Year 8 reading test plan splits teachers and heads

New polling data reveals that more educators endorse the government’s initiative to implement a mandatory reading assessment for Year 8 students than those who oppose it, though skepticism persists among school leaders.

Schools Week recently reported that the government intends to propose this reading check in its forthcoming schools white paper, marking the first obligatory assessment in key stage 3 since the elimination of Year 9 SATs in 2008.

The decision to introduce this test stems from increasing concerns that inadequate reading skills hinder students’ ability to engage with other subjects at the secondary level.

A Teacher Tapp poll indicates that 16% of teachers fully support the implementation of such a test, while another 24% express moderate support for the policy. Interestingly, 36% remain neutral, with 9% slightly opposed and 15% strongly opposing the initiative.

According to the proposal, test outcomes would be shared with the government and Ofsted, but only disclosed at a national level, much like the Year 1 phonics screening. The results would not influence direct interventions in schools, as per sources.

Defending the Proposal

The poll revealed a higher opposition to the Year 8 reading assessment among headteachers (39%) compared to other senior leaders (27%), middle leaders (22%), and classroom teachers (23%). This trend suggests apprehensions about the potential use of the test as an accountability measure, a concern echoed by various teaching unions.

During the Labour Party conference over the weekend, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson defended the initiative, stating, “It is crucial, especially for working-class children, to understand not only where they stand academically but also where to provide additional support.” She emphasized her commitment to ensuring all students graduate well-equipped for future challenges.

Responses from educational leaders have varied, with the ASCL union asserting that a well-executed test could offer benefits, although they warned that school leaders might harbor concerns about how future administrations might leverage the data. Conversely, the NAHT union criticized the idea, labeling the test as “unnecessary, distracting, and a poor allocation of resources.”

Collective Responsibility in Reading Instruction

Dan Morrow, CEO of the Cornwall Education Learning Trust, expressed his support for the tests at the Labour conference, arguing that students are already subject to numerous reading assessments that incur substantial costs. He noted, “My concern regarding the check is that we might resort to teaching to the test instead of focusing on genuine learning, which reflects on all of us.”

Furthermore, Annamarie Hassall, chief executive of the National Association for Special Educational Needs, mentioned in a panel discussion that reading assessments were part of her conversations with the government’s review on curriculum and evaluation. She noted a prevailing sentiment that reading responsibilities lie solely with primary education, which often leads to secondary institutions feeling detached from that foundational work.

Varied Approaches to Assessing Progress

Teacher Tapp’s polling data reveals that schools adopt diverse strategies in evaluating student progress during key stages 2 and 3. When asked about assessment methods at the end of key stage 3, 59% reported using self-created end-of-topic tests, while 37% relied on teachers’ professional judgment. A smaller fraction, just 11%, utilized purchased assessments.

In contrast, when determining reading progress in key stage 2, 43% of respondents employed standardized tests from external providers, followed by 27% who used past SATs papers, and 24% using their self-developed tests.