Conor Ryan’s excellent article last week gave a well informed account of the state of play on the great debate on testing.  However, a number of issues are worth exploring further as we try to assess the longer term impact of the testing regime on pupils and schools.

The context of school improvement has changed significantly since 2007, with the publication of two major pieces of international comparative research.  Firstly, the latest OECD PISA report on the performance of 15 year olds showed a big fall in the UK’s comparative position.  Secondly, UNICEF’s report on children’s well-being placed UK children firmly at the bottom of the OECD league table.

If our national testing regime was so good, why were our children falling behind their peers in other OECD countries?  If our children were so unhappy at school, was this in any way related to our unique national system of tests and tables?  And do we always have to accept a trade off between high levels of achievement for the most able and a long tail of underachievement for the hardest to teach?

All of these issues were examined during the Select Committee’s investigation into testing and assessment earlier this year.  The recommendations of our report are worth revisiting.  Lack of clarity over the main purpose of the testing regime, and the questionable validity of using the same test results for multiple purposes, led to our call for a substantial change of direction.  Whilst accepting the value of some form of national testing, we supported the use of light sampling techniques as statistically the more valid method of tracking achievement at national level.  We were deeply concerned about the evidence of the extent to which preparing for the SATS had begun to dominate, and, ultimately restrict, the breadth of the curriculum in many schools (a trend confirmed more recently by OFSTED).

Above all, we rejected the concept of high stakes testing in which SATS, GCSE and A level results are presented as the key factor in school performance.  We called for a new accountability framework built on performance data reflecting a wide range of a school’s achievements and not just raw scores.

We applauded the progress of schools in driving up SATS scores during the last ten years.  However, we were aware of the plateau effect and questioned the extent to which progress in KS2 scores was due to improvements in teaching to the test.

We recognised the continuing problem of young people disaffected from mainstream learning and demotivated in the classroom.  These are the youngsters most likely to cause low level disruption in the classroom, anti-social behaviour on the streets and who are most at risk of leaving school with few qualifications and chronically low self esteem.  

The basic issue, particularly for a Government committed to reducing social inequality and increasing social mobility, is simply this: to what extent is our current testing regime, in which almost a quarter of pupils are regularly and very publicly labelled as failures throughout much of their school career, a major factor in the growing problem of disaffected and alienated youth? 

The Government is fully aware of some of the downsides of the current testing system.  External testing at KS1 has been quietly dispensed with.  KS2 tests will presumably give way to single level tests (although these are not without their own contradictions).  KS3 tests will be redundant when Diplomas are fully functioning (as GCSEs should be).  All of these changes were underway long before this year’s SATS fiasco once again forced the problems of the current system onto the front page.   

However, the key issues now are these: what is the right balance between external and internal assessment; what should be the frequency of testing; how much of the curriculum should be tested; and what information should be published (and in what format).

Above all, we need to get back to basics in terms of the main purpose of testing.  If we focussed more on assessment for learning, and less on assessment for ranking, we may just find that all pupils make better progress.  Assessing progress to boost motivation and raise self esteem is preferable to testing to create league tables of winners and losers.

If schools prioritise assessment for learning, and make use of the new flexibilities in the curriculum, many of the hardest to teach children might just start to enjoy learning, stay learning for longer--and ultimately achieve more.  There is some way to go before British children reach Dutch or Scandinavian levels of well being and achievement.  Further reforms to the testing system should set us off along that road. 

David Chaytor 08/10/08