The National Reference Tests (NRTs)  made the headlines again last week in this article on the TES website about how the results from the new tests which are designed to indicate whether GCSE grades should be allowed to rise are unlikely to be used until 2019 and suggests that exam results across the country are likely to remain relatively static until nearly the end of the decade … now where do I start?

Back in October, the education select committee started their enquiry – details here – into the role of Ofqual and slowly but surely evidence documents are being published (yes I am that sad that one of my daily browsing sites is the Education Select Committee website!) and that’s what has triggered the latest headlines. I’m a fan of these “Select Committees” – some of the previous ones make great reading and they really do stop some of the silly ideas from government coming to fruition. The only thing I wish we’d done is that the committee held this review before we’d started onto the road to the 9-1 GCSE that we can’t now backtrack on. They are there to scrutinise government, and looking at the quality of education is part of their remit – the documents make fascinating reading but to be honest, most of it leaves me in no doubt that education is a political football and I can just see my tax money flying out of the door paying for some media guru to word the submissions “just-so”.

Anyway back to the NRTs – I’ve written several times about these back in April and then again in June. The back-story is that the awarding of the contract had to be extended – in Jan 2015 TES reported that the “Regulator fails to find body to run key aspect of GCSE reform” and that “Exam experts have warned that the national reference test, a key aspect of forthcoming GCSE reform, is in trouble and will not work as intended” Then in March 2015 Ofqual announced on this web-page that NFER had been awarded the contract to provide the tests. In short, I think they struggled to award the contract (hence the extension) because no one wanted to “touch it with a barge pole”.

In the announcement about the awarding of the contract Ofqual stated that intention is that these tests will provide evidence on changes in performance standards over time in GCSE English language and mathematics in England at the end of Year 11 by providing “an anchor for GCSE standards and should enable us to see over several years if there is genuine change in how students perform”. At the bottom of this announcement was a note to Editors:

Just to clarify – there are no “maybes” or “mights”  it’s a “done deal” according to this.

However back in October, the seed of doubt appears to have been planted already during Ms Stacey’s interview with the committee – seriously watch it I’ve sat and watched it – incredulous throughout. Ms Stacey discusses the “strengthened” accreditation process too and apparently “three is more than one” when discussing how many exams had been accredited out of the 150 something. WATCH IT!  At some point when talking about the NRTs Ms Stacey states that Ofqual was “not nailed to the National Reference Test come what may”, adding that Ofqual would continue to weigh the benefits of the test against its costs.

Is that a hint of doubt from Ms Stacey?

What really “gets my goat” is that in one of latest the documents submitted to the enquiry by Ofqual there are some subtle differences in the message that Ofqual are sending to the select committee compared to the message that was given in the announcement.

It seems that now they are being scrutinised there is a slightly different angle being taken. The differences are subtle but they are there and this is what hacks me off – as far as the public and teaching “profession” are aware Ofqual announced that the NRTs were taking place – it wasn’t that we are looking to see if they will be useful. It was very definite this is happening but when called into the “heads” office it’s a slightly different tale that they are telling – which is detailed on this submission document. Or was it a case of someone thinking the NRTs were a good idea, (especially given the shoddy way (in my opinion) the new GCSEs have been introduced), someone making an announcement and every one behind the scenes running around to make it happen screaming WTF?

As to the subject of making these tests compulsory – one minute Ms Stacey hinted at tests for all year 11’s, then it became voluntary and now lo-and-behold this same document suggests that they want legislation to make it mandatory.

In my opinion (I’m entitled to one you know) some of these people in positions of influence haven’t got a clue about the implications of their actions. This is not a game. There is still so much uncertainty and change in the system that many teachers are finding it all a little too much – are these tests being used for 2018 or not? You may not think we “need” to know but sorry, I don’t subscribe to the school of “mushroom management”. Is it any wonder that we are facing a crisis in Maths recruitment? (And yes it’s a very real issue – at least in the real world it is. I don’t mean a world which always smells of fresh paint!)

Maths teachers want to teach – we want to pass on a legacy of knowledge to the next generation. We want to produce a generation of students that will go out into the world and contribute to society. We want our students to go on to make amazing discoveries. All teachers want to do a good job – no one gets up in the morning and says “today I am going to be a sh1t teacher, today I am going to deliver some really rubbish lessons”. **

What we don’t want is uncertainty and more change. These tests are either being used as an anchor for the GCSEs in 2018 or they’re not. They’re either compulsory or they’re not. For future reference I wish that the powers-that-be would make up their mind and do all the trials and enquiries about “what they’re going to be” before announcing to the media in such a way that leads people to believe it’s a done deal.

Rant over … ahhhhh … that feels better!

** I was going to add here that “If we’d have wanted to make crap decisions and get away with it, we’d have gone into the public sector.” But didn’t think anyone would see the humour as I intended it to be.**