Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, October 25, 2018

Official Report 1014KB pdf

---

Education (Primary 1 National Standardised Assessments)

The next item of business is a statement by John Swinney to give an update on primary 1 national standardised assessments. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement.

14:30  

In the period since the debate on P1 assessments, I have considered the arguments that were made and have taken time to discuss ways forward with colleagues in local government and education. I am keen to address the intent of the parliamentary motion, take account of the evidence and recognise the duty that we all carry to ensure that our education system enables pupils to achieve their potential.

There is a great deal of agreement on several points within the terms of the motion that Parliament supported. It highlighted that

“good-quality pupil assessment is an essential component of the drive to raise educational standards in Scotland’s schools”.

I agree with that point, which was a key element of the joint statement that the Scottish Government issued with the Association of the Directors of Education—ADES—in September. It is vital that we have the appropriate approach to assessment, as we would be failing children and their families if we did not.

The motion also highlighted the need to ensure that the P1 assessments

“are in line with the play-based learning philosophy of early years provision in the Curriculum for Excellence”.

I also agree with that. The early level of CFE explicitly provides for play-based learning and any assessment mechanism must reflect that approach. An assessment that lasts less than an hour in a year and is deployed in the correct environment is entirely compatible with that play-based approach. However, I fully recognise that that view is not shared by all and accept the importance of ensuring that the specific design of the assessments is aligned with a play-based approach.

I have reflected on the concerns raised by colleagues in the Parliament. I have read the feedback from teachers provided by the Educational Institute of Scotland, from parents and others and I acknowledge the concerns that have been raised. However, it is also important to acknowledge that others had a positive experience. The view of one school was:

“Overall, primary 1 children responded positively to the SNSAs in both literacy and numeracy”.

That feedback is included in case studies on the P1 assessment experience, which will be published shortly as part of our user review of the assessments.

Although I am aware of the concerns that some parents have, ADES has confirmed that no directors of education have raised any significant concerns from parents in relation to the P1 assessments. That mixed picture must give us all cause to reflect and consider the best way forward.

It strikes me that I am yet to hear a compelling argument on how and why Scotland has undertaken standardised assessments for P1 pupils for so many years—sometimes twice a year—without any concerns being raised by teachers, parents or, indeed, politicians until now. No concerns were raised about the previous assessments—many of which were similar to the Scottish national standardised assessments—not being compatible with play-based learning. I can conclude only that the education system found the assessments that have been in place for some time to be helpful and informative—and a useful part of the overall assessment of children’s learning.

Another conclusion might be that some oppose the assessments because they are national assessments, which they believe to be high-stakes tests that we want to use for accountability purposes. They are not that. The key measure that the Scottish Government will use to assess the standards of Scottish education is teacher professional judgment and not the outcomes of the standardised assessments. The standardised assessments are just one part of the range of evidence that a teacher will call on when assessing whether a child or young person has achieved the appropriate CFE level.

The primary purpose of the SNSAs is to support teachers in planning learning and teaching, whether in P1, P4, P7 or secondary 3. Indeed, because they are diagnostic and, in this case, specifically aligned to the early level of CFE, they should be a better and more effective tool for teachers than were the variety of previous assessments.

I have also considered the advice from those who are charged with delivering education in Scotland. In our debate last month, I quoted the ADES president, Maureen McKenna, who said:

“We suffer too much in education from decisions being made too quickly—my ask is for politicians to pause and allow us the time to evaluate”.

Earlier this month, ADES wrote to all local authority directors of education, emphasising that assessment is a key part of learning and that it is too soon to pass judgment on whether SNSAs are a useful tool for teachers; that ADES is committed to working to improve and enhance assessments; and that it is important that the educational arguments are kept central—specifically, it said that the

“use of assessments to inform learning are decisions for the profession to make”.

Given that the vast majority of local authorities have been running P1 standardised assessments for years, I believe that we must give due consideration to the established approach of authorities and practitioners. The motion that Parliament agreed to gives no clarity to local authorities on what should be done with their standardised assessment programmes if we drop SNSAs. That could result in a return to P1s being assessed twice while removing the elements of national consistency and alignment with curriculum for excellence that are key benefits of the SNSAs. That is the type of unintended consequence that can be created by such a decision by Parliament. I ask Parliament to recognise that that cannot be a beneficial outcome of this debate.

Ultimately, I acknowledge that Parliament has formally taken the position that P1 assessments should be halted, but I contend that we must give due consideration to the established practice of the overwhelming majority of local authorities that carried out a form of P1 assessment in the belief that that was in the best interests of pupils.

We face two competing considerations. Therefore, I have decided to commission an independent review of the approach to P1 assessments within the context of the national improvement framework. The objective of the review will be to “reconsider the evidence”, as the parliamentary motion asked me to do. I have asked Her Majesty’s chief inspector of education to provide me with advice on who should carry out the independent review.

The review will consider and provide recommendations on the compatibility of the assessments with the play-based approach in the early level of curriculum for excellence; the alignment of the assessments with the benchmarks for the early level; the effect on P1 children of taking an online assessment; the usefulness of the diagnostic information that is provided to teachers and how it supports their professional judgment; the implications of the review for the on-going development of the national Gaelic-medium education standardised assessments; and the future of the assessments. Particular consideration will be given to whether the assessments should continue in line with the current continuous improvement model, whether they should be substantially modified or whether they should be stopped.

I would welcome the input of the other parties to the formulation of the review’s remit and the appointment of its leadership.

An independent, evidence-based review could come to the same conclusion that I have reached—that P1 assessment should be reformed not abolished—but I make it clear to the chamber that the outcome of the review could be a recommendation to stop the assessments. The review will be led by the evidence and by what is best for pupils. I believe that that is the right way to resolve the competing considerations that we face following the vote of Parliament last month.

The review will be asked to provide conclusions and recommendations on each of the issues that I have identified by the end of May 2019. That will allow time for us to digest the findings and for Parliament to debate them prior to the summer recess. To properly inform it, the review will need to see the assessments in operation, so I reiterate my previous advice that schools should continue with their existing plans for the implementation of SNSAs in 2018-19. By proceeding with the assessments this year, we will generate a larger evidence base that will allow us to establish how the improvements that we have already introduced are working and what other changes could be made. To do otherwise would simply generate uncertainty and confusion during the school year.

The Scottish Government advice on the timing of assessments is clear: it should not involve all children being assessed in blocks or windows. Local authorities should work collaboratively with headteachers to agree plans for the assessments, taking account of the needs of the children and young people involved. That sits comfortably with the ADES advice that the timing of the assessments should be driven by educational arguments and its recent advice to directors, in which it made it clear that

“There is no need for a window to be identified when assessments must be carried out”.

Teachers’ judgment is key here and the decision should be left to them to make, based on the interests of their pupils.

I ask colleagues across the chamber to move this discussion away from politics, to focus on the educational needs of our children and to support the independent review of P1 assessments that I have set out today.

We will move now to questions.

I thank the cabinet secretary for his statement. I draw his attention to a comment that he made on 15 March 2001, while criticising the then Scottish Executive, when he said:

“People expect Parliament to decide.”—[Official Report, 15 March 2001; c 591.]

Does the cabinet secretary still believe that the will of this Parliament is paramount? Does he believe that this Parliament voted to act on the evidence that had been provided by a large number of primary 1 teachers, who were telling the cabinet secretary that the tests do not add value to the assessments that are already in place and are not wholly in line with the play-based philosophy and early years of the curriculum for excellence?

In his speech to the Scottish National Party conference, the cabinet secretary called the Opposition parties a disgrace on the issue and asserted that we were resorting to “political opportunism” rather than engaging with the educational arguments about the whole issue. Does the cabinet secretary think that the primary 1 teachers, members of the public and parents who oppose the tests are also a disgrace? Does he think that they, too, are guilty of political opportunism?

Finally, if the cabinet secretary now agrees that there is a need for an independent review, I ask him again exactly what evidence convinced him that four and five-year-olds in Scotland needed to be tested in the way that he proposed, when many high-performing education systems do not consider such tests to be necessary or educationally beneficial.

Presiding Officer, there are a number of points in there and I will need to take time to deal with them.

First, I do believe that the will of the Parliament is important, and I am trying to address the will of the Parliament. In my statement today, I have set out how I intend to respect the will of the Parliament by addressing different components of the motion that Liz Smith herself lodged.

One element of that motion was a call to “reconsider the evidence”. I propose to reconsider the evidence by instituting an independent review—I am respecting the will of the Parliament to do that.

However, I must ensure—and I am the only person in this chamber who has this duty—that I do not act in a fashion that disrespects educational performance and the approaches that are put in place to support the needs of young people the length and breadth of the country. That is my duty as education secretary.

Liz Smith asked what evidence compelled me to believe that assessments of four and five-year-olds should be undertaken. The custom and practice of the 27 out of 32 local authorities in Scotland who had done exactly that for many, many years, without a word of objection, was part of what I believed to be important. There was also an important enhancement in the assessments that we put in place, which was the ability to support teachers the length and breadth of the country by providing advice on the achievement of consistent standards across the country, which was missing from the independent schemes that were being taken forward by individual local authorities.

Liz Smith mentioned my comments at my party conference. I described the Opposition parties as being guilty of political opportunism—I specifically described the Conservatives in that way. In the parliamentary debate, I set out precisely why I feel that there has been political opportunism, when I said that the Conservatives had tried to create the impression that at no stage had they ever supported P1 assessments, when in fact they had done so. That is why I said those things.

What I am trying to do today is to move us on from the political debate and to concentrate on the educational arguments. It is the duty of all members of the Parliament to focus on those questions.

I thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of his statement.

The cabinet secretary says that he wishes to respect Parliament’s will but that is just not true. The intent of the motion that was agreed to and the will of Parliament could not have been clearer: the national tests in primary 1 should stop. The whole statement was a justification for refusing to respect the motion and for defying Parliament.

The cabinet secretary demands that we focus on educational needs. That is exactly what we did in reaching the conclusion that we reached a month ago. Parliament listened to teachers, parents and the educational arguments and voted accordingly. Mr Swinney’s problem is that he lost those educational arguments.

It is the politics of the cabinet secretary’s denial, his stubbornness and his hubris that must be set aside here. What on earth gives him the right to defy this Parliament?

When Mr Gray uses the language that he has just used, he betrays what is at the heart of his agenda, which is the politics of all this. That is all that Mr Gray is interested in.

Mr Gray cannot marshal universal educational opinion to support the argument—

Neither can you!

I acknowledge that and I have acknowledged it throughout the process.

Stop it, then.

This is not a conversation, Mr Gray.

That is why I am putting in place an independent review to consider the issues and, by reconsidering the evidence, to do what Mr Gray voted for in the parliamentary motion. If Mr Gray objected to that, he should not have put it in the motion.

The whole motion was to stop and review.

The whole motion.

Mr Gray and Ms Lamont—please.

Mr Gray should not have authored the motion with Liz Smith. If he wanted to stop the tests and not raise the issue of reconsidering the evidence, he should have put a motion to Parliament to that effect. He did not do that; he was so interested in cobbling together a political deal with the Tories that that is what he signed up to. I am simply pursuing what Parliament put in place.

I am not prepared to do what Mr Gray appears to be prepared to do, which is to act in a footloose fashion with the educational wellbeing of children. I will not do that for political convenience, which is what Mr Gray signed up to during that parliamentary debate.

I thank the Deputy First Minister for the advance copy of his statement and remind him that some of us have taken a consistent position against the testing of young children since before it was standardised nationally.

During the review, will all options, including continuous formative assessment rather than formalised assessment—whether standardised nationally or not—be put on the table?

What right does the Deputy First Minister think that he has to pick and choose when he respects the will of Parliament?

Mr Greer is absolutely correct to say that the Green Party has taken a consistent position of opposition to the assessments, and I acknowledge that, as I have done on previous occasions.

Mr Greer then goes on to engage in the issues that I have brought up in a constructive way in talking about what might be the content of the review that we are undertaking. I am perfectly willing to embrace his points because they are reasonable points to add to the remit of the review so that we can take a considered view of the questions. As I acknowledged in my statement, the independent review could end up saying that P1 assessments should continue with certain changes. Equally, it could say that it does not matter what we do and P1 assessments should stop. I have accepted that that might well be the outcome of the review.

I am simply saying that, as part of the motion that it agreed to, Parliament asked me to reconsider the evidence. I am putting in place a mechanism to enable Parliament to do that in a way that means that we can have a considered discussion, bearing in mind the issues that Mr Greer has raised, which will help us to advance the educational debate on all these points. That will be to the benefit of Scottish education.

I thank the Deputy First Minister for his statement.

The review that the Deputy First Minister has mentioned previously was steered by Education Scotland—by those who were the unequivocal backers of testing four and five-year-old boys and girls in primary 1. What will be different this time?

In the meantime, tens of thousands of four and five-year-old girls and boys in primary 1 will continue to be tested during 2019. What bit of “halt” does the Government not understand?

I may not have made this expressly clear, but the review will not be carried out by Education Scotland; it will be carried out independently of Government and Education Scotland. I will take advice from the chief inspector of education about who should conduct the review but, as I indicated in my statement, I am very much open to discussing those questions with other parties in the Parliament in order to secure broad agreement on how we might take these issues forward. Mr Greer has suggested elements of the remit that could be enhanced, and I welcome that. I welcome input from other members of the Parliament as to how we might take the approach forward so that we can command the broadest possible support and proceed on the basis of evidence to ensure that we come to the correct conclusions.

The second point that Mr Scott raised related to the involvement of P1 pupils in the assessments in this school year. I believe that there is justification for maintaining that position. That will give us further evidence to consider as part of the evidence review, and it acknowledges the fact that the assessments have been going on in Scottish schools in 27 out of 32 local authority areas for many years. It helps to structure the assessment of young people’s performance and enhance the learning that they undertake. That is the whole purpose of assessment for learning, which is exactly what the approach that I am setting out is designed to address.

Can the cabinet secretary outline what support the Scottish Government is giving the teachers who are currently administering the assessments?

A variety of training and briefing events have been made available to individual teachers. We have obviously taken into account some of the feedback from the first year of implementation, which has changed practice in the deployment of the standardised assessments in this school year. We will continue to offer that.

We are establishing the P1 practitioners forum, which will enable primary 1 practitioners to feed back directly to the Government and to the Scottish national standardised assessments team the various practical and operational issues that arise out of the administration of the assessments. The Government provides that support in schools, but we are also listening intently to the feedback from individual practitioners about their experience in taking forward the assessments.

The Parliament voted to scrap P1 tests and the Deputy First Minister was adamant that we in Parliament were wrong. He has now commissioned a lengthy review. In his statement, he says

“P1 assessment should be reformed not abolished.”

Alternatively, the outcome of the review might be that those assessments have to be stopped. Has the cabinet secretary already decided that parts of the assessments need to be reformed? Exactly how much will the review cost?

I have already introduced a number of changes to the second year of standardised assessments, for 2018-19, based on the feedback that we have had from practitioners in the previous year. I have remained open to addressing those issues. As the president of the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland stated, we need to allow time to be given to see what experiences there have been in taking such measures. As I said in my answer to Gail Ross a moment ago, the Government will remain very open to understanding that feedback from individuals.

On the cost of the review, we carefully consider the management of costs of an individual review. If we are going to take steps that will have an effect on the learning of young people in our education system, we must be prepared to invest in the research processes to enable that to happen. That is what the Government does ordinarily, and that is what we will do in this case. I will of course report fully to Parliament on all costs involved.

I thank the cabinet secretary for his statement. I particularly welcome the review that he is putting in place. The P1 assessments have no doubt given rise to competing considerations: those of the Parliament and those concerning the obligation on every Government to do what it thinks is in the best interests of young people and citizens. Does the cabinet secretary agree that his decision should be based on the most reliable information and the best examples from other countries to ensure that we are doing the right thing for the young people of Scotland?

That has been the consideration in my mind. I could have come here and said that we will do nothing, and that we will not have an independent review. However, I am instead instituting a process that might result in evidence being marshalled that says that we should not proceed with P1 assessments.

I am trying to persuade Parliament of the importance of taking an evidence-based approach to the issue. Such an approach was lacking from the previous debate. There is competing evidence on the issue, and I want to have that considered independently so that at no stage do we take a decision that could in any way damage the educational wellbeing of children and young people in our society.

I say gently to the cabinet secretary that while it may be a comfort zone for him to impugn the motives of people who raise these issues, the reason why those people are concerned is because they care about the education of our young people. It does not do the cabinet secretary or anyone else any service to suggest that people’s motives are anything other than that.

On 21 June, the First Minister said:

“As a result of the introduction of standardised assessment and the new way in which we are monitoring performance, instead of the previous Scottish survey of literacy and numeracy data, we will now have data on every pupil in the country, which will allow us to determine progress in reducing the attainment gap.”—[Official Report, 21 June 2018; c 10.]

Today, the education secretary says that that is not the purpose of the tests. Is it the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister who is wrong, because, self-evidently, they cannot both be right?

Johann Lamont frequently accuses me of impugning people’s motives. Maybe I have to look at how I communicate about some of these issues. I do not impugn the motives of teachers who come to me and say that they do not like the tests. Equally, I do not impugn the motives of teachers who come to me and say that the tests are essential. Those are points of view that I have heard, and Johann Lamont will have heard them, too. If she has not, I do not think that she is listening to all sides of the debate. All of the evidence that has been marshalled shows that those are competing points of view.

If I have impugned anyone’s motives, it is those of the Conservatives, because they have behaved, politically, in an utterly inconsistent fashion on this issue. I own up to impugning the Conservatives’ motives in this debate, but nobody else’s. I might have a different perspective on the debate, which is why I am commissioning an independent review of the process.

To answer the second part of Johann Lamont’s question, I made it expressly clear in my statement that standardised assessments form part of individual teachers’ overall judgments about whether young people are reaching the levels in curriculum for excellence. That is the purpose of standardised assessments.

The First Minister’s point on 21 June is that the standardised assessments enable us to reflect consistency, or support the achievement of consistency, in assessment across the country, which is not possible in the compartmentalised assessments that are undertaken in each local authority area.

Will the cabinet secretary set out what advice was sought by Aberdeen City Council from Education Scotland regarding the council’s decision to halt national P1 testing? According to a recent freedom of information request, the council has received no representations from parents asking for the test to be halted and previously had its own P1 tests. Is it not a cynical move by Aberdeen City Council’s current administration to jump on an “SNP bad” political bandwagon, which is to the detriment of pupils and their parents?

I am not aware of any advice that Aberdeen City Council has sought from Education Scotland. I would not ordinarily be aware of such advice, because Education Scotland operates independently of the Government.

On Maureen Watt’s substantive point, I heard a representative of the leadership of Aberdeen City Council being interviewed on the radio. He was arguing against P1 assessments and, rather uncomfortably, the interviewer put it to him that Aberdeen City Council had been running P1 assessments for many years. The individual concerned did not seem to have considered the implications of his stance.

I urge Parliament and local authorities to participate in the review, consider the evidence as effectively as possible, independently of the process, and come to an evidence-based conclusion about what is right for the assessment of primary 1 pupils in Scotland.

I apologise for not being able to call Michelle Ballantyne, John Mason, Daniel Johnson and Gillian Martin. I am afraid that there is not enough time because we have a number of statements to get through. We will take a few seconds—as little time as possible—for members and ministers to change seats.