ATL

Changing times

ATL general secretary Mary Bousted looks at the recommendations of a recent expert group on assessment

The issue of testing - the when, what and how of it - has been one of the key battlegrounds between the teaching profession and the government for more than a decade. ATL has led the charge to call for radical change to the current testing regime.

Through our 'Teaching to learn campaign' we made the case for a national assessment system that provides accurate individual pupil level data (which the SATs, largely, don't do). We campaigned for a much greater role for teacher assessment within the national accountability system to restore teachers' confidence and build their expertise in formative assessment (which, after all, is the bedrock of all effective teaching).

Throughout these years the government's response was woeful. Key stage tests were, we were told, the bedrock of the education system in England and would remain an essential part of the accountability mechanism for schools and teachers. This tired old mantra was trotted out in response to waves of fresh criticisms about the cost, efficiency, accuracy and collateral damage (in terms of narrowing the curriculum, teaching to the test and boring pupils rigid) done by the SATs.

Then, last year, all changed. The appointment of a new, untried contractor (the American firm ETS) to administer the SATs resulted in meltdown. Papers not collected from schools; papers not marked (or so inaccurately marked that they needn't have bothered); administrative chaos; computer system failure; anger and frustration all round and humiliation for the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) and government. The rest, as they say, is history. The key stage 3 SATs bit the dust (although, disappointingly, they are being resurrected as optional papers in the majority of schools in England).

But if the ETS disaster was a catalyst for change, it is also true to say the government had already recognised the status quo for SATs was no longer an option. The government recognised what ATL had long been telling all who would listen: that pupils in English schools were over-tested and middle-class parents had had enough of their children spending Year 6 doing practice test papers. Complaints about a narrow, content-based, skills-light curriculum could no longer be brushed off. Nor could the uncomfortable fact that while SATs scores were rising, the performance of English school pupils in the international league tables was falling.

In the timely manner of governments everywhere it was agreed that something must be done. An expert group on assessment was convened to explore the proper purposes of assessment, the extent to which the current system meets those purposes, and what improvements should be made to it. (It was an interesting group with Tim Brighouse and Jim Rose, among others, giving their time and expertise.) So it is no surprise that the report of the expert group makes interesting reading.

The group establishes four key purposes for assessment: firstly, and most importantly, to optimise the effectiveness of pupils' learning and teachers' teaching. Then, assessment should hold individual schools accountable for their performance, provide parents with information about their child's progress and provide reliable information about national standards over time.

Each part of the assessment system, according to the experts, puts varying emphases on each of these purposes, and it is crucially important to be clear about which part of the assessment system serves which purpose (something about which there is a great deal of confusion at present).

The expert group made a series of recommendations, all of which were accepted by the Secretary of State. The majority concerned primary schools. The panel advised that:

• Within and between schools, both early years practitioners and key stage 1 teachers should be involved in the moderation of early years foundation stage profile judgements; and both key stage 1 and key stage 2 teachers should be involved in the moderation of key stage 1 teacher assessments.

• Primary schools should use primary graduate certificates to recognise each child's achievements in a range of subjects and areas, and highlight the child's strengths before he or she progresses to secondary school.

• Key stage 2 tests in English and mathematics should be administered in the middle of June - a month later than the current testing week - so that pupils continue to spend time on English and mathematics and to develop the quality and robustness of teacher assessment data transferred to secondary schools.

• Key stage 2 science tests should be discontinued: science and ICT at key stage 2 should be assessed through teacher assessment and assessment tasks should be developed for science.

ATL members will recognise that the expert group's recommendations are closely allied to our 'Teaching to learn campaign' objectives. The test burden in primary schools is to be reduced and the role of teacher assessment throughout each key stage is greatly enhanced.

ATL's reliance on careful research, detailed argument and strong campaigning has paid dividends. We are not there yet - the English and maths SATs remain, but their days are numbered, and ATL will stay at the forefront of the campaign to consign them to history.