FOCUS FEATURE


EDUCATION


and which children are likely to need the most help. It will also give schools a clearer idea of how much progress their pupils are making, because they will know better where they have started from.” This stance corroborates the view offered by Ofsted’s


Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills - Early years report from 2013, three years prior to the new measures coming into force. The report states that: “The ‘value added’ that a school


delivers depends on the ability to securely compare pupils’ starting points to their end points. A good baseline assessment would provide a clear view of where pupils begin, but it would only do so if it were reliable. The experience of Key Stage 1 suggests that external marking would be as critical for a baseline as for that key stage. Schools already assess children when they join a school using their own variable standards, and the only value in a national baseline would be if it is a standardised assessment that would allow comparison from one school to the next.” As with most initiatives, the proof lies very much in the pudding and to this end, policy-makers can point to positive results since the introduction of the baseline tests for reception-based children as an indication that assessing pupils at such an early age is both important and necessary. On 19 October 2016, on the back of the new


assessments, a written statement to Parliament on primary education by then Education Secretary Justine Greening provided an update on the success of the new measures. In the statement, she outlines the context of the


assessments, including those taken in Years Two and Six, claiming that: “The new assessments rightly raised the bar… better preparing them (the pupils) for secondary school and beyond. In the past, although we saw high proportions of children meeting the previous lower standard at the end of primary school, too often it did not translate into good qualifications at the end of secondary school.” As for the statistics, she continued: “Although the new


assessments this summer were rightly more challenging, teachers and pupils rose to that challenge. Sixty-six per cent of pupils met or exceeded the new ‘expected standard’ in reading, 70% did so in mathematics and 74% did so in writing… the pace and scale of these changes has been stretching. Our objective is to make sure that children are ready for the next stage of their education.” The above makes compelling reading, yet criticism in


some quarters, including many parents, has remained strong. Why, though, should this be the case when the early signs highlighted above are so encouraging? In response to the baseline assessment changes,


researchers from the University of London, commissioned by the National Union of Teachers (NUT) and the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL), carried out in-depth interviews with staff in five primary schools that initially piloted the assessments and the results were interesting. The research – published by the BBC – showed that 59%


of the teachers surveyed said the assessment had disrupted the start of school for Reception pupils. Regarding the actual usefulness – or otherwise – of the assessments, only 32% agreed that the results of the assessments provided a true reflection, in their eyes, of the individual pupil’s attainment at that stage. Reacting to the research, ATL General Secretary, Mary


Bousted, told the BBC: "It is questionable how far any form of assessment can accurately show the knowledge and skills of a four-year-old. "Children are not robots and do not develop at a regular


rate, so we have grave concerns about the reliability of measuring their progress from age four to 11." NUT General Secretary, Christine Blower, went further,


suggesting that the new system is "unfair, not accurate, completely fallible”. The timing of the Reception baseline assessments can


also prove problematic, given how young each individual sitter of the tests will be. Children born in the summer months, for example, may be at a distinct disadvantage given the assessments could potentially fall a matter of


36 business network July/August 2017 Positive results since the introduction of baseline tests suggests that assessment is necessary


weeks after their fourth birthday, whereas other children taking the same tests may be nearly a year older – a year’s additional development at such a young age can undeniably make a huge difference. What all of the above demonstrates is that when it


comes to monitoring children in their formative years in education, there is no right or wrong answer and that it’s not the “why?” that is necessarily called into question. What is perhaps more pertinent is the “how?” and “when?” and it is here that the conversation and debates diversify and intensify. Clearly a balance is needed during a child’s early years.


The evidence suggests a direct correlation between getting it right at the start of a child’s academic journey and what they then go on to achieve both academically and, later, in the world of work. In that respect, it makes sense that policy-makers focus on the early years, especially that critical first year, to give a child the best possible chance to develop moving forward. However, the welfare of a child of four, in what can already


be a scary and challenging new environment, is rightly at the forefront of the minds of chief caregivers such as teachers, parents and guardians, as such experiences can have just as profound an effect on young minds and future development as the quality of their early assessments. Perhaps adopting an approach whereby, first and


foremost, children are comfortable and at ease in their surroundings will make necessary assessments both less potentially stressful and, consequently, offer a truer reflection of a child’s early ability. What is certain is that when we look to close the skills


gap and equip our learners of today with the attributes to be the successful workers of tomorrow, the process needs to begin a lot earlier than you might think.


‘Children are not robots and do not develop at a regular rate, so we have grave concerns about the reliability of measuring their progress from age four to 11’


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64