Stakeholder perceptions of test impact

Abstract

This paper reports findings from case study research into the impact of statutory testing in the UK primary school context on learners of English as an Additional Language. The findings relate to stakeholder perceptions and are predominantly drawn from inductive analysis of interview data with key stakeholders: teachers, learners and parents, as well as an extensive review of relevant literature. The findings are discussed in relation to the uses to which test data are put, the stakes for the school, teachers and learners, and parents and learners’ understanding of the purposes of the tests and the meaning of levels. On the basis of the analysis, it is argued that, whilst the tests are not necessarily without value, particularly to the school, care needs to be taken in arguing that test scores are informative to parents and that there are no adverse affects on primary age learners.

Notes

1. This is part of a wider study which explored the washback effects of statutory testing on classroom teaching in core subject areas (Scott, 2005).

2. English as an Additional Language (EAL) and English as a Second Language (ESL) both refer to ‘learners who are using English as the medium of instruction in school contexts but who are not English first language (L1) speakers’ (Rea‐Dickins, 2000, p. 115), as distinct from English as a Foreign Language (EFL) contexts in which English is not the lingua franca.

3. There have been several changes to the name of the government department responsible for education since the 1980s: in this paper references are made to the name used at the time of publication, thus DES (Department of Education and Science), DFEE (Department for Education and Employment) and DFES (Department for Education and Skills).

4. Ofsted is the official inspectorate of schools in England which regulates the provision of education. It is independent of the DFES, reporting directly to Parliament.

5. The QCA is a public body, sponsored by the DFES, with responsibility for developing and maintaining the National Curriculum, assessments, tests and examinations.

6. Whilst acknowledging Wall’s (1997) distinction between ‘impact’ and ‘washback’, in this paper, I adopt a broad interpretation of the term washback: as in Andrews (2004), ‘where the word “impact” occurs…, it is used in a non‐technical sense, as a synonym for “effect”’ (p. 37).

7. The results are reported in terms of levels: the national targets of 75% of 11‐year‐olds achieving level 4 in mathematics and 80% achieving level 4 in English by 2002 were missed by 2% and 5% respectively. At the time of this study, new targets had been set for 2004: 85% of 11‐year‐olds should achieve level 4+ and 35% level 5+ in English and mathematics and at least 78% of pupils in all LEAs should be achieving level 4+ in English and mathematics.

8. This may reflect confusion between Ro’s predicted level and that for his older son: Ro would be aiming for Level 2 in Year 2.

9. As the interview with Pa’s mother took place before the meeting was held, I do not know whether she attended or not: both she and her husband work full time and it can be difficult for her to get away as she does not usually finish work until 7pm. She took time off specifically to attend parents’ evening.