprehensible to parents, employers and other end-users.
3. The consequence of the failure is stark:
"Sixteen per cent of the adult workforce is illiterate.
Five million adults have no qualifications. A million teenagers
have failed to gain even the lowest grade in five GCSEs since
Labour came to power, and 23,000 pupils earned no GCSEs at all."[450]
These figures show the extent of the crisis in education, which
centralised testing has failed to arrest or reverse. Indeed, given
the extent of grade inflation and the relativism of outcomes
from CVA measures, the testing system excuses and legitimises
failure. CVA enshrines in education policy the odious assumption
that socio-economic background at birth directly determines life
outcomes.
4. Much of the evidence we received argued that we need the state
run system. David Bell, Permanent Secretary at the Department
of Children, Schools and Families, told us:
"I do not accept that we can ever have a system without good
and robust national testing and public examinations, the results
of which are made available to the public."[451]
Similarly, the former DfES in its written submission to the inquiry
said:
"The benefits brought about by [National Curriculum testing],
compared to the time before the accountability of the National
Curriculum, have been immense. The aspirations and expectations
of pupils and their teachers have been raised. For parents, the
benefits have been much better information not only about the
progress their own child is making but also about the performance
of the school their child attends. And for the education system
as a whole, standards of achievement have been put in the spotlight,
teachers' efforts have been directed to make a difference and
performance has improved. The public has a right to demand such
transparency at a time of record investment in education."[452]
5. This technocratic insistence that state run testing is required
to improve education in schools is the same argument used to justify
state involvement in airlines and telecommunications in the 1970s.
In fact the system produces the reverse effect to that claimed
for it. It fails to provide proper accountability as it is too
complex and can lead people to make poor choices, and it fails
to provide quality assurance because the outcomes, being contextualised
and relativised, lack rigour. It was, however, no surprise that
many of the witnesses argued that there is a continuing need for
state run testing as so many of them earn their living from that
system.
6. We consider that the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority
(QCA) is a significant part of the problem. It is an unaccountable
quango that has presided over the massive grade inflation that
has led to loss of confidence in what the results of exams of
all kinds actually signify. Given our belief that the state should
not run the testing system, we consider the role of the QCA should
be abolished. If that does not happen, the House of Commons should
at least be given the power to ratify senior appointments and
approve its budget. Senior staff should also be on fixed term
contracts.
7. For the same reasons we reject the Government's plan to establish
two new quangos, a development agency and a separate regulator.
The establishment of more so-called arms length bodies has been
the default option for politicians for the past generation, but
we are in no doubt that these bodies have been very much part
of the problem in education and cannot be part of the solution.
Plurality of tests
8. Dr Ken Boston of the QCA argued that it would be wrong to have
a large number of different tests:
"My judgment is that, given that there are so many legitimate
purposes of testing, and [a paper prepared by the QCA] lists 22,
it would be absurd to have 22 different sorts of tests in our
schools. However, one serving 14 purposes is stretching it too
far. Three or four serving three or four purposes each might get
the tests closer to what they were designed to do. … when
you put all of these functions on one test, there is the risk
that you do not perform any of those functions as perfectly as
you might. What we need to do is not to batten on a whole lot
of functions to a test, but restrict it to three or four prime
functions that we believe are capable of delivering well."
[453]
We disagree strongly with this view; there is a real need for
plurality of provision for testing. This would allow for innovation,
testing things which are not yet envisaged, and choice,
of different standards and degrees of rigour. This will not be
achieved with a state run system testing things the state wishes
to test.
Purpose of testing
9. The purpose of testing ought to be identify levels of attainment
before a pupil moves on to the next stage of education or into
employment. This testing is best left to those civic institutions
which act as gatekeepers for that 'next stage'; universities,
professions, schools and employers. Some of the current purposes
to which tests are put inevitably distort outvomes. These includes
testing as a means of gauging social engineering by measuring
the impact of particular Government policies, and requiring schools
to achieve targets of a certain level of achievement amongst their
pupils, which leads to the unintended consequences of teaching
to the test, narrowed curriculum and other distortions.
10. There is no doubt that we do need standard tests available
across the country, but these should not be state-run. There are
good examples to be found amongst the professions, such as law,
medicine and veterinary medicine.
11. This report is not anti-testing, as there is an
undoubted need for testing that identifies levels of educational
attainment. We therefore have no sympathy with those teacher
unions, for example, which oppose all testing, as we consider
that to be merely seeking to avoid accountability. The decisions
about how, when and what to test, however, should be left to autonomous
schools and universities. This would require schools and universities
to have legally enshrined autonomy over admissions, complemented
by a legally enshrined right of parents to choose the school their
children attend. Removing the influence of the state from these
processes and decisions is the only way to achieve improved educational
attainment in the future. "
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Chairman' s draft
report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.-(The
Chairman.)
Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "Chairman's draft
report" and insert the words "draft report proposed
by Mr Douglas Carswell".-(Mr Douglas Carswell.)
Question put, that the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 1
Mr Douglas Carswell
| Noes, 4
Annette Brooke
Mr David Chaytor
Fiona Mactaggart
Mr Graham Stuart
|
Ordered, That the Chairman's draft Report be read a second
time, paragraph by paragraph.
Ordered, That further consideration of the Chairman's draft
report be now adjourned.
Report to be further considered this day.
[Adjourned till this day at 2.30 pm
Wednesday 7th May 2008
Afternoon sitting
Members present:
Mr Barry Sheerman, in the Chair
|
Annette Brooke
Mr David Chaytor
John Heppell
Sharon Hodgson
Paul Holmes
| Fiona Mactaggart
Andy Slaughter
Mr Graham Stuart
Lynda Waltho
|
Testing and Assessment
Consideration of Chairman's draft report resumed.
Paragraphs 1 to 257 read and agreed to.
Summary agreed to.
Resolved, That the Report be the Third Report of the Committee
to the House.
Ordered, That the Chairman
do make the Report to the House.
Ordered, That embargoed
copies of the report be made available, in accordance with the
provisions of Standing Order No. 134.
Written evidence was ordered to be reported to the
House for printing with the report, together with written evidence
reported and ordered to be published on 4 July 2007 and 12 March
2008.
Written evidence was ordered to be reported to the
House for placing in the Library and Parliamentary Archives.
******
[Adjourned till Monday 12 May
at 3.30 pm
450 Time to crush the NUT, George Bridges, Daily
Telegraph, 22 April 2008. Back
451
Q327 Back
452
Ev 157 Back
453
Q7 Back
| 
