Ofqual's responsibilities for assessment under the national curriculum and during the EYFS for children from birth to five are quite different from those we have been given for qualifications.
The Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families is responsible for all the assessment in the national curriculum, of whatever type, and for the assessment arrangements in the EYFS. The legislation places an obligation on Ofqual to ‘keep under review all aspects’ of those assessment arrangements and to inform the Secretary of State ‘if there are likely to be significant failings’. In addition we have the duty to ‘promote the development and implementation of assessment arrangements which give a reliable indication of achievement and indicate a consistent level of attainment’.
In respect of the assessment arrangements we clearly need to work very closely with the DCSF, QCDA and other agencies. The legislation requires the Secretary of State to consult Ofqual before making changes to assessment arrangements. Given the major changes in assessments over the last few years, we must find ways to gather the necessary evidence to underpin authoritative guidance to a wide range of responsible bodies.
The Secretary of State has accepted in full the recommendations of his Expert Group on Assessment1, which has identified the purposes of assessment up to the end of key stage 3 as being:
- to optimise the effectiveness of pupils' learning and teachers' teaching
- to hold individual schools accountable for their performance
- to provide parents with information about the child's progress
- to provide reliable information about national standards over time.
To meet these objectives the Group’s recommendations include a wide range of assessments and in order for our regulatory approach to be fit for purpose it will need to embrace them all.
We need to set out high aspirations such as:
- Assessment approaches used are valid, reliable, comparable, manageable and free from bias.
- Stakeholder surveys indicate confidence in the outcome of national curriculum and EYFS assessments.
- There is comparability in the assessment outcomes between institutions and year on year.
- Assessment outcomes are comparable between key stages and between subjects.
- Assessments take into account the different people who are involved in generating assessment evidence.
We are proposing a risk-based approach to our monitoring activities and will publish in advance a programme setting out our priorities.
Assessment in the national curriculum and EYFS can be grouped into two main categories: tests and practitioner assessment. Tests can be used to provide a snapshot of a learner's attainment while teacher assessment usually takes a view of the learner's performance over a period of time. Our regulation must reflect the different purposes and outcomes of those categories.
Ofqual’s responsibilities cover the full cycle of test development, delivery, marking and level setting at key stage 2. The code of practice sets out the processes and procedures necessary to ensure that high-quality, consistent and rigorous standards are applied in the tests. This will be the basis for our monitoring of the administration, development, delivery and reporting of the tests. In addition we may carry out whole-system or thematic activities. A whole system approach would look at, for example, the full cycle of a particular test or set of tests to establish whether the principles and purposes of the assessment have been achieved. Such a review may be appropriate for the proposed national sample test for key stage 2 science. A thematic approach might involve looking at one aspect of the process such as test development across a range of statutory and non-statutory tests.
Teacher assessment and that carried out by practitioners in nurseries and other early year's settings forms the basis for much of the important information on a child’s development and progress.
Our approach must reflect:
- the objectives of the assessments
- the role that parents, teachers, teaching assistants, early year's providers and other bodies play in the conduct and quality assurance of the assessments
- how the outcomes are used.
In the case of teacher assessment, a whole-system approach would look across different stakeholders, processes and outcomes in a particular assessment arrangement. A thematic approach might look at the impact on a particular group of learners such as those with special needs. A risk-based approach would target our monitoring on specific activities where an initial analysis of information gives cause for concern.
We plan to adopt a continuous quality improvement model. This involves working with stakeholders – the DCSF, National Strategy teams, QCDA, local authorities, settings, schools and parents – to help focus our monitoring and disseminate and encourage the implementation of the best practice that is identified.
One of the key purposes of assessment identified by the Secretary of State’s Expert Group on Assessment was to provide parents with information about their child’s progress. Parents’ views will be important to us as we make judgements about the usefulness of the assessments. So we will need to find ways of engaging with as wide a range of parents as possible. We will also need to establish a network of specialists who can inform and validate the focus and outcomes of our monitoring activities and provide a link to a wide range of practitioners.
We must be careful that our regulation does not place an undue burden on individuals or institutions. Many early years settings and some schools will be very small, without the infrastructure of larger institutions. We must tread carefully between appropriate rigour and unnecessary bureaucracy. The risk-based approach will help to focus our activities where they are most needed. We expect the other institutions to ensure the quality of those aspects for which they are responsible.
We will need to develop appropriate activities to identify where changes may be necessary and the nature of the changes to be made. This may include the evaluation of assessment guidance and training materials – including those developed by QCDA, DCSF or National Strategies – to ensure that they lead to valid, reliable, comparable and manageable assessments that are free from bias. As a result of such investigations we will give feedback to the relevant bodies. We may look at how effective QCDA’s arrangements are for monitoring local authority moderation arrangements; we might observe local authority moderation in practice to see how effective the moderation model is; or we may evaluate the effectiveness of moderation training. Again the aim would be to identify possible improvements, which we would discuss with the relevant organisations.
The wealth of data collected nationally is a valuable source of information that we would analyse to identify if the outcomes of assessment are being used appropriately. We would also seek to understand the impact of assessment outcomes in different contexts on assessment practice, and the validity and reliability of the assessment arrangements.
We will be required by the legislation to give guidance to responsible bodies on how they perform their functions in relation to the assessment arrangements. We are planning to develop a range of ‘models of assessment behaviour’, in consultation with our partners and stakeholders. These will cover the development, implementation and monitoring of both national curriculum and EYFS assessments. The focus will be on defining accountabilities for success rather than laying down procedures and processes. It is the outcome that is important, not the means by which that is achieved. The codes of practice for national curriculum and EYFS assessments will include suggested models for maintaining standards. We will also publish the findings of our monitoring and facilitate the sharing of good practice.
