An “unqualified green light” it may not have been, but it was still pretty close to the conclusion Education Secretary John Swinney would have been hoping for.
A review set up by the Scottish Government to judge the impact of P1 literacy and numeracy assessments found in their favour – as long as important modifications were made.
The report, by literacy specialist David Reedy, concluded that the assessments offered “a useful element to inform judgments about learning and teaching”.
READ MORE: Scottish Government to continue P1 tests after backing from independent review
The review found no evidence the tests were “high stakes” and said data from them was not being used to set targets, make comparisons between schools or for teacher appraisal.
Fears pupils had been upset were also dismissed with the conclusion there was “scant evidence” of any distress - although the review stressed the approach taken by school staff was crucial in setting a relaxed atmosphere.
Given the meagre pickings afforded to opposition parties, reaction in the Scottish Parliament was largely a re-run of previous concerns.
Mr Swinney had ignored the will of Holyrood by pressing ahead with the assessments despite the cross-party vote to scrap them, MSPs said.
READ MORE: Teachers told to intervene if P1 tests are causing pupil distress
There was also concern the review had not considered existing evidence from teachers and parents that the assessments had been inappropriately administered, beset by IT problems and that information from them was not particularly useful.
After the review’s conclusions it was perhaps expected eyebrows were raised over the appointment of Mr Reedy, a former general secretary of the UK Literacy Association, to chair it.
The Government said he was ideal because he had not been involved in the recent debates on P1 assessments in Scotland “allowing him to bring a fresh and impartial perspective”.
Tavish Scott, education spokesman for the Scottish Liberal Democrats, was not convinced, asking why Mr Swinney had hired an academic “from the English educational regime ... where high stakes testing is the norm to produce the arguments he wants”.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel