June 2007
Education and Skills Committee - Testing and Assessment
Inquiry:
A response from Edexcel
Details
Name Isabel Sutcliffe
Position Director
of Qualifications and Accreditation
Type of organisation Awarding Body
Organisation Edexcel
Address One90 High Holborn
London
WC1V 7BH
Introduction
This response is in 2 parts:
Part 1 describes who we are and
what we do.
Part 2 provides responses to
those specific questions posed by the Committee for which we have most direct
experience. We have addressed issues regarding testing and assessment pre and
post 16 together.
Part 1: Who we are and what we do
1.1 Edexcel is one of the largest awarding bodies in the UK and a
Pearson company. It offers a wide range of academic and vocational
qualifications, testing and assessment services and associated products and
support aimed at helping teachers to teach and students of all ages to learn
and get on in their lives.
1.2 Qualifications offered by Edexcel include GCSEs and A levels,
Key and Basic Skills, NVQs, professional qualifications and the BTEC
qualification suite. In the UK, Edexcel qualifications are taken by over 4200
secondary schools, 450 colleges, 80 Higher Education (HE) institutions, 800
public and private sector employers and a number of e-learning providers.
Internationally, Edexcel operates in over 100 countries.
Part 2: Edexcel responses
2.1 Why do we have a centrally run system of
testing and assessment?
2.1.1 Since the establishment of the National Curriculum, testing has
been a key central mechanism for driving up standards in schools.
2.1.2 Testing was the mechanism for making schools accountable in the
drive to raise standards.
2.1.3 The need for improvement when compared to standards elsewhere in
the world was high.
2.1.4 The issue is that forms of assessment that raise standards are not
the same as those that are right for accountability.
2.1.5 Comparability became possible as all pupils were doing the same
test at the same time.
2.2 What other systems of assessment are in
place both internationally and across the UK?
2.2.1 Within the UK, it would be useful to examine the approach to
testing in Scotland.
2.2.2 International comparison studies are available, particularly
TIMMS and PISA.
2.2.3 The approach in Norway is to make assessment a major part of
professional development. This approach differs from England and Wales in that
national assessment is an event that is external to the school and hence leads
to being something done to schools as apposed to the school being a part of the
process.
2.2.4 The USA makes extensive use of testing. The difference between
the UK and the USA is that of validity and reliability. In the USA the emphasis
is on high reliability whereas our emphasis is on high validity. Whilst this is
a generalisation and there are notable exceptions in both countries, the
assertion is general true.
2.2.5 There are many commercial assessment instruments available to
schools. The oldest and one of the most respected are the NFER standardised
tests. Durham University has over the last few years established itself as a
major provider of school tests.
2.3 Does a focus on national testing and
assessment reduce the scope for creativity in the curriculum?
2.3.1 In the main, yes; this is a function of the nature of the
National Curriculum. How restrictive a curriculum do we want? The more
prescriptive the curriculum, the more restrictive will be the assessment.
2.3.2 There is a cost / benefit issue here; creativity is the cost of a
prescriptive National Curriculum which has the benefit of being an effective
driver for accountability.
2.3.3 Too much weight on the outcomes of assessment can damage
creativity. The emphasis for the school can become understandingly, the test.
Creativity, by its nature is not known to flourish during a timed test.
2.4 Who is the QCA accountable to and is this
accountability effective?
2.4.1 The QCA is accountable to the DfES. There is an argument that
testing and assessment should also be subject to independent scrutiny.
2.5 What role should exam boards have in
testing and assessment?
2.5.1 The key difference between national tests and GCSE, GCE,
diplomas, BTEC is that the latter are qualifications. Exam boards have a wealth
of assessment expertise and could have a role in formative assessment. They
have a global view of assessment over a large range of qualifications; they are
well placed to position national testing into the gamete of predictive
assessment and comparability.
2.6 How effective are the current Key Stage
tests?
2.6.1 There is no single answer to this question.
2.6.2 They are fairly effective as curriculum drivers.
2.6.3 They are very effective at assessing part of the curriculum but
there are aspects that are not susceptible to a timed test of short questions.
2.6.4 As a measure of progress for a school they can mask the many
unexplained variables which may be making a significant contribution to a
schools performance.
2.6.5 The introduction of national tests improved standards. It is less
clear as to whether a plateau has been reached as to the contribution that
national tests can make to further improvement.
2.6.6 The tests have been effective at raising standards through
accountability. The future for raising standards may be a combination of
standard tests and an assessment for learning approach.
2.6.7 As valid and reliable tests, they are the best that can be
achieved in their current format.
2.6.8 The tests have been effective in bringing a common expectation of
teacher performance. The questions remains, is it the right expectation?
2.7 Do they adequately reflect levels of
performance of children and schools, and changes in performance over time?
2.7.1 They adequately reflect performance on short written tests; to
what extent this reflects levels of performance for all children could be
questioned.
2.7.2 They are good at giving a level across each curriculum subject.
They do not give enough detail of each particular part of the curriculum.
2.7.3 They are good at reflecting the performance of schools.
2.7.4 There are too many expectations for one test. They do not support
the subdivision of attainment into smaller levels. It would be useful for the
committee to revisit the Task Group for Assessment and Testing Report which
gives a different complexion to the use of levels.
2.7.5 Whilst the tests give a useful indication of changes in
performance over time, they are not suited to influencing major decision
making. The curriculum has changed over time, new elements have been introduced
and different approaches rewarded. To accurately measure such progress, the
curriculum would need to be stable and the same test used each year.
2.8 Do they provide assessment for learning
(enabling teachers to concentrate on areas of a pupil's performance that needs
improvement)?
2.8.1 Sometimes they are good indicators of areas that a teacher should
concentrate on. However, they are not diagnostic and many areas of
understanding are not covered in a particular test. So they are not sufficient
as the sole indicator of pupil performance.
2.9 Does testing help to improve levels of
attainment?
2.9.1 Yes, indirectly through accountability.
2.9.2 Measurement on its own is not sufficient, levels of attainment
improve when performance is targeted by teachers.
2.9.3 A consequence of testing is to narrow progression for schools
that over prepare children for a particular level on a test.
2.10 Are they effective in holding schools
accountable for their performance?
2.10.1 To some extent but there are possibilities for schools to use the
value added indicator tactically by ensuring that there is adequate attainment
in early tests and maximum attainment in a final years test. This practice is
not widespread but is a reaction to what is perceived to be a strategic
response to high stakes testing.
2.10.2 The tests report performance around the average; the extremes of
performance are not obvious. Seventy per cent at level four and above could
mean both seventy per cent at level four or seventy per cent at level five.
2.10.3 The tests, by their nature, provide a crude measure and it is easy
for schools to find themselves in a comfort zone.
2.10.4 They only hold schools accountable for English, mathematics and
science.
2.11 How effective are performance measures such
as value-added scores for schools?
2.11.1 Value added is a useful measure.
2.11.2 There are ceiling effects for some schools; can you make
significant improvement for ever? Low intakes make consistent performance a
factor of the ability of a particular cohort of children.
2.11.3 The value added measure is not a transparent process; it is not
easy to judge the validity of the variables.
2.12 Are league tables based on test results an
accurate reflection of how well schools are performing?
2.12.1 They do not present the full picture. They provide a crude score
of particular areas of a school's provision. That is not to say that they are
not a useful measure; however, it would be misleading to use them as the single
predictor of performance.
2.13 To what extent is there 'teaching to the
test'?
2.13.1 Everywhere, but that can be a positive thing. The test assesses
the curriculum and so teaching to the test is teaching to the curriculum.
2.13.2 The problem is that short answer tests do not assess all parts of
the curriculum. So excessive teaching to the test narrows the curriculum
experience for the pupils.
2.13.3 Teaching to the test distorts the curriculum when taken to the
extreme.
2.13.4 It is acknowledged that tests can define a curriculum but they are
not the most appropriate driver for ensuring a comprehensive teaching approach.
2.14 How much of a factor is 'hot-housing' in the
fall-off in pupil performance from Year 6 to Year 7?
2.14.1 Many pupils are looked after at the end of key stage 2 with one to
one attention to address areas in which they are having difficulties; so
hot-housing is a factor.
2.14.2 It is not the only factor and may not be the most significant.
Other to consider are: lack of expectation by year 7 teachers; lack of use of
the information from the key stage 2 school; and, very importantly, the change
of social situation for the pupils. In addition, pupils themselves are
beginning to change.
2.15 Does the importance given to test results
mean that teaching generally is narrowly focused?
2.15.1 On balance, yes for the core subjects; however, the introduction
of end of key stage tests widened the curriculum for many pupils.
2.16 What role does assessment by teachers have
in teaching and learning?
2.16.1 What role does teacher assessment play or what role should teacher
assessment play? There is considerable variance within classrooms.
2.16.2 Ofsted says that teacher assessment does not play a significant
role at present. This may be because assessment has been taken out of the hands
of teachers; it is something that is done to the pupils from outside.
2.16.3 For some, teacher assessment is undertaken by mimicking the
national tests; this is not the most productive way of using the opportunities
that teachers have in the classroom.
2.16.4 The link between teacher assessment and learning needs to be strengthened;
this will not be the case unless teacher expectation is that they are in
control of formative assessment.
2.17 Should the system of national tests be
changed?
2.17.1 On balance: yes.
2.18 If so, should the tests be modified or
abolished?
2.18.1 National testing has too many purposes attributed on one test
experience.
2.18.2 A national picture of standards could be found by sampling pupils.
2.18.3 For formative assessment; instruments should be provided that help
teachers address the different aspects of the curriculum. Good formative
assessment which influences learning will raise standards.
2.18.4 Teachers need to be trained in assessment techniques and
interpreting assessment outcomes. Teachers should be doing assessment not
administering an external test.
2.18.5 Tests which have been standardised should be an important addition
to teacher assessment. The administration of such tests should be in the hands
of the school.
2.18.6 Schools should be accountable. Assessments should be moderated and
schools should be able to demonstrate progress and that they are raising
standards. For standards to rise within a school, there needs to be attention
to assessment outcomes, appropriate teaching, well developed curriculum
guidelines and social structures, such as behaviour. All these aspects should
be monitored by Ofsted.
2.19 The Secretary of State has suggested that
there should be a move to more personalised assessment to measure how a pupil's
level of attainment has improved over time. Pilot areas to test proposals have
just been announced. Would the introduction of this kind of assessment make it
possible to make an overall judgment on a school's performance?
2.19.1 Could be, it depends on the nature of the personalised assessment.
Single level progress tests will not be sufficient to judge personal progress.
Such assessments could lead to a distortion of the curriculum as schools focus
on a competency approach to pupil performance.
2.19.2 We would support measures that incorporated a tool kit of assessment
opportunities for teachers. These would include standardised tests and
assessments when ready.
2.20 Would it be possible to make meaningful
comparisons between different schools?
2.20.1 Yes, but a meaningful comparison would be more than performance
tables of attainment on single level tests.
2.21 What effect would testing at different times
have on pupils and schools? Would it create pressure on schools to push pupils
to take tests earlier?
2.21.1 More than likely it would increase the testing burden.
2.21.2 At the end of a key stage the focus of the curriculum becomes
narrowed as pupils are prepared for the test. This will be compounded by more
frequent test exposure.
2.21.3 This can be ameliorated by a test design that complements teacher
assessment.
2.22 If Key Stage tests remain, what should they
be seeking to measure?
2.22.1 They should measure pupil attainment at the end of the key stage
across as much of the programme of study as is appropriate for the test
structure. As such they will give a national picture of standards.
2.22.2 Sampling would be sufficient and could identify trends and
patterns.
2.22.3 School accountability should be by more intensive assessment
measures as described above and moderated by Ofsted.
2.23 If, for example, performance at Level 4 is
the average level of attainment for an eleven year old, what proportion of
children is it reasonable to expect to achieve at or above that level?
2.23.1 It depends on how wide the band for average is to be. As with all
things in this area, policy will dictate not pupil performance.
2.23.2 The level descriptions are meaningful, but their interpretation
has been narrowed down to match expectations in the tests. It would be useful
for the Committee to refer back to the Task Group on Assessment and Testing
report which established the original ten level scale.
2.24 How are the different levels of performance
expected at each age decided on? Is there broad agreement that the levels are
appropriate and meaningful?
2.24.1 They have become, de facto, the accepted levels as policy
documents repeatedly stated the level of attainment for the average pupil.
2.24.2 They were originally standardised using teacher judgement and,
once established, have to be maintained if comparison over time is to be
meaningful.
2.24.3 The issue is, if standards rise and level 4 remains average
performance, then the difficulty of level four needs to increase accordingly.
June 2007
Education and Skills Committee - Testing and Assessment
Inquiry:
Additional Response
Details
Name Isabel Sutcliffe
Position Director
of Qualifications and Accreditation
Type of organisation Awarding Body
Organisation Edexcel
Address One90 High Holborn
London
WC1V 7BH
Introduction to ResultsPlus
In 2007, Edexcel will roll out
a programme to help schools raise exam attainment and meet the personalised
learning agenda. This may be of interest to the Committee as part of its
inquiry into testing and assessment.
The programme, called
ResultsPlus, will provide personalised information on exam performance to GCSE
and A Level students, and to their teachers and head teachers. This has major
implications as it will empower students and teachers with a new range of
transparent and accessible information.
ResultsPlus represents a leap
forward in personalised learning in the UK. This is made possible because
Edexcel's digital ePen technology, which allows completed exam papers to be
marked by trained markers on screen, is also able to produce a range of data
based on exam performance.
ResultsPlus comprises four IT
products:
· ResultsPlus Direct
· ResultsPlus Analysis
· ResultsPlus Skills
· ResultsPlus Progress
ResultsPlus Direct
In summer 2007, all students of
Edexcel GCSE and A Levels will be able to receive their results online for the
first time via ResultsPlus Direct.
The results will feature a
Gradeometer which will show students how close they were to the next grade up
or down. This information provides transparency in the exam process and allows
students and their parents to make informed choices about applying for the exam
to be re-marked, or re-sitting.
This system was successfully
piloted in 2006, when Edexcel provided 2,000 GCSE Maths students with their
results online.
ResultsPlus Direct will allow
students to go online from wherever they are in the world on results day and
access their results using a unique PIN number.
In the traditional process,
schools and colleges post lists of results on a notice board. With a secure
online system, each student will see only their own results. Market research
shows that 74 per cent of people think that exam results should be available
via the Internet.
ResultsPlus Analysis
In summer 2007, Edexcel will
offer head teachers and school management teams a new resource, ResultsPlus
Analysis.
It will provide analysis of
results and performance at a cohort and individual student level. It will allow
teachers to produce comprehensive reports to ascertain how the syllabus is
being delivered and achieved against. If a group of students have not performed
well in an area of the syllabus, ResultsPlus Analysis will highlight the
problem and teachers will be able to adjust their teaching accordingly.
Edexcel will provide access to
results information down to individual question level, as well as providing
links to the examination papers, mark schemes and chief examiners' reports. This
enables centres to compare their results against the national average, compare
results by type of centre, download results data onto a spreadsheet and sort
results by teaching group or gender and make detailed observations about
students' performance.
This builds on Edexcel's
Results Analysis service (RAS), which already allows schools and colleges to
access their results at question level online.
ResultsPlus Skills
In addition to the performance
information offered in ResultsPlus Analysis, ResultsPlus Skills will provide
skills maps, so teachers will be able to see at a glance which topics and
skills are causing their students problems.
By putting performance data
into context, the skills maps will enable teachers to alter teaching programmes
to raise attainment. For students who need to re-sit exams, their skills map
can form the basis of a revision plan.
ResultsPlus Skills will be
available when Edexcel's GCSE Maths and Science results are delivered in August
2007.
ResultsPlus Progress
ResultsPlus Progress will be
introduced in autumn 2007 as online tests that will allow teachers to check the
progress of their students' learning and identify areas of weakness that may
require further teaching or revision.
Test results will be provided
with skills maps for each candidate, tailored to identify their own strengths
and weaknesses. This will help students plan their own revision and help
teachers plan lessons more effectively and concentrate on weak areas. Using
individual performance information to guide individual progress is at the heart
of the personalised learning agenda.
ResultsPlus Progress will be
available for Edexcel's Key Stage 3 Mathematics, GCSE Mathematics and 360
Science subjects from the start of the 2007 academic year.
