Thinly disguised as objectivity

Ed Balls, the head of Children, etc, is bowing to teacher union pressure, and to his own prejudices, in deciding to replace SATS tests for 11 year-olds with teacher assessments.

These assessments will be externally checked (moderated?) and will published as part of the child's measure of progress, counting equally with any other (if any) national tests.

So what is the purpose of these assessments? (Balls and his supporters really should see little point in them, given that they want children to move seamlessly to a secondary school determined by the local council, by a lottery or other means?)

The only point left is surely the league tables which reflect on the quality of the school and of that of the teachers making the assessments! Why do we need this? If there is any choice between schools for parents, why not simply ask the teachers how good their school is?

In the end a system like that in Germany would seem to offer something better. The child's marks for everything done of an academic nature are aggregated each year into an annual "mark"in each subject. (This overcomes the pressure of the final 11-plus exam or SATS test, by spreading the assessment.) There could be outside monitoring on a sample basis.

On the question of the quality of the school, if there were genuine choice at either primary or secondary level, parents would soon discover which schools and subjects were good and which bad. Parents and offspring would "vote with their feet" and poor schools would be revealed by low rolls, and good ones with waiting lists.

(This, I think, is part of the rationale for Michael Gove's proposals for education, with the notion of freedom to set up new schools outside the LEA if present state schools are not fit for purpose.)

The corollary is, of course is that heads and staff now relieved of a great burden should be freer to give time and thought to individual pupils, and to discuss individual pupils with colleagues and with parents.