Government proposals on primary assessment offer some potential solutions to flaws in the system, although challenges remain, says Julie McCulloch.

A path for primary

In a statement on primary education in October 2016, the Secretary of State for Education, Justine Greening, announced her intention to “set out a clear path to a settled system where our collective focus can be on achieving strong educational outcomes for all children”. 

Taking a first step along that path, the DfE recently launched a consultation on primary assessment and accountability (https://tinyurl.com/kwmo5uq). ASCL, along with other education organisations, worked closely with the DfE in drafting the consultation document, and we are pleased to see many of our suggestions reflected in the proposals being put forward. 

The future of these proposals has, of course, like so many things, been thrown into uncertainty by the announcement of a General Election. For now, however, this is what is being proposed. 

Key proposals 

1. The early years foundation stage profile (EYFSP) should be reviewed in order to ensure it provides as rounded a view of young children as possible and to reduce the workload burden on teachers of administering it.
2.  A more robust baseline is needed as the starting point for the primary progress measure. Two options are proposed: a new Reception baseline or changes to existing KS1 tests to make them sufficiently robust and reliable for this purpose. 
3. KS1 assessment should be made non-statutory if a Reception baseline is introduced (from academic year 2019/20). National tests and teacher assessment frameworks would still be produced, so schools could use them to benchmark themselves against national expectations if they wish, but the data from these would not be collected.
4. Different accountability measures should be considered for infant and junior schools if KS1 tests are made non-statutory. 
5. An online multiplication check should be introduced in Year 4, 5 or 6. This would not form part of the accountability system. Results would be provided to schools, but only published at local authority and national level. This data would not be used to trigger inspection or intervention.
6. Teacher assessment data in reading and maths at KS2 should no longer be collected, as it is the data from tests in these subjects that is used for accountability.
7. Writing at KS2 should continue to be teacher-assessed but the model should move from ‘secure fit’ back to ‘best fit’ (children would no longer have to demonstrate that they have achieved every ‘pupil can’ statement in order to be assessed at a particular standard). 

Key benefits 

The key benefits to these proposals include: 

• The government’s recognition of the burden (in terms of both workload and stress) that the current assessment system places on both pupils and teachers and its willingness to consider ways to reduce this. The possibility of a baseline assessment that recognises the importance of the crucial first three years of children’s education. 
• The proposal to make KS1 assessment non-statutory. This has the potential to hugely improve young children’s experience and wellbeing.
• The move back to ‘best fit’ for writing is sensible and will be welcomed by the vast majority of teachers. It will enable them once again to exercise their own professional judgement about children’s writing and to take a more holistic view of its quality. 

Ongoing challenges

While these proposals are broadly welcome, significant challenges remain if they are to be implemented effectively. There are also a number of issues that they fail to address. 

First, the thinking behind the possible introduction of a Reception baseline is sound but, as with so many things, the devil is in the detail. The government has attempted to go down this route before and failed. It is essential that the assessment introduced is robust, reliable and a strong indicator of success at KS2, and that it is appropriate and proportionate to the age of the children involved. The DfE is convening an expert group to advise them on this and we will be part of it. 

Second, there is nothing in these proposals to address the stark division of children at the end of primary school into those who have ‘met the expected standard’ and those who haven’t. 

Finally, none of these proposals focuses on the distorting effect of the KS2 assessments on the wider curriculum for children in upper primary school – a point made powerfully in the recently published education select committee report on primary assessment. 

On those last two points, ASCL is initiating a project on primary accountability, to consider how, as an education system, we should hold primary schools to account for the right things. It is intended to contribute to Ofsted’s thematic review of the curriculum announced at ASCL’s Annual Conference and will involve a range of experts and stakeholders. We will report on its progress in future issues of Leader. 

In the meantime, if you have views that you would like us to include in our response to the consultation, please send them to julie.mcculloch@ascl.org.uk – and please do consider also responding on behalf of your own school.

Designed with IMPACT

© 2024 Association of School and College Leaders | Valid XHTML | Contact us