Meeting of the Parliament 02 February 2016
The national improvement framework represents a significant step forward. I have been heartened by the widespread support since the First Minister launched it early last month, and by the positive contributions of teachers, parents, children and others to its development.
Of course, the framework will not by itself deliver the improvements that we all want, but it will mean that we have available to us, for the first time, comprehensive information to inform our decisions. How the information is used will determine our success.
The framework sets out six drivers, all of which are vital to securing improvement. One of the six drivers is the introduction of a Scottish standardised assessment. It is a crucial element of our approach to improvement, and we have worked closely with partners across the education community to develop a model that we believe will benefit parents, teachers and—most important—pupils. It will provide us with more consistent and reliable data at local and national levels. It will also allow us to identify successes and areas for progress, it will inform policy making and it will enrich teaching in the classroom. It is a key strand of our strategy for improving evidence throughout the primary and early secondary education phase, which is in line with a finding from the recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report on our education system.
It has always been intended that assessment will be used to inform the professional judgment of teachers without creating the perverse incentives that often accompany high-stakes testing. I was therefore disappointed to see amendments from Liam McArthur that seem to take no account of the progress that we have made to secure consensus on our approach. Given that consensus, I cannot understand why, through amendment 29, Liam McArthur is again trying to remove standardised assessment from the national improvement framework. First, I do not think that it would be right to legislate on such a specific point of detail in relation to the framework. More fundamentally, however, there has never been any question but that assessment is critical to supporting children’s learning. It is already a feature of day-to-day learning and teaching across the country—most councils do baseline assessment or some form of standardised assessment in primary 1—and, by introducing a more consistent approach, we will only add to its value.
Furthermore, of course, 30 of the 32 local authorities already use a form of standardised assessment, so a national approach will give us the opportunity to strip out duplication costs, to add consistency and, for the first time, to have a bespoke standardised assessment tool for curriculum for excellence.
Liam McArthur’s amendments 30 and 31 seek the publication of certain reports before assessments are introduced. Again, in arguing against the amendments, I point towards the significant degree of engagement that has taken place up to now, and which will continue as we seek in the months to come to implement the new approach to assessment. The data that we obtain through assessment will be a driver for improvement, alongside the range of other evidence that teachers already gather daily about children’s progress, and will be used by teachers in a way that usefully informs the judgments that they make about how best to support individual children, as well as supporting their discussions with parents.
Our approach to assessment has never been a feature of the bill. As I have already said, I do not think that it is right to legislate for such a level of detail of individual elements of the framework. Rather, the detail should be in the framework itself and should be informed and amended through the annual review process. Furthermore, the First Minister and I have been clear that teachers should be able to use the standardised assessment when they think that it is the right time to use it. I hope that that gives Liam McArthur the assurance that he is perhaps seeking through amendment 32.
I have been clear that, when we are designing the standardised assessment, we will be sure to learn from the experiences of other countries—hence my decision to include at stage 2 a new requirement for all annual reports that are produced by Scottish ministers to take account of relevant international benchmarking data. Those data being restricted to the narrow and incomplete list of surveys that is set out in Mark Griffin’s amendment 39 would not be helpful.
In summary, I do not think that it would be appropriate to prescribe arrangements in the bill in the way that is suggested by the amendments in group 3. For that reason, I cannot support them.