Dr Chris Yapp, NACE patron

The need for reform of the assessment is system is now being well argued at the national level. It is important to remember that the current assessment framework and exam results are an important part of the accountability framework by which schools are judged. The issue I wish to address here is: how does any new assessment framework that is developed impact on the accountability of schools? Importantly, what issues and problems of the current approach could be addressed by a novel approach?

If I ask you about the ethos of your school, I would probably have no difficulty in achieving consensus that “every child should be able to reach their full potential” would be a core value of teachers and educational leaders near universally. However, if I suggest that 80% of children should achieve their full potential in education by 2025, how would you react?

My experience is that few are comfortable with the target, even though you can’t reach 100% unless you go through 80% at some point. It would be easy to be cynical that teachers may aspire to the vision but react against trying to achieve it. There are numerous reasons why professionals are uncomfortable with this problem. First, how do you measure potential? Importantly, does the assessment framework reflect both achievement and potential?

There is an economic model, Goodhart’s Law, which has a long history of precedent in different fields and is now more widely understood as a general problem. The usual formulation of the law is: “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.”

Consider the following example: 80% of children should reach Level X by Year Y.

Apart from agreeing how that is measured, there is another big problem to be addressed. Once a measure becomes a target it can be “gamed”.

Consider two schools with similar catchment areas and performance facing this as a target. 

In the first, the leadership team focuses resources on all children and their development and reaches 78% on the timescale set.

In the second, 10% of children are given minimum support and the resources are focused on the remaining 90%. The school achieves 82%.

Which is the better school? Which would you want to work in? Which would you want your children to go to?

In short, targets can distort ethos and with it the morale and self-worth of professionals. It happens with accounting in the private sector, in reward mechanisms and many other walks of life. My experience is that once you understand Goodhart’s Law you start to see it everywhere.

One of my favourite quotes of Sir Claus Moser sums it up well: “If you can measure the same thing in two different ways, you'll get two different answers.” 

The different components of education are heavily interdependent. Teacher development is heavily dependent on curriculum design, which in turn is heavily dependent on assessment. Attempting to reform one without understanding the impact on the other parts is fraught with difficulties.

So, I welcome a focus on reforming assessment in schools. For me, it is long overdue. However, in the context of our 21st century economy and society we need to be more explicit about the ethos of our education system and its individual institutions. I believe in accountability systems, but they must be driven by ethos, not targets. The assessment measures that are developed need to reflect our societal and economic goals for education itself.

If our ethos is to optimise pupil achievement, the wise words of Plato come to mind: “Do not train a child to learn by force or harshness, but direct them to it by what amuses their minds, so that you may be better able to discover with accuracy the peculiar bent of the genius of each.”

• Read more from our “rethinking assessment” series
• Share your experiences of remote feedback and assessment: NACE member survey

1. The need for curriculum catch-up varies enormously within and between schools, and between individual students.

2. The social purpose of schooling has been underlined as never before.

3. The challenge lies not in getting back to where we were, but to deciding where we want (and need) to go.

Sue Riley, NACE CEO

Many of you will have seen the open letter to the Sunday Times from the recently formed Rethinking Assessment group. Born from issues raised this summer, Rethinking Assessment is a broad coalition of state and independent schools, universities, academics, employers and other stakeholders, which aims to value the strengths of every child. At its heart lies four fundamental principles:

1. Many young people find the way our exam system works increasingly stressful and not a true reflection of what they are good at.
2. Many employers complain that exams do not provide them with good enough clues as to who they are employing.
3. Many headteachers feel that high-stakes exams distort priorities and stop them from providing a well-rounded education for their pupils.
4. Many who are passionate about social mobility believe that any system that dooms a third to fail is a system with little sense of social justice.

We want to add our members’ voice and our research to this debate. There are immediate questions to be answered and longer-term opportunities to recalibrate the assessment system so that all learners have their full range of strengths recognised. As a membership organisation we can share and build on the decisions school leaders are taking now and over time provide perspectives that will inform longer-term changes.

Assessment is of course an integral part of learning and teaching. It facilitates daily ongoing review of individual progress and impacts on planning and target-setting. It supports personal learning targets. But we must not let the tail wag the dog. Not everything needs to be assessed, or indeed can be assessed, or needs to be independently assessed. We must consider too the timing of assessment – even more pressing as schools focus on tier 2 rota planning. 

Whilst a decision over summer exams has been made in principle, “fall-back” detail remains unclear and learners are picking up on this, increasingly questioning the reasoning behind assignments, and the part they will play in assessment. All of this detracts from the richness of a subject.  

The Early Career Framework and Teachers’ Standards have done much to support the teaching profession’s development in recent years. We must trust teachers with assessment, but teachers must be clear on what they are assessing and why.

What can we therefore now do in our schools to readdress this balance? One response lies in thinking about what we assess on a day-to-day basis in classrooms, how we build on low-stakes testing, and how we position effective challenge. How effectively do your teachers use retrieval practice for example? Deliberately recalling information forces us to pull knowledge “out” and examine what we know. The “struggle” or challenge to recall information improves memory and learning – by trying to recall information, we exercise or strengthen our memory, and we can also identify gaps in our learning. 

NACE has recently undertaken a literature review of retrieval practice – looking at the theoretical framework and considering emergent related classroom practices and practical amendments and applications for more able learners. To access this review, click here. 

Beyond the here and now of assessment, we need to return to the longer-term focus of the Rethinking Assessment coalition. Against the current backdrop, what could we do to improve the assessment system more broadly? How would we do it differently, allowing us to show non-traditional talents – making assessment more effective for employers, individuals and supporting the practising teacher? Fundamentally, how can we assess the child in front of us?

Contribute to the debate:

• What approach is your school taking? What would you like to see happen, this term/year and in the longer term? Contact NACE CEO Sue Riley to share your views. 
• The Chartered College of Teaching is hosting a webinar discussion with Rethinking Assessment at 6-7pm on 5 November. Find out more and book a free ticket.

Read more:

• Information sheet: recall and retrieval practice
• Making the grade...time for change? 
• The future of education and data: 3 key questions 
• Lockdown learning: the good, the bad, and the shape of things to come? 
• Beyond the “recovery curriculum”: rebuild, reconnect, reignite 

As UNICEF reports that 700 million days of education could be lost this academic year in the UK, Jon Murphy, NACE Associate and recently retired headteacher of Llanfoist Fawr and Llavihangel Primary Schools Federation, reflects on the need to focus on social and emotional wellbeing as schools prepare to return, and asks if the focus on health and wellbeing in the new Curriculum for Wales could be helpful to all schools.

Over a shockingly short timescale we have become all too familiar with a vocabulary that was most certainly not part of our daily conversation only a few months ago. “Lockdown”, “social isolation” and “social distancing” have become common parlance regardless of age, occupation or the part of the world in which we live. The coronavirus has undeniably changed the world as we know it. As we learn to live with the consequences of COVID-19 and the “new normal”, and as we start to contemplate a return to school, we will be teaching children to use and apply these new concepts to ensure the continuing safety of all. Like no other period in history, we will be sharply focusing our work to ensure the health and wellbeing of children and young people is secure. Not an easy task when children are naturally gregarious and demonstrative, and when their basic instinct is to be tactile with their peers, particularly the youngest of our charges.

Backed by support and resources from schools, commendable efforts have been made to home educate children. Anecdotally we know there has been considerable variance in the provision made, and there has been a very definite re-affirmation that there are few substitutes for a classroom staffed by qualified professionals. As children return to school, they will be at very different stages in their readiness to learn.

Backed by support and resources from schools, commendable efforts have been made to home educate children. We know there has been considerable variance in the provision made, and there has been a very definite re-affirmation that there are few substitutes for a classroom staffed by qualified professionals. The DfE last week published school case studies presenting a range of emerging practice. As children return to school, they will be at very different stages in their readiness to learn.

Layers of trauma and “the unseen monster”

Without doubt, young people will relish the social interaction of being with peers again. However, there will also be challenges after an unprecedented prolonged period spent out of school. For months many children have been kept at home, told that this is a safe sanctuary and the world beyond is not. Children are incredibly perceptive. Some will have absorbed the stress and fear of their parents and carers, adding to their own insecurities. Some could be painfully aware of the financial impact the virus has had on family income, adding yet another layer of trauma.

When children are integrated back into society and school, many will be taking tentative steps filled with trepidation, re-entering a world which was for so long seen as a place of danger. As they leave their families for the first time, some will fear for their parents or carers, many of whom are employed on the frontline as key workers.

Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget, renowned for his work on child development, simply but very profoundly stated: “children think differently to adults”. With this in mind, we should be aware of how children might perceive COVID-19 and what role we can play in school to mitigate any negative impact on their emotional wellbeing. More able learners may well be able to grasp and understand at an abstract level what the virus actually is. Meanwhile for learners still operating at a concrete level, particularly the very young, the virus is a mysterious thing that they can’t see, smell, taste or feel. It remains something that in their imagination can be conjured up in so many manifestations. Film directors of the horror genre are very aware that the unseen monster is far more terrifying than anything that is visible.

Preparing for a safe return to school

This week the DfE released plans for a phased reopening of schools in England from 1 June at the earliest. Meanwhile Welsh Government has launched the Stay Safe Stay Learning initiative, with Education Minister Kirsty Williams setting out five principles to guide thinking about a safe return to education. The first principle, quite rightly, is the health, safety and emotional wellbeing of children, young people and staff.

COVID-19 has dominated life all day every day for the past few months and we should be under no delusions about its long-term impact; as such we need to be prepared to plan long-term. Safeguarding the health, safety and emotional wellbeing of all in our school communities will be both an immediate and long-term priority; school doors will not open again without planning and preparation for what will be a carefully considered and measured transition back to school life.

Children’s experience of school life is going to be vastly different to what they were used to before school doors were forced to close so abruptly. When schools recommence, we will have to teach them a whole new set of sophisticated behaviours and values relating to social distancing and peer interaction. As stated by the Welsh Minister, physical, mental and emotional health is more important than anything at the moment – an area which had already been brought to the fore in the new Curriculum for Wales.

Bringing health and wellbeing education to the fore

Previous to the pandemic, schools in Wales had been charged with reimagining the educational offer for children and young people through development of the new curriculum. One of the six Areas of Learning and Experience (AoLEs) that will constitute the new orders is Health and Wellbeing, an area that will take centre stage when schools return. Welsh Government sees this AoLE as an area that “will help to foster a whole-school approach that enables health and well-being to permeate all aspects of school life”. The component parts of this AoLE – development of physical health, mental health, and emotional and social wellbeing – must be core to the education of all children on their return to school. Initial provision will need to focus on transition activities that support social and emotional literacy; we cannot even begin to teach the academic subjects until emotional wellbeing is secure.

Currently, alongside the task of teaching, education professionals in Wales are planning for the new curriculum and testing new ways of working for the future. It would seem prudent, considering the current health crisis, to bring their vision for the new curriculum into sharp focus now and to prioritise and even accelerate the development of the Health and Wellbeing AoLE. There is an urgent need to plan for a series of activities and experiences that rebuild children’s confidence and resilience in light of what has now become a part of their daily lives. We must teach them how to live with the pandemic and the part they must play to keep themselves and others safe. Now is the time to be innovative and to reimagine this element of the curriculum because now is the time that it is most needed.

Moving forward: a stronger, wiser generation

It is said that stopping the pandemic is “the most urgent shared endeavour of our times”, and one thing is for sure: when children return to school their health, safety and wellbeing is being placed in the capable of hands of a workforce that will help them learn to interact and exist in a changed world. Schools who made the investment of training staff in emotional literacy initiatives such as Thrive and ELSA will reap the benefits of being able to provide support for the most fragile of those returning to a world that can now seem especially frightening and uncertain. We can take heart in knowing that most learners are innately resilient and will adapt with few problems as schools evolve. We have the tools with the Wellbeing AoLE to be able plan and offer the best provision for keeping all in school safe. The principles and rationale behind the AoLE are sound and the present is the time we would benefit most from the best practice it advocates. As we help children to adapt to a different way of life, who knows, we may even nurture a generation of learners who will be inspired to go onto careers of caring for others or even to be the innovators that prevent such a crisis happening again.

The shadow cast by COVID-19 has forced children to grow up very quickly. It has already stolen a significant portion of their schooling, and we must not allow it to rob them of their precious childhood. As educationalists we are in the privileged position of guiding children as positively as we can through this unprecedented period of history, so they emerge stronger, wiser, safer and more conscious of health and wellbeing than any generation that has gone before.

NACE Challenge Award Adviser Elaine Ricks-Neal reviews emerging trends from the first round of Ofsted reports under the new education inspection framework (EIF).

There’s certainly a very different feel to the new Ofsted reports. Whilst they are clearly written with parents in mind – reflected in the use of accessible terminology and avoidance of too much detail in the published reports – there is no doubt that schools’ curriculum design and delivery is under forensic scrutiny. And although there is little explicit reference to more able learners, the importance of high-quality provision for this group is implicit in the strong focus on curriculum planning, subject-level provision, and breadth and depth of learning.

Style and structure of the new reports

The reports are written in a surprisingly simple style which Ofsted has said is intended to be parent-friendly, getting right to the point and largely steering clear of education jargon – for example, “The school is not a results factory.”

Both section 8 and section 5 reports look very similar, each opening with a short paragraph addressing the question “What is it like to attend this school?” – summing up the school ethos, behaviour, attendance and day-to-day opportunities. In most cases, the report’s opening statements are positive, but any issue linked with behaviour or low standards will be simply – even bluntly – highlighted; for example, “Pupils enjoy school, but they should be doing much better.”

The reports then move on to the main section: “What does the school do well and what does it need to do better?” – bundling together judgements for the quality of education, personal development, and leadership and management. This can make it quite hard to tease out the reasons for any difference in section 5 judgements of any of these strands.

Finally, there is a paragraph on safeguarding, followed by improvement points.

What key themes are emerging?

·         Focus on curriculum design and subject plans

The reports may have a simple style, but it’s clear that curriculum plans and schemes of work have really been unpicked to check how well “subject leaders plan the curriculum so that pupils build on their knowledge so that they know and remember more”. If your curriculum is not coherent and well thought-through, there is no hiding place. Not surprisingly, a very frequent weakness is that subject planning is not “precisely planned and sequenced.” In primary schools this is often in foundation subjects. There is also real drilling down into phonics, the reading curriculum, mathematics and the quality of SEND provision.

If standards are referred to, which is not the case in all reports, it is usually a simple broad comment – for example, “pupils achieve well” – and linked back to how well subjects are planned and taught. This doesn’t mean results are not deemed important, and schools which have dropped a grade will usually have a critical comment about standards, but the emphasis is on the impact of curriculum and the way it is planned and taught in bringing about those outcomes.

·         Warnings against curriculum narrowing

In secondary schools, there is the same focus on sequential planning, but also criticism of any perceived curriculum narrowing or lack of entitlement, especially for SEND and disadvantaged pupils. Also under scrutiny are the two-year KS3, low EBacc uptake and sixth-formers who are not accessing work experience. This may be unsettling for many secondary schools who might feel they will now need a curriculum rethink to avoid Ofsted disapproval.

In primary schools, if pupils miss lessons for intervention sessions, a judgement may be made as to whether they are missing out too much on the full curriculum.

What about more able learners?