People drive learning, tests hold it back
George Bethell asks ("The very definition of delusion", 3 January) if the effective learning criteria in my earlier letter ("Quality can be tested? Wrong answer", 2027 December) are opinion- or evidence-based. I conducted 20,000 lessons in 25 years in the classroom and have observed some 4,000 since. Is Mr Bethell not aware of Professor Maurice Galton's long years observing what happened in classrooms, his final summary reflecting that as children pass through school their increasingly test-driven experience is almost the opposite of what effective learning requires? Schools inspectorate for England Ofsted's early inspection frameworks reflected the spirit of the factors I cited. And TES has explored Professor John Hattie's league table of factors for effective learning gleaned from 15 years of national and international studies. The human factors driving my criteria were top while structural factors such as tests, buildings, systems and strategies rated lower.
Testing affords little scope for the full range of individual personalities, temperaments and learning styles. Subject testing as a one-off exercise purports to make clinical judgements of children's performance whatever their health or mood that day. It tests only what can be tested, is vulnerable to well-documented frailties and distorts everyday practice. We have betrayed generations of young people as well as taxpayers. More reliable accountability - as used in the real world - and more long-term integrated insights into performance are shunned.
Mervyn Benford, Shutford, Oxfordshire.