The Education Leaders’ guide to… the Bew Review Interim Report

1. The final number of respondents to the online consultation was 4000, mostly primary head teachers. This is a fantastic turnout, so thank you very much.
     

2. The report begins by noting "Clearly change is needed" but also adds, "we were struck by the complexity of the challenge we face. Each proposal has arguments against, risks and uncertainties ... there will not be a single set of solutions that commands universal support."
   
   

3. The review discusses the benefits and risks of the current system. It notes evidence that both accountability and assessment can drive standards, focus attention and inform policy making. However, it appears that only 6-7% of online respondents could find positive things to say about the current system. The report goes on to note: "Despite these benefits, few would disagree that the current system of testing, assessment and accountability has led to undesired consequences." Among various concerns the report notes the narrowing of the curriculum, cramming, pressure on children, unfairness, demotivation and a focus on borderline children at the expense of others.
   
   

4. Highlights from the online response:

   • 50% of respondents opposed league tables

   • 47% of respondents felt there was too much teaching to the test

   • 36% of respondents felt the system put too much pressure on children  

5. The report makes a strong defence of the importance of accountability in education. We would not disagree, especially as it goes on to note concerns with the crude use of narrow data and how high stakes accountability distorts assessment. 62% of respondents had problems with the way data was used. The report also quotes the House of Commons Select Committee: "Achievement and attainment tables present a very narrow view of school performance" and Warwick Mansell: "The public is likely to make inferences beyond the uses for which the current test results were designed." 
    
   

6. There is an extensive discussion of teacher assessment, noting that "the majority of online consultation respondents (predominantly primary teachers and heads) favoured this approach. 84% think the school's own teacher assessment judgements should form the main information used to compare schools and hold them accountable." Most respondents stressed the need for external moderation, sampling, training and for schools to be accountable for the quality of their assessment processes.  
   
   

7. There were, of course, criticisms of the reliability of teacher assessment, and its propensity to bias. There was data from Ofsted suggesting that 53% of schools were rated good or outstanding for assessment. There is considerable attention paid to the Welsh experience and concerns that the lack of leagues tables and SATs in that country are connected to a fall in relative standards.
   
   

8. The majority of respondents seemed to feel that the current tests were well designed in themselves: it was the way they were used that was the problem. The exception to this was the writing test, which was roundly criticised. There were also criticisms of the reliability of the tests in general given the high stakes environment of their use.
   
   

9. There is a great deal of other detail that is worth digging into. As will be clear from the report, the NAHT perspective is well and fairly covered throughout, both in terms of direct quotes and general themes.
   
   

10. It is now the panel's unenviable job to generate some recommendations from this evidence and deliver their final report in June. There are some difficult debates to come. I feel confident that the progress report provides a sufficient case for real change and does not indicate any show-stopping blind spots or prejudices. Indeed, not to recommend significant change following such evidence would be hard to justify. Whether the recommendations suit us is another matter. 
    
    

11. We can, and will respond to this interim report. So if you have any specific concerns, do let us know. We will also push for a more precise date on the June publication, given delays to the interim report, although we have been given no reason to think the final report will be delayed. We reiterate that the final report will be presented to branches for you to tell us whether it has gone far enough.