Test latest: Neither up nor down?

By Mike Baker

New assessments now have to be devised for science

The story of Sats - or more accurately, the national curriculum tests - has been a bit like the nursery rhyme The Grand Old Duke of York. In other words, it has been an up and down affair.

They started out as a gleam in the eye of former Tory leader Margaret Thatcher in 1987 as the Conservatives were looking for something exciting to put into their election manifesto.

With her Education Secretary, Ken Baker, she concluded it was time England and Wales had a national curriculum with accompanying tests.

The idea was that the tests would handcuff teachers to the new official curriculum whilst also offering a guide to parents of relative school performance.

Mrs Thatcher (as she then was) was adamant that she did not want anything too complex. As she wrote in her memoirs, all that was needed was "a basic syllabus for English, mathematics and science with simple tests to show what pupils knew".

But she got rather more than she bargained for: a 10-subject national curriculum, complete with detailed programmes of study, attainment targets and formal tests at the ages of seven, 11 and 14.

Chaos and puddles

Mrs Thatcher was horrified. She had been outmanoeuvred by Ken Baker, who wanted to ensure schools maintained a broad curriculum, and by what she called "the education establishment", which made the tests much more complicated and extensive than she had ever imagined.

Close reading of the group's report and accompanying statement shows less than total support for the current, externally-set and externally-marked tests

As she wrote later, by the time she left office, she had become convinced there would have to be a "new drive to simplify the national curriculum and testing".

And so, after a rapid rush up the hill, the grand army of subjects and tests has had to be led back down again in a series of tactical retreats.

First to go was the plan to extend the formal tests to all subjects apart from PE, music and art.

Next to be abandoned were the over-complicated practical tasks, from which Sats took their name, being originally the Standard Assessment Tasks.

The low point was the science Sats for seven-year-olds, in which pupils simultaneously experimented to see whether objects such as stones, feathers, and lumps of wood sank or floated in bowls of water. Chaos and puddles ensued in classrooms across England.

One more push

Before long, whole subjects and batteries of tests were being chucked overboard from the good ship SS National Curriculum, which was at risk of sinking under its own weight.

The externally set and marked tests at age seven were scrapped and subjects like history and geography became optional for older pupils.

And so it has gone on, with Wales opting out of the "English" tests (Scotland never had them) and, most recently, the government dropping the compulsory tests at age 14 altogether.

It was against this background that head teachers and teachers sensed victory was close. The National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) felt it needed to make just one more push to get rid of the tests at age 11.

They were encouraged in this view by mixed messages coming from government, including the comment from Schools Secretary, Ed Balls, that nothing was "set in stone" as he contemplated the introduction of school report cards as a possible replacement for league tables.

That was how we reached the current impasse, with the National Union of Teachers and the NAHT threatening to boycott next year's tests.

Points victory?

Like the Grand Old Duke of York's men, the tests were "neither up nor down". Which was why the expert group's conclusions were so important.

This small team was left in a difficult place, caught between the government's last determined stand to defend the only remaining external tests in primary schools and the last-fling challenge from teachers and heads.

They have compromised. The science tests will go, but maths and English will stay. This looks like a points victory to the government, which must be greatly relieved to have the backing of the expert group.

Yet close reading of the group's report and accompanying statement shows less than total support for the current, externally-set and externally-marked tests.

The expert group argues that if the reliability of teacher assessment can be improved the government would be able to judge "whether a move away from externally marked tests might be viable at a future date".

So the long term battle over testing is still not over. There will be some more twists and turns yet, particularly if the marking of this year's tests fails to prove more efficient than last year.

You can send your comments using the form below:

A selection of your comments may be published, displaying your name and location unless you state otherwise in the box below.