I would give my students a simple vocab or comprehension diagnostic just to gauge my students and identify weaknesses and strengths.
Then a computer program came along that did a similar quick diagnostic and gave my students a reading level and a list of recommended books and took around 30 min. My students liked this test, especially the recommended reading. When standard testing came in to the US in the 90s it all went downhill. Meaningless stats that no one was either qualified or had the time to sift through. Students were disengaged from their reading score that seemed more punitive than encouraging. Not to mention the incredible time testing consumed and took away from lesson time. Highly damaging with little to recommend it.
Daisy has encapsulated the problem beautifully: we continue year after year to teach comprehension exercises that are of very limited value when what students need is knowledge. The ‘glacier’ example is a case in point.
Willingham has taken up Hirsch’s baton in arguing for a knowledge-based approach to curriculum. Every subject provides students with an opportunity to learn ‘stuff’. Let’s make Years 7 or 8 ones in which we trial the kinds of approach Daisy is advocating.
While the former education minister Nick Gibb took the trouble to familiarise himself with the evidence on improving reading, I wonder if the education secretary has...
So much to agree with here! But also: we can’t just test comprehension. *If* it’s diagnostic, there needs to be provision for further testing for decoding and fluency where indicated. This would be a game-changer for standards snd outcomes at Y11.
The KS3 curriculum is definitely an issue, with far too little teaching and/or learning going on. I’m suspicious of further national testing though, as experience suggests it will result in teaching to the test as opposed to teaching the curriculum - at a stage when schools really have the opportunity (if they would but take it!) to engage the hard-to-reach through imaginative classroom practice. And where there is actually room for the creative subjects that can make all the difference to the academically disenchanted.
As usual, you have produced something highly relevant and thought-provoking. I agree entirely with the first part of this blog in relation to the limitations of the SATs reading test and the desirability of not repeating that at Y8. However, I regret that I am not entirely convinced by the proposed solution. Instead of a disguised knowledge test, it seems to me that this is an undisguised knowledge test. The anthology of quality non-fiction tests may well increase knowledge (which would be a good thing). However, this is even less a reading test than Y6 SATs because the way to do well would be to know those texts inside-out with very little need to go outside them. That has the potential to narrow rather broaden knowledge.
In particular, my concern is that this would drive another set of undesirable teacher behaviours. We would lose "reading lots of short and simple texts and practising skills like “making inferences” and “finding the main idea”." However, this would likely be replaced by endless reading and study of the anthology as the best way to prepare children for the test at the expense of wider curriculum knowledge. It seems to me that it would be better to specify the curriculum areas that would come up and possibly make some curriculum materials available but set the test on a unseen text to see if children can read and make sense of it in the light of their hopefully improved background knowledge. I feel that this would drive a more healthy set of teacher and student behaviours in that it would encourage wider reading around the topics rather than a narrow focus on certain set texts.
More broadly, I think the biggest issue with reading assessment in England is that we go straight from assessing decoding to assessing comprehension. This seems to me a major problem especially as we have good evidence that a large number of pupils are leaving primary school functionally dysfluent (https://markgoodrich.substack.com/p/is-reading-prioritised-in-primary). A new Y8 reading test isn't the best time to test fluency but if we are rethinking national tests, my view is that should be a priority before leaving primary school and that it continues to be tracked in secondary.
I'm definitely a ' let's have fewer tests' kinda gal. I think we're one a the few countries in Europe that have the equivalent of GCSEs at 16. Ditto that for Australia, USA, Canada and possibly New Zealand too. Currently GCSEs or the lack of the right ones at 'good grades ' can effectively put the lid on many school leavers prospects before they've even technically left school. If teachers aren't aware of which Year 8 kids need more support with reading after they've been in the school system for at least 8 years then something's badly wrong.
As a senior school leader who has worked extensively with curriculum, assessment, and transition between primary and secondary phases, I find the proposal for national reading tests in Year 8 deeply concerning.
I know first-hand the depth of information schools already hold about pupils’ reading ability. The KS2 Reading Assessment Framework is far from a blunt instrument; it provides rich diagnostic detail across several strands:
• Retrieval: locating and summarising information within complex texts
• Inference: interpreting meaning, emotion, and author intent
• Vocabulary and language choice: understanding how words shape tone and meaning
• Structure and sequencing: tracking ideas and arguments across paragraphs
• Authorial technique: analysing purpose, perspective, and impact on the reader
By the end of primary school, this data, combined with teacher assessments, reading-age diagnostics, baseline tasks, and ongoing formative assessments in Year 7, offers a comprehensive picture of each pupil’s reading profile.
Introducing a Year 8 reading test won’t reveal anything new. It will, however, divert time and resources away from what actually improves literacy:
• Skilled teaching that builds reading stamina and curiosity
• High-quality texts that reflect diverse voices and challenge thinking
• Collaborative transition work between primary and secondary schools to sustain progress
Testing again at Year 8 risks reducing reading to a compliance exercise rather than cultivating it as a habit of critical thinking, empathy, and lifelong learning.
If we truly want to improve reading, let’s invest in time, texts, and teachers, not another test. Although I do agree that the year 6 and 11 reading assessments need reform, and the suggestion of an anthology of texts based on the curriculum is a sound idea.
The way you explain why reading comprehension tests aren’t that helpful is so clear and concrete. Thank you!
When I first taught in the 80s,
I would give my students a simple vocab or comprehension diagnostic just to gauge my students and identify weaknesses and strengths.
Then a computer program came along that did a similar quick diagnostic and gave my students a reading level and a list of recommended books and took around 30 min. My students liked this test, especially the recommended reading. When standard testing came in to the US in the 90s it all went downhill. Meaningless stats that no one was either qualified or had the time to sift through. Students were disengaged from their reading score that seemed more punitive than encouraging. Not to mention the incredible time testing consumed and took away from lesson time. Highly damaging with little to recommend it.
Daisy has encapsulated the problem beautifully: we continue year after year to teach comprehension exercises that are of very limited value when what students need is knowledge. The ‘glacier’ example is a case in point.
Willingham has taken up Hirsch’s baton in arguing for a knowledge-based approach to curriculum. Every subject provides students with an opportunity to learn ‘stuff’. Let’s make Years 7 or 8 ones in which we trial the kinds of approach Daisy is advocating.
While the former education minister Nick Gibb took the trouble to familiarise himself with the evidence on improving reading, I wonder if the education secretary has...
So much to agree with here! But also: we can’t just test comprehension. *If* it’s diagnostic, there needs to be provision for further testing for decoding and fluency where indicated. This would be a game-changer for standards snd outcomes at Y11.
Yes and so beautifully explained recently by Dr Wes Hoover here https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/science-of-reading-the-podcast/id1483513974?i=1000725852043
The KS3 curriculum is definitely an issue, with far too little teaching and/or learning going on. I’m suspicious of further national testing though, as experience suggests it will result in teaching to the test as opposed to teaching the curriculum - at a stage when schools really have the opportunity (if they would but take it!) to engage the hard-to-reach through imaginative classroom practice. And where there is actually room for the creative subjects that can make all the difference to the academically disenchanted.
As usual, you have produced something highly relevant and thought-provoking. I agree entirely with the first part of this blog in relation to the limitations of the SATs reading test and the desirability of not repeating that at Y8. However, I regret that I am not entirely convinced by the proposed solution. Instead of a disguised knowledge test, it seems to me that this is an undisguised knowledge test. The anthology of quality non-fiction tests may well increase knowledge (which would be a good thing). However, this is even less a reading test than Y6 SATs because the way to do well would be to know those texts inside-out with very little need to go outside them. That has the potential to narrow rather broaden knowledge.
In particular, my concern is that this would drive another set of undesirable teacher behaviours. We would lose "reading lots of short and simple texts and practising skills like “making inferences” and “finding the main idea”." However, this would likely be replaced by endless reading and study of the anthology as the best way to prepare children for the test at the expense of wider curriculum knowledge. It seems to me that it would be better to specify the curriculum areas that would come up and possibly make some curriculum materials available but set the test on a unseen text to see if children can read and make sense of it in the light of their hopefully improved background knowledge. I feel that this would drive a more healthy set of teacher and student behaviours in that it would encourage wider reading around the topics rather than a narrow focus on certain set texts.
More broadly, I think the biggest issue with reading assessment in England is that we go straight from assessing decoding to assessing comprehension. This seems to me a major problem especially as we have good evidence that a large number of pupils are leaving primary school functionally dysfluent (https://markgoodrich.substack.com/p/is-reading-prioritised-in-primary). A new Y8 reading test isn't the best time to test fluency but if we are rethinking national tests, my view is that should be a priority before leaving primary school and that it continues to be tracked in secondary.
I'm definitely a ' let's have fewer tests' kinda gal. I think we're one a the few countries in Europe that have the equivalent of GCSEs at 16. Ditto that for Australia, USA, Canada and possibly New Zealand too. Currently GCSEs or the lack of the right ones at 'good grades ' can effectively put the lid on many school leavers prospects before they've even technically left school. If teachers aren't aware of which Year 8 kids need more support with reading after they've been in the school system for at least 8 years then something's badly wrong.
Indeed. And something is very wrong when we still have poor decoders in year 11!!
And poor decoders at Year 7. See Tim Mills's very interesting paper:https://www.cmjpublishers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/can-older-pupils-who-do-not-present-as-struggling-readers-improve-their-basic-decoding-skills-through-systematic-phonics-instruction-and-what-effect.pdf
Agreed. And a significant percentage of those Year 11s who don't get GCSE English L4 were on track to do so at Year 6.
More common sense like this, please. Is anyone in the Department of Education reading this?
As a senior school leader who has worked extensively with curriculum, assessment, and transition between primary and secondary phases, I find the proposal for national reading tests in Year 8 deeply concerning.
I know first-hand the depth of information schools already hold about pupils’ reading ability. The KS2 Reading Assessment Framework is far from a blunt instrument; it provides rich diagnostic detail across several strands:
• Retrieval: locating and summarising information within complex texts
• Inference: interpreting meaning, emotion, and author intent
• Vocabulary and language choice: understanding how words shape tone and meaning
• Structure and sequencing: tracking ideas and arguments across paragraphs
• Authorial technique: analysing purpose, perspective, and impact on the reader
By the end of primary school, this data, combined with teacher assessments, reading-age diagnostics, baseline tasks, and ongoing formative assessments in Year 7, offers a comprehensive picture of each pupil’s reading profile.
Introducing a Year 8 reading test won’t reveal anything new. It will, however, divert time and resources away from what actually improves literacy:
• Skilled teaching that builds reading stamina and curiosity
• High-quality texts that reflect diverse voices and challenge thinking
• Collaborative transition work between primary and secondary schools to sustain progress
Testing again at Year 8 risks reducing reading to a compliance exercise rather than cultivating it as a habit of critical thinking, empathy, and lifelong learning.
If we truly want to improve reading, let’s invest in time, texts, and teachers, not another test. Although I do agree that the year 6 and 11 reading assessments need reform, and the suggestion of an anthology of texts based on the curriculum is a sound idea.
“unseen reading tests encourage schools and students to spend too much time on these limited strategies, and not enough on …”
If these strategies are not that effective, why are schools spending a lot of time on them? I am confused…