A BOYCOTT of controversial pupil assessments has entered an eighth year - with education chiefs admitting they cannot tell how well children are doing.
Teachers are refusing to recognise arrangements they claim have no value to pupils, parents or teachers and distracts from real education.
End of key stage `levels of progression' were introduced in the 2012/13 academic year.
The aim was to provide information for teachers, parents and young people on the progress made in developing literacy, numeracy skills and ICT skills.
Industrial action short of strike by teaching unions means they have never been completed fully.
Classroom staff maintain they are "ultra-bureaucratic" and get in the way of learning.
Last year, just 11 per cent of primary schools submitted assessment data - about 88 of 800 schools.
This means there is no overall picture of how well, or otherwise, schoolchildren are performing.
Unions are also refusing to cooperate with inspections, raising concerns that there is no way to tell whether standards are slipping.
Individual schools continue to collect data on their pupils and use this to guide teaching.
The SDLP's Justin McNulty raised the issue at a meeting of the assembly education committee.
There are `expected levels' children should meet at each key stage. By the end of P4, it is hoped pupils reach Level 2 in communication and using maths.
Figures supplied to the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) show in 2018/19 there were 13.58 and 11.84 per cent of children who fell short.
The previous year, the proportions were 12.36 and 10.78.
CCEA advised that its published data was only for the small number of schools who submitted information and "has not been weighted to reflect the school population". Therefore, it is not possible to analyse data year on year.
Mr McNulty said the action taken by teachers made it appear that pupils were not performing as well, however.
Education Authority acting director of education Kim Scott, who appeared as a witness, shared this concern.
"The number of schools that are submitting are very very low. On the face of it they look worse," she told the committee.
"We are not able to give a good enough assessment as to where our children stand."
Gerry Murphy, northern secretary of the INTO union, said academic progress was important but meaningless if not accompanied by an assessment of how pupils were growing as people.
"We need to find a mechanism which allows us to determine how our children and young people are developing as people. We do them a disservice by assessing their worth on their academic ability alone," he said.
"A revised assessment mechanism needs to designed that allows us to describe the progress being made by our children and young in a manner which informs both the future teaching and learning made available to them and provides readily accessible and understandable information on the individuals development for their parents.
"Such a mechanism must be complementary to the learning and not the driver. This was the fundamental failure that led to the down fall of the existing system."
CCEA said the submission of levels of progression had declined since the introduction of action short of strike taken by teaching unions.
"It is not possible to conclude that statutory assessment is not taking place, despite the decline in the submission of data," a spokeswoman added.
::
% of primary schools completing assessments
YEAR %
2019 11
2018 14
2017 16
2016 26
2015 20
2014 29
2013 Unknown
::
ANALYSIS
WHEN new `levels of progression' were rolled out in 2012, teachers quickly labelled them bureaucratic and workload intensive.
A refusal to cooperate with them formed part of industrial action, which continues today.
And it appears that all parties are happy for this to continue, otherwise there would have been some change.
However, eight years on, fewer schools are co-operating.
Indeed, many had likely forgotten about this action completely until it was raised this week at the Stormont education committee.
Teachers say the data the assessments generates is meant to inform parents in a manner they find accessible and useful - but it fails.
In addition, teachers also felt and still feel that the entire system has drifted into a place where results and not learning have become the focus of the education system as a whole.
It is also often claimed that the close link between primary assessment and school accountability creates a high stakes system which can negatively impact children's teaching and learning.
There is much focus on 11-plus, GCSE and A-level results every year. These more or less improve almost every year because schools can see them and then fine tune what they are doing.
The lack of similar data for primary schools has alarmed some parents who argue there should never be a situation in which standards are falling.
The published figures from CCEA cannot shed any light on whether they are failing or not, as the percentages relate only to those schools who submit data.
Many schools and academics do not share the concerns of parents.
Even if full Key Stage data was available they claim they would not provide a reliable basis for judging schools. Parents would likely ignore such information in favour of 11-plus results.
Few teachers also place any faith or credibility in Key Stage data and schools use other information and testing to inform classroom practice and guide the level of support that should be provided to every child.
Academics argue that not having publicly available performance data for primary schools does not matter that much unless it was wanted to create `league tables'.
The international Timms and Pirls research show the north's primary school system (at P6) as a world leader in maths and above average in science and reading.
Unions say a new system is needed but any attempt to revise the assessment regime will require the support and confidence of teachers, children and parents first.
System analysts and accountants' requirements are of secondary importance.
