In brief: A fresh perspective on assessment

Rationale: new core objectives and attainment targets require a reconsideration of assessment

The revision of core objectives and attainment targets in primary and secondary education entails a change in what pupils must know and be able to do (mastery goals), the experiences they must gain (experiential goals), and the curriculum schools must provide (provision goals). The adjustment of these frameworks has implications for the way educational goals are assessed. At the request of the House of Representatives, the Education Council is examining how assessment can be adequately structured in light of these new core objectives.

The advisory report covers various forms of assessment, including national testing (transition tests, monitoring tests, central examinations) and school-specific assessment (such as school exams, curriculum-based tests, classroom tests, practical assignments, and mock exams). The Council considers the design, administration and marking of tests, as well as the use of test results and the implications for educational goals, the teaching-learning process, the organisation of education, and the comprehensive evaluation of this.

Advice: limit the mixing of functions in assessment

Tests fulfil various functions:

• teaching-learning functions: tests provide support for education and learning; for example, they help pupils and teachers to focus their attention on what pupils have not yet mastered or experienced;
• selection functions: tests provide a basis for decisions regarding placement (which type of secondary school will the pupil attend), progression (will the pupil move up to the next schoolyear) and certification (will the pupil receive a certificate);
• evaluation functions: tests provide indications of the quality of education; they help to substantiate conclusions for quality assurance and accountability.

The Council notes that in current educational practice, a single test is often assigned multiple functions. Take, for example, the pupil progress tests that primary schools regularly administer from Year 3 onwards to monitor pupils’ language and numeracy skills. These pupil progress tests originally had a teaching-learning function, but many schools also use them for promotion and school recommendation (selection) and educational quality assurance (evaluation).

This mixing of functions has drawbacks. Combining the functions leads to the teaching-learning functions of assessment being overshadowed. School teams and pupils then focus on achieving a high test score and, for example, no longer on the feedback provided by the test. This can also lead to a narrowing of focus. Focus becomes one-sided, centring on that part of the language and arithmetic objectives covered by the pupil progress test (such as aspects of reading proficiency). As a result, other educational objectives (such as oral language skills) are overlooked. Thirdly, the blurring of functions can lead to inequality of opportunity, as the selection decision is based on a narrow foundation. Pupils may score poorly on pupil progress tests, whilst they are able to achieve other educational objectives not covered by the test, or vice versa.

This mixing of functions and its consequences are not limited to progress tests, but also apply to transition tests, final exams and (other) school-specific tests. The Council recommends that the government and schools limit the mixing of functions. This can be achieved in a number of ways. For instance, functions can be separated more clearly by using tests more often for a single function, or by giving a function less weight in the assessment. If the decision is nevertheless made to mix functions, it is important to counteract the adverse consequences.

Limiting the mixing of functions is particularly important in light of the new core objectives and attainment targets, since these emphasise complex skills (such as reading and writing longer argumentative texts) and experiential objectives (such as experiencing what it is like to work together with classmates who hold different opinions). Such objectives cannot be properly achieved if, as a result of tunnel vision in the assessment, the emphasis in the teaching-learning process is restricted to measurable proficiency targets. For instance, proficiency in oral language skills cannot be guaranteed as long as assessment in the field of language remains primarily limited to sub-skills of reading.

Recommendation one: protect the teaching-learning functions of assessment

Assessments with teaching-learning functions are critical to providing education and to pupils’ learning. Assessment results provide teachers and pupils with essential feedback, which they can use to shape education and learning. If assessments are also used for selection and evaluation, the teaching-learning functions can be overshadowed.

To protect the teaching-learning functions of assessment, the Council recommends, firstly, that assessment should primarily be used to work towards educational goals and less for selection purposes. This implies that tests should be used less frequently to ‘count towards the end-of-term report’, or serve as a ‘stick’ to motivate pupils to get to work. Secondly, the Council recommends that schools, in principle, use pupil progress tests solely for teaching-learning purposes. Thirdly, the Council advocates that schools provide clarity on when educational objectives that are in line with the core objectives and attainment targets have been achieved. Using clear criteria, teachers and pupils can work specifically towards educational objectives, using assessment as a tool in the teaching-learning process. Finally, the Council recommends that schools and the government strengthen teachers’ ownership of assessments with a teaching-learning function, so teachers can make better use of assessments for the teaching-learning process. This means, for example, that they can more often select or design tests themselves.

Recommendation two: improve the quality of assessment with selection functions

Currently, combining selection functions with teaching-learning and evaluation functions sometimes leads to compromises being made regarding the reliability of the assessment required to underpin selection decisions. One example is the use of multiple variants of the transition test. Whilst this allows for alignment with a school’s approach, it appears to lead to varying outcomes in school recommendations.

Assessment for the purpose of selection (placement, progression or certification) must be high-quality. After all, there is a great deal at stake. The Council recommends improving the quality of both the national and the complementary school-specific assessments.

With regard to national testing, the Council advocates that the government introduce a single transition test from a single provider. Furthermore, the Council urges that no compromises be made regarding reliability in either the transition test or the central examination. Only if the assessment of knowledge and skills is carried out in a comparable manner, can the transition test and the central examination contribute to substantiating the selection decision.

With regard to school-based assessment, the Council advocates establishing an assessment committee at every school in primary and secondary education, to internally monitor the quality of assessment. This committee will check whether all three functions of assessment (teaching-learning functions, selection functions and evaluation functions) are being properly fulfilled, and will be alert to undesirable mixing of functions and the consequences thereof. In primary education, an assessment committee is a new concept. In secondary education, this involves an expansion of the tasks of the current examinations board.

Recommendation three: use assessment results in educational evaluations, but place them in the context of broader educational objectives

Test results can provide insight into the achievement of educational objectives, and thereby offer indications of educational quality. Often, tests used for evaluation also play a role in selection and the teaching-learning process. This blurring of roles can make the test too important and lead to tunnel vision when evaluating education. The Council recommends that teachers, school heads, school governors and the government use test data to evaluate the quality of education, but that they place this data in the context of the overall set of educational objectives.

First and foremost, the Council advocates that, when evaluating educational objectives, schools use other data – such as school-specific tests and data on the provision of education – alongside national tests. Furthermore, the Council advocates peer reviews by assessment committees in both primary and secondary education. A committee from one school should check whether another school is making educational objectives widely visible that are in line with the core objectives and attainment targets. It is further recommended that the Inspectorate of Education always take a broad view of the achievement of educational objectives. The Council also advocates expanding the national benchmarking surveys. The Inspectorate should identify which criteria schools use for achieving educational objectives in the various subjects and learning areas, within the framework of the nationally established core objectives and attainment targets.