PRI0391

Written evidence submitted by West Hoathly CE Primary School, West Sussex

1              INTRODUCTION & ENGAGEMENT

1.1              The following observations, comparisons, feedback and information are provided on behalf of the staff of West Hoathly CE Primary School and include the outcomes of discussion with parents, governors and children as well as wider discussion with colleagues from other school settings.  We hope they will be of value to the Inquiry committee in their considerations.

1.2              We would be willing to provide further input to the committee if desired.

2              THE PURPOSE OF PRIMARY ASSESSMENT AND

              HOW WELL THE CURRENT SYSTEM MEETS THIS

2.1              The ultimate purpose for any assessment in primary school should be to provide information which will impact, in a positive way, on subsequent learning, to allow strengths to be clarified and next steps determined.  Formative assessment is used effectively, on a day to day basis by class teachers as they respond to individuals, adapt their approach, extend and challenge learners and plan subsequent learning. 

2.2              Assessment should provide the means of measuring progress, that is ipsative i.e. demonstrating development and improvement when compared to a previous judgement and this requires clear, agreed, consistently applied criteria against which a child’s performance may be bench marked.

2.3              The previous system of assessment was based on a defined curriculum content and, in parallel with a continuum of attainment targets defined as level and expanded upon with the Assessing Pupil Progress.  This was not perfect but did provide a common means of assessment which could be used for moderation when working within and between schools and in the wider arena.

2.4              The system, with which schools and parents became familiar, allow for a child to start at any point (based on prior attainment) and continue to any point without a limit as illustrated here:

              The system permitted both measurement of attainment for summative purposes and measurement of progress over time.

2.5              The criticisms of the system were inconsistency of application of the criteria (perhaps due to the openness to interpretation) and the varying use of the level terminology i.e. a level three could mean, they were just working in “Level 3” or were secure both of which looked very different in terms of pupil outcomes, the pupil had scored “Level 3” in a test although this may not have been born out in classwork over time or, despite gaps in some areas previous aspects they were judged as Level 3 as this was the “best fit”.

2.6              The new system removed the parallel levelling system entirely but gave no consistent and nationwide system for measuring and judging progress.  The term “assessment with levels” was much used but precisely what this looks like is very much open to interpretation.  This has led to a wide variety of interpretations and approaches with varying degrees of success.

2.7              Whilst placing assessment in the hands of teachers, to utilise their evident and strong professional skills and judgement, schools have had and continue to have to devise their own systems making constancy and moderation difficult and providing a huge amount of work for school staff and leaders.

2.8              From a governors perspective the progress accountability system that was in place has been removed and their remains uncertainty about what they should monitor and what questions they should ask.

2.9              A key premise for the introduction of “assessment without levels” was that levels might cap progress due to expectation.  The effect of the current system, however, has been to do just that, preventing judgements at Key Stage 1 and 2 of performance significantly above the age related expectation e.g. in Science children could be judged as having met or not having met the expectations.

2.10              The model, whether intended or not, looks like this (The example given here is for three children, with different starting points, reaching the end of Year 4):

              There is ambition in this for the first child, who started the year having not achieved the end of year expectations for the previous year, with the implication that they much make more or accelerated progress to reach the of Year 4 expectations.  However the second and third child may actually have made more progress and be achieving outcomes above the expectations for Year 4 but will not be recognised as such.  Likewise they have actually been working above the level that one might expect for a Year 3 child at the start of the year and actually have made significantly less progress in Year 4.

2.11              This “capping” at key check points (undeniably evident in Year 6) may mean that children are not recognised for their actual attainment and achievement.

2.12              The concept of “mastery” as promoted by the current system, is a good one, i.e. ensuring that the individual is 100% sound in specific skills, knowledge and understanding.  This was a potential flaw in the old system with a “Best Fit” model in place.  However labelling children with a “has not met” is not a fair system, it would be better to promote the “success” and “next step” or “areas for development” approach showing what the child can do and what they need to build on.  Simply saying “has not met” does not give sufficient information to parents or at transition points (e.g. primary to secondary transition) in order to ensure that children genuinely build on their current position.

SUMMARY

2.13              The current system does not provide the consistency and security of judgements that are necessary to achieve the purposes for assessment at the Primary Phase.  Mastery is valid and important to ensure that subsequent learning has a firm foundation on which to build and the former system was not perfect – however the current system does not adequately fulfil these purposes either.  

2.14              There has been what seems like a “throwing the baby put with the bathwater” scenario. Perhaps a secure fit model applied to a continuous, parallel attainment measure, which could also be used as a progress measure, a reference point for moderation and teacher assessment at all stages, giving clear indication of what the child can do and what they need to do next would be a more admirable target.

3              The advantages and disadvantages of

              assessing pupils at primary school

3.1              If the purposes for assessment outlined in 2.1 and 2.2 above are born in mind then assessment is an essential part of practice in primary schools and having a robust system which is applied and moderated for and by all in a consistent manner is desirable – the current system does not offer this however.

3.2              Schools have always used formative, ipsative and summative assessment tools to ensure they have a full picture of each learner’s attainment, measure of progress and to determine next steps.  Teacher’s use the information, combined with strong subject knowledge, to plan subsequent learning.

3.3              The most desirable form of assessment is “Teacher Assessment” which is informed by subject knowledge, knowledge of the individual learner, collaboration with parents and other colleagues and the child’s self-assessment.  This gives a full, rounded view of the child and can take into account attributes that cannot be readily measured by a test.

3.4              This teacher assessment model, informed by a variety of evidence drawn from observation, evaluation of pupil work and outcomes, with some summative measures, as used at Key Stage 1 is a far more reliable and valid system provided that it is backed up by rigorous moderation which, in term is consistent and based on relevant criteria.

3.5              The issues we see in the current system arise from the narrow nature of the assessments deployed at the end of Year 6 – emphasising performance in some arguably important but not necessarily the most valuable aspects of learning e.g. a heavy emphasis on the technicalities of writing at the expense of the creative nature of writing which is what distinguishes a departmental government report from a best- selling novel.   

3.6              There are no teachers (at least none who we have encountered) who would suggest that mastery of the core technical skills of writing, reading, mathematics and science are not valid objectives however the need to learn the technical names for this we do anyway (i.e. the use of modal verbs) is a distraction when actually communicating effectively, in an audience focussed, purpose driven text is of more importance.

3.6              The biggest issue comes when the intention of assessment, whether intentionally or otherwise, moves away from the focus on pupil learning.  This is the perception of the current arrangements – the value being not to support the pupil but to hold the school accountable and measure performance of schools.  These are important things but pupil assessment and testing should not be used in the way it is at present a weapon with which to beat the school at the expense of the child.

3.7              Children labelled as having “not met” the expectations suffer in this context – they have a sense of failure and fault.  There must be better means of holding schools to account for their performance e.g. via a broader, development focussed inspection and improvement partnership system, with proper support for governors and school leaders, rather than testing and branding children in order to prove whether or not a school is successful.

3.8              The end of Key Stage 2 tests, in particular, have a detrimental effect on pupils with accounts of individuals actually being physically sick with anxiety when confronted by the test – the build-up and the aftermath have been far from healthy.  There was a real sense of “disappointment” and “failure” amongst children who did not achieve the 100 point outcome in the tests and those branded as “not secondary ready” – when they clearly were. 

3.9              The tests indicate only that they child has achieved the pass mark (or not) for the test and the narrow range of skills, knowledge and understanding, that it actually presented and can never provide a picture of the child’s secondary school readiness.  Teacher assessment must be seen as a more valuable and valid system.

3.10              Readiness for secondary education is not just about a narrow range of academic elements but also about resilience, independence, social skills and the ability to work collaboratively, strength and roundness of character… none of these can be measured by a test.  The danger is that we value only what we can test and not find ways of recognising the things we should value.

SUMMARY

3.11              Assessment in primary schools, if focussed on the pupil’s learning development is valid and essential in securing progress, however assessment which brands a child with failure to cross a particular line and labels them as “not secondary ready” or similar, using information from a narrow range of skills as a means to judge school effectiveness at the expense of children is not acceptable. 

3.12              Teacher assessment must be recognised as the superior system – teachers are professionals and their judgements should be valued; judgements which should be moderated in a rigorous way and consistent but still seen as a fuller and more reliable picture of pupil performance. 

3.13              Rather than pursuing a damaging system of narrow testing it would be better to provide a very clear set of criteria which are consistently applied and rigorously monitored for teacher assessment – money that would otherwise be used for developing tests, marking tests etc. could be better deployed in providing proper guidance and support to teachers and schools and ensuring a world class system of teacher assessment is in place.

4              How the most recent reforms have affected teaching and learning

4.1              School leaders have, for a long time, worked to shield children from the negative impact of changes, to hold on to what is valuable and to emphasise the positive.  However the current curriculum and assessment regime has led to a number of uncertainties which have had a less than positive impact.

4.2              Teaching towards the test and to secure evidence in respect of assessment criteria has narrowed the curriculum, especially in Year 6.  Telling schools to maintain a broad and balanced curriculum and promoting this through inspection does not mean that this is sustainable with the demands of the current system.

4.3.              Raising standards (and all schools should be committed to improving outcomes for their learners, even those judged as outstanding have no room for laurel resting or complacency but always look for the next level of excellence) is important and valid as an objective.  However forcing this agenda by means of a narrow focussed assessment regime does not secure improvement but rather places significant stress inducing pressure of pupils and teachers.

4.4              Children have reported that “…teachers are so busy trying to make sure we cover everything that they haven’t got time for us.  They say, ‘we’ll sort it out later’ but then they don’t.”  Teachers too have expressed concern (via locality development meetings) that the pressure to ensure that children cover everything necessary to tick all the boxes means that the focus is shifted from the learner onto the curriculum.

4.5              Not teaching children how to do tests places them at a considerable disadvantage.  The tests we saw in Year 6 last year demanded significant stamina, calm sense of purpose and where heavily reliant on the child’s resilience and comprehension.  If children had not given considerable learning time to learning the skills of testing they would have failed to demonstrate what they knew.

4.6              Schools were told that they should build their own curriculum but the fact that the assessment system places such specific demands on schools and children to perform in a very specific manner means that the curriculum is deformed by the assessment regime. 

SUMMARY

4.7              There is no doubt that the current systems, born of the most recent reforms, have had a negative impact on the teaching and learning – partly due to the pace of change coupled with the lack of clarity and late delivery of elements such as the Teacher Assessment Frameworks.  Levels of stress and related anxiety amongst staff, children and parents who, despite the best efforts of school to keep them informed, have heard the confused messages of the changes and seen the impact on their children, have evidently risen.

4.8              The curriculum has narrowed in many ways in order to accommodate the demands of the assessment regime. 

5              LOGISTICS & DELIVERY OF THE SATs

5.1              The logistics of the SATs has admittedly not changed a great deal in terms of the actual security, administration and handling of test materials etc.  The nature of the material has certainly changed and therefore the nature of the role of invigilators has also changed which much more emphasis on providing encouragement and “comfort” to children as they actually proceed.

5.2              With the increasing number of children in schools demonstrating anxiety related mental health issues which often impact on behaviour, the need for increased numbers of trained adults to support the administration of tests where children may need to be provided with separate facilities whilst retaining the integrity of the testing system has increased pressure on schools.

5.3              The precise nature of the materials has changed e.g. the mathematics papers were must more focussed on the ability to read and comprehend and therefore give a poorer picture of the actual mathematical ability of some children.

SUMMARY

5.4              Careful consideration to the format of the tests, if they are to continue (although the points raised 3.12 and 3.13 should be given priority) especially in terms of relevance of texts and contexts for application.

6              Training and support needed for teachers and senior leaders to design and implement effective assessment systems

6.1              Schools have invested considerable energy in devising assessment systems, including collaboration with locality schools.  In the East Grinstead area in which we are located, we have invested considerable energy in developing a rigorous moderation programme which has been tried and tested – statutory moderations demonstrated how accurate judgements were.

6.2              There needs to be, however, a much clear steer from the DfE, taking full account of all the contributions from the profession i.e. those with the practical skills and expertise to achieve the best outcomes, on what progress measures, systems and evidence gathering approaches should look, in particular in supporting the most effective regime of Teacher Assessment.  This also will require a much greater degree of trust of the profession by the department.  The vast majority of us genuinely want children to succeed, what to secure their mastery of core skills and are willing to engage in finding the best possible solutions.

7              Next steps following the most recent reforms to primary assessment

7.1              The following key “recommendations” arise from our consideration of the questions raised by this inquiry.

• Invest in the promotion, development and security of Teacher Assessment rather than tests. 
• Remove statutory testing from Key Stage 2 in preference for a model similar to Key Stage 1
• Ensure moderation is rigorous, fair and consistent (including statutory moderation which has clearly not been applied consistently this year).
• Shift reporting of pupil attainment and progress away from labels and scores to a profile system which identifies strengths and areas for development.
• Move the judgement of schools performance away from the cold assessment of individual learners who then are labelled as successes or failures and better utilise the inspection and development support programme.
• Value a wider range of characteristics for “secondary readiness” and remove unnecessary elements from the curriculum e.g. technical terminology in the context of grammar.
• Provide a much clearer picture of what assessment in Primary Schools should look like including an ongoing ipsative bench-marking tool for all schools to use.

October 2016