We spent a great deal of time last year telling the government that its approach to the statutory assessment of writing wasn’t working. 

The secure-fit approach was undoubtedly a big part of the problem, as was the over-emphasis on the more technical aspects of writing. This was then compounded by major inconsistencies in local authority moderation. 

As the NAHT assessment review group report pointed out at the start of last year: “The system for the national assessment of writing needs significant review.”

To give Department for Education officials credit, they did listen to our concerns. Moderation training was improved, and the criteria used in the framework were redesigned in an attempt to reduce the disproportionate focus on grammar. The updated frameworks released in September also signalled a stronger emphasis on teachers’ professional judgement. The concept of “particular weakness” was introduced in an attempt to ameliorate some of the problems associated with the secure-fit approach. 

Despite these changes, it has become abundantly clear that the revisions have not left us with a satisfactory long-term solution to the ongoing problem of national writing assessment. 

As Michael Tidd’s recent Twitter polls show, there remain significant inconsistencies in how the guidelines and criteria are being interpreted across the country. It’s clear that a large proportion of teachers and school leaders still don’t have faith that the new approach will provide accurate or reliable data. 

Fundamental problems

So what now? 

It has become clear that you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear when it comes to the current writing assessment frameworks. There are fundamental problems with this approach that further tweaks will not fix. 

We need a completely different long-term solution. 

There have been calls in some quarters to simply ditch writing assessment altogether. That would be a mistake. If we were to scrap it, when it comes to writing, all we would be left with would be the grammar, spelling and punctuation test. 

Whether we like it or not, we know that what is measured through statutory assessment distorts the Year 6 curriculum. There is a real danger that scrapping writing assessment would only see it narrowed further. 

In the NAHT assessment review group report, we highlighted comparative judgement as one possible solution. For me, it still represents the best alternative to the current system. However, now is the time to consider every possible option available. We need the profession to put forward its own ideas and not wait for them to be presented to us. 

Whilst many were dismayed to see the recent announcement that the current frameworks will continue to be used indefinitely, we certainly shouldn’t take this to mean “forever”. 

It’s becoming apparent that the government does not know what the long-term solution is when it comes to writing, so let’s provide it. 

James Bowen is director of the NAHT Edge middle leaders’ union. He tweets @JamesJkbowen

Want to keep up with the latest education news and opinion? Follow Tes on Twitter and like Tes on Facebook