Appendix 1: Testing and Assessment:
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)
| 
