Educational Assessment System Reform

[Emma Lewell in the Chair]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered reforming the educational assessment system.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. Over the summer, another cohort of young people finished their exams, marking the end of a period that left many feeling overwhelmed, anxious or uncertain about the future. Young people are growing up at the sharp end of so many challenges. We can see that reflected in recent figures from NHS England: one in four young people are struggling with their mental health, and the number of 16 to 24-year-olds with a common mental health condition is up by more than a third in a decade.

We face an unprecedented a youth mental health crisis. I am proud to sit behind a Labour Government that recognise the scale of the challenge. Almost 1 million more pupils will have access to school-based mental health support this year, and 6,700 additional mental health workers have been recruited since last July. But we cannot ignore the impact that the exam system is having on children and young people’s mental health. We must go further.

Paddy, a YoungMinds activist, gave a striking account of his A-level experience. He said that:

“From the start of Year 13,1 found it difficult to think about anything other than exams. At school, I would hardly eat anything, as I was so focussed on studying. The exams massively heightened my OCD. It seemed to know these exams were incredibly important to me, and it went on the attack. The peak was the night before one exam, when I had a complete breakdown and could not stop crying. The pressure was enormous, and I felt like I was drowning in the sea of pressure. Two years after finishing my exams, I still have nightmares about them, imagining I’m back in the exam hall.”

Paddy’s experience is not an isolated example. Research from the YoungMinds Missing the Mark campaign reveals the profound impact that exams are having on children and young people. Over 60% of GCSE and A-level students struggled to cope during exam season, with many experiencing panic attacks, or even suicidal thoughts and self-harm, and taking time off school. At just 11 years old, year 6 pupils said that their SATS made them question their abilities for the first time in their lives, losing confidence and missing out on sleep as a result.

Let me be clear: I am not making an anti-exams argument. Exams help to level the playing field, and there will always be a place for them. But there is a clear imbalance in the system. Young people are simply sitting too many exams in a concentrated timeframe that puts unacceptable pressure on pupils and teachers alike. Reforms to GCSEs over the last decade have led to an eight-hour increase in exam time, with end-of-course exams nearly all taken over a period of six weeks in a single summer term. Sixteen-year-olds in England spend approximately 31.5 hours sitting their GCSE exams. Compare that to Victoria in Australia, where students in low secondary sit around four hours of centralised exams; in Alberta in Canada it is 10 hours, in Poland it is 12, and in the Republic of Ireland it is 16.

I argue that we are now seeing the fallout of those changes: a much less flexible system that is contributing to a deepening mental health crisis. Eight in 10 education leaders surveyed by the Association of School and College Leaders said that reformed GCSEs had created greater levels of stress and anxiety among their students.

The current system is not just damaging to wellbeing; it is failing to effectively assess the skills that young people need today. A focus on memory recall is pushing educators to teach to the test, covering content at pace at the expense of developing a depth of understanding.

I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which he has tirelessly championed young people and their mental health since entering Parliament. Over the summer I held a number of workshops with young people and families with special educational needs, as well as schools, to understand their concerns about the ways the current system is failing young people. If the Government are to succeed in their worthy ambition of delivering more inclusive mainstream education—which we know is in every young person’s best interest, if we can deliver it well—would he agree that it is vital that we get our reforms to assessment right, and speak to it in an integrated way, to ensure that every young person can be set up to succeed and thrive at school?

I could not agree more with the point my hon. Friend makes. I held a number of roundtables with parents and carers in my constituency over the summer as well. We were discussing the SEN challenges we face in Hertfordshire. At every session I held, parents and carers talked about the inflexibility of the system. Getting the reforms right to ensure that the system provides that flexibility and caters for all students could not be more important.

My hon. Friend is right to highlight that, because everything we have talked about so far disproportionately impacts the most disadvantaged. Schools in the most deprived areas spend more time preparing for SATs; 76% of children with SEND do not reach the expected standards at the end of year 6, which rises to 91% of pupils with an education, health and care plan. Students with a history of poor mental health are at particular risk, which is even more acute for care-experienced young people, given the prevalence of mental health conditions in that group. Young people deserve a fairer, more balanced approach to assessment, where wellbeing and academic success are not at odds with one another.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate and on his speech. Does he agree that it is an unacceptable feature of our education system that around a third of young people leave school without a recognised qualification, a grade 4 in English or maths? For many of those young people, the way that the system treats resits traps them in a cycle of demoralising continuous failure, just at the point when they should be discovering their passion—the thing they are good at—and should be preparing to get new qualifications and succeed in life? Does he agree that we need urgent work to stop that cycle of failure both upstream in schools and in post-16 education?

Again, I could not agree more. Being trapped in that cycle of failure leaves a mark on young people. We want young people to leave school ready for work and life, and to thrive with confidence. A system that grinds them down cannot be correct. I could not agree more on the point of post-16. I have had a number of conversations about that over recent weeks. That is an area that desperately needs reform, so that we get our young people ready to thrive in life.

The independent curriculum and assessment review offers a vital opportunity to tackle that injustice and one of the upstream drivers of the youth mental health crisis, and build a system fit for the 21st century. No 11-year-old child should feel bad about themselves because of exams. SATs are used to rank the performance of schools; they are not supporting children’s learning.

Timed tests over four days in year 6 are neither a reliable way to capture a pupil’s knowledge and abilities, nor a way to monitor school standards. Assessment should support a pupil’s learning and be clearly separated from school performance metrics, because placing the burden of accountability on children at such a formative age cannot be right.

My hon. Friend is giving a powerful account of the inadequacy of SATs. Does he agree that the fact that so many secondary schools retest their pupils when they arrive shows that they do not have trust in SATs either?

I cannot remember the numbers off the top of my head, but my hon. Friend is right to highlight the number of secondary schools that retest students because of the lack of reliance and belief that SATs accurately measure their ability. We urgently need to rethink our approach to assessment at the primary level, and all options should be on the table. I would be grateful if the Minister could address the concern around SATs in her response, and confirm the Department’s commitment to addressing them when the curriculum and assessment review concludes.

We need to rebalance the system, reducing the dominance of high-stakes, end-of-course exams for GCSE and A-level students. A diversification of assessment methods could reduce pressure on young people, allowing them to showcase a broader range of strengths and better prepare them for life after school. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the Department would implement such an approach, should it be recommended in the independent curriculum and assessment review’s final report.

Moving away from reliance on traditional exams and reducing the volume of exams that young people sit does not mean sacrificing rigour, as set out in Cambridge OCR’s “Striking the balance” report. It concluded that the overall volume of exams can be reduced without impacting the reliability of grades, and that greater consideration should be given to non-exam assessments. A well-designed, modular, multimodal system could be equally robust and offer fairer, more balanced ways to measure achievement. Universities across the country already do that to great effect and could offer a model to learn from for our school system.

More widely, a whole-school approach is essential to supporting children and young people’s mental health. An assessment system that balances wellbeing and academic success would be complemented by a curriculum, teaching and learning approach that promotes resilience and supports social and emotional learning. Will the Minister confirm that wellbeing will be a central focus in the Department’s approach when it comes to implementing the findings of the independent curriculum and assessment review and more generally?

Order. We will have to limit contributions to three and a half minutes.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for securing this hugely important debate and for the way he highlighted the mental health impact of exams on children and young people.

I have been contacted by further education lecturers in my constituency who are increasingly worried about the strain that the current assessment system places on both staff and students. Each year, young people are required to resit GCSE English and maths, often several times, even when they have shown real ability in their chosen vocational courses. Many of these students are capable, hard-working and determined, yet they are being judged on a single written exam that often bears little relation to the skills they will need for work or further study.

Those with learning difficulties, other disabilities or complex personal circumstances are particularly disadvantaged by this one-size-fits-all approach. As someone who worked as a university lecturer for many years before being elected to this place, I have seen how different students learn and demonstrate knowledge in very different ways, and the current model leaves too little room for that individuality.

Our local colleges work tirelessly to support our young people, often with fewer resources, larger class sizes and lower pay than schools. The pressure this creates for both students and staff is enormous, and it is clear that the current GCSE resit system is not giving young people the time or tailored support they need to succeed. We should be exploring fairer, more flexible ways for students to demonstrate their progress, such as modular assessments, more coursework or improved functional skills routes that focus on practical communication and literacy.

Too many young people are being held back by a system that measures only a narrow kind of success. Assessment is important, but it should be formative, build confidence and open up opportunity, helping every learner to move forward rather than leaving them stuck in a place. An overview of the assessment system is needed so that every student in Stratford-on-Avon and across the country can develop their skills and unlock their potential.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. Ours is a one-size-fits-all system, and it should not be, because one size does not fit all. That was certainly the message I took loud and clear from the SEND roundtable that I hosted in Corby and East Northamptonshire when we brought parents, schools and others together.

SATs measure a school’s performance; they do not measure a child’s potential. The numbers speak for themselves: 56% of 10 and 11-year-olds say that SATs were the first time that they really worried about their abilities, 35% said that SATs made them feel ill, and 28% said that SATs made them feel bad about themselves. Let us be honest: exams are damaging young people’s mental health.

We are one of the most over-assessed countries in the world. In Finland they do not assess at all until 16, but their children still learn and their teachers are still trusted. If we are to have primary school assessment, there must be much lower stakes. High stakes exams are not the only way to see what a child can do. We need to put trust back into our teaching professionals. They know their pupils best—they see them learn, grow and shine every single day. I welcome the Government’s ambition to move from half of young people going to university to two-thirds going on to either university or an apprenticeship. That is the right direction. Not all are good at exams. I went down the apprenticeship route, and I know first hand that there are many routes to success.

Too often, our system tells young people that they have failed—“How did you get on in that exam?”, “I failed”—but that is not the way we should be doing it. Children might struggle through SATs, GCSEs and endless English and maths resits, yet once they get to work they start to thrive. That is not their fault; that is the system we have built. Our system risks teachers teaching for the test not for the child, and the whole of year 6 gets wiped out because of SATs.

It is good to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. Assessment in education is obviously one of the most important aspects of what we do in education. It gives children a chance to show what they have learned, what they can do, and we want that to be stretching, but also to be fair. Anything that measures our attainment is inherently somewhat stressful. We also want to prepare children for adult life, and part of that is learning to deal with stress and to make it work in a positive direction.

We obviously do not want exams to be overly stressful, and I commend the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for his work on mental health. He poses this as a mental health question, and it is true that there is an upward trend in mental ill health in children in this country and, by the way, in most other countries in the developed world, although they do not all have the same exam system as us. France and the United States have very different exam systems, with one largely a terminal exam system and the other not, but we see a pattern that is essentially the same.

A linear study and terminal exams give us some important things. They give us consistency, transparency, and comparability across the country. Because the exams come at the end we can synthesise knowledge, so it is not just a test of what someone happens to have learned for a test, but it is putting together different aspects of knowledge. It is not just one big exam. First, there are seven, eight, nine or 10 subjects, and typically two papers and multiple formats—multiple choice, short-form open questions, essay questions, orals and practicals in different subjects. Ironically, if we reduce the number of papers we would increase the high-stakes nature of tests that come at the end of study. It is possible that if we had continuous assessments, we might not get rid of stress but just stretch it out over a longer period because, as I said, any assessment inherently has some stress attached.