The Enactment of National Assessment Policy Changes An instrumental case study of teachers and headteachers in some schools in Scotland

Education is widely viewed as a instrument for national economic development within a global knowledge economy (Zajda, 2018; Volante, 2017; Ball, 2015). International standardized benchmarking is regarded as the basis for improvement by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) with a growing demand for national education systems to implement more accountable robust data to measure school and pupil progress. Scotland has recently implemented The National Improvement Framework (NiF) as a result of the OECD’s report ‘Improving Schools in Scotland. An OECD Perspective’ (2015). The NiF includes national standardised testing for chronological ages legitimised by the rhetoric ‘closing the attainment gap’ and is intended to provide support for teachers’ professional judgement to help identify childrens progress . This study set out to explore how the national education system and professionals in Scotland received and interpreted internationally recommended assessment designs over time. This involved the exploration of teachers’ perceptions and professional experiences of assessment systems in Scotland with regards to professional judgment, autonomy and accountability, re-shaping of models of assessment over time, curriculum development within the 5-14 Curriculum and Curriculum for Excellence Framework and, practical and contextual issues. Documentary analysis of policy documents and semi-structured interviews involving a sample of 4 headteachers and 10 teachers from schools within four regions in Scotland were the key data collection tools. The main findings of the research suggest that the Scottish Government is replicating forms of crucial governance exerted by the OECD by introducing the latest assessment innovation- the NiF. Here, the narrratives of teachers and head teachers reveal feelings of precariousness with regard to how the data from the NiF will be used and which may lead to the undermining of their professional judgement and autonomy. The narratives also reveal a commitment to collective responsibility, intelligent accountability and shared leadership. Analytical Guidance enabled teachers to iteratively refer back to their experiences during the 5-14 curriculum as well as their practical evaluative experiences of Assessment is for Learning. Narratives also revealed inconsistencies and a lack of clarity between the learning outcomes in the 5-14 and CfE. This was due to the differences in content and fluidity in both curricula