A new online survey of members of the National Education Union reveals fears that the government’s commitment to keep in place all current primary tests, as well as adding a statutory reading test in Year 8, will narrow the curriculum and worsen student wellbeing.
The snapshot survey of 1,136 teachers in primary and secondary settings was conducted on 10 November, just days after the publication of Building a world-class curriculum for all, the final report of the Curriculum and Assessment Review (CAR). The Department for Education (DfE) has broadly accepted its recommendations.
The NEU member survey found:
- 75 per cent of primary school teachers who responded believe that keeping all statutory assessments will worsen student engagement and wellbeing;
- Over half (56 per cent) believe that the decision to keep all statutory assessment in primary schools will further narrow the curriculum. Just 4 per cent believe it will help to broaden the curriculum.
- A large majority of primary respondents (86 per cent) said that SATs worsen student engagement. Hardly any (1.4 per cent) agreed that Year 6 SATs support a broad and balanced curriculum.
- Three fifths of secondary teacher respondents (60 per cent) believe that the newly announced Year 8 reading test will reduce the time available in the curriculum for other subjects, thus narrowing it further.
- 60 per cent of secondary teachers responding to the survey also told us that an increased reliance on exam-only assessment will fail to reflect what students are capable of.
The results cast doubt over whether the government’s focus on testing, which goes further than the Review’s recommendations, is compatible with the asserted aim of a “broad and balanced curriculum.” It is clear to the profession that the primary assessment system is damaging and counterproductive for learning, and that a new test in Year 8 will undermine any efforts to broaden the secondary curriculum.
Primary Schools
NEU teacher members were asked about the government decision to retain all statutory assessments in primary schools. Members who work in this phase answered a series of questions.
| What effect do you think this will have on the curriculum? | |
| It will broaden the curriculum | 4% |
| It will narrow the curriculum | 56% |
| No change | 40% |
Respondents see little to no prospect of the curriculum benefiting from the decision to retain all tests. One told us, “I have seen how detrimental formal assessments can be for some pupils. I have also seen the pressure SATs put on hard working, highly skilled educators. Consequently, the pressure of SATs outcomes has narrowed the curriculum, due to the pressure of assessment outcomes. This is especially prevalent in schools within socio-economic deprived areas and impacts on some of the most vulnerable pupils!”
This comment was well supported by the findings of the next question:
| What effect do you think this will have on student wellbeing and engagement? | |
| It will improve wellbeing and engagement | 2% |
| It will worsen wellbeing and engagement | 75% |
| No change | 24% |
This was particularly acute for respondents who work in schools in areas with the highest levels of deprivation, where 83 per cent felt that wellbeing and engagement would worsen. One despaired that “an opportunity to make the curriculum less onerous on children and more engaging is [being] squandered.”
For the next question, primary school members were reminded that the government has now committed to keeping SATs in place. In the form of a multiple-choice question, they were asked
| What impact do you think SATs have on your students? | |
| They damage attainment | 56% |
| They improve wellbeing and engagement | 0.4% |
| They narrow the curriculum | 81% |
| They support a broad and balanced curriculum | 1.4% |
| They support attainment | 12% |
| They worsen wellbeing and engagement | 86% |
Startlingly few respondents (0.4 per cent) held the opinion that SATs in primary schools improve wellbeing and engagement. One respondent spoke of their disappointment that the DfE was “continuing to invest in high-stakes testing when we know how inaccurate it is and when we’re dealing with unprecedented levels of mental health difficulties in children.” Another added: “There are better ways to assess the children, across a breadth of the curriculum without impacting other subjects or their emotional wellbeing in the process.”
Secondary Schools
The Curriculum and Assessment review recommended non-statutory diagnostic assessment of English and Maths skills in Year 8. However, the government went further than the recommendations of the CAR’s final report by opting to make the reading test statutory.
As part of our snapshot survey, members working in secondary schools were asked about the government’s decision to introduce a reading assessment for Year 8 students.
| What impact will this have on the curriculum? | |
| It will increase curriculum time for other subjects | 5% |
| It will reduce curriculum time for other subjects | 60% |
| No change | 35% |
One respondent told us that, in their view, “Introducing reading assessments at Year 8 will be incredibly damaging. Teachers continually assess progress and already know where the gaps are." Another warned that “Teaching to a Year 8 test will sap any joy out of reading for children who are at the age where that becomes a problem.”
Generations of teachers are familiar with the role statutory assessments play in school life; that they exist not to support attainment or progress, but to support accountability. One told us that the government’s priorities were in the wrong place: “Reading is already being stifled because of the limited texts offered at GCSE - we need to expand the curriculum offer to be more inclusive and reflective of our students.”
Secondary members were then asked about the government’s intention to decrease exam time by 2.5 to 3 hours, while still being reliant solely on exam-only assessment.
| Do you think your students will be able to demonstrate what they’re capable of? | |
| No impact | 12% |
| Students will be able to fully show what they are capable of | 28% |
| Students will not be able to show all they’re capable of | 60% |
Once more, this reflected significant concern that the government was failing to meet the challenge of ensuring that students’ abilities are accurately captured. Several told us, “Bring back coursework for core subjects.” One added, “Terminal exams are hopelessly ineffective ways to measure actual skill and attainment.” Another bemoaned that government reforms were “all about outcomes, as usual, rather than the whole child!”
Commenting on the findings of the survey, Daniel Kebede, general secretary of the National Education Union, said:
“Broadening the curriculum matters. A top-down ‘exam factory’ culture and a stifling curriculum have, up to now, resulted in high rates of mental ill-health among young people, the choice of subjects at secondary being reduced, and a level of disengagement that can lead to classroom disruption and truancy.
“The Curriculum and Assessment Review was an opportunity to address the elephant in the room. Scrapping the EBacc, improving representation across the curriculum, and addressing over-crammed curriculum content are all positive steps towards that goal.
“Sadly, the panel’s work was undermined by a government intent on sticking with the tried and over-tested. In March it pre-empted the Review’s conclusions by indicating it would keep all statutory primary assessments. In putting its thumb on the scale, the government blew the opportunity to re-set education and eradicate the mistakes and tick-box obsessions of past governments.
"There is still time to change approach. Government must stop, look and listen. If they are serious about young people and unleashing opportunity, then that starts with the curriculum. It is clear that the current strategy of yet more assessment will do nothing to broaden the curriculum. This is the very opposite of what parents and the profession want to see.”