Teachers should assess exams as part and parcel of their professional development, says Don Lillistone
The chaos that has ensued in public examinations since the Government’s post-16 curriculum was introduced is a compelling argument for a radical change in our approach to assessment.
Discussion so far has, however, tended to focus on logistical considerations. A further dimension to the debate is that of the professional development of teachers.
In a letter sent last summer to college principals highlighting the need for additional examiners, the convenor of the Joint Council for General Qualifications wrote: “The involvement of teachers in examining is, we believe, of paramount importance to the understanding which they gain not only of the assessment process in general, but of assessment in their own subject areas in particular. Examining can be beneficial to the professional development of teachers.”
It is difficult to imagine anyone in the education service disagreeing with this, but recognition must prompt serious concerns about the professional development of teachers who are not involved in examining work.
The effectiveness of the assessment and monitoring of learners’ progress is identified by the Office for Standards in Education’s as key in determining how effective and efficien education and training are in meeting the needs of learners.
The inspection framework says that inspectors will consider the extent to which “assessment is used to monitor progress and inform individual learners about how they are performing and how they might develop further”.
How can teachers be expected to use assessment effectively if they are not fully informed about, and trained in, the nationally-approved assessment of the courses they teach?
There has been a damaging divide between responsibility for teaching and for assessment that has prevented greater improvement in student achievement.
A way forward is presented in the Secondary Heads Association’s recent publication 14 and Beyond. The SHA proposes a new “chartered examiner” status for experienced teachers. This would be available to qualified teachers with at least four years’ experience of teaching the subject in which they are to be accredited.
The SHA concludes: “The proposal to create chartered examiners will raise the status of teachers and internal assessment in schools and colleges. It will improve the quality of school-based assessment and thus contribute to the raising of standards in schools and colleges. It will provide a new step on the continuum of professional development for teachers.”
If the proposal to accredit teachers as examiners seems too radical, it should be remembered that in other countries, such as Germany, it is precisely the teachers who are responsible for the assessment of students’
work. Moreover, in higher education in this country it is, of course, the teachers who are responsible for assessment.
As things stand a teacher employed in an institution providing both higher and further education is deemed to be the appropriate person to assess students’ degree work, but is not deemed appropriate to assess the students’ A-level work.
It is risible to suggest that a teacher is reliable when assessing as an examiner employed by an awarding body but not reliable when assessing as a teacher.
Any concern about partiality could easily be removed by adopting the German practice of the double marking of scripts, one by the class teacher and the second by a teacher from another institution.
The needs of awarding bodies currently dictate the timing of examinations, results and the higher education application process. A teacher accredited as an examiner would be assessing a far smaller number of scripts than is now the case for awarding body examiners, so the turn-around time on publishing results could be reduced dramatically.
This would ease pressure on the examination timetable and enable a smoother move to a much fairer and more coherent university admissions system.
Present arrangements are very costly. My college of 730 students has to budget for around pound;100,000 per annum in exam fees. The Association of Colleges’ figures indicate that FE colleges spend pound;94 million a year on exams.
A better use of the money could be to retain a proportion centrally to manage the process. That would leave a substantial amount to provide teaching staff with a deserved salary increase to reflect their professionalism, duly recognised as accredited examiners.
Don Lillistone is principal of St Mary’s College, Middlesbrough
