Leading article: An overload of targets, tests and tables

Sunday 30 April 2006 19:00 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

The country's largest headteachers' organisation, the National Association of Head Teachers, claimed this weekend that the Government was obsessed by the three Ts - Targets, Tests and Tables. And we have some sympathy with their view. Teachers and pupils alike complain that continual testing stifles enthusiasm and creativity and makes school dull for all concerned. But the answer is not - as the headteachers demanded - the outright abolition of testing and all the paraphernalia that accompanies it.

True, English pupils are among the most tested in the Western world. They have national curriculum tests at 7, 11 and 14, GCSEs, AS-levels and A-levels at 16, 17 and 18. And the Education Secretary is now proposing to set tougher targets for five-year-olds - this is before children in many other European countries have even started formal schooling. It is true, too, that Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland manage without such a rigid testing regime.

Those who seek to abolish tests and league tables, however, need to remember the state that the education system was in before they were introduced. There was no measure of a child's progress until the approach of GCSEs, and no yardstick at all by which to judge the effectiveness of primary schools. We now have a far better idea of how schools are performing. And while more tests for five-year-olds are clearly undesirable, the key stage two tests taken by 11-year-olds need to be retained in some shape or form. As for league tables, it would not be politically possible, nor would it be desirable, to have this information removed from the public domain.

That some changes have already been made shows that the Government is not completely inflexible. The achievement figures, for instance, have been supplemented with information about "value added" to show whether schools have improved on the expected performance of their pupils. Even so, there is a case for a more liberal approach to testing. Ministers have already agreed to drop "sudden death" tests for seven-year-olds and place more emphasis on teacher assessment. A similar approach should be adopted for the tests for 14-year-olds. Whether separate league tables are needed for the tests for 14-year-olds is also questionable, given that GCSE and A-level results are both published.

In short, the NAHT has some justified concerns, even if its demands are more sweeping than the Department for Education - or we - would like. Regrettably, the decision by ministers to boycott the heads' conference because of a disagreement over a new teachers' contract suggests that they are not, at present, in listening mode.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in