Private Members' Business – in the Northern Ireland Assembly at 3:30 pm on 23 June 2014.
The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. One amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List. The proposer of the amendment will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes.
I beg to move
That this Assembly expresses concern that principals and teachers in schools no longer have any confidence in end of Key Stage assessments; notes with concern that the Department of Education and the Council for Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment's approach to end of Key Stage assessments is not fit for purpose; and calls on the Minister of Education to halt the present process, review other assessment for learning tools that schools currently use and introduce a system of assessment that helps inform teaching and learning.
I am proud to move the motion at the end of term. If we can do anything for our schools and our education system, we can give them good news at the end of the term. We can give them something of value rather than what they have had to date, which has caused them grave and ongoing concern. We live in an age when change seems to be the only constant. In every facet of life, we hear, almost daily, of changes that will impact on our lives. For all of us, the global village is an increasing reality, so it is nice to know that, in the midst of all these changes, one thing never changes: for the past 16 years that Sinn Féin has held the education portfolio, assessment has continued to be an absolute, total shambles.
Will the Member give way?
I am not giving way to you, no. It seems as though the Minister is in a bad mood today. I hope that before this ends, he will be in a worse mood.
We have heard all about change. It seems to be only word that the Shinners know these days: "We're going to change. We're going to change". They have changed absolutely nothing in our school system in a way that has helped our teachers on this issue. What they have done is ignored the teachers, blamed the teachers and decided, "Oh, that's somebody else's fault; it's not ours". It is time that this Education Minister realised the feeling that there is on the issue.
On 11 March this year, the Minister came to the House with his latest statement on a way forward for evaluation and assessment. He told us what the OECD had said:
"The practice of having this sort of universal, formative assessment in primary schools, mapped to our curriculum and delivered at the start of the academic year, is noted with approval by the OECD, so the policy is sound. However, it follows that a sound policy is no good if its implementation is not up to scratch." — [Official Report, Vol 93, No 2, p2, col 1].
Basically, what was the OECD saying? I think that it was saying that the policy was reasonably good but the implementation was absolutely and totally abysmal. Whose fault is that? That is not the fault of teachers or Members of the Assembly. You cannot blame selection. The blame lies fairly and squarely with the Minister and his Department.
Around the same time that the Minister was making that pronouncement in the House, I had meetings with the Ballymena primary principals' group. I also had, as other Members did, representations from the Southern Education and Library Board (SELB) primary principals' group, which had looked at the issue. At that meeting — listen, Minister — not 5% or 4%, but 70% of principals in the area, including those from maintained schools, Irish-medium schools, controlled schools, integrated schools and whatever name of any school you want to put on it, said that the process is — these are not my words — beyond repair. Let us hear that loudly and clearly in the House today. With Her gracious Majesty The Queen visiting Northern Ireland today and over the next few days, that is in as plain English as I can put it to the Member opposite and to the Minister: it is beyond repair. It is time that he listened. The problems that have arisen as a result of the evaluation and assessment are summed up in that comment.
I believe that everyone in the Assembly still accepts that we need assessment and evaluation, and a policy that maps out the curriculum in a particular way, but it is clear that this process has not worked. The process has been compounded by a number of problems, which I want to deal with, time permitting.
The first problem is the setting up of consultation processes for the committed. That is what the Department and CCEA have been guilty of over the years: listen only to the things you want to hear. That was the problem with computer-based assessment. Independent reviews have made it abundantly clear, and all the warning signs were there throughout the procurement process of the Northern Ireland numeracy assessment (NINA) and the Northern Ireland literacy assessment (NILA). Indeed, they had been there for lessons to be learned from the interactive computerised assessment system (InCAS). Did anyone listen? No. We just ignore teachers and, when necessary, blame them because that is convenient.
When the Education Committee raised the problem at the start of the process, the departmental officials clung doggedly to the view that there was not a problem and got to the stage of blaming everybody else. So it is with the end of Key Stage assessments. Teachers are saying that it is broken beyond repair. They have no faith in the tests or the process, yet we hear, "The policy is OK so we will just keep on going": hear only what you want to hear. The Minister keeps telling us that lessons are being learned, but perhaps he does not understand that the practical outworking of those lessons being learned is that he and his Department listen to the issues that are causing real concern in our schools.
The second problem is that we cannot make up our mind on the purpose of assessment. Again, the OECD report has been enlightening, and it makes the point that, if you have a system of evaluation and assessment, it is important to clarify its purpose. It stated that diagnostic and formative tests should not be used to summarise the accountability processes; the more purposes a test is used for, the more compromised it becomes; and it is possible to have a test that serves a number of purposes, but clarity is needed in its design and use. Levels of progression and Key Stage assessments were meant to be used by teachers for diagnostic and formative purposes, yet one of the key problems is that they are used for summative and accountability purposes. So, the Department looked at the number of pupils who achieved level 4 at Key Stage 2 in English and maths and started to hold everyone to account on that basis. What happens? An assessment-for-learning tool becomes a high-stake test for schools, and this comes from the Department that believes that you dare not have high-stake tests and test children in that environment because that is educationally unsound and morally unjust.
It seems as though, when it suits the Department, it can do what it likes and cover it up and call it what it will.
Here is the challenge to the Minister. The end of term comes at the end of this week. Does he believe that he can continue to ignore teachers? He can ignore me; that is an irrelevance. He can be angry and put on his angry head as he did earlier when asked questions, but he cannot continue to ignore teachers. From the smallest school in Northern Ireland to the largest, I have not yet met one teacher who has told me, the Education Committee or any member of it that the assessment process is working.
I call on the Minister to do what we have set out in the motion: stop the tinkering. That is why we are not accepting, as he will be glad to know, the amendment. What does the amendment tell us? The amendment says that it is really not a problem, and what we will do is we will talk about it; we will have more talks about talks, and then we will come up with an idea and, hopefully, move the process forward. The message is as clear as I can make it: Minister, this process needs to come to an end now. Bring it to an end and give teachers something worthwhile over the summer break so that, when they come back in September, they are not facing a process which, one teacher told me, is not fit to be given to parents. They will tell parents that. Even the OECD has told us that there is a problem with the implementation. The Minister comes to the House and tells us about the virtues of this international organisation coming from other lands into Northern Ireland to look at our system. It has told him that there is an issue; so it is now time, Minister, for you to act.
Schools use assessment tools, and they use the tools Progress in English and Progress in Maths in a way that is useful, educational and verifiable. I know, of course, what the Minister will tell me, as CCEA has told me: "It is not based on a Northern Ireland cohort". Then, we get into all the technicalities and the bureaucracy of it.
Will the Member bring his remarks to a close?
Minister, I would prefer to depend on the professionalism of the teachers in our classrooms than the bureaucrats in your Department and you, as the leader of that Department, because you and the Department have failed teachers and ultimately children on this issue. You should bring it to an end.
I beg to move the following amendment:
Leave out all after "expresses" and insert:
"support for end of Key Stage assessment; notes the endorsement of the principles of the current assessment system as outlined in the recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report; recognises the concern of principals and teachers about some elements of Key Stage assessments; notes the progress made in recent discussions between the Department of Education and teachers’ representatives in dealing with those concerns; and calls on both parties to redouble their efforts and finalise a system of assessment that helps inform teaching and learning for the benefit of pupils.".
Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I oppose the motion tabled by the DUP and call on Members to support the Sinn Féin amendment. Indeed, the DUP's motion and the Chair of the Education Committee seem somewhat confused. They call on the Minister to "stop tinkering" — I believe that was the preferred phrase of the day. However, they call on him to stop a process and to do something different. That, in itself, is tinkering, and it is the complete opposite of letting the process of change bed down. It is something that we certainly disagree with.
Only a few months ago, as outlined by the Member who spoke previously, following the publication of the OECD's report on evaluation and assessment in our system, the Minister came to the House and laid out publicly his vision for moving forward. I can only presume, given what we have just heard from the Benches opposite, that those Members must have been otherwise engaged on that day in March. For their benefit and that of those who will speak after me, let me outline exactly what the Minister said in regard to the issue of key stage assessment. He first welcomed the OECD's support for a locally developed assessment at the start of the academic year in primary school and agreed the following extensive engagement with teaching representatives that any computer-based assessment would continue to operate on a voluntary basis. Crucially, the Minister affirmed:
"The practice of having this sort of universal, formative assessment in primary schools, mapped to our curriculum and delivered at the start of the academic year, is noted with approval by the OECD" as a sound policy. However, the Minister was at pains to stress:
"a sound policy is no good if its implementation is not up to scratch." [Official Report, Vol 93, No 2, p2, col 1].
He further added that he was not up for walking away from any challenges but moving forward by addressing outstanding issues head on. With that in mind, the Minister said that he was committed to dialogue with all involved and that he wanted:
"officials to continue their engagement with teachers and their representatives to discuss and develop the practice of pupil assessment in the context of the agreed levels of progression." [Official Report, Vol 93, No 2, p2, col 2].
In his concluding remarks, the Minister said that he wanted his officials to undertake further work to continually improve performance measures, both for schools and the system overall. Most importantly, perhaps, the Minister stressed, once again, that the involvement of teachers and school leaders was vital to the process of developing increasingly sophisticated conclusions about the quality of our system.
Our amendment chimes wholeheartedly with the themes and spirit of the Minister's words that I have outlined today. Sinn Féin agrees with the OECD that a universal, formative assessment in primary school, one that is truly reflective of our curriculum, is entirely desirable. As such, we too believe that the current policy is sound. Moreover, we welcome the Minister's commitment to continually review the implementation of the policy, as we are all only too aware of some of the difficulties being experienced. Indeed, I welcome entirely the ongoing engagement between the Department and our teaching representatives. If we are to realise the potential in our system, such productive dialogue is vital. That is why our amendment calls upon the Minister not to halt or abandon the essential process of change but to ensure that efforts are redoubled so that we can deliver a system of assessment that helps to inform teaching and learning for the benefit of pupils.
Despite regular calls from those opposite to reverse or cease every type of educational reform, it is essential that we continue to see educational progress if we are to equip our young people with the necessary skills and empower our parents, teachers and schools to have confidence in the quality of evaluation and assessment.
I welcome the steadfast commitment from the Minister to ensure that our teachers remain central to the assessment process; that their role will not be cast aside to be replaced by anonymous standardised testing. It is only through the nuanced assessment provided by our teachers that parents can be assured of the educational progression of their child in relation to the curriculum.
Will the Member give way?
No, I will not be giving way to the Member.
Our local teachers are, and should always remain, central to the process. So, as I outlined earlier, it is critical that the Minister and his officials continue to engage to embed arrangements in which all the key components have confidence in the system. It is only through continued dialogue and review that we will achieve such confidence, not by abandoning the process. That will achieve nothing but the creation of a dangerous vacuum; a vacuum that may ultimately suit the political interest of particular political parties but which will destroy the interests of our young people.
That is why, last year, the Committee agreed to support the levels of progression and the process of change. We outlined our concerns around workload pressures and the use of accountable data. The Department provided the necessary commitments to engage with teachers and to modify the current process. Hopefully the ongoing negotiations between the Department and teaching representatives can be intensified so that we can help to empower teachers to do what they do best.
In conclusion, I remind Members that we need to embrace educational reform. For too long we have peddled the myth that our local education system was world-class and brimmed with success. It simply did not. Too many young people were abandoned to the fortunes of their socio-economic background; too many young people with special educational needs were sold short; and too many young people were not given the tools to succeed in life, where the interests of educational institutions and sectors trumped the needs of the pupil. Those are just some of the reasons why educational reform is necessary and why, despite difficulties regarding implementation, we must pursue effective and agreed reform.
We recognise that there are difficulties with the implementation of Key Stage assessments. However, such difficulties are not unsurmountable. The dialogue between all sides is testament to the desire to reach an agreed position. There can be no halting or abandoning the process of change. It is simply too important. I call on all Members to support the motion as amended.
Before I call the next Member to speak, I ask all Members to set a good example to any school children who may be watching us this afternoon. I call Seán Rogers.
I welcome the opportunity to put on record the concerns of the SDLP about the end of Key Stage assessments. Assessment is only ever a worthwhile tool if it informs teaching and learning and benefits teachers and students alike. Teachers are expressing serious concerns that the current system of assessment is not fit for purpose. Teachers must have confidence in the system of assessment that they are overseeing if it is to succeed. The Sinn Féin amendment says that teachers have concerns about "some" elements of Key Stage assessments. All I can say is that it is time to start listening.
On 5 March, more than 60 principals from the Southern Education and Library Board area met, and the message that came out was, "enough is enough". Since then, I have been listening very intently and have got the same message across the Province. The aim of assessment should be to inform parents and schools about children's progress, measure their attainment and achievement, and identify those who are underachieving or having difficulties or overachieving. Most importantly, it should inform future planning so that teaching and learning can take place at an appropriate level. End of Key Stage assessments are simply not ticking the boxes.
The Northern Ireland average data is skewed, as some schools failed to apply the process of awarding levels consistently.
Will the Member give way?
No, I will not give way. That resulted in those schools who applied the levels fairly falling below the Northern Ireland average. [Interruption.]
Order.
CCEA has no checks in place to verify these levels. The skewed data is used by the Department to report to boards of governors about school performances and by the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) as part of the school inspection process which, as we have heard in previous debates, puts unfair pressures on schools.
I have here the sort of data that schools get. This is an example of Key Stage 2 communication at level 4. When you look at some of this data, you will discover that some of our schools, which have significant levels of deprivation, have 100% of their children getting level 4 at Key Stage 2. It is generally accepted that Key Stage 1 is levels 1 and 2.
A recent freedom of information (FOI) request discovered that 90% of pupils in one school achieved a level 3 at the end of Key Stage 1. It is quite possible for a child with a standardised score of 95 or 125 to be awarded a level 4 in communication. One child has major communication difficulties, while another is a competent communicator. Minister, how does this level 4 inform future practice? It cannot. It is too broad and meaningless and of no benefit to the child, the parents or the school.
We need a root-and-branch reform of end of Key Stage assessment. Raising standards in our classrooms must be our primary consideration when doing so. The Minister must recognise the legitimate concerns of teachers and consider alternative methods of assessment that are conducive to teaching and learning.
The OECD report highlighted the potential benefits of having a locally developed assessment at the start of an academic year in primary schools, and the Minister has endorsed that. However, the Minister has also decided that these should continue on a voluntary basis in the short term. I can imagine that, in his response, the Minister will refer to the OECD report, but in my view he gives it more credence than he does the views of our teachers.
Minister, you are always asking for solutions. First, end the present system of Key Stage assessments. Secondly, devise an alternative assessment model that takes on board all the good practice, including the Progress in Maths (PiM) and Progress in English (PiE) tests and other standardised tests to measure attainment, using intelligence tests to measure IQ along with professional judgement to ensure that assessments inform teaching and learning.
I agree with the last contributor; education reform is necessary, but we must ensure that we take on board the professional judgement of all our teachers.
Will the Member give way on that point?
I will, yes.
Of course, it will be dismissed by the Members opposite, but in the General Teaching Council's (GTC) own survey, two thirds of teachers said that these were not fit for purpose. They will probably dismiss that today in the House as one of those secretive surveys that is not trustworthy. Surely it is an indication that teachers, as you have outlined today, are simply saying that they have had enough and it is time for this current process to end.
The Member has an extra minute.
Thanks for the contribution. The GTC survey comes from teachers; they are the people who are delivering in our classrooms, and we need to take their views on board.
Assessments should not be for school comparisons, systems and statistics. Assessments should benefit the child, parents and schools, and should be separated from school evaluation and not seen as a stick to beat the school with. The future of qualifications and assessments must garner the confidence of teachers and pupils. Teachers should be empowered to tailor their teaching to the individual needs of the child and ensure that pupils, parents, employers and further and higher education institutions across these islands can have confidence in our qualifications. The method of assessment must be one that helps our young people to reach their potential.
I welcome the debate. It is certainly long overdue. In my two years on the Education Committee, I have met groups of principals, vice-principals and others a number of times. One of their greatest concerns has been the assessment system and the lack of time.
I had hoped that, today, we would find a way forward on which we could agree. I was disappointed in last week's debate on the inquiry into the Education and Training Inspectorate because it seemed as though there were just closed doors and that it was destined for the shelf. I am looking forward to the day when the House can discuss and listen and feel as though it is being listened to, so that we do find a way forward. I think that everyone here wants the issue to be resolved, to find a good assessment system and to find a way forward for us all.
Will the Member give way?
I am happy to give way.
Has the Member therefore changed his position of a number of months ago, when he called on the Chairperson of the Committee for Education to block everything that the Minister brings forward?
The Member has an extra minute.
Thank you very much. I do not remember saying "block everything that comes forward". If I did so, it related to something else.
I am keen that we find a way forward and that we keep looking for the avenues that take us forward. I do not disagree with the words and sentiments of the motion. It is sad that we need to call for a halt, but that is what the teachers and vice-principals want us to do. We need to find a way forward. We need to review what we are doing.
As other have said, and as the motion highlights, the approach of the Department and CCEA is not fit for purpose, and principals and teachers have no confidence in the present policies on assessment. The whole system needs to be thought through properly. We have already heard that two thirds of teachers in the GTCNI believe that levels of progression are not useful. That is how everyone is feeling.
We can all agree that we have a truly excellent and thoroughly professional set of principals, teachers and everyone. We all know that they are overworked, under-resourced and so often taken for granted. They feel ignored and abused by the system. Let us hope that that changes today. A recent survey by vice-principals showed that over 80% of them were working long hours in the day. They, too, are overworked. That is why we have got to find a way forward.
One of the systems proposed was ill-fitted to the pupils' year, was inconsistently applied and understood and, as such, was incomprehensible to parents and pupils. The NILA and NINA approach was also totally flawed. The pilots and lessons learnt were ill-prepared and ill-practiced. They, too, became incomprehensible. We welcomed the fact that both were delayed. I thank the Department and the Minister for agreeing to do that. However, they were put on hold. They are still there. They still linger like evil spirits in a haunted house. No one can rest easy —
I thank the Member for giving way. The Member opposite tried to assert that somehow the Education Committee had been proactive on the issue. We were; we had an agreed set of changes that could be implemented. We implemented them and the process is still not working. Clearly, despite our best efforts to try to work with the system, the system was not working.
I welcome those comments because the Committee has been trying, has been welcoming and has tried to find a way forward. However, I am concerned that they still sit there, they are still lingering and we need to find a new way forward.
We need assessment. Good assessment is going on all the time. However, due to the way in which the assessment is used, it is not trusted and is used inconsistently. Schools use it to compete with one another, in some cases manipulating it in an effort to outshine other schools.
I thank the Member for giving way. I will also cover Mr Rogers's point in this. The Member is actually standing in the Chamber saying that schools in the system are cheating. If he is saying that, there is a duty on him as a member of the Education Committee and as an Assembly Member to name them.
Thank you. I will do my best to get the Minister that information. I had rather hoped that it had got to his Department because I have certainly heard it from two or three different avenues. If the onus falls on us, we will do that.
The Minister refers to the OECD and chooses from its report those matters which suit him. In fact, the Sinn Féin amendment states that it:
"notes the endorsement of the principles of the current Assessment system".
The report does endorse those principles, but that is choosing the bit that you like. It goes on to say that we need to listen more to schools and to everyone else. There is a whole lot that we need to do.
If you look at the Sinn Féin amendment, you can see why I cannot support it. There are too many inaccuracies in it. It states that the Assembly:
"recognises the concern of principals and teachers".
There is more than concern. Virtually everyone whom we talked to said that the system that we have does not work. However, I like the fact that the amendment does at least state that we need to redouble our efforts and finalise a system that works. So, there is a way forward for all of us working together.
I call on everyone — as usual, I go back to my point on consensus — to find a way of working together and to find something that works for schools, teachers and especially pupils.
I support the motion but not the amendment. The Minister can certainly claim in his defence that he has already responded to teachers' concerns and is continuing to do so by reviewing the system, but it really is hard to argue that end of Key Stage assessments work or can reasonably be made to work. We support the motion on the grounds that we need to replace the current target-led approach with one that, as the motion states, "helps inform teaching and learning".
We seem to have considerable support for that. In September 2013, the General Teaching Council stated that it had lost confidence in the assessments. More specifically, 90% of teachers said that results were of no or little use to parents. Teachers also saw them as unmanageable and unreliable. The NASUWT, the Irish National Teachers' Organisation (INTO) and the Ulster Teachers' Union (UTU) even went as far taking as industrial action over Key Stage 3 assessments. The SDLP has challenged the Minister on the subject again today, after saying, in March 2014, that the assessments were going down like a lead balloon, to use its terminology. Both unionist parties have obviously, once again, stated their opposition to assessments.
We have heard much about the OECD report of December 2013 on evaluation and assessment. I think that we should be clear that it is by no means a glowing endorsement of what is happening. It records an "urgent need" to build teachers' trust in a new moderation system. It also talked about the "many implementation problems" in computer-based assessments in primary schools and noted considerable challenges presented to schools by the:
"lack of continuity in central tests".
It is far from clear that that advice has been taken on board. It is evidence, along with that published by the teaching unions, that teachers have no confidence whatsoever in the assessments. So, the motion is clearly correct on that point. It may be a little strong for it to state that the Department and CCEA's approach "is not fit for purpose", although I certainly know of teachers who have said that, including one distinguished ex-teacher in the House, Mr Rogers, who is not in his place.
The reviews demonstrate that all is not well. There is significant variability, the inspection system does not tie in with the assessment process, teachers' professional development is not properly taken into account, and so on. Even the Minister has noted a lack of confidence among some in the assessment process.
As is mentioned in the motion, the present process has encountered many problems. Some of those have been technical, but there is also the aforementioned lack of confidence in the system. I wonder whether parents have any confidence in it. The Department has already accepted that parents may have no interest in reporting levels or suchlike. Balanced against that is the point that education cannot just pause while we sort out what to do, which is fair enough.
Ultimately, surely the biggest issue is manageability. We cannot dismiss the simple fact that 91% of teachers view the tests as unmanageable, while almost the same number regard them as useless. The Minister's party appears to be slightly in denial about that, because when asked about discussions with teaching unions on the matter earlier this year, the Minister could not provide any detail, and, when asked about how poorly teachers viewed the assessments, he bizarrely claimed that a response rate of 75% was positive. Somebody is wrong here, Minister.
Will the Member give way?
Sure.
This morning, I was on the verge of publishing a very detailed document on those ongoing discussions, because I believe that the House deserves to know exactly what is on the table. I was asked not to do so, because it might hinder potential progress in those talks. I will keep that under review, however. I believe that it may be necessary to publish that document.
The Member has an extra minute.
Minister, by all means, publish the document. We would all be glad to see it.
It is also far from clear whether continually testing pupils is the best way to give them a rounded education. If they are constantly preparing for assessments of whatever kind, are they really preparing for life? It seems to me that it would be preferable, as the Association of School and College Leaders seems to have suggested, to view key stages as benchmarks rather than testing. While I may not necessarily agree with everything that it says, I think that "benchmarks" is a helpful term, as it emphasises what continuous assessment is supposed to be about — informing teaching and learning. That is what the motion states.
Whatever is decided, I think that the consensus is that the system does not work primarily because teachers have not had a significant enough say. It is in that specific area that the Minister needs to address the problem most urgently. It is not often that we find common cause around this Chamber between the SDLP, us, the Ulster Unionists and the DUP. In fact, it is fairly unique, but I hope that the Minister and his party will get the message today that it is time to stop, reconsider and come back with something that is fit for purpose and workable.
I support the motion. I do so having listened to the passion of Mr Storey, the professionalism of Mr Rogers, the pleading of Mr Kinahan to be listened to and the lack of confidence that Mr Lunn has in the system.
There are a number of important aspects included in the motion that contribute to the overall aspirations of this Assembly for the education of its children. The motion notes:
"principals and teachers in schools no longer have any confidence in the end of Key Stage Assessments".
It further notes with concern:
"the Department of Education and the Council for Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment's approach to end of Key Stage Assessments is not fit for purpose; and calls on the Minister of Education to halt the present process".
On the positive aspect of the motion, it calls for:
"assessment for learning tools that schools currently use and introduce a system of assessment that helps inform teaching and learning."
What are we trying to create in our education system? I suppose that it can be encapsulated in a number of phrases. We want highly motivated children with an appetite for learning, which we can encourage through the education system; children who have a desire to achieve at their highest level of ability; approaches to curriculum development and assessment that will have a strong emphasis on high expectations, success and bringing about the best possible achievement for pupils; ensuring holistic partnerships with and between the schools, parents, pupils and the local community to improve, enhance and progress children's knowledge and their skills; the professional leadership of head teachers, with a continuous impact on helping children enjoy their educational experiences and the overall ethos of work within whichever school that they attend; and to prepare the pupil for second-level education, whatever that choice may be.
The Minister stated in his letter on the subject to schools dated 4 October:
"I am aware that many teachers not only see the associated assessment moderation arrangements as burdensome, they are also not confident that the levels themselves are useful. I am determined that the focus of the current and coming academic years will be on working with you to build that confidence."
Minister, given your words in that letter, how can it also be that you support the amendment, which recognises the concern? As has been pointed out, "concern" is a very low level word that does not encapsulate all the feelings of the unions, teachers and principals around this matter, but you recognise the concern of school principals and teachers about some elements of Key Stage assessments. It is not some elements, Minister; it is more than some elements.
You call on both parties; you call on the Department of Education representatives and teachers' representatives to redouble their efforts and to finalise a system of assessment that helps to inform. Minister, the responsibility for that is yours. It is not for the teachers to redouble their efforts; it is for you and your Department to redouble your efforts and progress the matter.
You also recognise that Key Stage data creates pressure on schools and individual teachers and that the pressure creates a negative effect of the use of the levels for the learning of pupils. You also recognise that the levels have not evolved to meet changing circumstances.
Minister, I do not think that anything else can be said about it. The process is not working. As Mr Kinahan, Mr Rogers, Mr Storey and Mr Lunn said — as every side of the House has said — principals and teachers must be listened to.
Will the Member give way?
I am happy to give way.
Here, I think, is where we will hear another comment from the Minister and his colleagues about abandoning the process, as though there is nothing taking place in our schools currently that assists and aids that educational benefit to our pupils. A number of other tools, such as PiE, PiM and the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER), are being used by our teachers. They are objective tools, and they can be used. So, it is not a case of abandoning this and leaving the schools to their own whim. There is something there that is of value in the classroom, but the Department and the Minister dismiss that.
The Member has an extra minute.
I thank the Member for his intervention. The Member is, of course, quite right. The teaching profession and the support mechanisms around the teaching profession are crying out for that. There is a system; there are tools in place that can be used to the benefit of our pupils.
Minister, not just in political interests but in the interests of the pupils —
Will the Member draw his remarks to a close?
— parents, society and the economy, accept the motion as it is put forward.
I rise in support of the motion. The motion states:
"That this Assembly expresses concern that principals and teachers in schools no longer have any confidence in end of Key Stage assessments".
That lack of confidence contained within the education sector was displayed very starkly and can be seen when we look at the survey results published by the General Teaching Council in September 2013. It was revealed that, out of 500 schools in the Province, between 82% and 89% felt that results of end of Key Stage assessments were of limited or of no use. Furthermore, 91% considered the process to be burdensome or very burdensome.
Ultimately, we have a situation in which schools and teachers are being placed under a significant degree of pressure to carry out these Key Stage assessments, even though they seriously doubt the usefulness of the current process. The fear is that teachers are so burdened with trying to deliver on the Key Stage assessments that the educational experience of our young people becomes disrupted in a detrimental manner. Teachers feel that the assessment procedures are purely bureaucratic and that they have no proven educational benefits.
At the end of the day, the purpose of end of Key Stage assessments should be to assist teaching and learning. However, with the situation we are in, that does not appear to be the case. Since September 2013, the Minister has recognised the fact that many teachers see the end of Key Stage assessment arrangements as burdensome. He has also noted that many teachers are not confident that the levels are useful.
The Minister thus moved to make changes to the end of Key Stage model. The reporting date for the end of Key Stage level data to CCEA, for instance, was moved from mid-March to mid-May. That was in line with schools' stated preference for reporting data. However, although some changes have been made to the end of Key Stage assessments, we are ultimately still in a situation in which teachers view the process and workings of end of Key Stage assessments in a negative light.
The opinion amongst many in the teaching profession is that teachers are still facing pressures that are inevitably diverting them away from the key role of leading, teaching and learning. Teachers are making clear to us that the current assessment procedures act as a distraction and, importantly, they feel that the procedures do not enhance our young people's educational experience.
It is clear that time now needs to be taken to think about how future assessment arrangements can be better aligned with the revised Northern Ireland curriculum. Assessment is a very important part of teaching and learning. Quality and timely teacher feedback from appropriate and clear assessment activities is one of the most useful tools to improve pupils' learning. A process must be developed in which principals and teachers have confidence in assessment methods and are able to truly buy into the process to enhance our young people's education.
I, for one, want the Northern Ireland education sector to thrive and to deliver to the best of its ability, not only for the teachers and pupils but for Northern Ireland as a whole. Although the Minister consulted teachers and principals on their concerns about the end of Key Stage assessment and moved to make changes to alleviate some of those concerns, we are still in a position in which teachers feel that the current process is not fit for purpose. Today, I urge the Minister to bring the current process to a stop. It is time to review other assessment for learning tools that schools are using and introduce a system that helps to inform teaching and learning and make it the best that it can be.
Go raibh míle maith agat. Thanks for the opportunity to speak on end of Key Stage assessments. Good practice indicates that assessment should be both summative and formative and that outcomes of assessment should have comparability between pupils and schools; inform future teaching and learning; and give parents a clear indication of the progress being made by their children. Assessment should, as far as possible, be carried out as part of classroom activities and should not place an undue burden on teachers.
Unfortunately, the current system of end of Key Stage assessment does not meet the requirements of good practice. In fact, if anything, the opposite is the case. There is very little summative or formative relevance to the current assessment. The comparability between schools is totally unreliable. It provides little that is useful in future teaching and learning, and, unfortunately, it places a burden of administration on teachers that is largely wasted because of the unreliability of the assessments themselves.
The process of applying and awarding a level is inconsistent and skews the Northern Ireland average data. The result is that schools that have, in fact, applied the levels properly suffer and fall below the Northern Ireland average. The skewed data is then used by DENI to inform boards of governors. The simple irony is that, once a school submits levels to CCEA, there are no checks and balances in place to allow these levels to be verified and no external moderation or cross-moderation between schools. The levels themselves are far too broad and meaningless and are not used by schools to report a child's progress to their parents. The simple fact is that a child who is reported at level 4 at the end of Key Stage 2 could, in fact, have a standardised score of between 92 and 125 — the abilities of two children at either end of the scale are worlds apart, yet they have both been awarded the same level at the Key Stage end.
As was stated, school principals believe that the current system is beyond repair and that changes made over the past two or three years have failed to give schools an assessment tool that we can all have faith in. It is beyond time that the Minister stopped defending a flawed and failed system and took steps to replace it with a system that will serve pupils, teachers and parents in an effective and efficient manner, and not place any undue burden of administration on teachers.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, is léir nach bhfuil an córas faoi mar atá sé faoi láthair ag obair. Caithfear deireadh a chur leis agus caithfidh an tAire éisteacht leis na príomhoidí, leis na múinteoirí. Is iadsan is fearr eolas ar an cheist seo. Go raibh míle maith agat as an deis cainte, ní aontaím leis an leasú ar an rún, beidh mé ag tabhairt tacaíochta don rún.
As I said, it is quite clear that the system is not working. It needs to be replaced. The Minister should listen to the voices of principals and practising teachers and make the necessary changes. I do not support the amendment, but I do support the motion.
I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion today.
"Ill-conceived, ill-thought-out, symbolic, distracting, of no value to people, parents and schools".
Those are not my words, but they sum up one of the main points raised about the end of Key Stage assessments by principals. These and other comments were included in the minutes of the SELB principals' assessment meeting in March this year, which was attended by no fewer than 67 school principals from across the board's catchment area. At the meeting, the principals agreed what we already know: the current system is beyond repair, and changes over the last three to four years have totally failed to give schools an assessment model that they can have any faith in whatsoever.
Too many people in the education system — I include the employing authorities, CCEA, ETI and the Department — have recognised the flaws but sadly have chosen not to speak out and address the issues. Indeed, many principals fear that the current system is merely a cosmetic exercise and have no faith whatsoever in the final benchmarking data and its reliability. Why, for example, is the process so inconsistent that there is no scrutiny of it at schools level?
I will give a snapshot. Through a freedom of information request, it has been shown that, in 2013, one school had as many as 90% of its children attaining a level 3 at Key Stage 1 while almost 70% attained level 5 at Key Stage 2. This is inconsistent nonsense when it is generally accepted that a child will be at level 2 at the end of Key Stage 1 and at level 3 at the end of Key Stage 2. It is, therefore, widely recognised that the levels are meaningless and are not used by schools to report a child's progress to its parents. Indeed, the secondary schools do not use end of Key Stage levels for any purpose whatsoever, so we have to ask the question: what is the point?
It is clear to all that these assessments do not improve or develop a child's potential in any way. We all know that reaching potential is important, but comparing schools based on false data certainly is not. On numerous occasions in Committee, we raised the topic of the disastrous NILA and NINA computer-based assessments. This issue cuts to the very heart of what is wrong with our education system today, and pupils are ultimately left to suffer. Principals and teachers rightly raise their concerns, but pupils should be central to the assessment process, and they are totally being totally let down.
The failure to test the computer systems properly has been roundly and rightly criticised by all sides here today. The Minister wishes to take more and more powers away from schools, directing them to the centre, but the problem is created by the centre and is essentially being resolved by the expertise at schools level. If ever there was an argument for greater powers to be devolved to schools rather than clutched by the central administration, this is the issue.
I will close by quoting a further comment from the SELB principals' report:
"If the GP's surgery were knowingly diagnosing and medicating inaccurately, they would be struck off; yet, we have been knowingly administering a detrimental process for 20 years."
That just about sums it up. It is time for the Minister and the Department to remove their heads from the sand and put in place a fit-for-purpose assessment system.
I am very happy to add to the consensus against Sinn Féin on this motion. I hope that I do not disturb the consensus in any way. It is quite clear from listening to Mr Bradley that that consensus in terms of the denunciation of the present arrangements comes in both English and Irish. I welcome the motion. I particularly welcome the fact that, right at the beginning, it goes to a key issue, namely, articulating the fact that principals and teachers in our schools no longer have any confidence in the key stage assessments.
I must say that I do not find teachers to be ready-made rebels. Perhaps by the nature of their profession, in that in their day job they seek to inculcate respect for authority, living within rules and conforming, they are, above all, in many cases, conformists. However, teachers are at the end of their tether when it comes to the pointless, inane process that has evolved into the key stage assessments.
I chair a board of governors, as I have referred to before, and when it comes to the annual discussion about the key stage assessments, no teacher representative, no matter how mild-mannered or conformist in nature, can possibly conceal the frustration, verging on anger, that they feel for the waste of their time, parents' time and the time of all involved in carrying out those assessments. They are assessments that point, in the main, to nothing. They are not relied on, for example, when a kid transfers to post-secondary school. They are assessments that just seem to be there for the purpose of ticking some box that the Department has decided needs to be ticked, but which tells you very little.
Indeed, for a Department that is so besotted with being non-assessment and non-selective based, it really is amazing that, on this issue, it is so wedded to that assessment, which delivers nothing. As for assessment that might just help you evaluate where a kid's future educational needs could best be catered for, that is anathema, but for assessment that is inane and tells you nothing, let us have it; that is wonderful. That seems to be the flip-flop attitude of the Minister and his Department to issues of assessment.
Of course, he then rolls in behind anything he can find, so he clutches for the OECD report, enthused, of course, that it also has some adverse things to say about selection, so whatever that particular report might say is music to the Minister's ears. I suggest, Minister, that it is not the OECD and some foreign input that you should be listening to but what the teachers in the classrooms are saying. It is those who have to shape, mould and teach our future generations and prepare them for the world of work that you should be working with, not against. That is what it comes down to — working against teachers.
Will the Member give way?
Yes, I will give way.
The Member mentions the message coming from teachers, but he does not seem to be as concerned when that message is around selection.
The Member has an extra minute.
I am always concerned about the key message in education: parental choice. Would any parents choose those inane, pointless assessments that tell them nothing? Very few would. Would parents choose a system that gives their kids, particularly those from the most socially disadvantaged backgrounds, the opportunity to get on the rung of a ladder that might take them to a good educational outcome? Of course they would. Parental choice is the key component that needs to be kept to the forefront of our minds in discussing issues pertaining to education.
I support the motion and reject the amendment, which seeks to water down, plead for time and do all sorts of things when the matter is staring the House in the face. It needs to face up to it now and recognise that the assessments have served their purpose. They are over, and it is time to bin them like so much else that the Minister has brought upon us.
Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The motion refers to the arrangements not being “fit for purpose”, but, listening to many of the contributions, I am not sure that everyone is clear what the purpose is. It is not a test, as some Members said; it is an assessment of work carried out under the curriculum.
Three assessments take place over a child's school life between the ages of eight and 14. Under the arrangements, teachers assess and report on children’s education at three key points: Key Stage 1, Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 3. They assess the critically important skills of communication, using maths and, in due course, ICT. Levels of progression set out the knowledge and skills that we expect a pupil to have acquired by those points. In communication, for example, we expect most pupils to be able to move from being able to spell and write common and familiar words legibly by the end of year 4, to explaining opinions about what they read by year 7 and to being able to differentiate between fact and opinion — which some Members would maybe have to take a wee test in — by the end of year 10. Similarly, under using mathematics, pupils are expected to go from knowing about the coins that make up £1 in year 4, to being able to calculate savings using simple percentages in year 7 and calculating and making informed choices about personal budgeting by the end of year 10.
These are the things that our curriculum spells out need to be taught in school, and the levels of progression show how much has been learnt. Parents expect those skills to be developed by the time their children move to the next stage of their education, and they are entitled to have assurances that their child has acquired those skills. Parents and the wider public also quite reasonably expect us to know whether children are actually acquiring those skills across the whole system and that no child is being left behind.
Some Members in their deliberations argued for much more stringent reporting mechanisms. Some Members — I will name them as I go through my speech — said that some schools were cheating and that their scores could not be relied on. If the scores cannot be relied on, we have to put in more stringent accountability measures, not take them away. Mr Bradley's commentary was much more strident in that regard than Mr Rogers's, so there is a difference of opinion even there. A number of Members have told me today that principals have told them that they are doing the job right but that the school down the road is cheating. As I said to Mr Kinahan, if that is the case you have to name them. You have a duty to name them.
There has been much talk of the levels being too broad. They are deliberately broad to match the high-level assurance that we need that the range of skills has been acquired by pupils. However, schools and the OECD, which were described by Mr Allister, who is morphing into Enoch Powell as each week passes, as foreigners — by the way, the foreigner who headed the OECD report was a Claire Shewbridge from England — have asked us to look at how more detail could be added to demonstrate progress within a level, for example. I am happy to commit my Department and CCEA to look at that, not because we need that detail at a system level but because it could assist day-to-day teaching and learning.
Assessment is what every good schoolteacher does every day. The teacher makes an assessment by reviewing a child’s work over the period leading up to the end of the Key Stage. It is not a judgement made solely on the result of a one-off test. These do not involve one-off tests. CCEA makes sure that schools have a good understanding of what work at a particular level should be like, and, if a school struggles to get that right, CCEA will follow up to check that individual children's work reflects the level that their teacher gave them.
CCEA has a role in checking the validity of reports. A number of Members are arguing today that CCEA or another body should have a much more stringent role in assessing these. Even if we go for the other commercially available assessments out there, as the motion suggests, how do Members reassure themselves, as some Members have suggested, that every school is performing honourably and reflecting the results honourably?
I am not giving way, no.
Members are arguing here today, and some Members like to see themselves as, "We will do away with the inspectorate. We will do away with levels of progressions. We will do away with assessing. We will do away with accountability", when we all know that it is all nonsense and that they have no intentions of doing that. They like to reflect this across. If Members back the motion as it is currently worded, then, even if you do introduce commercially available assessments, who moderates them? Nobody gave that suggestion during their contribution. Who —
No, thank you. [Interruption.]
Order.
Who moderates? As I have said — [Interruption.]
Order.
As I have said, several Members have already reported to the Assembly that school principals have told them that the school down the road is cheating. So, who moderates? Then there are some Members in the House who tell us, "We will do away with the ETI. We will do away with assessment. We will do away with levels of progressions. We will do away with accountability."
Who said that?
Last week. In the Chamber last week. [Interruption.]
Order, Members. I ask that Members desist from making comments from a sedentary position.
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. If the Minister is going to make assertions, at least let him have the bottle to name who it was. There was no call in this House last week for no inspection system. He needs to get his facts right.
I am not aware that that is a point of order.
Well, it is on the record.
The Member has put his point on the record.
It appears that Mr Storey's mood is not the best today either.
Standing here as the Minister of Education, I affirm the professionalism of our teachers. The professionalism of our teachers' judgements is at the very heart of the arrangements that I am looking to put in place. Parents and pupils also need to have confidence that their teachers' judgement is sound, and that is why we have moderation. We have to always come back to this. We always have to come back to this point about moderation because, in this fairytale world that some Members of this House live in, even though they have been told that the school down the road is cheating and even though they are looking to bring in assessment processes that are not even aligned to our curriculum, they have to be moderated. So, you have to be the bad boy some day or the bad girl some day, because you have to turn round to the teaching profession and say, "By the way, do you see those commercially related assessments? I am going to moderate them, because I want to be assured that the information that I am getting is absolutely correct".
I also want to be assured, as the Minister of Education who is responsible for the £2 billion budget that is being invested in education and who is responsible for our young people, that the educational performance of those young people is up to standard. How do you do that without moderation and without assessment? How do you do it? Moderation is a necessary part of the process.
As I said, Mr Bradley, Mr Newton, Mrs Dobson and Mr Rogers have all made the comment that school principals have advised them that they do not trust the school down the road. They need to back that up with information because, if schools are returning false information, they have a duty to report it. However, teachers recognise that they must be able to stand over the consistency of their application. I have been accused by some here of not listening to teachers or their representatives, and I cannot allow this to go unchallenged.
As I said to Mr Lunn during his contribution, I was about to publish a very detailed document on what proposals I have put on the table in front of the teachers' unions in the last three to four weeks. It is a very detailed response to the teachers' unions. I am awaiting a response from them, but as I came towards this debate, I said to myself, "I am going to listen to a half-informed debate today." That is not unusual for the Assembly Chamber, in fairness. Perhaps it would be only right and proper if the Assembly had all of the information in front of it.
I was asked to not publish it, because it may harm ongoing negotiations, and I have taken that decision.
I believe that my objective is to reach agreement with the teachers' representatives and move forward. The attitudes of teachers, in the discussions in which I and my officials are involved, are not reflected in what has been said in here today. Those discussions are much more productive and much more engaged. We are down into the detail, and we are down into how we make levels of progression work for the pupil, the teacher, the school and our education system.
You are bluffing.
Mr Storey says that I am bluffing. Being the champion of the teacher and the champion of the principal, Mr Storey brought a number of motions to the House over the last couple of weeks. However, it is worth noting where Mr Storey and his party's allegiances lie. They are courting the Tory party in England. They are in allegiance with a party in England whose education policies are somewhat called into question by the teachers' unions.
You are glad of their money anyway.
Fifty thousand marched in London on Saturday against the Tory party's austerity policy. Indeed, so aligned are they now to the Tory party that Mr Storey's constituency colleague Ian Paisley Jnr has invited Minister Michael Gove to tour our schools. [Interruption.] He is perfectly entitled to invite Mr Gove across to tour our schools —
Order. I think that we are having enough comments from a sedentary position. I ask Members to desist from making such comments and allow the Minister to make his contribution.
I raised the point only because I think that the motions over the last number of weeks have to be put into context. Anybody who believes that a Minister Storey is not going to be more like a Mervyn Gove than a Michael Gove really needs to be assessed.
Moving forward, I have been engaged in detailed negotiations with teacher representatives. I believe that there is a way to make levels of progression work, and I believe that there is a way to deal with the genuine concerns expressed by teachers. I believe that there is a duty on us to ensure that we have an assessment mechanism for our children's learning at Key Stage 1, 2 and 3. Those who, quite rightly, clamour for better education outcomes for our society need to have a mechanism to measure them. Whether you like it or not, whether you are in government, in opposition, a member of the Education Committee or wherever it may be, you cannot produce a wish list of things that should not really happen: "no, no, we shouldn't have inspection"; "no, no, we shouldn't have assessment"; "no, no, we shouldn't have accountability".
In fact, Mrs Dobson ended her speech by saying that we should give more powers to schools. Throughout her speech, she talked about how school principals were telling her that schools were cheating. How do you square that circle? How do you square the circle of concentrating your speech on saying, "School principals are telling me the school down the road is cheating, but I will tell you what we have to do Minister; we have to devolve more powers to schools"?
Being in government, whether in opposition, in government or on the Education Committee, puts an onus and a responsibility on you to come forward with proposals that are workable, accountable and meet the needs of all our young people moving forward.
I believe that the element most ill-informed about levels of progression and most kept out of the loop about the debate on levels of progression is the parent. Under current legislation, parents need to be given the information on levels of progression. Current legislation also dictates that that information should be forwarded to my Department. It is vital that the debate moving forward involves parents and that they are given the information as to why levels of progression are on the table, what mechanisms are in place, and what accountability mechanisms are in place to ensure that the scenario that Mr Newton, Mrs Dobson, Mr Kinahan and Mr Bradley referred to does not happen, and that when boards of governors receive the information about how their school is performing, they can have confidence in it, that local parents can have confidence in it, and, yes, that the principal can have confidence in it as well.
However, there is no fairy-tale ending to the story for anyone. There is no fairy tale here. No one can stand up and promise the earth, moon and stars to teachers and principals on this one That is because, when each of you examine your speeches and contributions, at their heart was the need for accountability. At times, accountability can be a difficult quest. It can be very difficult for those who are being held to account, who in this case are the teachers, the principal and, ultimately, boards of governors. It can be a very uncomfortable journey, but if any Member is serious about moving our education system forward, and if any Member is serious about ensuring how we do that, you need to have measurements in place.
I commissioned the OECD report, and the amendment supports the principles of our current levels of progression assessments. That is stated in the amendment. Yes, there were criticisms in the report, and I have taken on board those criticisms. I am working to overcome them in a progressive and productive way. However, Members, those who think that, if they were ever in a position of authority with a £2 billion budget, they would not have any levels of accountability are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Tá mé iontach sásta bheith ag labhairt sa díospóireacht seo, agus beidh mé ag tacú leis an leasú. I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate, and I, of course, will be supporting the amendment.
I listened to your comments earlier, a LeasCheann Comhairle, about schoolchildren who may be watching or listening to the debate, and I am very conscious of that. I want to raise an issue around that. At the outset of his remarks, the Chair of the Committee talked about Sinn Féin having had the education portfolio for the past 16 years. Although that may be true, the impression was given that nobody else has had the opportunity to take it on. Of course, the DUP could have taken it at any time, yet it chose not to. Why did it choose not to? It was because it might have had to make decisions in and around the education system. It is not the world-class system that the DUP portrays it to be; rather, it needs root-and-branch change. Thankfully, we have a Minister in Sinn Féin, as we had previous Ministers, who is prepared to do that.
I would love to know what the DUP's strategic vision for education is, because I do not know what it is. I can imagine, in my mind's eye, a meeting of the DUP, and some new boy at the back saying, "Mervyn, what is our strategic vision for education?", to which Mervyn replies, "Listen, son, our strategic vision is clear: whatever the Shinners are for, we are against".
That is a pretty good vision, I think.
It is a good start.
That is the sum total of the DUP's vision for education. Of course, my learned friend, who is chittering away down there in the corner, let the cat out of the bag in this debate when he said that this a political consensus against Sinn Féin rather than a consensus for improved educational outcomes for children. That is what he thinks.
Will the Member give way?
Are the two of you having a laugh here?
Will the Member give way?
You set the tone for interventions. No, I am not giving way.
[Interruption.]
Order.
So, calm yourself down there. We have had a lot of comments today about teachers and what they think of assessments — their views on them and the percentage of them who are against Key Stage assessments. I do not know of any teacher who is against assessment. However, my colleague Chris Hazzard raised the issue of when it comes to teachers' views on academic selection, the common funding formula, and so on and so forth, are those views taken into account by the DUP and my learned friend? No, they are not.
Yes.
No, they are not. The Minister also mentioned the OECD report, which, of course, endorsed the principles of the assessment process. As the Minister said, it was also critical, and he is working against it. As I said before, this is a Minister who listens and takes action. When the criticisms came about the computer-based assessments, the Minister acted on them. Did he or did he not act on them? Of course he acted on them.
Will the Member give way?
I will give way. I am not going to be as churlish as you are or as petty.
The Minister came to this House and blamed the teachers who would not do it. He said that I was misleading the House. He was then dragged to this House six months later. Check the record, because the Minister knows that it was an abysmal failure.
The Member has an extra minute.
That is right, but —
Oh, it is right.
Order.
Yes, it had to be dragged out of him.
Order, order. I ask that all comments are made through the Chair, please.
One person has the Floor at a time.
Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle.
I am glad to hear the Chair of the Education Committee saying that I am right. Go raibh maith agat. Thanks very much for that.
There are positive and productive talks ongoing with representatives of teachers. I hope that there will be a positive outcome to those.
My learned friend up in the corner described these assessments as, "inane, pointless assessments". On the contrary, these assessments are set out so that we can see how far children have progressed in the areas of communication and mathematics and, in the future, ICT.
Would the Member draw his remarks to a close?
That is what assessments are for. Are we saying we should not have them? No. I support the amendment.
I take great pleasure in making the winding-up speech on the motion.
I listened with great interest to the debate, and one thing that has become apparent to me is that Sinn Féin's paranoia runs incredibly deep. In fact, it runs so deep that the Minister described every Member, other that Sinn Féin Members, as living in a fairy tale world. That leads me to wonder who the Cinderellas are and who the fairies are. I will leave it to Members to make up their own minds.
Paranoia always runs extremely deep when the only person who thinks you are right is yourself. That is unfortunately where the Minister and his party find themselves today. They are the only ones defending the existing system, broke and all as that system is, as the Minister even admitted at one stage.
There is no evidence out there from any principal or teacher that the system is working. There is no evidence out there to say that teachers and principals have confidence in the system. In fact, there has been report after report from teachers and principals to the Committee telling us that they have no confidence in the outcomes. If they have no confidence in the outcomes, they are certainly not going to pass that information on to parents. The Minister got one thing right: parents are the key to all of this. Are we going to know how our children are progressing or not progressing in a primary school through the existing system? The answer to that is a very clear no. The paranoia must run deep when every other Member says no to that and only one group is saying yes. Why is that? I am going to give only one bit of advice: do not stick to a broken system. That is my plea to the Minister.
Sometimes, the best thing you can do in life is scrap what you have been at and have a rethink. To me, this is a stage where we need a major rethink on how we progress and track the progress of our children within primary schools.
If this system is so good, why are secondary schools not using it, Minister? Why is it that secondary schools spend their first quarter testing children to find out what their actual achievement levels are? That should be the biggest clue of all that something is fundamentally wrong with the system in primary schools. That should tell you something. Why do they waste their time and resources doing that? They do not waste their time and resources doing that to figure out who the brightest and weakest children are. They do that so that they can educate to the best of their skills and efforts the children who come in from primary schools.
Are the levels consistent across primary schools? I sit as the chair of a board of governors, so I have seen these; I have looked at them. I can tell you now, Minister, that there is little consistency across primary schools. When you look at what they are saying the achievement levels of children are and what the secondary schools conclude that they are, you see that there is an inconsistency. I am not saying that anyone is cheating. I am just saying that somebody somewhere is getting it wrong. That is something I would like the Minister to take on board.
Will the Member give way?
The Member will give way, yes.
How does the Member expect me to take that on board whenever his party is against moderation and against these levels being reported back to CCEA or the Department of Education? Who, then, comes to take those matters on board?
Yet again, the Minister is putting words into the mouth of this party because we never said that we were against moderation. We never said that we were against accountability. In fact, as a party, we are always one step ahead when it comes to accountability. Of course there should be accountability built into this. There needs to be a consistency right across the board. The fact that there is no consistency at present leads everyone to have no faith whatsoever in the present system.
That is why we are saying, "Let's throw out this system and come up with something that is much more centred on what teachers and principals want — but, above all, what parents want." We want to have the ability to know where our child is on the learning curve. It helps you to make decisions with regard to their future, not only in their secondary education but, ultimately, for whatever career they are going to take in their life.
I listened with great interest to what Members said. Mr Hazzard said that there should be a teacher-centred approach to testing. There is no disagreement from the rest of the House on that. In fact, right across the board, every party has agreed on that issue: make it teacher-centred. Get it approval.
That does not necessarily mean that it is teacher-union-centred. I think that there is a difference here, and maybe the Minister needs to take that on board. How representative are unions of the teachers they purport to represent?
How many are there? Five of them; six of them.
Yes.
Order.
There needs to be confidence in the system. I found it interesting that Mr Hazzard also let the cat out of the bag: we do not have a first-class system in Northern Ireland. It is not world-beating. If you have held that portfolio for 16 years, why is that the case? Have you ever asked yourself that?
Seán was clear on this point: devise a new system using PiMs and PiEs and other methods. You do not have to reinvent the wheel, Minister. There are other systems that could be looked at and modified to suit the Department and the teachers, and they could be used. You do not necessarily need to reinvent the wheel, and I felt from day one that that was the problem with the Department's approach to this. It had to make its own system even though there were other systems out there.
Danny said that it was inconsistently applied, and I think that there is clear evidence that that is the case.
Trevor Lunn pointed out that 90% of teachers say that the assessments are of no use to parents. I would say that there is a high level of agreement on that. They were never used to tell me about the level of attainment of my children while they were going through primary school. There is consistency across the board in that approach.
Dominic Bradley said that there were no external checks on achievement. Again, we are back to this issue, Minister. Nobody around the table is saying that there should not be external checks on the system. We agree that we should reinvent the system, but there has to be some sort of accountability and checking. There is universal agreement that we need something that is consistent across the board and is of use to secondary schools so that they do not spend the first three months of children's secondary education reassessing them and figuring out their achievement levels. There is no confidence in the present system. I recommend the motion to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 25; Noes 60.