School Connection / Feature
The primary assessment debate has moved. Schools still need two clear plans
IPPR's new report challenges how primary attainment is tested and reported. Leaders can examine the argument while protecting curriculum breadth, useful classroom assessment and the arrangements that still apply this academic year.
The answer in brief
Consider reform without treating it as the rules for this year's pupils
The most useful assessment tells a teacher what a pupil understands and what to teach next. The most visible assessment can serve a different purpose: reporting attainment to families, comparing performance or holding institutions accountable. IPPR's report, published on 21 October, asks whether the present primary system strikes the right balance between those purposes.
Its proposals deserve examination. They are not a change to the arrangements schools must follow this year. STA states that assessment arrangements for 2026/27 remain unchanged. Leaders therefore need two connected plans: deliver the current requirements reliably, and review whether the school's wider assessment practice is supporting learning rather than narrowing it.12
- Keep IPPR's proposed reforms separate from the current statutory assessment timetable.
- Review the teaching decisions produced by routine assessment and the workload needed to obtain them.
- Check the 2 November portal notice for relevant monitoring and moderation agreements.
01 / The new argument
Understand the proposal and the evidence behind it
IPPR proposes near-term changes including an accessibility and bias review, removing the standalone spelling, punctuation and grammar test, changing school-level reporting and replacing scaled-score reporting with a competency approach. It also explores broader sampling over time. These are the authors' recommendations for reform, with suggested implementation from 2027/28, rather than commitments already made by government.1
The report draws on earlier work and engagement with nine experts. It acknowledges funding from More Than A Score, a coalition campaigning for assessment reform. That context belongs with the argument: this is a policy contribution with a stated perspective, not an independent government decision or a newly conducted representative October poll of primary schools.1
The important question for a governing board is not whether to endorse every recommendation. It is which problems the report identifies in the school's own practice, whether local evidence supports that concern and what can responsibly change now. Removing a national test and improving the usefulness of a classroom assessment are different decisions, taken by different authorities.
02 / What applies now
Keep the operational timetable separate from the reform debate
The current ARA remains the controlling starting point for the assessment responsibilities within its scope. Ask the assessment lead to confirm the school's relevant requirements, responsible people and key dates against that document and subsequent notices. Do not remove a task from the calendar because a report recommends replacing it in a future year.3
There is a concrete current update to act on. STA's 14 October notice deferred the opening of specified local-authority monitoring and moderation agreement request and approval forms to Monday 2 November. It says schools and local authorities can still discuss and put agreements in place before the forms open. Relevant academies and participating independent schools should check their own arrangements and nominate an owner.2
A short calendar review should establish access to the portal, cover for the assessment lead and how amendments are checked. Keep source dates on the record. This reduces the chance that a genuine operational notice is missed while staff spend time discussing a possible future model that has not been adopted.
03 / Review the learning value
Ask what a test changes in the following week's teaching
Choose one routine assessment and follow it through. What did teachers learn about pupils' understanding? Which misconception became visible? What changed in teaching, grouping or support? If the result produces a number without an instructional response, examine whether the task, its timing or the interpretation needs improvement. This is a suggested professional review, not a new required assessment cycle.
EEF's feedback guidance emphasises principles and pupils' use of feedback rather than a preference for written or verbal delivery. Apply that lens to the work generated by assessment. Can pupils understand the next step, act on it and show whether their understanding has developed? More marking is not by itself evidence of more learning.4
Bring subject and phase leaders into the review. A broad attainment label may conceal different strengths in comprehension, fluency, vocabulary or mathematical reasoning. The response should be precise enough to guide teaching without pretending a single score explains the pupil. Use staff knowledge and work over time alongside the result, with appropriate caution about small groups.
04 / Curriculum and inclusion
Look for displacement rather than assuming it has happened
The concern that accountability can narrow teaching should be tested against what pupils actually receive. Compare the planned and taught curriculum during periods of preparation. Have subjects lost time? Have particular pupils repeatedly missed the same lessons for intervention? Identify the reason and educational consequence before changing the timetable. A perception of pressure is a prompt for inquiry, not proof of a local problem.
For pupils with SEND or other access needs, review the suitability of assessment methods and the current arrangements that apply. A lower result can reflect a learning gap, an access barrier or both. Discuss those distinctions with the SENCO and relevant teachers. Do not assume that a proposal about national accessibility has already changed the support available in this year's assessment.
Current inspection materials remain a separate reference for the school's account of its curriculum and inclusion. Use ordinary planning, teaching and review evidence to explain decisions. The publication of this report does not justify a new inspection folder or a new internal data collection simply to demonstrate that staff have discussed assessment reform.5
05 / The leadership choice
Make the workload trade-off visible before adding another measure
List the purpose, frequency and audience of the school's main assessment collections. Distinguish what is required externally from what the school has chosen. Ask whether each additional collection informs a decision that could not be made from existing evidence. Where leaders propose stopping a task, agree what useful information might be lost and how that risk will be checked.
Take reporting to parents seriously in this discussion. A simpler internal process is valuable only if staff can still explain progress, strengths and support clearly. Test the language with families: can they understand what their child can do and what happens next? Avoid replacing an unexplained score with an equally unexplained competency label.
06 / What leaders can do now
Prepare evidence for the debate and improve one current process
Bring a focused paper to the relevant leadership or governor meeting: the current requirements, the report's proposals, one locally evidenced concern and a proportionate improvement to trial. Give the change an owner and review date. If there is no evidence that a routine is failing, retain it while considering the argument; reform debate alone does not make every established practice ineffective.
The outcome should be less ambiguity for staff and more useful information for pupils. Leaders can comply with current arrangements while improving the quality of their own decisions. When government or STA publishes a formal change, the school will then have a clear baseline from which to assess it, rather than a timetable already rewritten around a proposal.
Leadership questions
Questions that turn the development into a governing conversation.
Board test
Have we separated current assessment requirements from possible future reforms?
Board test
Which routine assessments lead to a clear teaching response and pupil action?
Board test
Do preparation and intervention displace other learning for particular pupils?
Board test
Who owns the relevant portal agreements and checks official timetable updates?
Evidence boundary
What this analysis does not prove.
- IPPR's report is a policy proposal, not adopted government policy. Its expert engagement and earlier research should not be described as a new representative October survey.
- The report acknowledges More Than A Score funding. Its broad discussion of disadvantage should not be substituted for a specific official statistical definition.
- School Connection's suggested local review does not change the ARA, determine access arrangements or establish that a particular school's curriculum has narrowed.
What we are monitoring next
Publication is the beginning of the watch.
- Government and STA responses that formally change future assessment, distinguished from commentary.
- The revised 2 November 2026 opening of specified monitoring and moderation agreement forms.
- The school's evidence on curriculum access, the usefulness of feedback and assessment workload.
Approved public intelligence
What the live evidence is showing now.
School Connection continues to monitor standards, curriculum & accountability evidence. New machine-detected signals remain private editorial candidates until a human editor investigates and approves them for publication.
This panel reads only the editor-approved School Connection public feed. It never exposes raw Observatory records, private candidates, contacts, commercial opportunities or internal scores.
Continue the evidence trail
How this develops our earlier coverage
Sources and methodology
Evidence used in this analysis
School Connection links to the primary source behind each material claim. Source status, period and limitations are stated so readers can reproduce the evidence trail.
- 01
Institute for Public Policy Research · Published 21 October 2026; reviewed 21 October
What comes next: a fairer approach to primary assessment
Original report by Conor Carleton and Ellie Harris. Authors' proposals informed by earlier research and nine expert interviews or roundtable contributions; funded by More Than A Score. Not adopted policy or a new October representative survey. - 02
Standards and Testing Agency · Updated 14 October 2026; reviewed 21 October
Key stage 2 assessment and reporting arrangements: publication and updates
Confirms assessment arrangements for 2026/27 remain unchanged and records the revised 2 November opening of specified monitoring and moderation agreement forms. - 03
Standards and Testing Agency · 2026/27 statutory arrangements; reviewed 21 October
2027 key stage 2 assessment and reporting arrangements
Current requirements, scope, responsibilities and timetable. Read with the latest publication notices and the guidance relevant to the pupil or setting. - 04
Education Endowment Foundation · Published 11 June 2021; reviewed 21 October 2026
Teacher feedback to improve pupil learning
Research-informed principles for effective feedback and how pupils use it, rather than a mandate for a particular marking format. - 05
Ofsted · Updated 28 August 2026; reviewed 21 October
School inspection toolkit, operating guide and information
Current inspection materials. IPPR's report does not amend these or create a new inspection evidence requirement.