The problem with England’s mandatory reading test for 13-year-olds

All secondary aged school students from eighth grade (12 and 13 years old) England will be Required to take a reading test by the governmentThe stated aim is to help raise reading standards so that “everyone can progress”. Is this additional testing a good idea?

Although the results of the tests will not be published, they will be provided to families ofsted (The body responsible for school inspection in England). The existence of tests may therefore encourage secondary schools to pay more attention to improving reading.

According to international tests, the average level of reading among young people in England is high. Scores dropped slightly after the pandemic, but that happened almost everywhere.

The main concern should be for those minority pupils who arrive at secondary school without the literacy levels required for school and everyday life. This means that they are unable to access the broader curriculum. Low literacy at this level is associated with low exam results when children reach their GCSEs.

Primary schools emphasize literacy and numeracy, but secondary schools offer different subject disciplines, many of which are almost impossible to understand without the ability to read fluently. Basic literacy should be the minimum threshold for school attendance.

It is also important for everyday and later life as a citizen. If testing means that secondary schools will focus even more on these “catch-up” pupils, so far so good.

some problems

However, any exam involves cost as well as course time dedicated to its preparation. If schools don’t prepare for it, testing will only provide a snapshot without changing anything.

This will highlight the underachievement of children from groups we already know are most disadvantaged at school: those with special educational needs and disabilities, and those from poorer backgrounds.

Tests also cause anxiety for some students. And they may not be objective accurate measurements. For example, summer-born children, who may start primary school at barely four years of age, score lower on reading tests, while not falling behind the expected level for their actual age.

This “summer effect” continues into secondary school as well. So will the new reading test be age-appropriate? if so, how?

It will be really difficult to get everyone to pass this test. Even for the preliminary phonics screening test taken in the first year, the aim is only that 90% of students pass. But it’s really the other 10%, plus a few more (including home-schooled and hospitalized children) at whom this new test should be aimed.

Otherwise, the results reported to Ofsted will simply be a summary of the level of poverty and learning challenges – special educational needs – of pupils entering any school. And my research shows that Ofsted is bad at separating reference and raw test scores.

The way forward?

If the purpose of this proposed new secondary school examination is to generate high stakes and positive response from schools, then why was it not conducted earlier for the younger age group? Reading is one of the best things learned in youth. Perhaps in the fourth year, when there are still two years to prepare for the transition to secondary school – but primary schools cannot welcome another exam at an already crowded stage.

Somehow, wanting to help is not enough. Schools and teachers must know how to help the last 10% or more of children who struggle with reading, cost-effectively and efficiently. There is growing strong evidence on how to improve literacy for struggling readers—but there is also a proliferation of less useful approaches promoted by advocates, vendors, and those with vested interests.

So, in addition to this new test, there is more the government could do to help schools assess the quality of evidence for or against specific literacy approaches. This will mean that schools will use the limited time and resources they have to help children learn to read, using the most effective ways to achieve results. They should not rely solely on organizations or commentators who present a collection of evidence without considering the quality of the underlying research.