And so, it has finally arrived. We were promised the consultation on primary assessment “early in the new year”, and they managed it within the first quarter of the year. We have another three months to ruminate now on the merits of the proposals put forward by the department for improving the current dog’s breakfast that is primary assessment.
To give the department its due, it’s not bad. There is much to recommend in the two new consultations, not least the openness of some of the questions. It’s a far cry from the nonsense of the consultation in 2013, much of which was promptly ignored. This time, the department appears to have learned some lessons and is prepared to hear what teachers really think. Perhaps after getting their fingers burned more than once over the past few years, the current secretary of state has been persuaded that teachers might actually know what they’re talking about.
Not for the first time, I am urging primary teachers - in fact, any teachers - up and down the country to respond to the consultations so that the DfE gets clear messages about what we want to see. We need to be realistic: suggesting that we just scrap all accountability will get your response regarded as nonsense (and rightly so, frankly), but we can make sure that we give sound practical advice about how to make things better, including for pupils with special educational needs.
Early years experts should be clamouring to contribute to the debate about what a robust and reliable baseline might look like, both in terms of content and implementation. There will be plenty of others who want to have their say but many of them - including me - don’t know early years like some do. They might also want to take the opportunity to claim a future stake for the role of the foundation stage profile as a broader recognition of learning in the early years.
Fixing the system
Colleagues in infant/junior and first/middle schools will have a keen interest in addressing the needs of those specific schools. It’s clear that the current system of key stage 1 assessments is not functioning well and causes many issues in the sector; perhaps some localities have worked out better ways to ensure consistency of measures across schools that allow children to benefit.
Teachers in primary schools ought to be looking closely at the breadth of proposals, considering the implications of removing the KS1 tests, reducing the burden of statutory teacher assessment, but also introducing the new multiplication tables check in Year 4. We should also take the opportunity that the consultation provides in question 20 to set out ways in which we think workload can be reduced. There are few opportunities to feed so directly into such discussions at a national level.
Those of us teaching in Year 6 will be keen to see improvements to the frameworks for assessment at age 11, not least to the nonsense of the teacher assessment of writing. The department seems open to recommendations in this area - clearly recognising that the current mess isn’t working - and this time it seems to realise that teachers are best placed to advise.
Like with so much of democracy, if we don’t take our opportunities to have our say, then we diminish our entitlement to complain about the outcomes. The DfE seems open to guidance on fixing the system we have at the moment. Let’s make sure it hears clearly from teachers exactly what can be done to make assessment work better for schools and their pupils.
Michael Tidd is deputy head at Edgewood Primary School in Nottinghamshire
