Document Actions
When local assessment initiatives are turned into national policies: The case of formative assessment in England
Gordon Stobart's abstract for the international seminar "What are the strategic challenges behind the implementation of accountability in education policies?".
Gordon Stobart
Institute of Education University of London
Institute of Education University of London
This presentation discusses what happens when local initiatives in formative assessment – Assessment for Learning – are recognised by policy makers as having the potential to improve teaching and learning in classrooms. What happens to the original understanding of Assessment for Learning when it is incorporated in official policy statements? How is it used to serve other policy agendas, particularly in relation to accountability and the improvement of student performance on national tests and examinations?
I argue that being adopted as a policy brings both benefits and costs. The benefits include official support for changes in practices (important in an accountability culture), additional resources, more support from school management and the recognition of local expertise. One cost is that the initiative may be seen as a ‘top-down’ imposition, which can lead to teacher resistance. More centralised training may mean it does not reach the classroom teachers for whom it is intended. There is also the risk that the initiative is modified to meet other policy agendas, including being linked with less popular initiatives – ‘sugaring the pill’.
A case study to illustrate these benefits and costs is that of Assessment for Learning in England. This is a culturally embedded approach to formative assessment – much of its formulation is from Anglophone cultures such as UK, NZ, Australia & Canada. Those using the term in US (Stiggins, Popham) are often working against a different understanding of formative assessment. Linda Allal has described it as ‘interactive regulation’ which focuses on the interaction of the learner with the other components of teaching activity and on the importance of feedback and self-regulation.
In an accountability culture in which there is a policy emphasis on learning objectives, success criteria and tracking student progress we see a change to the original intentions of Assessment for Learning. Detailed examples of this process will be given from the government’s recent Assessment for Learning Strategy.
This will lead to a more general discussion of the relationship between ‘bottom-up’ initiatives and ‘top-down’ policies.
I argue that being adopted as a policy brings both benefits and costs. The benefits include official support for changes in practices (important in an accountability culture), additional resources, more support from school management and the recognition of local expertise. One cost is that the initiative may be seen as a ‘top-down’ imposition, which can lead to teacher resistance. More centralised training may mean it does not reach the classroom teachers for whom it is intended. There is also the risk that the initiative is modified to meet other policy agendas, including being linked with less popular initiatives – ‘sugaring the pill’.
A case study to illustrate these benefits and costs is that of Assessment for Learning in England. This is a culturally embedded approach to formative assessment – much of its formulation is from Anglophone cultures such as UK, NZ, Australia & Canada. Those using the term in US (Stiggins, Popham) are often working against a different understanding of formative assessment. Linda Allal has described it as ‘interactive regulation’ which focuses on the interaction of the learner with the other components of teaching activity and on the importance of feedback and self-regulation.
In an accountability culture in which there is a policy emphasis on learning objectives, success criteria and tracking student progress we see a change to the original intentions of Assessment for Learning. Detailed examples of this process will be given from the government’s recent Assessment for Learning Strategy.
This will lead to a more general discussion of the relationship between ‘bottom-up’ initiatives and ‘top-down’ policies.
