Conor Ryan: We need tests to improve bad schools

Charles Clarke had a lucky escape. The National Union of Teachers' campaign to scrap national testing of children collapsed through member apathy. But the failure of ministers to mount a sustained defence of testing could make this a temporary respite.

And while this month's Commons vote on top-up fees is a more pressing issue, regular independent national tests are of far greater importance to the education of young people, not least because the abolition of tests would make it much harder to identify and improve failing schools.

The NUT's "Stop It Now" drive was stopped by a 34 per cent turnout, when the union rulebook called for 50 per cent, a considerable blow to the union's leadership, which backed a boycott, and its left-wing activists, who claim to speak for average classroom teachers. Yet only 4,900 teachers voted against a test boycott. And the campaign had tacit approval from opposition policy makers and middle class columnists (whose own children rarely lack books at home or parental encouragement).

The notion that youngsters, who love the challenge of ever more complex computer games, are being abused by a few tests has become part of national mythology. Even normally sane unions like the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL)describe the testing of children in English, Maths and Science at seven and 11 as "relentless". The ATL would prefer "sample surveys" which would neither identify individual schools which were falling behind nor help individual pupils to get extra help or stimulation where they needed it.

Without national testing, many schools, particularly those in the poorest areas, would not have recorded substantial improvements over the last decade. Of course better teaching, regular inspection and school level targets have each made a big difference. But each factor was aided by objective national tests, and publication of their results. Less than half the 11 year-olds tested in 1995 achieved the standard for their age in English and maths. Those results shocked the country from its complacency. Three-quarters now succeed, although, as Ofsted made clear last month, there is still much room for improvement.

Pupils in failing or struggling schools would lose most if testing were scrapped. A school can sink badly in the six years between Ofsted inspections. Independent testing can fill the gap by signalling such changes. Without annual inspection (an alternative not top of the NUT's demands) there would be no objective evidence of performance between Ofsted visits. And given that teacher assessment is unsatisfactory in one in six literacy classes, such external evaluation is needed.

Parents used to be left in the dark about schools' achievements. Only those with access to staffroom gossip knew the truth. No longer. And with value-added data, which measures the extent to which schools help pupils to progress, nobody can seriously argue that the publication of test results lacks sophistication. No doubt, the tests could be improved. Questions could be more interesting. There could be more essay-style answers. But school-based assessment cannot substitute for comparable, independent data to check pupil, school and teacher progress.

Charles Clarke had to focus his energies on higher education in 2003. He has started to win the top-up fees argument with the wider public. But as a result, Mr Clarke has had little time for primary schools - so much so that the government's policy statement, Excellence and Enjoyment, sent confusing signals about the importance of literacy, numeracy and testing.

And this failure of ministers to make the case for testing not only plays into the hands of NUT hotheads, it boosts those who claim (wrongly) that schools have got worse under Labour. Once this month's top-up fees vote has passed, Mr Clarke must use his powers of persuasion to explain to parents and teachers why testing matters - and what a difference it has already made over the last 10 years to thousands of schools and pupils

The writer was political adviser to David Blunkett from 1993-2001

education@independent.co.uk