These oft repeated words of Harold Macmillan, when asked what could blow a government off course, came to mind in an unlikely context over the summer. Whilst the abolition of Key Stage 3 SATs was hardly a cataclysmic shift in government policy, it did come as a result of a coincidence of events.
The difficulties (some would say fiasco) surrounding the marking of SATs papers may have made the lead on the television news several nights running, but possibly more damaging was the report of the House of Commons Children’s Schools and Families Committee on Testing and Assessment (May 2008):
“... we find that the use of national test results for the purpose of school accountability has resulted in some schools emphasising the maximisation of test results at the expense of a more rounded education for their pupils.
A variety of classroom practices aimed at improving test results has distorted the education of some children, which may leave them unprepared for higher education and employment. We find that 'teaching to the test' and narrowing of the taught curriculum are widespread phenomena in schools, resulting in a disproportionate focus on the 'core' subjects of English, mathematics and science and, in particular, on those aspects of these subjects which are likely to be tested in an examination. Tests, however, can only test a limited range of the skills and activities which are properly part of a rounded education, so that a focus on improving test results compromises teachers' creativity in the classroom and children's access to a balanced curriculum.”
Whatever the reasons, the government was forced into ‘do something’ mode. The least damaging thing to do politically was to abolish SATs for 14 year olds, possibly because no argument could be found to sustain them, to be replaced by:
‘National-level sampling for Key Stage 3 will be developed so that standards at age 14 across the education system as a whole can be monitored.’ (DCSF press release 13/10/08)
There now appears to be acceptance at government level that it is not necessary to test all children of a given age every year to monitor national standards, thus reducing to two the government’s reasons for doing so: information about the child and information about the school. In respect of KS3, the latter argument also fell. Vanishingly few schools have 14 year olds but not 16 year olds – so GCSEs could suffice for league table purposes.
That just left information about the child. The solution? An Expert Group on Assessment Arrangements to advise on alternative arrangements for internal assessment in Years 7 – 9.
For a brief moment, hopes were raised that England might follow Wales in abolishing external KS2 SATs, but:
‘Key Stage 2 tests are here to stay. They are essential to giving parents, teachers and the public the information they need about the progress of every primary age child and every primary school.’ (Ed Balls 13/10/08)
However, the central charge of the Select Committee, that of teaching to the test and consequent narrowing of the curriculum remains. The Thatcher government may have given us SATs, but it also gave us the Select Committee system and governments are obliged to respond. It did so in typical fashion as Parliament rose for the summer recess:
‘The Government has never encouraged "teaching to the test", nor do we accept that increases in national test results are the result of "teaching to the test". We will consider providing guidance to schools to reinforce good practice and to re-emphasise our position that excessive time spent on test preparation would be unacceptable.’
And where is the guidance to come from? The Expert Group on Assessment Arrangements:
‘What advice should be provided to schools to ensure that preparation for national curriculum tests at Key Stage 2 is proportionate, educationally appropriate, and that the delivery of a broad and balanced curriculum is not inhibited.’ (from remit of 14/10/08)
Advice to be ready by the end of February 2009.
When the advice is delivered, it will be interesting to see how schools balance the compulsion to have children sit tests, by which they and their schools are measured, with exhortation to broaden the curriculum. Current regulations governing teachers’ working hours rule out an extension to the school day.
Missing in the debate is consideration of GCSEs. Already for most students they do not mark the end of schooling. With the education participation age to be raised first to 17 and then 18, GCSEs will soon be just another staging post, rather like KS3 SATs.
Perhaps it’s time to turn the clock back – many schools allowed students to skip O level if they were carrying on to A level in the same subject. After all, why should an intended A level historian effectively stop studying the subject at the end of March, for a couple of tests to be taken in June, and not resume until September?
Can we envisage a time when external assessment is only used when needed by a student to verify their achievement for entry to employment or tertiary level education? The assessment industry may have to adapt to survive – enhancing the assessment skills of teachers could be just as lucrative – but the benefits may be greater.
Dr Tony Ashmore is Policy Adviser to the National Education Trust
