The Assessment Regimes in England and Wales - Term Paper Example

Assessment Regimes in Place in England: The Consequences for Creativity and the Curriculum By Since 1976, education policies in England and Wales have steadfastly focused attention on “standardisation, centralisation and vocationalisation” (Maisuria 2005, p. 141). As a result, teaching and learning has become embroiled in an assessment regime that is focused on measurable outcomes (Maisuria 2005). This approach to learning has come at the expense of creativity and has in the meantime rendered the national curriculum narrow in scope. The questions for consideration is whether or not the assessment regime in England and Wales has a realistic purpose, is fit for that purpose and whether or not it achieves its purpose (Stobart 2008, p. 14). This essay probes these questions and analyses the assessment regimes in England and Wales and determines the extent to which it stifles creativity and renders the national curriculum narrow in scope. It will be argued that assessment of learning should be replaced or combined with assessment for learning and by doing so, creativity would be revived and the curriculum would become broader and more reflective of diversity in the classroom. Contents Abstract 2 Contents 3 The assessment regimes in England have grown into a complicated system designed to address a number of purposes, including student achievements and solutions for failure to achieve (TLRP 2009, p. 30). As such, the government has taken a highly prescriptive approach reflected in a national curriculum that teachers are under a great deal of pressure to follow and ensure that assessment results reflect that they are teaching to the curriculum. As a result, teachers are not in a position to respond to individual students’ learning needs and preferences. In this regard, the assessment regimes in place in England are highly restrictive, so much so that they stifle creativity by enabling a highly prescriptive national curriculum. Essentially, the assessment regimes in England are intended to measure or assess all aspects of the education system including the performance of students, teachers, principals, schools, administrative staff and to some extent even the government (TLRP 2009, p. 7). The resulting curriculum is tied to these assessment purposes which seek to generate accountability and to subject education to a regulatory regime (Whetton 2009, p. 137). Teachers, aware of the scrutiny that naturally follows from accountability are teaching to the curriculum to ensure that standardized assessments produce satisfactory results. The Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) (2011) addresses the current difficulties associated with the assessment regimes in place in England and how those regimes have influenced the national curriculum. In its review of the national curriculum, the ATL (2011) expressed concerns about the high degree of control by the government in deciding the contents of subjects. ATL (2011) also pointed out that the existing curriculum is saturated with content and its “overprescriptive” to the point where there is very little room for “innovation and flexibility in schools” (p. 2). The current state of the assessment regime can thus be described as results-based with consequences for a national curriculum that reflects a desire to produce measurable assessment results. The results-based assessment regime relative to the national curriculum grew out of concerns that there was insufficient control and regulation of the curriculum. There were also concerns that this lack of control and consistency was not going to solve problems relative to the attrition rates and would certainly not improve education and achievement standards. Policy makers obviously thought that teachers and schools were not assuming sufficient responsibility and were far too flexible in their approach to teaching (see Booth and Husbands 1993; Manzer 2003). The current assessment regime in place today is therefore reflective of an educational policy designed to take control of the curriculum and to ensure that teaching methods are dictated so as to minimize the tendency toward informal teaching (Manzer 2003, pp. 274-275). It is obvious here, that creativity in teaching techniques was under attack and seen as an obstacle to raising national standards. Obviously, there is a desire to bring teachers under a single standard of teaching as a means of setting standards for teaching and learning and making teachers accountable for assessment results. The current assessment regime which is tied to the prescriptive national curriculum reflects the perception that permitting creativity in teaching was perceived as an obstacle to raising standards and making teachers accountable. The assessment regimes in place in England today are thus statutorily tied to the Education Reform Act 1988 as amended. Under the 1988 Act, teacher and school authority and discretion relative to the national curriculum have been replaced by duty and accountability. The central government has what amounts to unfettered discretionary power over the national curriculum. As a consequence, the assessment regimes in place in England, despite evidence to the contrary, is tied to a highly prescriptive curriculum and accountability system that stiles creativity in the classroom. England’s current assessment regime is therefore left with a statutory curriculum and rigid standardized assessments upon which the curriculum would be based (For more information see Phillips and Furlong 2001). The 1988 Act as amended makes provision for the introduction of a national curriculum together with “a national assessment system to cover the ten years of compulsory schooling” (Phillips and Furlong 2001, p. 142). The 1988 Act is specifically aimed at codifying a prescriptive curriculum and its success would be measured by virtue of “public testing of all pupils” (Phillips and Furlong 2001, p. 142). The obvious implication is that summative assessments have become rigidly entrenched in England’s assessment regime. There is no mistaking the significance of following the curriculum since success would be measured by reference to public testing or summative assessments. The obvious intent was to conduct assessment of learning, rather than assessment for learning. This is manifested by the phasing out of formative assessments and the strengthening of summative assessments (Phillips and Furlong 2001, p. 142). Teachers and schools have therefore become conditioned to the level of accountability demanded of them and this has become a barrier to flexibility in conducting classroom assessments on a formative basis (assessment for learning). The fact is, the current assessment regime is informed by a national policy that emphasises the successful delivery of the national curriculum as evidenced by public testing. The priority appears to be a focus on comparing school outcomes rather than assessing individual students’ learning capacity and achievement (Dobert, Klieme and Sroka 2004, p. 90). Teachers are left to determine for themselves whether or not they wish to conduct assessment for learning exercises or whether or not they want to ensure that they simply prepare students for external assessments. With the emphasis on accountability, teachers are more likely to concern themselves with external exams/assessments, rather than assessment for learning techniques. Moreover, the weighted and prescriptive national curriculum has stifled teachers’ creativity. The Department for Education’s Schools White Paper (2010), admits as much. The Schools White Paper (2010) acknowledges that the more than 200 page national curriculum is unnecessarily prescriptive and “new approach” is necessary (Department for Education Schools White Paper 2010, p. 40, para. 4.1). The Schools White Paper (2010) expressly notes that the national curriculum is “weighing teachers down and squeezing out room for innovation, creativity” (p. 40, para. 4.1). Therefore there are plans to pull back on prescription and to leave teachers with more creative licence (Department for Education Schools White Paper 2010, p. 40, paras. 4.1-4.3). The new national curriculum which will set out only the bare basics that students should obtain is currently under review (Department for Education 2011). The idea is to give teachers and schools the liberty to determine how to teach and to prepare a broader school curriculum that is best suited to the needs of their respective students (Department for Education 2011). While this is a step in the right direction and could permit teachers the freedom to conduct assessment for learning practices, in school, the current national curriculum continues to guide the approach to assessment regimes in England. The pressure associated with accountability and to prove the appropriate standards by reference to public testing outcomes will not go away with a narrowed national curriculum. Teachers are informed by the historical factors and policy agenda that produced the 200 page curriculum which is measured by summative assessment strategies. Essentially education reform in England which focuses on the curriculum and assessment has been designed to respond to flaws manifested by the education system. In particular, there were concerns about the decline in school standards, poor retention rates, weak skills among the population and the stagnant examination performance particularly of students age 16. The curriculum and assessment reforms from 1980 onward were designed to improve student performance, school performance and accountability (Machin and Vignoles 2006). In fact TLRP (2006) informs that “effective teaching and learning” is characterized by equipping students “life in its broadest sense” (p. 6). This means that the objective of learning and teaching is to assist individual students and student groups with the development of “intellectual, personal and social resources” that will prepare them for participation as both active and productive citizens (TLRP 2006, p. 6). The current assessment regimes in place in England which focus on public testing as the dominant assessment tool necessarily requires teaching to the curriculum and therefore does not accord teachers the creativity to adopt liberal formative assessment approaches. TLRP which is comprised of 10 highly qualified educators with several years of experience, identifies the factors that should be present in an effective assessment regime (TLRP 2009). TLRP challenges policy-makers to reconsider the current assessment regime in England and to support classroom assessment practices; promote faith and confidence in testing and examinations; justify the expenditures on assessment; and avoid political control of the assessment regime. TLRP (2009) challenges the current assessment regime that insists that a singular set of assessment results is can be used for several purposes. When the purposes of assessments are examined, it is obvious that creativity is necessary and formative assessment tools are more conducive to meeting the purpose of assessment than summative assessment tools are. The theoretical purpose of assessment appears to be more aligned with the promotion of assessment for learning (formative) rather than the promotion of assessment of learning (summative). Descriptions of the desired purpose of assessment are best suited to assessment for learning as the main characteristics tend to be focused on the progress of the individual students and students in a group setting. Ideally, the primary objective of assessment is to provide robust, credible and productive data reflecting achievement of students and insight into the effectiveness or lack thereof of classroom instructions (McDonald 2002). Assessment should be able to inform of the students’ level of achievement. Assessment also informs of whether or not course goals are suitable for the students’ level of understanding; whether or not teaching techniques and methods are adequate; and whether or not students are learning in a “sequenced” manner (McDonald 2002, p. 2). Assessment of learning does not appear to be consistent with these assessment purposes. Unfortunately however, Earl (2003) explains that assessment of learning is the prevailing mode of classroom and external assessments. The purpose of assessment of learning is “summative” and it is aimed at certifying a student’s attainment and providing a report for parents and students relative to the student’s achievement in school (Earl 2003, p. 22). This is usually accomplished by providing a report that positions the student’s achievement relative to his or her peers (Earl 2003). Assessment of learning is usually conducted at the conclusion of a course, a year, a Key Stage, a program or a unit and is usually conducted by virtue of examinations that provide questions related to the content of teaching throughout the year, unit, Key Stage, program or course. Earl (2003) goes on to explain that: In assessment of learning, the results are expressed symbolically, generally as marks or letter grades, and summarized as averages of a number of marks across several content areas to report to parents (p. 22). Pursuant to the assessment regimes in place in England, assessment of learning appears to be the primary method of setting standards for the education system and making teachers accountable. This much can be gleaned from the prescriptive national curriculum and the pressures that teachers are under to ensure that students are prepared to successfully pass external assessments. Therefore there is no room for creativity as teachers and students are narrowly focused on passing external assessments rather than preparing students for a wide range of challenges connected with learning and benefitting from learning generally. Gardner (2006) maintains that assessment of learning does not necessarily aid in the student’s learning experience. It merely provides an assessment of where the student stands in relation to other students and to a student’s level of attainment. Assessment for learning however is used to help “students take the next steps in their learning” (p. 2). In other words, assessment for learning permits flexibility and creativity so that an individual student’s learning abilities and preferences dictate where the student is now and how to get to a specific achievement goal. Assessment for learning is thus defined as: The process of seeking and interpreting evidence for use by learners and their teachers, to identify where the learners are in their learning, where they need to go and how best to get there (Assessment Reform Group 2002, p.2). There are essentially 10 principles implicit in assessment for learning. They are: adequate planning; focusing on how the student learns; acore part of practice in the classroom; a primary teaching skill; as innovative and productive; motivates the student; ensures that student and teacher understand the objectives and requirements; helps a student learn to improve; engenders self-assessment and peer-assessment; and deals with all levels of academic attainment (Ofsted 2008, pp. 7-8). Assessment for learning is thus a personal learning experience and it is continuously taking place in the classroom. Assessment for learning has as its focus, the bridging of gaps between the student’s current stage and an identified objective. It calls upon student participation in a way that is innovative and personal and as such promotes student engagement which is linked to retention and improved performance (Ofsted 2008). The assessment regime in place in England however, restricts teachers in their ability to implement assessment for learning techniques. Teachers are under a great deal of pressure in that they are required to not only teach in a particular subject, but they are also required to ensure that the students are prepared to successfully participate in both classroom and external assessments (James 1996). Teachers are therefore required to teach with a view to examination success and to also teach in a manner that is responsive to acceptable practices in a classroom setting (Stobart and Gipps 1997). The emphasis on external assessments however, have been criticised as taking too much away from the value of classroom instruction (Black and William, 1998). The emphasis on assessment of learning which involve “certification and accountability” has a “powerful – usually harmful – influence on assessment practice” (Black, Harrison and Lee 2005, p. 13). TLRP (2003) reported that communities, teachers and schools are struggling with the concepts of listening, learning, teaching and leading. This much is gleaned from the propensity for assessment of learning over assessment for learning practices in schools, hence the prescriptive curriculum and restraints on creativity. This is so, despite the belief that assessment for learning appears to be consistent with the concepts of listening, learning, teaching and leading. As TLRP (2003) notes that a child’s development follows a construct that permits the child to be heard, understood and effectively responded to. In this regard, a child who feels a part of the process and that his/her opinion and culture are respected, the student is “more likely” to be committed to learning (TLRP 2003). From the teacher’s perspective, a teacher can be more responsive to a student’s learning preferences and needs by getting that information directly from the student (TLRP 2003). The personal nature of assessment for learning can facilitate this knowledge by virtue of self-assessment and peer-assessments in the classroom. Black and William (1998) conducted a search of the literature relative to “formative assessment” (p. 7). The literature revealed that there is substantial evidence that assessments that permit students to participate by virtue of “feedback” relative to their own attainment results in “substantial learning gains” (Black and William 1998, p. 7). Unfortunately, the assessment regimes currently in place in England stifles this kind of creativity with its narrow focus on external examination results and teaching to the prescriptive national curriculum. Black and William (1998) referred to a study in the literature that supports a departure from the current assessment regimes. The study involved 25 Portuguese teachers who had been previously trained in self-assessment techniques which they used in the classroom. This self-assessment technique was conducted with 246 students between the ages of 8 and 9 and a further 108 students between the ages of 10 and 14 (an experimental group). The formative assessment was conducted by virtue of self-assessment on a daily basis. Students were taught to “understand both the learning objectives and the assessment criteria” thus allowing them to select “learning tasks and using tasks” that they could evaluate “their own learning outcomes” (William and Black 1998, pp. 10-11). The study also involved a control group of students of 20 teachers who had completed a traditional education course. Both the control group and the experimental group spent the same amount of time in classroom instructions in mathematics. Both groups also took pre and post mathematics tests (Black and William 1998). Post-test results revealed that both the control and experimental groups had improved substantially. However, the experimental group had a mean gain doubling the gain for the control group among the 8 and 9 year olds. There were similar results for the group of older students, however the results were not as clear from a statistical perspective since the pre-test was not difficult enough to highlight the original difference between the experimental and control groups (Black and William 1998). Black and William (1998) point out that this study was entirely important because it demonstrates that teachers can take the initiative to not only add “some assessment exercises to existing teaching” such as self-assessment, but they can implement formative assessment “in the context of a constructivist classroom” (p. 11). In another study reviewed by Black and William (1998), the study involved 838 kindergarten students from “disadvantaged backgrounds in six different regions in the USA” (p. 12). The experimental group’s teachers assessed students individually and planned around this information with progress consultations two weeks after initial assessments. The progress consultations informed of appropriate judgments for a month. Assessments were typically by virtue of observing individual student skills and the students conducted activities so that teachers could distinguish between the tasks and how it corresponded with the child’s needs. The control group was subjected to conventional teaching methods. The results revealed that the experimental group performed substantially better in basic skills such as reading, science, and mathematics (Black and William 1998, p. 12). Black and William (1998) reviewed quite a number of similar studies and conclude that curriculum based assessments should follow the assessment for learning technique. In other words, assessments should not only correspond with the learning objectives, but should be calculated to inform of the individual student’s needs in terms of learning. Decisions should be made based on evidence obtained from assessments. Attention should be given to the individual student and responses that are individualized (Black and William 1998). Black and Harrison (2001) conducted a protracted study involving 12 science teachers in six schools who worked with a group at King’s College in London. The study focused on the documented experiences of the teachers. The study explored the role of formative assessments and the manner in which self and peer-assessment foster student engagement. The study revealed that teachers who used peer-assessment noted that it helped the students to improve in their test scores and performance generally. This improvement was noted because, the feedback from peers is in a language that students are more familiar with. Moreover, students are more enlightened when they take on the “role of teachers and examiners of others (Black and Harrison 2001, p. 46). Additionally, students are focusing on the work while teachers are at liberty “to observe and reflect on what is happening and so choose and frame helpful interventions” (Black and Harrison 2002, p.47). Some teachers in the study conducted by Black and Harrison (2001) also reported that they felt the need to stress that students should gather their own knowledge of the work and that self-assessment is useful for achieving this purpose. Thus self-assessment enables students to learn by establishing unambiguous objectives, form an awareness of where they stand relative to that learning objective, and are equipped with the remedies for bridging the gap between where they stand and obtaining the learning objective (Black and Harrison 2001). Thus self-assessment is consistent with constructivist theories that emphasise the significance of commencing teaching and learning with where the individual student is. Self-assessment helps students to gain an understanding of where they stand once they also know what the learning objectives are. Once students are aware of their own gaols and skills following self-assessment, gives students an opportunity to become actively involved in the teaching and learning experience (Black and Harrison 2001). TLRP (2006) reports on findings of a number of its observatory projects which are aimed at informing educators and policy-makers of the best method for improving standards, institutional, teaching and learning performance. These projects are instructive in that they highlight the current difficulties with the assessment regimes in England and allow for ways to improve it so that teaching is more creative despite the prescriptive nature of the national curriculum. Citing Project number 3, TLRP (2006) informs that traditional testing is flawed in that it focuses on “factual recall” which “often overestimates student’s understanding of key concepts” (p. 9). Project 3 reflected with respect to science learning that a student’s “understanding” is not capable of satisfactory measurement by virtue of a “single question” (TLRP 2006, p. 9). Similarly, Project Number 6 informed that “complex learning behaviours and outcomes” require “more subtle measures” consistent with observing “over time and across different contexts” (TLRP 2006, p. 9). Thus, TLRP (2006) conclude that “summative assessments” or assessment of learning tests ought to be reconsidered and more effort ought to be invested in teachers improving their roles in assessments. The fact is, teachers are positioned to utilise formative assessments tools which “promotes learning, rather than stifles it” (TLRP 2006, p. 9). As revealed by Black and William (1998) and Black and Harrison (2001), self-assessment and peer-assessment and individualized attention to learning goals and outcomes provides students with a degree of self-empowerment which promotes engagement and therefore learning gains. TLRP (2006) similarly reveals that a number of its observatory projects, stressed the significance of establishing awareness relative to learning, express practices for learning, “positive learning dispositions” as well as learning empowerment. Even so, some of TLRP’s (2006) project revealed that although teachers wanted to empower their students, the felt highly constrained in development appropriate strategies for student empowerment. TLRP (2006) also pointed out the significance of peer assessment or peer mediated learning. Projects 4, 11 and 12 specifically reflected that there are benefits in terms of improving group work quality and students’ ability to cooperate and collaborate. Project 4 dealt with observing 7 year olds interact in groups. Project 11 involved the integration of work groups throughout the school day and tracking student progress throughout the school year. The students were between age 5 and 14. Project 12 was a similar project conducted in primary schools in Scotland. It involved collaborative learning groups among 600 students in 24 primary schools under 8 LEAs. Students who participated in peer mediated activities registered substantial “academic gains” which were observed in a number of schools in a variety of “social contexts” (TLRP 2006, p. 9). TLRP (2006) discussed a number of projects that took account of the impact of permitting teacher and student consultation relative to the students’ learning and their own views. In particular Project No. 16 thus far reveals that when students are consulted and their perspectives taking into account, these students manifested improvement in their self-confidence and this in turn improves the opportunity for learning (TLRP 2006). The project however is on-going and is referred to as Consulting Pupils on the Assessment of their Learning (CPAL). Project 18 is even more instructive. TLRP’s (2006) Project 18 was conducted from 2000 to 2003 by a group of teachers and local authorities in 25 schools in three areas. Researchers from “higher education institutions” were also involved in Project 18 (p. 43). This group of researchers set out to identify the obstacles to student participation and learning; the best practices for removing these obstacles, the success of those practices and whether or not those practices could be implemented in schools (TLRP 2006). The researchers found that one of the greatest obstacles to student learning and participation was the fact that school staff generally harboured specific beliefs relative to who students can perform and how “best to teach them” (TLRP 2006, p. 43). When schools changed their approach to including students in the learning process, the student’s point of view was especially productive in changing the school staff’s position. However, a further obstacle was identified. Although school staff were able to identify the benefit of including student perspectives, they were constrained by the pressure to “drive up standards” and to achieve optimal outcomes (TLRP 2006, p. 43). Even so, Project 18 reveals that progress can be made as teachers began to gain an understanding that focusing too narrowly on the curriculum cannot by itself enhance learning. Teachers observed in Project 18 started thinking about the underlying factors that enhance learning. The relevant factors are the joy attached to learning and the student’s own self-confidence. Teachers began to come to the realization that they were in a position to impact or generate those elements necessary for enhancing learning (TLRP 2006). Ofsted (2008) conducted a study that also reveals that there are barriers to obtaining student participation in the learning experience. Ofsted (2008) focused its study on assessment for learning techniques in 27 primary schools and 16 secondary schools from April to December 2007. The schools were chosen for the study because they were in a position to have adopted the National Strategies for developing assessment for learning as a means of increasing standards and enhancing student achievements. Only two schools in the sample did not admit to developing assessment for learning strategies. Al of the other schools provided evidence of their implementation of assessment for learning strategies as well as results. Ofsted (2008) examined the information received and concluded that 16 of the schools that were visited manifested “outstanding” assessment for learning strategies (p. 4). The results for those schools were also outstanding. However, the assessment for learning in seven schools, four of which were secondary schools was not adequate. Ofsted (2008) found that despite the fact that school staff agreed with and favoured the instructions contained in the National Strategies, this did not automatically translate into an adequate assessment for learning technique. Ofsted (2008) found that in the schools that did not effectively implement assessment for learning strategies, the staff did not fully understand how assessment for learning would improve student outcomes. Senior administrators were also not consistently involved in implementing the assessment for learning techniques and quite frequently prioritized other matters. Schools staff also did not instruct and enlighten students on how to engage in feedback and did not help students understand the value of assessment for learning practices. For schools that successfully implemented assessment for learning strategies, senior staff members were consistently involved and work corresponded with individual students’ needs and abilities (Ofsted 2008). Thus far the evidence reveals that assessment for learning is gaining currency among educators and researchers. Assessment for learning allows for flexibility and creativity so that teachers can include students in the learning process and thus tailor teaching to student preferences and learning abilities. However, conventional ways of thinking about how best to teach students and how students learn, together with pressures to raise standards and comply with curriculum-based assessments have stifled the best efforts for implementing assessment for learning techniques. This is unfortunate since the research reveals that assessment for learning techniques improve learning and therefore raise standards, the very objective of the national curriculum. The assessment regimes in place in England are informed by conventional attitudes that teaching to the national curriculum is the best method for improving standards. However, what is often overlooked is the fact that the national curriculum was also devised to improve student retention and not merely to improve national standards as evidenced by standardized assessments. A review of the literature reveals that student retention is improved when students are engaged in the learning process. Student engagement is improved by virtue of formative assessments which are personalized and take account of the the student’s own learning preferences and abilities. Permitting the student agency in the learning and teaching process also improves the student’s self-esteem which in turn enhances engagement. The evidence amassed in the literature substantially supports the assumption that once a student is engaged, the student registers learning gains. Therefore, the narrow and prescriptive focus of the national curriculum stifles efforts to implement assessment for learning techniques as teachers who are under a great degree of accountability are pressured to ensure that students perform well on curriculum–based assessments. Teachers who have come to realize that they can achieve optimum results in curriculum-based assessments by generally personalizing the learning experience through assessment for learning techniques have been more willing to implement those techniques. Through the efforts of the ARG, TLRP and Ofsted, teachers and senior leaders are expected to eventually adjust their thinking and therefore their teaching techniques so as to successfully implement assessment for learning techniques. Standards will only be raised if students are engaged and therefore learning and remaining in school. Teaching to the national curriculum will not achieve any of those results. Bibliography Assessment Reform Group. (2002). “Assessment for Learning: 10 Principles: Research-Based Principles to Guide Classroom Practice.” ARG, 1-3. Association of Teachers and Lecturers. March 2011. “National Curriculum Review-Call for Evidence Response from the Association of Teachers and Lecturers.” ATL The Education Union, 1-11. http://www.atl.org.uk/Images/ATL%20Curriculum%20Review%20Response%20Final.pdf (Retrieved 17 July 2011). Black, P. And William, D. 1998 “Assessment and classroom learning”. Assessment in Education, Vol. 5: 7-71. Black, P.; Harrison, C. and Lee, C. 2005. Assessment for Learning: Putting it into Practice. Berkshire, England: Open University Press. Black, P. and Harrison, C. September 2001. “Self- and Peer-Assessment and Taking Responsibility: The Science Student’s Role in Formative Assessment.” School Science Review, Vol. 83(302): 43-49. Booth, M. and Husbands, C. 1993. “The History National Curriculum in England and Wales: Assessment at Key Stage 3.” Curriculum Journal, Vol. 4(1): 21-36. Department for Education. February 2011. “Teaching the Curriculum”. http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/teachingandlearning/curriculum (Retrieved 24 July 2011). Department for Education. 2010. “The Importance of Teaching: The Schools White Paper 2010”. http://www.ictliteracy.info/rf.pdf/Schools-White-Paper2010.pdf (Retrieved 24 July 2011). Dobert, H.; Klieme, E. and Sroke, W. 2004. Conditions of School Performance in Seven Countries. Germany: Waxmann Verlag. Earl, L. M. 2003. Assessment as Learning: Using Classroom Assessment to Maximize Student Learning. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press, Inc. Farrell, M. 2011. Standards and Special Educational Needs. London, UK: Continuum International Publishing Group. Gardner, J. 2006. Assessment and Learning. London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd. James, M. 1996. Exploring educational issues. Block 3, Teaching and learning: The assessment of learning. Berkshire, England: Open University Press. Machin, S. and Vignoles, A. March 2006. “Education Policy in the UK.” Centre for the Economics of Education , London School of Economics, 1-22. Maisura, A. 2005. “The Turbulent Times of Creativity in the National Curriculum.” Policy Futures in Education, Vol. 3(2): 141-152. Manzer, R. A. 2003. Educational Regimes and Anglo-American Democracy. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press Incorporated. McDonald, M. 2002. Systematic Assessment of Learning Outcomes: Developing Multiple-Choice Exams. London, UK: Jones and Bartlett Learning. Ofsted. October 2008. “Assessment for Learning: the Impact of National Strategy Support.” Ofsted Reference No. 070244, 1-30. Phillips, R. and Furlong, J. 2001. Education, Reform and the State Twenty-Five Years of Politics, Policy and Practice. London, UK: Falmer Routledge. Stobart, G. 2008. Testing Times: The Uses and Abuses of Assessment. London, UK: Routledge. Stobart, G. & Gipps, C. 1997. Assessment: A teacher’s guide to the issues, London : Hodder & Stoughton Educational. TLRP. 2009. “Assessment in Schools Fit for Purpose?: A Commentary by the Teaching and Learning Research Programme.” http://www.assessment-reform-group.org/assessment_in_schools-fit-for-purpose.pdf (Retrieved 17 July 2011). TLRP. 2006. “Improving teaching and learning in schools. A Commentary by the Teaching and Learning Research Programme.” 1-48. TLRP. 2003. “Consulting pupils about teaching and learning”. Number 5, June. Available at: http://www.tlrp.org/pub/documents/no5_ruddock.pdf. (Retrieved 17 July 2011). Whetton, C. June 2009. “A Brief History of a Testing Time: National Curriculum Assessment in England 1989-2008”. Educational Research, Vol. 51(2): 137-159. Read More