The start of this academic year marked the beginning of the first under a new government – and there is hope in the air.
At last, education appears to be back near the top of the agenda, after years of being sidelined.
The new education secretary has promised to reset the government’s relationship with the profession and work in partnership with teachers and leaders to address the issues facing schools. It feels like a new chapter.
We understand the scale of the task ahead. The investment needed means changes cannot happen overnight, with crises ranging from recruitment and retention to inspection, SEND provision, and the state of school buildings.
However, there are also areas where the failings of the Conservatives were not just about neglect or under-investment, but also an apparent mistrust of school leaders and teachers.
As such, we hope that this is a new era of professionalism in which we can work with ministers to agree to change sooner in some of these key areas. The Curriculum and Assessment Review already announced (DfE, 2024) is a case in point.
As part of that review, there is an urgent need to reconsider the value and purpose of statutory assessments in primary schools to get the best results for children, parents, teachers and leaders.
The system has too much emphasis on testing. It is underpinned more by the need for accountability than children’s learning and progress. It is also wedded to an over-crowded 10-year-old curriculum.
We want the government’s review to lead to changes which create space and time for schools to develop their curriculum, make it relevant to pupils, improve engagement, and foster a real love of learning.
The new government’s pledge to engage with the profession, and to listen to our expertise, as part of the review, is positive – this happened rarely under the previous administration.
To this end, we hope the findings of a survey we carried out with nearly 1,500 members earlier this year, will be of interest.
They show that the school leaders who responded question the purpose of statutory assessments, including key stage 2 SATs.
Just 12% agree that statutory assessments support children’s progress, only 8% feel they inform future teaching and learning, and a mere 28% believe they provide useful information for parents about children’s attainment and progress.
Nor do the school leaders believe that either the year 1 phonics screening check or the year 4 multiplication tables check are necessary to identify which children need further support in these areas – teachers already know this about their pupils without the need for a statutory test.
Strictly timed test conditions are seen as a barrier to some children demonstrating their progress. Four in 10 of our members believe time limits should be more flexible, with 55% supporting their removal. Just 5% said they should remain unchanged. The focus should be on capturing what children can do and the progress they have made, not mastering test technique.
School leaders consistently question the grammar, punctuation and spelling curriculum content and related test. Only 12% of respondents supported the grammar, punctuation and spelling test’s retention. One survey respondent said: ‘‘It has no bearing on improving children’s writing, reading nor grasp of the English language.” Another described the test as “a fossil from a bygone era”.
With scant belief that the tests fulfil any positive purpose, the perception among leaders is that the purpose of statutory testing is to provide data for accountability purposes and to drive curriculum priorities.
Worse still given the high-stakes accountability associated with these tests, there is very little confidence that they are even an accurate measure of school effectiveness.
Nearly three-quarters (74%) of members disagree that statutory assessments are an important tool for measuring school standards.
As one respondent put it: “Key stage 2 testing is all about school accountability and nothing to do with children and their learning.”
If that wasn’t enough, almost all (98%) of survey respondents believe that the system and its high-stakes accountability harms the mental wellbeing of staff.
Nearly as many (94%) believe it is damaging to children’s mental health and wellbeing.
Time limits and stringent security create an environment which piles the pressure on children. This is despite the best efforts of schools to shield pupils from that pressure – encouraging them simply to do their best and show what they have learned.
So where does this leave us? We will respond to the government’s Curriculum and Assessment Review once invited to do so. However, some clear principles and actions emerge from this survey and these conversations with our members.
No additional statutory assessments should be added – those currently used must be reduced. The key stage 2 grammar, punctuation and spelling test should be removed. The phonics screening and multiplication tables checks must be made optional. Time limits for any statutory tests should be extended or removed.
These changes would start a transformation of the current system from an unreliable, harmful accountability regime and they would begin to address the negative impact it has had on the curriculum, children, and school staff.
- Sarah Hannafin is head of policy at the National Association of Head Teachers.
Further information
- DfE: Government launches Curriculum and Assessment Review, 2024: https://buff.ly/3WqPUuh
- NAHT: Primary statutory assessment – discussion and analysis of NAHT member survey, 2024: https://buff.ly/46Y7M4D