Jo-Anne Baird, Louise Hayward, Michelle Meadows, Zhanxin Hao
{"title":"Assessment and learning loss in England: never let a good crisis go to waste","authors":"Jo-Anne Baird, Louise Hayward, Michelle Meadows, Zhanxin Hao","doi":"10.1080/13603116.2023.2274112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Disruption of the status quo caused by the pandemic in England provides a lens to view the priorities embedded in the qualifications system. The Government’s initial priority was to avert grade inflation, followed by a populist turn to teacher assessment after a widespread backlash. Subsequent Government arguments for the return to examinations as the fairest way to assess re-introduced policies which emphasised excellence agenda. Learning loss, a consequence of the pandemic, compounded pre-existing patterns of inequality. Inclusive policies to address this in the qualification system would require fundamentally different ways of thinking compared to, for example, the current adaptations that are made for young people with special educational needs because the modern inclusion agenda is broader. The excellence agenda assumes a competitive system in which educational resources must be rationed; that there will be winners and losers. We question this logic, arguing for principles that would underpin a more inclusive qualification system. Since 2015, pupils must stay in education or training until they are 18. Thus, at very least, rationing educational access before this is unwarranted. A modern approach would be more flexible, putting learners first and embrace diversity rather than standardisation as the main principle for fair assessment.","PeriodicalId":48025,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Inclusive Education","volume":"2017 11","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Inclusive Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2023.2274112","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Disruption of the status quo caused by the pandemic in England provides a lens to view the priorities embedded in the qualifications system. The Government’s initial priority was to avert grade inflation, followed by a populist turn to teacher assessment after a widespread backlash. Subsequent Government arguments for the return to examinations as the fairest way to assess re-introduced policies which emphasised excellence agenda. Learning loss, a consequence of the pandemic, compounded pre-existing patterns of inequality. Inclusive policies to address this in the qualification system would require fundamentally different ways of thinking compared to, for example, the current adaptations that are made for young people with special educational needs because the modern inclusion agenda is broader. The excellence agenda assumes a competitive system in which educational resources must be rationed; that there will be winners and losers. We question this logic, arguing for principles that would underpin a more inclusive qualification system. Since 2015, pupils must stay in education or training until they are 18. Thus, at very least, rationing educational access before this is unwarranted. A modern approach would be more flexible, putting learners first and embrace diversity rather than standardisation as the main principle for fair assessment.
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Inclusive Education provides a strategic forum for international and multi-disciplinary dialogue on inclusive education for all educators and educational policy-makers concerned with the form and nature of schools, universities and technical colleges. Papers published are original, refereed, multi-disciplinary research into pedagogies, curricula, organizational structures, policy-making, administration and cultures to include all students in education. The journal does not accept enrolment in school, college or university as a measure of inclusion. The focus is upon the nature of exclusion and on research, policy and practices that generate greater options for all people in education and beyond.