Government thinking about how best to respond to the pandemic continues to wavers to and fro, leaving schools to plan the best route through the remainder of the year. 

At this distance, no one can be sure whether the full complement of papers can be sat, whether the government will follow the example of Scotland and turn once again to centre-assessed grades, or whether it will compromise with a combination of external tests and teacher assessment 

Of only one thing can we be sure: in 2021, centres will be expected to provide evidence for their assessments. Already, we’re in danger of running an arms race of creating and collecting endless assessment evidence, stored in spreadsheets and work samples, alongside heavily minuted standardisation meetings, as we try to get as close as possible to the judgements of external examiners. 

This could make the students of 2021 the most scrutinised cohort ever, with all the attendant risks to their wellbeing. This is true even if we’d like to convince ourselves that it is all in a good cause and that all the angst will be worth the certainty of fair outcomes.

Exams 2021: What are ‘rigorous mocks’?

Where the pressure is most keenly felt is the mock examination. We all shared a sharp intake of breath when it was announced the weekend after A-level results day that mock results would be taken into account. And an even sharper gasp as plans to hold “rigorous mocks” have been mooted in the media this weekend. 

In the spring the straightforward thinking of ministers was that every school ran this form of controlled assessment in the same way. Not so. 

There is, in reality, a huge variety of practice: timings (November to May); frequency and number (one-off or three at least); standards (rigorously aligned to exam-board mark schemes, or sometimes overseen by examiners on the staff, or a more lenient measure based on where students could be expected to be at this point in the year). Not to mention the way learning is structured in different subjects.

This perhaps accounts for the semi-formal announcement of government plans to hold “rigorous mock exams with strict invigilation, marking and grading”. The mocks begin to feel more like the real decider than the actual exams, which will mean that preparation is absolutely crucial.

But what could this mean in practice?

Broadly speaking, the attitude to mocks falls into two camps. One is led by the accountability framework, where results are like a graph of sales figures, demonstrating success in each quarter. The other is led by student learning, where formative assessment is much more important to the organisation than percentages and graphs.

All about accountability

In the first model, there is a succession of standardised assessments and marking, so that all teachers know exactly how to prepare their classes. All teach the same things, even down to the exact wording of answers in extreme cases, and feedback is focused on how to reach the next level. There are numerous examples on the web on how to prepare exactly for each question in each paper in each specification.

It’s robotic. But it does appear robust - or at least it does to a nation addicted to statistics. 

The risk of placing too much emphasis on this approach is that teachers teach to the test - or, worse, to a succession of tests. It’s not unusual for two or three sets of mocks to run. And if mock exams are based on specimen papers, what dominates the classroom experience is how questions are worded and how to construct an answer to each type of question. 

It is done with the best of intentions: securing a grade which is substantiated by evidence of achievement on the spreadsheet and in the samples that schools might be expected to keep.

But it is an alienating approach. Students who are struggling to get back into school routines will lose hope and momentum. And, while the focus on the skeleton of assessment may help the middle range of learners to secure their target grades, it will hold back the most able.

Choosing a freer approach

In the student-centred model, teachers are left to decide when their classes are ready for assessment and what type of assignment they will set, and feedback is more individualised. Some schools - most famously Bedales - even have their own qualifications, for which they have written the syllabus and conduct in-house assessments.

The freer approach is not without risks either. There may be problems with standardising teachers’ judgements, if work used is not directly aligned to the specifications. And there is a perceived - or actual - lack of practice in exam technique, which is something that parents, in particular, value so highly.

While the student-centred approach provides plenty of space for the highly able to accelerate their learning and hone their knowledge and skills, it has a problem with credibility. 

So will even the most robust, self-sufficient of schools dare to put learning before mocks, in a scenario where terminal exams can’t run, and mocks become the real thing?

Treating exam cohorts like battery hens

As it has done with every aspect of education, the Covid emergency has intensified conflicts that have always been under the surface. Educational aims have always been at odds with the crude act of securing performance in the accountability framework. 

Deep learning is not achieved by repeating testing over and over again. Allowing the intensifying political anxiety at the top to cascade down the system on to the shoulders of teachers and students would skew even further an already over-scrutinised learning experience.

Yes, collecting evidence of achievement is important. I don’t know any subject leader who is not Covid-proofing their cohorts’ performance by collating evidence of achievement over time. However, as education professionals, we have a duty to ensure that our educational aims are not subsumed by the political emergency. 

In the long term, it is best for students’ happiness and career prospects to keep the mock exams in proportion: to limit the number of tests and, if the hypothetical state-controlled mocks go ahead, mark them in accordance with national standards.

What should matter most is how we take the results into the next stages of our teaching, to maintain an educational model rather than a training one. 

What we shouldn’t do is treat this year’s exam cohorts like battery hens.

Yvonne Williams is head of English and drama in a secondary school in the South of England. She has contributed chapters on workload and wellbeing to Mentoring English Teachers in the Secondary School, edited by Debbie Hickman (Routledge)