Memorandum submitted by the National Association
of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background and the NASUWT's key concerns
In light of the importance of the national curriculum
for the learning experience of pupils and the professional and
employment context of teachers, headteachers and other members
of the wider school workforce, action should be taken to ensure
that stakeholders are given an appropriate period of time within
which to make written submissions to the Committee so that the
Inquiry can be supported by appropriately detailed evidence.
Effective implementation of a nationally determined
curriculum
The NASUWT has always supported the principle
of a national curriculum that ensures access to a common educational
entitlement for all young people. The Union maintains that such
a framework can be established which meets the needs of youngsters
whilst giving leaders the scope to exercise appropriate degrees
of professional autonomy and discretion.
The central importance of workforce reform and
action to tackle workload
It is essential that the National Curriculum
is developed and implemented in a way that supports steps being
taken in all schools to tackle teacher and headteacher workload
and remodel the work of teachers and the wider school workforce.
The contractual changes introduced by the National Agreement in
2003, and the ongoing work to progress the wider workforce remodelling
agenda, are not only important in terms of their potential to
drive down teacher workload but also ensure that teachers and
headteachers are allowed to focus to a greater extent on their
core responsibilities for teaching and learning and managing teaching
and learning and thereby raise standards of pupil achievement.
The role of the curriculum in tackling learner
disengagement and disengagement from education
It is vital to recognise that there is a need
for effective action across the maintained education system as
a whole. Disaffection and disengagement are not confined to one
age group. There are also concerns in relation to pupils in the
five to 14 age phase. The impact of the National Curriculum is
critical in this regard as it forms the statutory context within
which teachers and headteachers are required to establish the
learning entitlements of the significant majority of pupils in
the maintained school sector. In this respect, the National Curriculum
should provide the means by which teachers are able to use their
professional skills and expertise to offer engaging and relevant
learning opportunities for pupils.
The role of the National Curriculum in tackling
discrimination and promoting equality and diversity
The National Curriculum has a critical role
in ensuring that the education system plays its full role in building
an equitable and just society in challenging and countering discrimination
through the promotion of equality and diversity and by being structured
in a way that allows all pupils to achieve and succeed to the
fullest possible extent. The curriculum should, in this context,
be seen not only as a means by which all learners can acquire
skills, knowledge and experience but also as a mechanism for the
transmission of positive values and understandings to children
and young people that can encourage and sustain efforts to develop
positive and inclusive attitudes and beliefs.
Securing coherence between development of the
National Curriculum and other curriculum-related policy initiatives
and reforms
There must be recognition on the part of policy-makers
of the impact of other initiatives and reforms on the professional
activities of teachers and headteachers and on school-level organisation
and management. Without an adequate acknowledgement of the interaction
between different curricular and qualifications-related policy
strands, there is a risk that additional revisions to the National
Curriculum will be sought before existing reforms to the secondary
education system, and those being considered by the Rose Review
in the primary sector, have had an opportunity to become fully
embedded within school level policy and practice.
The impact of the testing and assessment regime
on teaching and learning within the National Curriculum
The existing model of school accountability,
based on performance league tables and the Ofsted inspection regime,
has a major impact on teaching and learning. The high stakes associated
with performance league tables distort and narrow decisions about
curriculum content and pedagogy to the detriment of teaching and
learning. Despite its claims to the contrary, the current inspection
system focuses almost exclusively on the nature and operation
of school processes rather than outcomes. This results in schools
lacking confidence and being unwilling to develop alternative
approaches to teaching and learning for fear of receiving negative
inspection judgements. The current system of accountability should
be replaced by a more coherent and development-focused system
that enables and supports schools in developing and applying diverse
approaches to teaching and learning which are focused on meeting
the individual needs and interests of all children and young people.
The role of formative assessment and the potential
implications of single-level testing within the Making Good Progress
pilots
Formative assessment and assessment for learning
exemplify the benefits for children of teachers being given the
scope to make appropriate use of their professional judgement
to shape approaches to curriculum content and assessment to meet
learning needs. However, school-level arrangements for formative
assessment can become problematic when schools feel under pressure
to implement assessment for learning in ways that are unnecessarily
bureaucratic and time-consuming. In principle, the NASUWT supports
the "age not stage" approach underpinning the single
level tests proposed in Making Good Progress. However, the Government
will need to work with the NASUWT and other social partners to
consider the implications of this approach for the future of statutory
National Curriculum assessment once the results of the Making
Good Progress pilots have been evaluated.
Reviewing the implications of a key stage-based
National Curriculum
The division of the National Curriculum into
fixed key stages to mark points at the end of Years 2, 6 and 9
at which pupils' national assessment results are used to inform
school performance data contributes significantly to inconsistency
across the National Curriculum as a whole and encourages a disjointed
approach to the development of policy in this area. There is therefore
a credible case for examining the potential advantages of removing
key stages from the National Curriculum and investigating the
extent to which this would allow for the development of more consistent
and coherent approaches to the assessment and testing of pupil
progress. Further, questions should be raised as to whether the
current "key stages" approach is consistent with the
Children's Plan.
INTRODUCTION
1. The NASUWT welcomes the opportunity to
contribute to the House of Commons Children, Schools and Families
Select Committee inquiry into the National Curriculum.
2. The NASUWT is the largest union representing
teachers and headteachers throughout the UK.
3. The NASUWT's evidence is based upon the
consultations with members, the work of its representative committees
and other structures made up of practising teachers and headteachers
responsible for the implementation and delivery of the National
Curriculum in the maintained schools sector in England. The issues
highlighted in this evidence reflect the key concerns expressed
by members and the professional and employment concerns they have
in relation to the form, structure and impact of the National
Curriculum at school level.
BACKGROUND AND
THE NASUWT'S
KEY CONCERNS
4. It is legitimate and necessary that Parliament
scrutinises and comments upon the impact of the National Curriculum
on the educational experiences of pupils and the work of teachers,
headteachers and other members of the school workforce. It is
essential that teachers, headteachers, parents and all those with
a legitimate stake in the education system can remain confident
that the Committee will undertake its responsibilities in this
respect rigorously and robustly.
5. The NASUWT takes the provision of written
submissions to the Committee very seriously and seeks to provide
evidence that will support the Committee in its deliberations
on all aspects of educational policy. As a democratic organisation,
the Union seeks to ensure that its submissions are reflective
of the views of its membership. This requires an adequate period
of time within which to consult with members about their experiences
and perspectives on matters subject to inquiries by the Committee.
6. In light of these points, the NASUWT
considers that a period of just six weeks to submit a response
to the Committee is unsatisfactory.
7. The NASUWT has expressed similar concerns
in relation to other inquiries undertaken by the Committee, most
recently into the work of Ofsted, and it is to be regretted that
these concerns appear not have been taken into account by the
Committee in seeking submissions on the current impact and future
direction of the National Curriculum. The NASUWT draws the Committee's
attention to the Cabinet Office protocols on public consultations.
While recognising the Committee is not obliged to abide by these
protocols, the NASUWT does believe they provide the basis for
ensuring good practice and state specifically that consulting
bodies should give respondents a minimum period of 12 weeks within
which to make written submissions.
8. Notwithstanding the short timescale for
the Committee's Inquiry, this submission sets out the key issues
from the NASUWT's perspective on areas in relation to the National
Curriculum identified by the Committee in establishing the scope
of its inquiry. The NASUWT's evidence considers:
— effective implementation of a nationally
determined curriculum;
— the central importance of action
to tackle workload and of workforce reform;
— tackling learner disaffection and
disengagement from learning;
— coherence between development of
the National Curriculum and other curriculum-related policy developments
and initiatives;
— the impact of the school accountability
regime;
— the potential implications of the
Making Good Progress pilots;
— limitations of the structure of the
curriculum; and
— the role of the National Curriculum
in tackling discrimination and promoting equality and diversity.
Effective implementation of a nationally determined
curriculum
9. The NASUWT believes that pupils learn
best when teachers are given the time, resources and flexibility
to make the fullest possible use of their professional talents,
skills and knowledge and to exercise professional autonomy and
discretion. A curricular framework that does not enable these
fundamental principles will fail to provide young people with
the high-quality learning experiences to which they are entitled
and will undermine work at school level to continue to raise standards.
10. The NASUWT has always supported and
continues to support the principle of a National Curriculum that
ensures access to a common educational entitlement for all young
people. This content, form and structure of the national framework
should be developed, in partnership with all relevant stakeholders,
including trade unions representing teachers, headteachers and
the wider school workforce.
11. The need for an appropriate context
that supports the ability of teachers to use their professional
judgement to make decisions about the needs of individual pupils
underpinned the joint evidence submitted by the NASUWT, the then
Department for Education and Skills and other social partners
represented on the national Rewards and Incentives Group (RIG)
to the School Teachers' Review Body (STRB) in the Review Body
2005. This set out an agenda for a "new professionalism"
with teachers being given greater scope and support to use their
professional skills and expertise to sustain work to continue
to raise standards and enhance the breadth and range of educational
provision for all pupils.
12. A key part of this programme of reform
involves the modernisation of the way in which performance management
structures within schools operate. As a result, teachers are being
given the opportunity to engage in more meaningful reflection
about their practice and to take part in an effective professional
dialogue and development based on this reflection. This dialogue
will allow for the views of teachers on the learning needs of
the pupils they teach to be incorporated more coherently into
school level strategies about the development of approaches to
teaching and learning.
13. The curricular framework within which
teachers undertake their professional responsibilities is of critical
importance in this respect. However, to date, National Curriculum
programmes of study have been inappropriately content heavy and
have failed to give teachers adequate scope to make effective
use of their professional judgement. In this respect, the NASUWT
welcomes the recognition by the Government, highlighted in its
remit to the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) in
respect of recent revisions to the secondary National Curriculum,
that developments in respect of curriculum content should work
to ensure that teachers are given more appropriate levels of autonomy
and discretion over approaches to teaching and learning and curriculum
delivery.
14. The NASUWT acknowledges that the QCA
has sought to take forward this work through reviews and revisions
that involve significant reductions in curriculum content and
prescription within statutory programmes of study and the Department
for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) has signalled a similar
intention in relation to the proposed review of the primary curriculum.
While this will remain an important element of an approach that
seeks to give a higher priority to the effective use by teachers
of their professional skills and expertise, it is essential that
clear guidance is developed for teachers, headteachers and local
authorities on the ways in which the revised National Curriculum
orders should be used to support the achievement of this important
objective. The NASUWT is concerned that, without such guidance,
schools and local authorities may, in some instances, attempt
to make use of reduced central prescription in respect of the
National Curriculum to impose pedagogic approaches on teachers,
that work against the Government's aspirations for a commitment
to supporting and enhancing teacher professionalism. Policies
premised merely on "giving schools greater autonomy over
the curriculum" could lead to the development of practices
at school and local authority level that continue to impose significant
restrictions on the exercise of teacher discretion on pedagogy
and curriculum content and also introduce local, including in
a particular school, variations which could compromise the equality
of provision and access for every pupil.
The central importance of workforce reform and
action to tackle workload
15. It is essential that the National Curriculum
is developed and implemented in a way that supports steps being
taken in all schools to tackle teacher and headteacher workload
and remodel the work of teachers and the wider school workforce.
The National Agreement "Raising Standards and Tackling Workload"
established a clear agenda for reform based on the principle that
raising standards and tackling workload are inextricably linked
and mutually supportive strategic objectives. The contractual
changes introduced by the Agreement, and the ongoing work to progress
the wider workforce remodelling agenda, are not only important
in terms of their potential to drive down teacher workload but
also ensure that teachers are allowed to concentrate to a greater
extent on their core responsibilities for teaching and learning
and thereby raise standards of pupil achievement. Any reform to
educational policy that sets out ostensibly to contribute to raising
standards but which fails to take account of workforce remodelling
and work to bring downward pressure on teacher and headteacher
working needs will in practice undermine the establishment of
an environment within which standards can be raised on a sustainable
basis. It will also impact adversely on teacher recruitment and
retention as the historic view of the national curriculum development
demonstrated.
16. While the structure and content of the
National Curriculum are not, of themselves, inconsistent with
the remodelling agenda and action being taken to reduce teacher
and headteacher workload, the NASUWT is concerned that guidance
developed to accompany the revised programmes of study does not
reflect adequately the need to ensure that models of implementation
of the curriculum at school level work to support these key objectives.
It is essential that specific reference is made to the way in
which work to implement the changes to the National Curriculum
will be consistent with work to drive down the workload of teachers
and headteachers.
17. The development of cross-curricular
approaches to teaching and learning in both the primary and secondary
sectors appear completely divided from workforce considerations.
While the NASUWT recognises that it is appropriate for teachers
and headteachers to look to explore effective links between learning
in different subject areas, the Union is concerned that there
is a continuing failure on the part of the QCA and other official
agencies and bodies responsible for supporting teachers in the
delivery of the National Curriculum to acknowledge that adoption
of cross-curricular models of planning, teaching and assessment
have the potential to be workload-intensive and overly bureaucratic.
The NASUWT is also disappointed that the opportunities for curriculum
enrichment and extension created by workforce remodelling through
the engagement and effective deployment of members of the wider
school workforce and sources of external expertise continue to
be understated in guidance on curriculum delivery. Many primary
schools have reported considerable benefits of enrichment activities
which draw upon external experts in drama, sport, music and Art.
18. There is a clear need for the QCA, and
any successor body instituted following the Government's consultation
on regulating and developing qualifications and assessment to
work with the DCSF, the NASUWT and other social partners to develop
more effective guidance on ways in which approaches to curriculum
implementation at school level can take full account of the ongoing
work and commitment to reducing teacher and headteacher workload
and remodel the school workforce.
19. Within a broader policy context, the
NASUWT remains concerned that it is proposed that revisions to
the National Curriculum will be introduced in September 2008 alongside
a number of other significant reforms, particularly those resulting
from the implementation of proposals set out in the 14-19 White
Paper and changes to specifications for general qualifications
arising from the QCA's review of coursework requirements.
20. The NASUWT believes that insufficient
account has been taken of the implications for teacher workload
and school-level bureaucracy of the simultaneous introduction
of a range of significant and complex reforms.
21. Given the QCA's responsibility for the
effective management and administration of the National Curriculum,
the Union continues to maintain that it would be timely for the
QCA to undertake an assessment, in consultation with the DCSF,
the NASUWT and other social partners, of the workload and bureaucracy-related
implications of reforms due to be implemented in September 2008.
If such an assessment demonstrates that proceeding with implementation
of the full range of reforms in 2008 would be inappropriate, the
NASUWT believes that it would be justifiable and necessary for
the QCA to recommend to the DCSF that the timescales for the implementation
of the reforms referred to should be reconsidered.
The role of the curriculum in tackling learner
disengagement and disengagement from education
22. A key aim of the Government's strategy
as set out in the 14-19 White Paper and 14-19 Implementation
Plan is to work to ensure that young people are given access
to engaging and personally relevant learning opportunities that
minimise the risk of learner disaffection and disengagement from
education and its associated consequences for pupil behaviour,
attendance at school and educational achievement.
23. While the NASUWT supports this key policy
objective, it is important to recognise the need to take effective
action across the maintained sector as a whole, given that disaffection
and disengagement are concerns in relation to pupils in the five
to 14 age phase. The impact of the National Curriculum is critical
in this regard as it forms the statutory context within which
teachers and headteachers are required to establish the learning
entitlements of the significant majority of pupils in the maintained
school sector. The National Curriculum should therefore provide
the means by which teachers are able to use their professional
skills and expertise to offer engaging and relevant learning opportunities
for pupils, unencumbered by the demands of an excessively formalised
and overloaded programme of study.
24. The Union does however believe that
the revisions made to the secondary programmes of study have the
potential to make a significant contribution to allowing teachers
to plan for the delivery of learning experiences that will engage
and support pupils at risk of disengagement from learning. The
reductions in content and direction within the programmes of study
are particularly welcome in this respect. It is important that
this aspect of the reform to the programmes of study at Key Stages
3 and 4 is reflected in any proposed reviews to the primary National
Curriculum which emerge as a result of the current Review being
chaired by Jim Rose.
25. It will be important to ensure that
the potential support given by revised programmes of study for
the professional activities of teachers is given meaningful practical
effect.
The role of the National Curriculum in tackling
discrimination and promoting equality and diversity
26. The NASUWT believes that the curriculum
has a critical role in ensuring that the education system plays
its full role in building an equitable and just society, in challenging
and countering discrimination through the promotion of equality
and diversity, and by being structured in a way that allows all
pupils to achieve and succeed to the fullest possible extent.
The curriculum should, in this context, be seen not only as a
means by which all learners can acquire skills, knowledge and
experience but also as a mechanism for the transmission of positive
values and understanding to children and young people which encourage
and sustain efforts to develop positive and inclusive attitudes
and beliefs.
27. The ability of the curriculum to make
a positive and powerful contribution in this respect depends critically
on the support it provides to teachers, headteachers and other
members of the school workforce in terms of its design and the
quality of related guidance available to facilitate its effective
implementation at school level. While specific and discrete curricular
work to tackle discrimination and promote equality and diversity
can make an effective contribution to pupils' learning experiences,
there is a danger that an overemphasis on strategies of this type
can lead to the development of a disjointed and incoherent approach
that regards this aspect of the curriculum as "bolt-on"
areas rather than integral to other elements of learning.
28. For this reason, meaningful strategies
for tackling discrimination and promoting equality and diversity
should seek to embed learning in this respect across the curriculum
as a whole. The adoption of a holistic curricular approach not
only maximises opportunities to support the progress of all pupils
but also demonstrates in a concrete way to children and young
people the need to view the promotion of equality and diversity
as central concerns in all aspects of their own lives and those
of others.
29. In relation to the proposed revisions
to the secondary National Curriculum, the NASUWT has been encouraged
by the development of guidance by the QCA on ways in which cultural
understanding and diversity can be addressed through the subject-based
programmes of study. The guidance represents significant progress
in comparison to previous iterations of the National Curriculum
and has the potential to act as a basis by which practice at school
level can continue to develop and should be reflected in any future
reforms to the primary National Curriculum.
30. Nevertheless, the NASUWT believes that
the QCA or any successor body should continue to seek ways in
which the guidance it has developed to date might be enhanced
still further. While it is important to seek ways in which curricular
activities related to tackling discrimination and promoting equality
and diversity might be incorporated in all National Curriculum
subjects, there remains the risk that such work might continue
to be compartmentalised as a distinct element within each subject
rather than being developed as an embedded element of all aspects
of teaching.
31. The Union notes that the QCA intends
to develop an audit tool to allow schools to assess the extent
to which all pupils are able to access and benefit from the National
Curriculum. The NASUWT believes that the QCA must work with the
NASUWT, the DCSF and other social partners to develop further
guidance to support the consolidation and enhancement of effective
holistic policy and practice at school level in this critical
aspect of the learning offer made to pupils.
Securing coherence between development of the
National Curriculum and other curriculum-related policy initiatives
and reforms
32. It is important that the development
of policy in respect of the National Curriculum takes into full
account the interconnections between the National Curriculum and
other significant areas of education policy. In addition to the
need to acknowledge the implications of workforce remodelling
and reform, including the "new professionalism" agenda,
there must be recognition on the part of policy-makers of the
impact of other initiatives and reforms on the professional activities
of teachers and headteachers and on school level organisation
and management. Without an adequate acknowledgement of the interaction
between different curricular and qualifications-related policy
strands, there is a risk that additional revisions to the National
Curriculum will be sought before existing reforms to the secondary
education system and those being considered by the Rose Review
in the primary sector have had an opportunity to become fully
embedded within school level policy and practice.
33. Focusing on the interconnections between
the National Curriculum and education policy, the Children's Plan
calls for a holistic approach to policy development and implementation.
The National Curriculum should, therefore, be seen as a whole,
with seamless movement across phases and sectors.
34. Specific attention must be given to
the impact of policy that on teachers and headteachers in respect
of teaching and learning. In relation to the 14-19 curriculum
and qualifications system in particular, the work towards full
introduction of the specialised diplomas by 2013 is of particular
importance. While the diplomas represent an additional route towards
accredited learning for pupils at Key Stage 4, they will be taught
within a context of an ongoing entitlement to access to the National
Curriculum. It is therefore essential that the work of pupils
within the context of specialised diplomas will also ensure full
access to National Curriculum learning entitlements.
35. The specifications for the diplomas
are also critical in this respect. The NASUWT is aware that the
QCA has specific responsibilities arising from the 14-19 Implementation
Plan for ensuring that diploma specifications are appropriate
and consistent with the provisions of the National Curriculum.
It should be noted that this work has been undertaken to date
within a context established by the existing programmes of study.
It is therefore essential that the DCSF and the QCA work to ensure
that diploma design will secure consistency across diploma lines
and across the full curriculum and qualification offer.
36. The specifications for general qualifications
where they impact upon the National Curriculum are important in
similar respects. In light of the increased advocacy of cross-curricular
approaches to curriculum delivery, it is necessary to consider
the impact of revisions to the programmes of study to specifications
in subjects beyond those included in compulsory elements of the
Key Stage 4. In its role as the regulator of awarding bodies for
general qualifications, QCA or any successor body will have a
clear responsibility to ensure that effective steps are taken
to ensure that relevant subject specifications are consistent
with the proposed amendments to the programmes of study.
37. In relation to pedagogy and professional
practice, the NASUWT draws attention to the report of the Teaching
and Learning in 2020 Review Group on personalisation and the curriculum.
It is clear from initiatives, including those associated with
the Making Good Progress proposals, that the Government remains
committed to the personalisation agenda and it is likely that
expectations on schools in this regard will continue to evolve
over time.
38. While the NASUWT notes that the accompanying
guidance to the revised secondary programmes of study seek to
emphasise the importance of the development of personal skills
on the part of pupils, it is not as yet clear how the revisions
to the secondary National Curriculum will be consistent with the
personalisation agenda. It is essential that expectations on teachers,
headteachers and members of the school workforce in respect of
personalisation do not contradict the requirements in respect
of the National Curriculum. Therefore, it will be necessary for
this issue to be taken into full account as part of the Rose Review
of the National Curriculum in the primary phase.
39. The achievement of coherence and consistency
in respect of pedagogical expectations requires the implications
of the impact on teaching and learning of the Primary and Secondary
National Strategy (PNS/SNS) frameworks for approaches to teaching
and learning to be taken into full account.
40. Although the Strategy frameworks are
not statutory, it is clear that the Government remains committed
to their ongoing development and use within schools and that Ofsted
continues to emphasise their importance in the development of
effective approaches to curriculum planning and delivery at school
level. This underlines the importance of ensuring that the Strategy
frameworks continue to be developed within the context of the
requirements of the National Curriculum programmes of study. It
is likely that revisions to the National Curriculum will prompt
further reforms to the Strategy frameworks and sustained co-ordination
of activity between the QCA, any successor body and the Strategies,
undertaken in consultation with the NASUWT and other social partners,
will be necessary as a result.
41. The attention of the Committee is drawn
to the recent amendments made to the primary frameworks for English
and mathematics. Any revisions to the primary National Curriculum
that result from the Rose Review must avoid the creation of excessive
turbulence within the system by not promoting approaches to reform
that would involve significant amendments to the strategies in
place in schools to implement the revised frameworks. In a similar
regard, any revisions to the primary National Curriculum arising
from the Rose Review must support effective transition to Key
Stage 1 by taking full account of the implications of the new
Early Years Foundation Stage for approaches to teaching and learning
for young children.
The impact of the testing and assessment regime
on teaching and learning within the National Curriculum
42. Meaningful assessment of the way in
which approaches to the curricular framework for teaching and
learning should develop requires sufficient consideration of the
impact of the current system of school accountability on the provision
of learning within schools.
43. The high-stakes associated with performance
league tables, with potentially serious consequences for schools
of perceived failure, puts pressure on schools to deliver quantitative
pupil outcomes at fixed points in pupils' school careers. Not
only does this have the potential to undermine efforts (seen most
clearly in the development of the 14-19 reform programme) to build
an education system that seeks to meet learners' needs on the
basis of their stage of development rather than their chronological
age but it also distorts and narrows decisions about curriculum
content and pedagogy to the detriment of teaching and learning
strategies that are focused primarily on addressing the personal
learning needs of all pupils. In this respect, the achievements
of teachers, headteachers and other members of the school workforce
in securing effective approaches to teaching and learning within
the framework of the National Curriculum have been delivered in
spite of, not because of, the impact of performance league tables.
44. The current school accountability regime
works against the positive aims for learners that the National
Curriculum frameworks seek to deliver. Examination of the existing
constraints on the development of future approaches to the curriculum
cannot avoid consideration of the impact of the way in which schools
currently are held to account for the learning outcomes of pupils.
45. The NASUWT continues to reject solutions
to these concerns which are premised on the over-simplistic view
that simply by abolishing the National Curriculum tests and replacing
them with internal teacher assessment, the constraints on effective
approaches to curriculum implementation created by the school
accountability regime will be reduced. This assertion is flawed
as it is based on the false premise that it is the tests themselves
that are at the heart of the problems associated with systems
of school accountability.
46. In the NASUWT's view, it is not the
tests that are the problem but the uses to which they are put
in informing performance league tables, thus forcing schools to
focus disproportionately on assessment outcomes rather than the
learning needs of individual pupils. Replacement of tests with
teacher assessment within the context of a "high-stakes"
school accountability regime would not only increase teacher workload
excessively through increased assessment burdens but also would
distract teachers from their core responsibilities for teaching
and learning. Evidence for this can be seen in Wales. There, the
abandonment of the tests has resulted, ironically, not only in
more testing, with skills tests introduced in every year group,
but also in an increase in workload-intensive teacher assessment
and bureaucratic moderation systems which require significant
release of teachers from their timetable commitments to participate.
47. Regardless of whether data to inform
performance league tables is generated by tests or teacher assessment,
the distortions of the curriculum that performance league tables
create will continue to work against the development of the genuinely
personalised approaches to teaching and learning that the DCSF
envisages in its Children's Plan.
48. A further key component of the current
school accountability arrangements, which will impact on the capacity
of schools to continue to deliver effective approaches to curriculum
implementation, is the school inspection system and the role of
Ofsted. It is essential that the inspection system is fit for
purpose and that it both enables and supports schools in developing
and applying diverse approaches which are relevant to the schools'
contexts and the needs of learners.
49. Ofsted rightly recognises that its responsibility
is for educational outcomes, not processes. However, there is
considerable evidence to confirm that, across all schools, the
current inspection arrangements are focused almost exclusively
on the nature and operation of school processes.
50. Many schools have reported that they
lack the confidence and are unwilling to develop alternative approaches
to teaching and learning for fear of receiving a negative inspection
judgement or because there is no discernible "approval"
from Ofsted for doing so.
51. It is vital that the framework for inspection,
and the practice of inspection teams on the ground, does not deflect
school leaders and staff from building on the principles of workforce
remodelling in order to continue to develop and apply effective
and engaging approaches to teaching and learning within the framework
established by the National Curriculum.
52. It is therefore essential to recognise
the need for the inspection system to provide the necessary accountability
conditions that support the most creative and pupil-focused implementation
of the provisions of the National Curriculum. Such recognition
will require changes to be made to inspection guidance and practice
and in the training of inspection teams, as part of a wholesale
effort to ensure a fit-for-purpose accountability system. In particular,
it is important to ensure that all inspection teams have relevant,
up-to-date experience of teaching the age ranges they are inspecting.
The role of formative assessment and the potential
implications of single-level testing within the Making Good Progress
pilots
53. The NASUWT shares the recognition by
the Government in taking forward its Making Good Progress pilots
that formative assessment is an integral feature of effective
teaching practice. Formative assessment and assessment for learning
exemplify the benefits for children of teachers being given the
scope to make appropriate use of their professional judgement
to shape approaches to curriculum content and assessment to meet
learning needs.
54. However, school-level arrangements for
formative assessment can become problematic when schools feel
under pressure to implement assessment for learning in ways that
are unnecessarily bureaucratic and time-consuming as a result
of a perceived need to provide meaningless paper trails to demonstrate
to Ofsted inspection teams or other external auditors of school
performance that effective approaches to formative assessment
have been put in place. Assessment for learning conducted in this
way is of limited use to parents or pupils in identifying and
working towards future learning goals and distracts teachers from
activities directly related to supporting pupils to make progress.
55. The NASUWT believes that the Making
Good Progress pilots provide an opportunity for the DCSF to work
with the NASUWT and other social partners to develop approaches
to assessment for learning that do not lead to inappropriate burdens
being placed on teachers but which serve professional assessment
needs and support the work of teachers in engaging pupils more
effectively in evaluating their own progress and areas for future
development.
56. In respect of statutory external testing,
the NASUWT is encouraged by the proposals in Making Good Progress
that single-level testing should be undertaken when teachers believe
that the results of their formative assessment of pupils indicate
that they have progressed from one National Curriculum level to
the next and to trial this approach in pilot schools. The Union
shares the concerns of the Government that, at present, statutory
end of key stage testing prevents teachers from exercising their
professional judgement in this way although the Union has expressed
disappointment that the Government intends to continue with end
of key stage testing in schools where the single-level tests are
being trialled.
57. The NASUWT believes that the DCSF should
work with other social partners to examine the outcomes of the
pilot of this reformed approach to external testing to examine
the extent to which undertaking testing based upon pupils' stage
of development rather than chronological age can support more
effective use of performance data at school level.
58. In light of concerns about externally
moderated teacher assessment described above, the NASUWT has welcomed
the continued use of external marking in respect of the single-level
tests being trialled as part of the pilot.
59. The NASUWT is reassured that the Government
has recognised that there is a risk that the introduction of a
series of single-level tests could lead to additional bureaucratic
and workload burdens on schools given that such tests would be
taken more frequently. As the pilots progress, it will be important
for the Government to work with the NASUWT and other social partners
to ensure that the potential benefits of a "stage not age"
approach to testing are complemented by the establishment of procedures
that recognise the need to avoid negative workload and bureaucratic
consequences for teachers and headteachers and to resolve any
initial concerns in relation to the design and content of the
tests themselves.
Reviewing the implications of a key stage-based
National Curriculum
60. The NASUWT shares the concerns set out
in DCSF-commissioned research about the need to develop effective
strategies and support for the transition of pupils between different
phases of the education system.[2]
Given its applicability to pupils across the five to 16 age range,
the National Curriculum should provide the basis upon which effective
progression in learning can be secured when pupils transfer from
primary to secondary education.
61. However, there are longstanding concerns
about the coherence of the National Curriculum as a result of
its division into four distinct age-related key stages. The development
of the National Curriculum has been marked by an approach that
focuses on reform of specific key stages without adequate reference
to the implications teaching and learning in preceding or subsequent
key stages. The recent separate revisions to the Foundation Stage,
the programmes of study at Key Stages 3 and 4 and the Rose Review
of the primary curriculum serve to exemplify the piecemeal approach
to curriculum reform seen to date.
62. This has significant consequences for
the work that teachers undertake with pupils, particularly in
respect of the comparability of level descriptors between different
key stages. The assumption that the criteria by which pupils'
progress is described by National Curriculum level descriptors
are consistent between Key Stages 2 and 3 is difficult to sustain
in light of the evidence generated by teachers' experience of
managing transition between primary and secondary education.[3]
63. The NASUWT contends that the division
of the National Curriculum into fixed key stages to mark points
at the end of Years 2, 6 and 9 at which pupils' national assessment
results are used to inform school performance data, contributes
significantly to inconsistency across the National Curriculum
as a whole and encourages a disjointed approach to the development
of policy in this area. In light of the proposals set out in the
Making Good Progress initiative to pilot testing on the basis
of pupils' stage of development rather than chronological age
and the intention of the Children's Plan to create a holistic
approach to educating and supporting children, the NASUWT believes
that there is a strong case for examining the potential advantages
of removing key stages from the National Curriculum and investigating
the extent to which this would allow for the development of more
consistent and coherent approaches to the assessment of pupil
progress. Questions should also be raised as to whether the current
"key stages" approach is consistent with the aims of
the Children's Plan.
2 Sanders, D, White, G, et al (2005). A Study
of the Transition from the Foundation Stage to Key Stage 1.
(DfES Research Report SSU/2005//013). London, DfES Back
3
Herrington, N and Doyle, L. (1997). Curriculum Continuity between
Primary and Secondary School. London, Teacher Training Agency Back
| 
