Education piece-The post- SAT aftermath-How are schools reacting to their newfound freedom?

Since SATs were introduced by the Tories in 1993, the only consistency they have managed to maintain is that of criticism and incompetence. The debacle last year, courtesy of QCA’s decision to outsource the assessment to a private US company ETS, led to students being marked as absent when they had sat the exam, unmarked scripts being returned to schools and papers even returned to the wrong schools. These mistakes were not isolated: they were an epidemic.

The Government was left with no choice but to abandon compulsory testing at KS3 in October 2008. This was met with uproarious applause; former Ofsted lay inspector, Margaret Morrisey claimed it was the ‘first sensible thing Mr Balls has done since becoming Schools Secretary.’ Many felt that the decision did not go far enough and that SATs at KS2 should have been culled as well.
This did not happen and, upon the sacking of ETS, QCA announced that Edexcel would resume its assessment of 11 year olds. It is worrying that the contract was signed before the finer details were agreed upon. The hasty implementation of this new(ish) system could lead to further incompetence. With the ambitious target of releasing 99.9% of the results on time, Edexcel are going to be under immense pressure to make the grade. Educational expert, Mike Baker, has even labelled results day, 7th July, as “D-Day” for the National Curriculum.
Published at the end of 2008, The Sutherland report did not really reveal anything that the analysts (and most of the 11-14 year olds) hadn’t worked out for themselves. ETS were held accountable, as were QCA for not being able to cope with the remit. It was deemed that QCA was not capable of acting as an independent watchdog. This will now become the responsibility of new body, Ofqual, although their ties to Government may still make objectivity difficult to achieve.
QCA’s Chief Executive attempted to resign but this was not recognised by QCA and he is currently suspended pending further inquiry. While we all like to have someone to blame, this does not really help schools work out what they do from here. From a long term planning perspective, the carpet had been ripped from underneath them, although granted it was a shabby, tired one.
On the 13th January, the Chief Adviser on School Standards, Sue Hackman, composed a letter detailing the Government’s plans for KS3 in 2009. Whilst schools may choose to internally assess pupils at the end of year 7, 8 and 9, none of these tests will result in any kind of accountably. Schools are required to enter teacher assessments both locally and nationally but no system of moderation has been proposed. The QCA will still be providing optional tests for schools who wish to take them internally. Schools were also reminded that they could choose to squash KS3 into year 7/8, freeing up year 9 for exciting things like GCSE preparation.
Upon reading this, many HODs turned the paper over, waiting for the BUT…that never materialised. It certainly seems as though schools are being given much more freedom to tailor their curriculum at KS3 to suit individual needs.
These measures have still been met with criticism. Even though it remains compulsory to study Shakespeare at KS3, The RSC became troubled when, post October 2008, 50% of teachers cancelled their courses on KS3 teaching. They feared that many schools may abuse their new found freedom by marginalising Shakespeare. Their main concern: ‘there is no effective way of mandating practice in schools.’ may be increasingly echoed as the dust settles.
In response to The RSC’s doubts, teachers have argued that no school would entertain pushing Shakespeare to the sidelines. Courses may have been cancelled because they generally tend to concentrate on the two set scenes that pupils would have been examined on. Pupils now have the opportunity to study plays in their entirety, without the need to quash enthusiasm by force feeding them two scenes line by line. English departments can also choose any tragedy, comedy or history, allowing teachers to play to their strengths rather than choose from the paltry three works that are normally on offer. This lovely notion does unfortunately depend on having a bottomless budget, not an option for many departments. Most schools would have bought all of their SAT resources for 2009 at the end of the previous academic year.
Given the lack of notice, how much can schools really change their approach in the short term? The easy option would be to continue with the planned syllabus and sift out any specific elements that have previously made staff lose the will to live. It may be a year of tentative tinkering where schools behave like animals that have been released from captivity. Those that have ordered the 2009 exam from QCA have the option to cancel their order and it will be interesting to see how many choose to persevere and use the test internally. If a mass exodus occurs, it will be a clear indication that it was not only the assessment of the National Curriculum tests that was at fault.
Another anxiety is, in the absence of national testing, how can any sense of standardisation be achieved across the country? It will be virtually impossible to ascertain that a level 6 means the same thing in Sheffield as it does in The Isle of Sheppey. With no formal moderation, schools are being given significant powers to decide on how they translate the “modified” NC levels. It is difficult to be entirely confident that schools will level accurately and not think of their place in the (now fairly meaningless) league tables. If these assessments inform the data for predicted GCSE results, it is also worrying that teachers’ future performance management targets may be based on inaccurate levelling.
It is unfair to argue that the Government has not anticipated this. From April, every LEA should have a National Strategy Consultant ready to assist schools that are experiencing difficulties with assessment. When key schools’ pilot training schemes have finished, they will also be able to offer support to other schools in their area. Nevertheless, it is hard to say whether these procedures will provide enough support.
The abolishment of SATs at KS3 was not foreseen when the new year 7 National Curriculum launched last September but it now allows for a complementary freedom across the three years. The personalised ethos based on developing successful learners, confident individuals and responsible citizens fits perfectly with the new autonomy that has been bestowed upon schools. Many schools have already started revising SOWs, trying to develop coherency both within their own subjects and in a cross curricular sense. They will now be able to continue this sense of fluency throughout KS3. Although this will involve hard work for teachers, they will begin to see the results of updating their curriculum this year and this will remind everyone of the need to make learning relevant to all students.
Despite the worries, this is positive progression away from the SAT albatross and towards a bald eagle of opportunity. The only possible cloud on the horizon is that the Government has a team of experts presently constructing a report due to be published this spring. Let’s hope that their findings don’t burst our bubble.