Education unions to hold joint industrial action campaign meetings in every school in England

From the NAHT

Today (Tues 6^th June), the general secretaries of teacher and school leader unions, including NAHT, ASCL and NEU [and NASUWT], have written to their members in all schools in England encouraging them to hold joint-union staff meetings on industrial action.

The unions have previously announced their intention to co-ordinate industrial action going forward. Speaking at school leaders’ union NAHT’s Annual Conference last month, the general secretaries pointed out that their combined memberships would mean action if taken would affect nearly every school in England.

All the unions are currently balloting their members to take strike action in the Autumn term, with NEU and NAHT’s ballots currently running, and ASCL’s due to commence this month.

The letter sent today calls for staff meetings of all union members eligible to vote in any of the ballots to be held the week commencing 19 June, to discuss how to maximise turnout and encourage members to return their ballot papers.

The letter reads:

The education system has faced years of real-term pay erosion; a funding crisis; enormous recruitment and retention challenges; escalating workload and working hours; and an inspection system that is doing more harm than good.

As a result, the four largest teacher and leader unions are in the process of balloting members in order to secure a mandate for industrial action.

We have worked incredibly hard to engage with the government on these issues and to try to find satisfactory solutions, but it simply refuses to listen. We believe that a mandate for industrial action across all of our unions is the only way we can get your voice heard.

In an almost unprecedented show of solidarity, all four of our unions have agreed to work together on this campaign. This shows not just the sense of unity among the profession but also our determination to make sure this government starts to engage properly with us in order to address these crucial issues.

Regardless of which union you are in, it is absolutely essential we all work together to ensure everyone eligible casts their vote. This really is a time to stand together and stand up for the profession.

Whether you are in the same union or in different unions, these staff meetings will provide a perfect opportunity to come together and show your solidarity for one another in this ongoing campaign.

We are all clear that we are now in a battle for the very future of education – stand with your colleagues and join us as we strive to bring about real change.

The full letter can be read here: JOINT GS Letter - staffroom meetings - June 2023.pdf.

NAHT takes first step towards judicial review proceedings against Ofsted following its failure to pause inspections

From the National Association of Headteachers

Yesterday school leaders’ union NAHT wrote to His Majesty’s Chief Inspector to demand a suspension of Ofsted inspections while steps are taken to address the risk to the mental health of school staff and enable suicide risk prevention to be put in place.

The letter is the first step in judicial review proceedings and cites Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which imposes obligations on public authorities to take reasonable steps where there is a real and immediate risk of a loss of life.

NAHT argues that the recent death of Ruth Perry, and the citing of Ofsted inspections as a factor in the deaths of 10 teachers*, indicates the human rights of school staff are not being protected by the current Ofsted regime and that immediate action is needed to minimise harm and protect lives.

NAHT has called on Ofsted to pause inspections whilst a review is carried out to identify and put in place immediate measures to minimise the risk of harm to school staff.

Paul Whiteman, general secretary of school leaders’ union NAHT, said: 

The tragic death of Ruth Perry has shone a light on the intolerable pressure placed on school leaders and their staff during Ofsted inspections. It shouldn’t take a tragedy to force change, but Ofsted has shown no inclination to change on its own.

We have requested that Ofsted works with NAHT, as recognised representatives of school leaders, to identify and agree immediate actions that can be taken. It is essential that these actions are discussed and agreed with NAHT if it is to make any meaningful difference. It needs to be done with us, not to us. Up until now those requests have been ignored. As such, we have no alternative but to go down this route.

Whilst Ofsted have issued warm words, that is simply not good enough and it has shown nothing like the understanding or urgency that this situation requires.

School leaders are determined that this should be a watershed moment and that such a tragedy can never be allowed to happen again.

NAHT have demanded a reply from Ofsted by Thursday 6 April.  

* As revealed in a recent Observer article. The underlying academic report cited by The Observer can be found here.

Hard-hitting school leaders' Open Letter to Secretary of State condemns 'continued failure to respond to the genuine and increasingly acute experience of our members'

 School leaders concerned about the current pressures on the education system have issued an Open Letter to  Nadhim Zahawi Secretary of State for Education. They do not mince their words.

 

Dear Secretary of State

 

As the trade unions and professional associations representing the vast majority of school and college leaders across the UK, we are deeply concerned about your government’s apparent lack of concern and support for the pupils and staff in our schools and colleges as we move into the next phase of the pandemic.

Our members tell us that Covid-related disruption has been greater in many schools and colleges over the last few weeks than at any previous point during the pandemic. The latest government figures on attendance in education settings showed that Covid-related pupil absence on 17 March was 2.5% (up from 0.7% the previous fortnight), and teacher and leader absence was 9.1% (up from 5.8%). Almost a quarter of schools had more than 15% of their teachers and leaders absent. Anecdotally, our members tell us that the situation has worsened further in the intervening period.

In the face of this extensive and ongoing disruption, the government’s decision to remove free access to symptomatic and asymptomatic testing for almost all pupils and staff feels reckless in the extreme. The government has also provided no evidence for its suggestion that children who do manage to obtain tests should only isolate for three days, rather than the five days recommended for adults. Together with a large number of other education organisations, we wrote to you on 9 March asking for tests to remain available to those working in our schools and colleges with possible symptoms of Covid, in order to reduce disruption to education. We have not received a response to that letter.

This ongoing disruption also makes the government’s decision to publish Key Stage 4 and 5 performance tables this year, and to share the results of Key Stage 2 tests with Ofsted, even more inappropriate. As we have pointed out on many occasions, this plan seemed misguided when it was first announced; given the current situation in our schools and colleges it now feels frankly absurd.

These decisions have consequences. Failing to control the transmission of Covid in schools and colleges is making it increasingly difficult for leaders to keep their settings open, and to ensure pupils receive a high- quality education when they are there. This is compounding the educational disruption children and young people have already suffered over the last two years, which will affect their future opportunities.

 

Allowing large numbers of staff and pupils to contract Covid, often multiple times, also has implications for their long-term health.

Refusing to recognise the impact on leaders, teachers, schools and communities of publishing inaccurate and meaningless data on school performance adds to the extreme stress under which education staff have been operating for more than two years now, and will exacerbate the recruitment and retention crisis that has been building for several years. Many members are telling us that this is the final straw which is leading them to step down from school or college leadership. We simply cannot afford, as a society, to treat leaders and teachers in this way.

 

If the government wants to gain the support of school and college leaders as it starts to take forward the policies in its recently published schools white paper and SEND green paper, it needs to do much more to support them with the current situation they face. It must reconsider its premature decision to end free access to Covid tests for symptomatic staff and pupils in schools and colleges, and it must commit to not publishing performance tables, or using this year’s Key Stage 2, GCSE, A level or vocational exam results for any form of accountability, this year.

We have consistently made representations to you on these issues during our meetings with you, your Permanent Secretary and your senior officials. You will have noticed that these representations have become stronger and more frequent as a result of your continued failure to respond to the genuine and increasingly acute experience of our members.

Given the strength of feeling from our members on these issues, we are therefore taking the unusual step of making this an open letter. We look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Geoff Barton, General Secretary, ASCL

 

Paul Whiteman, General Secretary, NAHT

Formidable group of unions and education organisations issue joint statement ahead of PM's statement on wider re-opening of schools

Nine education organisations have joined together to issue a statement on the wider opening of schools and colleges in England. This statement is issued ahead of the Prime Minister’s expected announcement on Monday. The signatories are the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL), GMB, National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT), NASUWT, National Education Union (NEU), National Governance Association (NGA), Sixth Form Colleges Association (SFCA), Unison, and Unite.

 

STATEMENT

 

We are committed to bringing all children and young people back into the classroom as soon as possible. However, it is counterproductive if there is a danger of causing another surge in the virus, and the potential for a further period of lockdown. Wider opening must be safe and sustainable.

 

We therefore urge the Prime Minister to commit to 8 March only if the scientific evidence is absolutely clear that this is safe, and at that point go no further than a phased return of children and young people with sufficient time to assess the impact before moving to the next phase.

 

We are increasingly concerned that the government is minded to order a full return of all pupils on Monday 8 March in England.

 

This would seem a reckless course of action. It could trigger another spike in Covid infections, prolong the disruption of education, and risk throwing away the hard-won progress made in suppressing the virus over the course of the latest lockdown.

 

The science around the role that schools play in the overall rate of transmission is uncertain. Scientists have expressed different views on this point. What we do know is that the full reopening of schools will bring nearly 10 million pupils and staff into circulation in England – close to one fifth of the population. This is not a small easing of lockdown restrictions. It is a massive step.

 

These factors necessitate a cautious approach with wider school and college opening phased over a period of time. This is the approach being taken in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It allows public health experts to assess the impact of the first phase before moving to the next.

 

None of this is intended to stand in the way of the full reopening of schools and colleges. On the contrary. It is intended as a prudent way forward to ensure that once they are fully open, they stay open.

NAHT calls on government to justify its belief that June 1st is a wise move

Paul Whiteman, general secretary of school leaders’ union NAHT said:

 Support for a fixed date for school return is vanishing quickly. What is needed now is local flexibility to determine when it is right for schools to open up to more pupils, informed by evidence of what is happening in their local area.

We have never expected certainty; all we have asked for is clarity. The publication of the evidence being used to inform the government's decision-making is an important step in achieving greater transparency.

We’ve now seen what evidence the government has been working with. We all want to see schools back as soon as possible, so NAHT has written again to the secretary of state for education today because we still need the government to explain why it has so strongly asserted that a return to school on 1 June is a wise thing to do.

The government needs to show greater flexibility and a willingness to take local circumstances into account. A robust test, trace and isolate policy is essential if we are to successfully return more pupils to school.

As results are announced keep the SATs in perspective - schools and children are much more than a test score

  Children’s author Michael Morpurgo, in a striking phrase, has referred to the SATs taken by 10 and 11 year olds as a ‘dark spider spreading fear in primary classrooms.’

Primary school headteachers were able to access their school’s results overnight and social media is buzzing with reactions.

The TES reports:

The government also published the tables which show how many marks are needed in each subject to reach a scaled score of 100, which is the “expected standard”.

This year pupils needed 26 out of 50 in reading, 57 out of 110 in maths and 36 out of 70 in spelling, punctuation and grammar (Spag) to reach the expected standard.

This compares to 21 out of 50 needed in reading last year, 60 out of 110 needed in maths and 43 out of 70 needed in Spag. The jump in the marks needed to pass the reading test comes after Year 6 teachers had reported that the reading test this year was “kinder” than it was in 2016.

The new tests were introduced last year and could not be compared with previous years. It would be a mistake to make too much of any comparison this year as leading experts suggest that the data is ‘too fragile’ to interpret with any confidence.


The TES reports Russell Hobby, General Secretary of the National Association of Headteachers:

Currently, the methods to hold schools to account aren’t as fair or reliable as they should be. Sats data only gives parents part of the picture when judging a pupil’s success or a school’s effectiveness.

At the moment, parents and schools know these results have to be taken with a pinch of salt. This can’t be right. Just looking at data misses the majority of the real work that schools do to help young people achieve their full potential.

Schools do need to be held to account but inspectors should look at more than just data. That way, when parents are reading Ofsted reports they can have more confidence that the report properly reflects how good the school actually is.

We are seeing the signs of a more balanced approach to the use of data by Ofsted, as expressed in a recent speech by Amanda Spielman, the chief inspector, in which she said, ‘Rather than just intensifying the focus on data, Ofsted inspections must explore what is behind the data, asking how results have been achieved.’

The issue of how results have been achieved is crucial.  Schools vary in their conduct of SATs and the amount of preparation. Concern about ‘teaching to the test’ in the last year of primary school, with a resulting narrowing of the curriculum and teachers and children feeling stressed by the pressure, has been widespread. Some schools hold special revision classes during the school holiday and others have endless practise tests.  Meanwhile children in private schools and those who are home-schooled escape the SATs completely.

Whatever one’s views we can probably all agree that schools and children are far more than a school. SAT results do not capture the many facets of a rich primary curriculum that will be familiar to many parents and that teachers struggle to provide despite all the pressure of SATs ‘success’.


 

Headteachers' review of the education policies of the three main parties

Ahead of tonight's Education Question Time at 6.30pm tonight at Queens Park Community School it is worth reading the National Association of Headteachers review of the three main parties education policies. It is a great pity that they do not consider the Green Party's views.

New reports comparing the general election manifestos from the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Education Policy Institute are published today. 

Commenting on these reports, Russell Hobby, general secretary of school leaders’ union NAHT said:

Education continues to be an important issue for voters in this election. Anyone with the best interests of children and young people at heart will be glad to see that all the major parties have devoted space to education in their manifestos. 

There are clear differences in policy and priority for the parties, so there’s plenty for parents, teachers and school leaders to think about. Older pupils, who may be voting for the first time, will also have a view.

Thanks to continued pressure by parents and schools, there is now cross-party recognition that school budgets are at breaking point. This is not a moment too soon because our research shows that seven out of ten school leaders believe their budgets will be untenable by the 2019/20 academic year. However, there are elements in all of the manifestos that will leave voters wondering how proposals will be funded and whether they will achieve the benefits to pupils that the parties claim.

NAHT had been focussing on five key priorities which we believe all parties should sign up to:

• To fund education fully and fairly, reversing the £3bn real terms cuts that schools are facing and providing enough money to make the new national funding formula a success.

• To put forward a national strategy for teacher recruitment and retention that recognises teachers as high-status professionals and guarantees enough teachers for every school.

• To adopt fair methods to hold schools to account, recognising that test and exam results are only part of the picture when judging a pupil’s success or a school’s effectiveness.

• To value a broad range of subjects in the school day so that pupils’ opportunities are not limited and they are properly prepared for adult life.

• To make sure that schools are supported by health and social care services to allow schools to fulfil their role to promote pupil wellbeing rather than making up for cuts to other services.

So far over 150 parliamentary candidates have signed up including Tim Farron, Leader of the Liberal Democrats, Angela Rayner, Shadow Secretary of State for Education, and Natalie Bennett, former leader of the Green Party. Ed Miliband, the former Labour leader has also signed up. To date, no Conservative candidates have signed up. The list of signatories is continually being updated, and can be found here. 

Funding

Mr Hobby said: “Funding is still the number one issue in education, without sufficient cash, schools will always struggle to implement any new or established policies. The rest of the debate about education begins and ends with that fact. It is welcome, for instance, that both Labour and the Liberal Democrats have proposed to address the current reductions in real terms funding for post-16 education, which have left the 16 to 18 phase relatively underfunded compared to secondary school education. It is time for the whole education system to be given the investment it so desperately needs.”

Recruitment

Mr Hobby said: “Disappointingly, there is not much from any of the parties on how to solve the teacher recruitment crisis. Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats have pledged to abolish the 1 per cent public sector pay cap, which would certainly help, but the Conservatives have not made any commitments to remove the cap, which is likely to cause teacher pay to continue to decline in real and relative terms, making it a less attractive career choice. Guaranteeing enough high quality teachers for every school is a sufficiently complicated and important enough requirement to demand that the government takes overall responsibility for it by implementing a national strategy.”

Accountability

Mr Hobby said: “Whilst there are some areas of concern, England’s schools are overwhelmingly of a high quality. School leaders have earned the right to fair methods to hold schools to account, recognising that test and exam results are only part of the picture when judging a pupil’s success or a school’s effectiveness. Narrow, high stakes accountability causes activity damage. The Conservatives’ plans to increase accountability at Key Stage 3, demonstrate an unwillingness to build a fair system and will dismay many school leaders. Reducing the target for participation in the English Baccalaureate from 90 per cent to 75 per cent merely proves how arbitrary that target was and we will continue to campaign to see this dropped altogether. 

“Whilst all three parties are pledging to reform assessment in primary schools, Labour have made an explicit commitment to abolish any baseline assessments. As the EPI says, the development of a new baseline assessment does need to be handled with care, but it is disappointing that Labour have ruled out further examination of its possibilities, given its potential to provide a measure of pupil progress over the entire course of primary school. We would urge all three parties to build on the significant impact that our ‘Redressing the Balance’ report has had on the assessment and accountability debate.”

Mental Health

Mr Hobby said: “There is cross-party consensus of the need to make significant changes to children and young people’s mental health services, which is welcome. Although recognition must be given to the increasing contribution that schools are making to support the mental health needs of pupils, there can be no expectation on any school to provide health and social care services funded from the school budget. NAHT does not believe that it is fair for schools to be held to account for mental wellbeing when their efforts are so dependent on the quality and availability of other services that young people need.”

Students with Special Needs

Mr Hobby said: “In terms of the way the education system works for every student, regardless of who they are, both Labour and the Liberal Democrats have also outlined strategies in their manifestos specifically directed towards the needs of pupils with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND). With a significant gap in attainment scores for SEND and non-SEND pupils, they risk being left behind. These commitments are therefore welcome. In contrast, the Conservatives have made no reference to the needs of pupils with SEND in their manifesto, which is extremely disappointing.”

Narrowing the Gap

Mr Hobby concluded: “All the main parties state that they want to improve things for pupils who come from less well-off families but their chosen methods are very different. Much has been made of the two most high profile Conservative Party priorities; the end of Universal Infant Free School Meals and the return of selective education. Ending the school meals entitlement for infants after only three years and without a proper evaluation of the project takes a much too short term view of the issue. Almost a million children will be affected, so we believe the entitlement should be retained. It is likely that ending the universal entitlement will reduce economies of scale and further damage school budgets. 

“The plans to offer free breakfasts instead have not been costed properly and do not include additional funding in order to meet upfront costs, increased demand and the need for additional staffing. Labour and Liberal Democrat plans to expand free school meals to all primary students are noble but will only work if funding is sufficient and the all the practicalities of simultaneously feeding a greater number of pupils have been taken into account.

“NAHT does not support any plans to expand grammar schools. As the EPI states in its report today, pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds are seriously under-represented in grammar schools and additional selective schools have no significant net positive or negative impact on pupil attainment - instead they modestly redistribute educational attainment towards the small number who gain entry to grammar schools and away from the much larger proportion of children who do not. Pupils from black and minority ethnic families are particularly ill served by grammar schools, which cannot be a good thing for social mobility of cohesion.”

You can read our summary of the main parties’ manifestos here. 

(Note it is a pity the NAHT did not include the radical Green Party policy for education here)

School funding crisis - headteachers issue campaign video

Primary assessment: NAHT call for end of Key Stage 1 statutory assessments and broader judgement of school effectiveness

The National Association of Headteachers (NAHT) yesterday published the Assessment Review Group's report on primary assessment. The Group was set up in May 2016 so this is speedy work that reflects the great concern from parents and teachers about last year's chaos around SATs and the new curriculum, teacher and pupil stress and the narrowing of the primary curriculum through the domination of high stakes testing. The report does not go as far as seeking the abolition of Key Stage 2 SATs, a demand that arose from teachers and parents last year, but it does argue for the end of Key Stage 1 SATs.

The report, LINK claims it is a contribution to the process of seeking a consensus around how to 'redress the balance' and suggests :

Have two statutory assessment points for primary pupils 

Statutory assessment in primary school should be restricted to two points, Reception and Year 6, in order to create the space in between for schools to focus on delivering a broad and balanced curriculum, appropriate to the needs of all children. Throughout the primary phase, schools should be free to determine their own processes and procedures for pupil assessment, informed by widely available evidence of best practice, that allows teachers to maximise pupil learning and progress. 

High stakes testing narrows the focus of the curriculum to that which is tested. The group do not believe statutory testing should be used by the government to influence teaching, learning and pedagogy. The various screening checks deployed by the government, including phonics and the proposed multiplication tests, should instead become part of the national sampling framework.

Introduce a start of primary school statutory assessment 

In order to establish a baseline from which to measure progress, teachers would carry out an observation-based assessment during a child’s first year in primary school. This should take the form of a single, nationally agreed assessment to avoid a repetition of the problems experienced in 2015/16. We anticipate that a moderation process would be necessary to support this. Great care would need to be taken when designing such an assessment, with significant input from Early Years experts. It is important that the results of this assessment should not be used to set targets for individual pupils or as a predictor of their future progress. Instead, the data from this baseline should be used solely as part of a cohort level measure of progress at school, local and national level. 

Whilst it was relatively clear that the end point would be the summer term of year six, agreeing on the best ‘start point’ or baseline proved one of the most challenging issues the group faced. There was general agreement that the initial assessment or ‘start point’ should be as early as possible in a child’s time in school, in order to take full account of the progress they make throughout their primary schooling. There is much to consider regarding any baseline assessment and these issues are outlined later in this report. 

Remove end of Key Stage One statutory assessments 

In the proposed model there would be two statutory assessment points. One at the start of a child’s time in primary school and one at the end. The key measure arising from statutory assessment should be the progress children make between these two points therefore end of Key Stage 1 assessments should be removed as a statutory requirement. 

Streamline and improve Key Stage Two statutory assessments 

At the end of year six, in the medium term, we envisage statutory assessments in reading, maths and writing would continue in some form. Reading and maths would continue to be assessed through a national test, externally set and marked. Writing would remain teacher assessed through an improved system that focuses on the overall quality of a child’s writing rather than the component parts. Early evidence suggests that comparative judgement may provide a workable and valid alternative to current arrangements for teacher assessment of writing. 
 
Make statutory tests accessible and enable pupils to show progress 

Statutory assessments and tests must be designed in such a way that the majority of children are able to access them. At the very least, tests should be structured so that the questions, and where appropriate any texts, appear in order of difficulty. Serious consideration should be given to removing the hard time limits for statutory assessments, particularly in reading, and replacing these with a minimum and maximum time limit so that children can focus on demonstrating what they can do rather than test technique. Inevitably there is likely to be a very small proportion of children with more significant special educational needs who are not able to access the tests. The Rochford Review has offered some interesting and potentially useful recommendations in this specific area which should be considered fully. 

Introduce national sampling and assessment banks 

Within this model, the government would have the option of carrying out national sampling if there were a need to monitor standards in particular subjects or aspects of the curriculum. The data produced through sampling should be used to gain an understanding of national standards. It should not be used to hold individual schools to account but could provide national data against which schools can evaluate themselves. In the long term, there is potential for national sampling to replace the current model where every pupil takes every test at the end of Key Stage 2. 

All schools would be expected to have robust assessment processes in place and to be able to explain how they use these to support pupils’ learning, to identify and intervene where pupils are falling behind, and to report to parents. Schools should be mindful of the recommendations made in the Commission on Assessment Without Levels Final Report when designing such processes (DfE, 2015). To support teachers and schools, a national bank of assessment materials should be made available. Such resources would also help teachers in assessing the progress children are making against national expectations.
Report pupil performance as a score on the national scale 

The terminology used to describe pupils’ attainment in 2016 (working towards the expected standard, working at the expected standard or working at greater depth within the expected standard) was unhelpful, arbitrary and demotivating. Such an approach also fails to recognise and celebrate the progress that a significant group of pupils have made. The group were particularly concerned about the effect on those pupils who, despite making significant progress, could only be judged to be working below expectations at both the end of Key Stage 1 and the end of Key Stage 2. Stopping the use of such terms and simply reporting a child’s scaled score would be a positive step forwards. 

Accept data is only one part of the picture of school effectiveness 

It is important to reiterate that this model should be viewed in light of the overarching recommendation that any data produced from such statutory assessments should be seen as only one element when judging school effectiveness. Schools should not be held to account on the basis of this data alone. It is also important to  recognise that such statutory assessments will never be able to capture all aspects of a child’s progress or all the different ways in which a school contributes to the progress a child makes. 

No one single set of results should lead to negative consequences for the school. All data should be considered over a rolling three year period. There needs to be a recognition that cohorts of pupils vary; a dip in results in one year does not necessarily equate to a decline in school effectiveness. Basing interventions on such a short-term approach is unlikely to be helpful or indeed valid. 

End floor and coasting standards as determinants of intervention 

The use of floor standards and coasting standards to determine intervention in individual schools should be stopped. Instead there should be a greater level of dialogue between schools and those that seek to hold them to account, including RSCs. The starting point should be a discussion around the data to understand the context and story behind it. Any intervention at this point should be supportive, recognise the knowledge and understanding of the professionals working within the school and be based on working with the existing leadership team in the school. 

In an ideal world, data from assessments should be used as part of the inspection process. The results of the inspection may, if appropriate, trigger supportive intervention, and the RSCs (Regional School Commissioners) should base their work on the inspection results rather than independent evaluations. This streamlines the accountability system without reducing rigour, inserts the necessary expert judgement into the process, reduces conflict and duplication, and minimises the level of fear and uncertainty.

The report  makes the case for a separation of the statutory assessment and the school's own internal assessment procedures and calls for an emphasis on assessment to help children progress further - something that SATS do not do.

It is all too easy for statutory assessment to become entangled with in-school assessment - particularly when schools are driven to predict and provide data on future performance in statutory assessments. Under these conditions, in-school assessments inevitably take on the form of statutory assessments, in order to produce compatible data, however inappropriate this form may be to support teaching and learning. We should shift away from predictions of future performance and focus more on capturing accurate pictures of current performance of pupils against expected standards for their age. This has a major impact on what data should and shouldn’t be asked for. 

The core focus of assessment should be on supporting learning, not simply tracking progress. To help maximise the progress children make, we should expect all schools to have highly effective and robust assessment processes in place. These are entirely separate from statutory assessments but should give a clear sense of how children are progressing, and how they can be supported to progress further. Such information should allow teachers and school leaders to identify which children need additional support or challenge and in which specific areas.

The reports quotes rsearch on the impact of children's background on the level of achievement, including level of education and earnings:

Research therefore supports the fact that judgement of a school’s success or failure on the basis of statutory tests is unjust and unreliable. No intervention should be triggered on the basis of test data alone. Rather, the results from statutory assessments should trigger further discussion leading to a qualitative expert judgement. We should also remember that superficially good test results can be achieved at a high price in terms of curriculum breadth, extra-curricular activity, pupil welfare and school sustainability - none of which are evident in the raw data. Over reliance on data is simply naive and in some instances dangerous.

Last year's changes made many pupils feel that they were failures and the report tackles this head on:

A basic expectation of any assessment system is that it should recognise the progress made by all children. The current interim framework and assessment materials fail to do this. Simplistic, overarching labels such as ‘working below the expected standard’ mean that the progress of too many children is ignored and too many children are effectively labelled as failing and the cumbersome bureaucratic language does not conceal this perception from pupils or their families. This is not only unhelpful to the school but it also sends entirely the wrong message to our pupils, potentially having an impact on their future motivation.

The report calls for a recognition of the unfairness of judging schools on attainment data alone: 

Whilst any form of data from statutory assessment alone should not be used to judge school effectiveness, if such data is to be used as part of the wider picture when holding individual schools to account then the fairest way to do this is by focusing on the progress pupils make. Attainment is important and all teachers want as many children as possible to reach the highest standards. However, when it comes to holding schools to account, it would be grossly unfair to base comparisons on attainment when children’s starting points can be so different.

Nick Brook, Deputy Geberal Secretary of the NAHT concludes by focusing on how the wider picture will impact on any reform of assessment :

Firstly, we must look again at how data from statutory assessment is used to hold
schools to account. Over-reliance on statutory assessment data raises the stakes of testing and ultimately distorts curriculum emphasis and outcomes. Unless we address some of the worst aspects of the current accountability system, including acceptance
of the inherent limitations of data, even the most sensible assessment arrangements will become skewed. Floor and coasting standards cast a shadow of fear over many schools and school leaders. Poor test results can trigger an avalanche of interventions, based on
a presumption of school failure, which are distracting at best and career ending at worst. It is easy to understand why schools in this shadow struggle to recruit teachers and leaders. There needs to be better join-up amongst those that hold schools to account and a more constructive approach to intervention. Most importantly, we need to replace the presumption of failure with an expectation of support.

Secondly, better governance of the assessment system is needed, leading to a stable, proportionate cycle of design, evaluation and implementation for every national assessment. Effective national test design is a complex skill which requires careful thought and substantial evaluation. The scale of national assessments in a system the size of England means that effective implementation of change is a major challenge in itself. Frequent reforms and constant tinkering around the edges can therefore have a negative impact on quality.

Thirdly, assessment for learning is not an intuitive skill possessed by all. There needs to be substantial investment in the training and development of staff in schools if this is to be done universally well. Not all schools or academy chains will have in-house expertise to draw upon and external support will come at a cost. We know that school budgets are already at and beyond breaking point, following real-term cuts since 2010. More resources are required. Additionally, the development of national assessment banks will require investment to ensure the highest quality materials are available to schools. These cost pressures should however be offset by savings achieved by reducing the amount of statutory testing required within these proposals.

The new Secretary of State, Justine Greening, has shown a desire to listen and a willingness to set right mistakes of recent years. With political will and genuine engagement with the profession these challenges are far from insurmountable.

NAHT's 'broad and balanced' curriculum policy welcome and timely

There has been much concern about the narrowing of the school curriculum as a result of high stakes testing so the 'Broad and balanced curriculum statement' recently adopted by the  the National Association of Headteachers Executive is very welcome and timely.

There are similarities with the Green Party's curriculum policy and the commitment to high quality PSHE (Personal, Social and Health Education) is particularly welcome, as is the the declaration that the curriculum should not be 'distorted or restricted by external pressures of teaching and accountability.'

A broad and balanced curriculum
NAHT policy position for England and Northern Ireland

NAHT is working to ensure that the curriculum supports the learning, progress and success of all pupils and is not distorted or restricted by external pressures of testing and accountability.

NAHT supports the principle that a broad and balanced curriculum promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils and prepares pupils at the school for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of later life.

In experiencing a broad and balanced curriculum all pupils should be given opportunities to:

•    Develop their skills in English, Maths and Science; 


•    Develop their knowledge and understanding of the world we live in, the 
environment, different religions and cultures, a foreign language, technology, 
computing, music and the creative arts; 


•    Participate in sport and physical activity; 


•    Engage in high quality PSHE; 


•    Develop positive character traits including resilience, communication, 
teamwork, problem solving and empathy; 


•    Develop positive attributes including high self-esteem, positive emotional and 
mental health, tolerance, managing risk, respect and ambition. 
Such a broad and balanced curriculum should: 


•    Encourage high aspirations and expectations for all; 


•    Enable pupils to become successful, lifelong, autonomous learners and 
responsible citizens; 


•    Be motivational and engage pupils in both the process and the content of 
learning; 


•    Promote an enquiring and creative approach; 


•    Include learning that takes place both inside and outside of the classroom 
and the school day; 


•    Enable pupils to achieve their potential; 


•    Be able to respond to individual needs and talents and to provide increasing 
opportunities for choice and responsibility; 


•    Be planned to reflect local needs in order to ensure it is relevant to the lives of 
the pupils; 


•    Build on the pupil’s own experiences, interests and strengths and help to 
develop their sense of identity as local, national and global citizens; 


•    Celebrate individuality and the broad range of pupil success in all areas.