A Study of National Curriculum Testing Across the Interface at Key Stage 2/Key Stage 3.

Dr Stephen W Ellis

Manchester Metropolitan University

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference

(September 11-14 1997: University of York)

This paper explores the variation of curriculum and assessment practice which has been developed in both Primary and Secondary schools since 1988. The empirical study elicited the views and experiences of children, parents and teachers.

Introduction

In September of 1995 Year Six children transferred from Primary schools into the Secondary sector. This is an annual migration of children. However, the difference in 1995 was that these children had studied National Curriculum Programmes of study (in the core subjects’) for the previous six years, and carried with them test level results from 1991 (Key Stage 1), together with the recent test levels from 1995 (Key Stage 2). These were the first children to emerge out of the National Curriculum system first setup in 1988.

Research aims

Whilst earlier research has examined the process of national testing at key stage 1 (Shorrocks et al., 1993a: West et al., 1994). My study focussed on the implementation of the Key Stage 2 National tests which were first administered in 1995. Two main research questions framed this study:

What effect has National Curriculum assessment had on individuals involved in the school system?

How is information about the continuous and progressive experience of the individual child processed across the primary/secondary phases? In particular information relating to National Curriculum assessment.

Methods

Data collection fell naturally into two phases, the Primary School Phase (interviews with children, teachers and the tests of summer 1995/96) and the Secondary School Phase (children transferring into Secondary in September 1995, interviews with teachers and parents from January-May 1996).

The sample frame comprised a total of six primary schools (large, medium and small/rural /urban mix) together with their six main feeder secondary schools from one LEA. There was no control over the selection of secondary schools, they were simply identified as the main feeder to which the majority of the children interviewed in primary school transferred at the end of key stage 2. The children (200 in total) were interviewed in groups (6 per group/20 mins. duration/May-July 1995) in the primary schools and then reinterviewed in the secondary schools (Sept-Dec. 1995). It was not possible to reinterview the total cohort first identified in the primary schools as the children had moved on to a number of different secondary schools. In addition in-depth semi-structured interviews (1-2 hrs. duration) were conducted with teachers (six primary/six secondary) and parents.

All the interviews conducted for the purpose of this research were tape recorded. Very few problems were encountered with seeking permission from respondents to tape conversations. Once the tape was running respondents simply forgot the machine was being used. In fact, using the tape recorder engendered a sense of formality and signalled to the respondents that what they had to say was important and worthwhile. The tape-recorder was also used to record ‘diary notes’ immediately after sessions. This helped to reinforce the context and issues discussed and provided detailed information on the research process. The process of reflecting and rationalising on past events also helped when there were problems, or situations became difficult. The information was later used in the analysis of the data.

The Analysis of the Interviews

The process of analysis was based on ‘Fifteen stages of phenomenological analysis from ‘transcription’ to ‘composite summary’. McLeod (1994:89-93) simplifies these categories into ‘five fundamental ideas’. These include: immersion, categorisation, phenomenological reduction, triangulation and interpretation:

Stage 1: Immersion. The researcher intensely reads or listens to material, assimilating as much of the explicit and implicit meaning as possible.

Stage 2: Categorisation. Systematically working through the data, assigning coding categories or identifying meanings within the various segments/units of the ‘text’.

Stage 3: Phenomenological Reduction. Questioning or interrogating the meanings or categories that have been developed. Are there any other ways of looking at the data?

Stage 4: Triangulation. Sorting through the categories. Deciding which categories are recurring and central and which are less significant or invalid or mistaken.

Stage 5: Interpretation. Making sense of the data from a wider perspective. Constructing a model, or using an established theory to explicate the findings of the study.

(Mcleod, 1994:90).

The adoption of this five stage process for the purposes of the research analysis, provided a relatively simple yet manageable framework from which the data collected could be interpreted.

Results

The focus of this paper is based on evidence drawn from the children, teachers and parents as they moved from Primary school into the Secondary sector in 1995. The children were asked to reflect on their perceptions and experiences of this process, and to comment on the effects and uses of national testing in Summer 1995. I shall discuss four main issues:

Defining the purposes of assessment: National testing at Key Stage 2.

National tests and the impact on curriculum delivery at Key Stage 2.

Issues of transfer and the use of National test results in Primary and Secondary schools.

The status and state of Teacher Assessment.

Defining the Purposes of Assessment

Not surprisingly the children in this sample were not really aware of the broader political implications of testing, and were content to think more in terms of individual experiences and performances. The immediate prospect of real examinations overrode any exploration of the question ‘why are we doing these tests?’ Instead, they were comfortable with the idea of the test levels being used for the allocation of ability bands once they went to Secondary school. Jenny (aged 11) described her feelings:

‘..testing is a good idea because it helps when you go to High School...they put you in different bands...we feel that we’ve been successful at the tests’. (Westfield CP, July, 1995).

Jonathon (aged 12) had this to say on the tests:

‘..its nice to know how well you have done...that if you get a level 4 this is the average for children in Britain. It means that we are reasonably intelligent...the High School is going to put us in mixed classes and then test us at the end of the year. So why do we need to be tested in the Primary school?’. (Woodlands CP, July, 1995).

Here, the purposes of the tests were linked in their minds to the prospect of transfer, in much the same way as the old 11+ was used in the 1970s. The results of testing were connected to the idea of academic progress in the Secondary school.

The children were clear on the language used in the system and could comment on most aspects, including the origins of the National Curriculum and especially the level system. A minority were familiar with the idea of league tables. Despite this, many of the children could see little purpose in the systematic accumulation of levels as they moved from one Key Stage to the next. Intrinsically there was no pay-off for them other than the prospect of more tests.

Conversely parents found it difficult to discuss the system, confusing both nomenclature and the purpose of assessment. This was despite perceiving a strong pressure for their children to do well in the tests. Many parents were of the opinion that the purpose of the tests was to measure teacher and school performance by the construction of league tables. One well informed parent had some difficulty in defining what a level actually was , and what it could be used for:

‘...basically its looking at a range of levels of attainment, I forget how many... and that you’ve got an expectation of what children at various key points would be achieving in terms of a range of average, below average etc. for their age...a level is the child being able to achieve certain skills.... the levels don’t really tell you a great deal’. (Parent, May, 1996).

The teachers were also convinced that the purpose of the tests was related to individual teacher and school performance. Many were clear on the significance and importance of the testing arrangements. However, philosophically they reacted in one of two ways: first, despite their unease with the assessment system, teachers were prepared to compromise their philosophical and professional stance for the sake of the children. This group of teachers wanted to do a professional job, to enable the children to achieve despite acknowledging the limitations with the system. Second, some Head Teachers could see little point in the system and remained unconvinced that testing is an effective measure of standards. They therefore adopted a minimalist approach in terms of preparation. This may have disadvantaged the children in terms of test performance, but enabled the teachers to keep their professional integrity intact.

This type of approach was only found in a minority of schools in 1995, while there was considerable evidence to suggest that by Summer 1996 it had all but disappeared and been replaced by a competitive examination culture not untypical for a Secondary school.

The Key Stage Two Tests and the Curriculum

Teacher observations on the tests in both 1995 and 1996 support the view that the overall validity of the test questions was satisfactory. Many reported that their Teacher Assessment linked comfortably with the test results obtained by individuals. There was some concern over the format of the questions, which failed to link to any published schemes available. Teachers reported that they had developed sufficient expertise to be able to ‘teach to the test’ and that this was now common practice and ensured maximum potential outcome for each child.

One Deputy Head commented that:

‘...we had no chance to open the papers this year, despite them being here two or three weeks before. I don’t know how they’re going to present the tests this year (1996). I’m being straight with you, I’ve prepared them for the tests. We’ve looked at old papers etc., we want to out-perform the other Primary schools in this area. Looking through the papers after the tests, it was a shock to see how some of the children had answered certain of the questions. I don’t know what scores we’ve got; not as good in science as last year. I always assess each child’s performance before posting the scripts to the external. On the whole I quite like the challenge of the tests. It is a pressure, it would be more fun teaching without it, but I’ve got more work covered in the past two years than if the tests had not been there. It’s sharpened me up because I can’t afford to leave an area of maths or science uncovered’. (Castle CP, May, 1996).

Teachers indicated that they anticipated changes to their teaching before the statutory tests in 1996. In this sense, the tests were being used to support curriculum review (SCAA, 1995c). However, the main effect noted on the curriculum was that testing only took part on a small section of the overall curriculum. The danger here is that this small part will come to dominate the core curriculum. Teachers would be presented with the dilemma of preparing children for the tests while at the same time acknowledging the narrow nature of curriculum delivery. The evidence also suggests that the non-core subjects are being squeezed at the edges, as teachers fail to resolve the tension between providing a broad and balanced curriculum and snap-shot, ‘high stakes’ testing in the core subjects (ERA, 1988).

The evidence from this research suggests that children are aware of the existence of the tests, anything up to a year before, and that preparation begins in earnest from Easter onwards. The children reported that they were involved in preparation which included weekly tests, homework linked to the tests, mock examinations in class, and the use of pilot papers from previous years. Many of the children were busy with systematic revision at home with parents, sisters and brothers. Holly (aged 11) commented that:

‘I revised all weekend before the tests. If a friend asked me to play I refused.....I worked until I wanted to stop or have my tea. It was continuous. I had a piece of paper and I kept looking at it. My mum gave me some sums to do. She said it was proper preparation for proper examinations and that I needed to work hard’. (St. Luke’s CP, June, 1995).

Opportunity costs were also reported in two other significant areas: first, teachers commented on the problem of the tests covering a four-year curriculum and the impact this was having on their teaching in Year Six. They also anticipated that the amount of time spent on preparation would significantly increase in 1996 and 1997 as the published league tables for primary schools began to appear. Second, there was indication of a post-examination culture developing in Primary schools in the last seven weeks of the Summer Term with a period of ‘down-time’ or ‘recovery-time’, in which the threads of teaching are not picked up, and opportunities are lost immediately prior to transfer to Secondary school (ATL, 1995).

Continuity and Progression: Transfer at Key Stage Two

The main dilemma for Secondary schools in September 1995 was to decide whether the test levels produced by the children at the end of Key Stage Two were of any significance and, if so, to what use these could realistically be put. The overriding impression gained from this research was that nothing had radically changed from previous years between Primary /Secondary schools. Liaison coordinators invested a considerable amount of time and energy to ensure that the transfer of the cohort of children in this sample from one phase to another went as smoothly as possible. The main focus was on pastoral issues, punctuated with some academic demonstration lessons and visits to prospective schools.

The evidence showed that there was only limited attention paid to the children’s levels being used for assessment purposes. In all but one of the Secondary schools, children were allocated to mixed ability classes arranged in broad bands. They were grouped on information received from the Primary schools about their academic ability, gender balance and for social reasons ie. friendship groups. Most of the Secondary schools had a policy of reviewing individual academic progress within a term of entry. This academic review did not include any reference to the levels gained in the tests of 1995, except where schools were simply recording the levels for future value-added measurement. In these cases schools were recording a wide range of assessment indicators, which happened to include the test levels. Most of the Secondary schools in this sample felt that the test levels were untrustworthy in all three subject areas, and were a poor indicator of a child’s academic ability and potential. This was especially characteristic of certain mathematics departments where they appeared to ignore issues of continuity and progression. The preoccupation in all mathematics departments was with internal testing and setting children as soon as possible after entry. The reasons for this were explained by one Deputy Head:

‘....the only area which we are reconsidering mixed ability in Year 7 is mathematics. This is driven by internal reasons rather than external reasons, more by staffing logic and interpretation of the nature of subject, than parental influence. If you’re going to teach mixed ability then you have to have the commitment of the staff. The Mathematics Department believe that the best way forward is to set as early as possible, but to be flexible in terms of movement if the need arises.’ (Summerbank Comprehensive, December, 1995).

In contrast, a minority of schools had used the levels to band children into narrow ability groupings. For some children in this situation, the evidence suggests that inside a term these children had become disaffected with a system which labelled them as failures (Williams, 1995). On balance therefore, it can be argued that the test levels did not have a significant impact on this sample of Secondary schools. They had been recorded and filed by Senior Management and in some cases not even passed on to the relevant Heads of Department.

From this perspective, National Curriculum levels seem to pose serious problems for a nationally defined, progression based, curriculum. The relationship between the effects of testing and a curriculum which builds on previous learning are crucial, especially as children move across the Primary Secondary divide. This aspect of curriculum and assessment progression and continuity was largely ignored by the sample of Secondary schools.

Teacher Assessment Secondary

Since the Dearing Review (1994) the official status of teacher assessment has changed from a situation where the test result was preferred, to one of equal status with the test result (Sainsbury, 1996). This aspect of the review was welcomed by educationalists who see the pragmatic and educational benefits which could be developed if statutory teacher assessment were introduced Nationally in England and Wales (ATL, 1996). Some work has been carried out recently investigating the process of Teacher Assessment and purposes to which it is put (Torrance and Pryor, 1995; McCallum et al. 1995; Sammons et al., 1996; Hall et al., 1997; Massey, 1997). However, fundamental questions still remain in the areas of reliability and accountability. Teachers tend to make their assessments in different ways and at different times, interpreting standards of performance differently.