It is a rum situation when the forces of the Left represented by members of the National Union of Teachers and certain local education authorities oppose the very principle of accountability, while the forces of the Right represented by Chris Woodhead et al denigrate the tests required for accountability because of their alleged lack of rigour. The 1,000 schools affiliated to the Technology Colleges Trust, which now represent nearly one-third of all secondaries, believe strongly that schools should be accountable to their pupils, to their parents and to the taxpayer.

Schools must justify the public funding which they receive by delivering a quality education. Furthermore, the 700 specialist schools which receive additional funding of a capital grant of pound;100,000 plus a top-up of annual recurrent funding have a responsibility to justify this extra funding by performing well both overall and in their specialist subjects.

That is why the Technology Colleges Trust publishes a detailed annual analysis of our educational outcomes, prepared by Professor David Jesson of York University. We are especially pleased that in 2001 the 513 non-selective specialist schools in operation from September 2000 achieved 54 per cent 5-plus A* to C grades at GCSE compared to an estimated 44 per cent for the other comprehensives. This is despite our schools’ intake having almost the same average points per pupil at key stage 2.

Chris Woodhead, the former chief inspector of schools, claimed in a recent speech to the Centre for Policy Studies, that over the past 30 years it has become much easier to achieve an A to C grade at GCSE and that GCSE was not as rigorous as the O-level it replaced. Yet he gave no real evidence of this and also failed to explain why specialist schools, for example, do better than others.

When I questioned Mr Woodhead he agreed that it was the role of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to monitor standards of marking but had no ideas on how this might be done. In my role as adviser to the Education Secretary on specialist schools I have written formally to Estelle Morris to suggest that she asks the QCA to conduct research to provide evidence one way or the other on whether standards of marking for GCSE and A-level have declined.

It is sad that Chris Woodhead, who has done so much to highlight the importance of raising standards, should not celebrate the success of good schools. Undoubtedly, the denigration of success depresses our hardworking teachers as well as discouraging future entrants to the profession. However, it is equally unacceptable for some members of the National Union of Teachers and others to go on complaining that the national curriculum and the key stage tests infringe upon the professional freedom of teachers to teach. This country will not maintain its current level of prosperity unless the general standard of educational attainment for all pupils is raised. Only by making schools accountable to pupils and parents will we raise standards.

Recently, Kurt Landgraff, the highly-respected chief executive of the United States Educational Testing Service, articulated in his testimony to the House of Representatives a number of basic principles for effective testing of schoolchildren.

I would submit these principles should provide the basis for all key stage testing in this country.First, tests must measure whether the curriculum is being effectively taught and monitor learning in the classroom, rather than just the successful taking of tests. The key stage 2 English test does not tell secondary schools whether a pupil at age 11 has reading difficulties. This is why so many specialist and other schools use either the Richmond or London reading test to establish if their Year 7 pupils need remedial literacy help.

Second, tests used in conjunction with other data such as inspection reports should help schools make informed decisions about best practice in learning as well as to measure outcomes.

Third, creating measures of accountability does not of itself generate a productive learning environment. The rewards and sanctions system needs to be carefully planned to avoid being trivial, counter-productive or corrupted. Improving learning, transmitting cultural values and teaching pupils to have enquiring minds must always be the primary goal. It is crucial that reliable value added measures are developed which compare a school’s intake of ability with its results.

Fourth, tests must satisfy a number of crucial criteria to be effective. Marking must be consistent and reliable. Tests should be subject to thorough professional independent review. New examinations should be exhaustively pre-tested. Security of testing materials and standard testing procedures are crucial.

Sir Cyril Taylor is chair of the Technology Colleges Trust