Education

Rain (AM and PM) 6° London Hi 10°C / Lo 6°C

Testing of pupils at 11 has 'serious negative effect'

By Richard Garner, Education Editor

One of Britain's leading experts on school testing and assessment delivers a scathing attack on national curriculum tests for 11-year-olds today.

Professor Peter Tymms warns that they are having "a serious negative impact on the education system" and should be scrapped. They mislead parents as to the performance of their children's schools, he said.

Professor Tymms's intervention comes as the National Union of Teachers prepares to vote on balloting its members to boycott tests in English, maths and science to pressure ministers to drop the tests entirely. The vote will take place at the union's annual conference in Cardiff tomorrow.

"The main problem with key stage two [11-year-olds] tests is their publication in league tables. This is having a serious negative impact on the education system," said Professor Tymms, who is the director of the Curriculum and Evaluation Management Centre at Durham University.

"Parents can judge schools based on the league tables which do not portray an accurate picture of the quality of the teaching or pupils' progress over time. Neither do they give a rounded picture of a school's success."

Secondary school heads have also argued that so much coaching goes on for the tests that the results do not give an accurate reflection of children's ability. Most schools re-test the pupils when they start secondary school.

Professor Tymms, who has written several books on assessment, suggests that a random sample of pupils should be tested every year to give an accurate guide to the Department for Children, Schools and Families as to how national standards are progressing.

The system used to be in operation two decades ago and the pilot always mirrored the make-up of the population in the country. Over time, with a different selection of pupils, it also gave individual schools an idea of how they were achieving.

Professor Tymms said: "We do need assessment at a high level to monitor standards across the land and the best way to achieve that is by using a sampling approach.

"Schools should monitor pupils' success with objective measures which do not have to be statutory tests."

Tomorrow's NUT vote will be followed by a similar vote for a boycott at the National Association of Head Teachers' annual conference in May – which would be the first time the heads have had a ballot on industrial action. The other two big teachers' unions, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers and the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers, have cautioned against a boycott – arguing there should be continued dialogue with ministers over changes to the present system.

Speaking at the ATL conference in Liverpool yesterday, Michael Gove, the shadow Education Secretary, said: "It is not good enough to just say that the current system sucks. Some form of accountable testing which allows useful comparisons between schools to be drawn is necessary."

An expert group set up by the Government to look at testing and assessment in the wake of last summer's marking fiasco, when thousands of results were delivered late, is expected to report next month.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Testing
[info]sjkillman wrote:
Friday, 10 April 2009 at 05:29 am (UTC)
Professor Tymms is right in saying than random samples of pupils should be tested each year (in each year group) to evaluate how effective teaching and learning are, but he is wrong to suggest that testing at age 11 should be scrapped. We are far to precious about exerting occasional pressure on young people to make an effort in their learning - it is good preparation for adulthood when not everything they wish for will be presented on a plate. Regular assessments also hold individual teachers and schools to account, and provide valuable information on where improvements and training are needed. Far too many primary teachers absolve themselves from the assessment process and leave it to the subject leaders in their schools.
Re: Testing
[info]jimko35 wrote:
Friday, 10 April 2009 at 05:47 am (UTC)
Sjkillman

I think you've missed the point here. This isn't about how much pressure is being exerted on pupils, it's about whether the tests are valid or useful and if they reflect pupils performance. They don't. The fact that the vast majority of secondary schools just bin the results is testament to that. The only really useful purpose of summative testing at this age is if it is then used in a formative fashion. This patently doesn't happen so they have little worth, other than for potentially misleading league tables.
Re: Testing
[info]sjkillman wrote:
Friday, 10 April 2009 at 08:06 am (UTC)
I don't know where you get your statistics from when you say that 'the vast majority of secondary schools bin the results' - but this is not the case. They use the results as a preliminary guide to planning in Year 7, which is right and proper since some pupils will only just have reached the required Level on leaving primary school, whilst others are very secure in their knowledge. Most schools re-test using valid test materials at the end of every year to monitor the progress of the pupils and to set them in the future. The problem is that too few teachers use proper levelled exemplars of National Curriculum materials in their planning or as a guide to how the pupils are doing - ie it is often idiosyncratic guesswork - and then they complain when the results don't match their own formative assessments. There are some very good teachers in the system, who challenge and encourage the children. They have a very good idea of where the children are and where they need to go next and in the longer term. However, unfortunately these are few and far between, and the only thing that gives the rest focus is the 'threat of public exposure' through the outcomes of their pupils. If you are saying that the actual tests themselves are useless, how extensively do you aim this criticism - GCSE, A'levels, degree level?
Re: Testing
[info]jimko35 wrote:
Friday, 10 April 2009 at 11:24 am (UTC)
I can't comment on GCSEs etc. and am all for being proved wrong re: the usage of SAT results to inform secondary schools. Do you have any statistics? My opinion regarding the binning of KS2 SAT results is swayed by anecdotal sources but they do carry weight - ITT tutors, secondary school teachers etc. In a perfect world they would be used but everyone I have spoken to about this says that the lack of trust in the KS2 SAT results is absolute. The fact that the SAT results are perceived by the public to reliably inform them of how "good" a school is also deeply flawed.
Re: Testing
[info]sjkillman wrote:
Friday, 10 April 2009 at 12:34 pm (UTC)
A grammar school with well above average results failed its inspection recently because of rigid and pedestrian teaching - so the argument good schools equals good results/league table position does not always stand up to scrutiny. Nobody should trust test results or an Ofsted Inspection 'absolutely', particularly when the latter has gone from being overbearing and detailed in the extreme, to a quick snapshot that leaves parents ill-informed, pupils badly served and Ofsted with a dwindling reputation. The longer SATs assessments have been in place, the more reliable they have become (notwithstanding last year's marking debacle). It is true that when they were first trialed they were unreliable, but not now. The same applies to the Foundation School Profile used as part of the assessment of children's attainment into Year 1 - it is becoming more reliable as it is adjusted and teachers get used to the criteria showing how this relates to children's development. Prior to the National Curriculum and primary SATs the quality of teaching and learning varied unacceptably from school to school, and many teachers got away with little more than child-minding. By the way I have taught middle school, secondary, further education and university levels and inspected schools for over 14 years.
Tested to Destruction
[info]living_fossil wrote:
Friday, 10 April 2009 at 01:26 pm (UTC)
I don't suppose todays kids will be life long learners like my generation then?
Re: Tested to Destruction
[info]sjkillman wrote:
Friday, 10 April 2009 at 02:43 pm (UTC)
I do hope so, just as some children are ready for school at 4 and others aren't, some succeed at exams in their teens and others don't. Fortunately, in this country, we get the opportunity at any age to succeed if we want to.
Yeah right!
[info]kodak321 wrote:
Friday, 10 April 2009 at 03:43 pm (UTC)
Thick parents, thick children. Education hs been down graded over the past thirty years. Encouragement of thick ethnic minorities (majorities in many urban areas), and sub-prime locals? I've looked at recent GCSE papers, over a variety of subjects, piss easy......and 18% as a pass rate for maths (C grade-last year) is a joke. Wake up World. Wake up England.

Most popular