An evaluation of the potential impact of standardised assessments on the promotion of pupil autonomy in Scottish education,from the perspective of Dearden’s view of autonomy

Abstract

Scotland is experiencing a period of radical educational transformation in the effort to raise attainment. Dearden argued for the promotion of autonomy in 1975 at another time of sweeping educational change. The principle of autonomy is firmly entrenched in Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence and seen as key to ensuring pupils develop a broad range of skills and capacities, and consequently fulfil their potential. However, while Scotland used to rank highly in international standings, it has plummeted to average in recent years, resulting in the introduction of the National Improvement Framework in attempts to address this worrying decline. Standardised assessments have been launched as part of the National Improvement Framework but have sparked a raft of criticism in the media and considerable debate in parliament. While the Scottish Government responded to concerns in a review document, this article assesses the issues from an entirely different standpoint. Utilising Dearden’s perspective on autonomy, this article examines how commensurate standardised assessments are with Scotland’s educational policy on autonomy. I contend there is little justification for the negative view of standardised assessments in principle, arguing that standardised assessments can promote autonomy rather than diminish it, on the proviso that conditions for applying standardised assessments are fully understood and resourced.

Introduction

Immanuel Kant (1784), in his impassioned paper ‘What is enlightenment?’, first drew attention to the importance of the development of individual reason and choice. Almost 200 years later, Robert Dearden (1975: 333) discussed a ‘new aim’ in education involving a person’s autonomous ‘quality of character’, in his seminal paper ‘Autonomy and Education’. Since then, the concept of autonomy has become progressively embedded in Scottish educational policy, conferring on it a degree of pedagogical prominence. Indeed, the philosophies and methodologies of the Curriculum for Excellence (Scottish Executive, 2004) (CfE) are fully in accordance with the concept of autonomy.

The Scottish Survey on Literacy and Numeracy (2017) has shown a fall in attainment in both subjects since 2011. Even more troubling is the fact that Scotland recorded its worst ever performance in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) figures in 2016. While Scotland used to score highly in international standings, rankings have fallen dramatically in all three subject areas: maths, reading and science. It was the first time since the tests began in 2000 that all three subject areas were classed as ‘average’, with none ‘above average’, resulting in the Education Secretary John Swinney calling for ‘radical change’ in Scotland’s education system.

In order to address this worrying decline, Scottish National Standardised Assessments (SNSAs) were introduced in 2017 as part of Scotland’s unequivocal commitment to change: the National Improvement Framework (NIF) (Scottish Government (SG), 2016). (Throughout this article, I will refer to SNSAs as standardised assessments (SAs) for the purpose of generic understanding.) The extent of negative discourse following the introduction of SAs, predominantly in the media and political spheres, leads to the requirement for a fresh examination of the issues from a more theoretical perspective, to ensure they are not forsaken for injudicious political reasons or because of media misreporting. The notion of autonomy, as stated earlier, is implicit in the CfE’s values, principles and aims, and arguably forms one of the bedrocks of the curriculum. As Robert Dearden’s concept of autonomy was both extolled and embraced at another time of upheaval in education, it will be valuable to use aspects of Dearden’s ideology to explore the validity of SAs and to illustrate my argument.

This article therefore examines the SA debate through the lens of autonomy, with a particular focus on ethics, freedom and independence, and well-being and confidence. Towards the end I will also briefly explore other potential relevant factors of concern, in order to add further context. SAs, I will argue, can be used to promote rather than diminish autonomy through not only learner engagement in assessment processes but in providing the prerequisite knowledge with which to proceed with confidence for all concerned.

Assessment and autonomy

To begin, we need to be clear about what is meant by both autonomy and assessment. Autonomy, in an educational context, can be defined as the ability to take charge of one’s own learning and development. Assessment, according to the Scottish Qualifications Agency, can be defined as the ‘gathering, recording and using of information about a learner’s response to a task’, or ‘to see what children know, understand and are able to do … important for planning next steps … a way of supporting learning’ according to Education Scotland Parentzone (2018).

Learner progress and assessment are inextricably linked, and the role of pupil autonomy in these processes is widely recognised (Clark, 2012; Mannion et al., 2015; OECD/CERI, 2008; Scottish Executive, 2006; SG, 2018a). Autonomy, when it is understood and cultivated appropriately, can form the foundation of effective learning. Hedge and Mackenzie (2016) write that Dearden’s idea of autonomy concerns two qualities, namely, quality of the person and quality of the mind. Qualities of the person include ‘self-knowledge, pride in accomplishment, respect for truth, morality and the dignity of others’ and qualities of the mind include ‘critical thinking, being able to assess what to do and why … being able to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of certain courses of action, and to think through the likely consequences of chosen courses’. As Hedge and Mackenzie articulate, Dearden’s concepts of qualities of the person and the mind fuse well with aspects of the CfE such as development of the four capacities, namely, ‘successful learners’, ‘effective contributors’, ‘confident individuals’ and ‘responsible citizens’, interdisciplinary learning and opportunities for personal achievement allow. However, educators need to provide the tools to genuinely cultivate these dispositions. Granting of genuine autonomy depends on access to the resources to engage fully with autonomy. These concern not just physical resources such as technology and appropriate learning environments but the cultivation of resources of mind such as confidence and motivation.

Autonomy and confidence I will argue cannot exist independently of each other, and autonomy can only genuinely be realised when confidence is nurtured. In other words, children need to be confident to be truly autonomous and need to be autonomous in order to work confidently. The way in which autonomy, freedom and independence are interpreted and promoted in schools has a direct impact on whether genuine autonomy is achieved. Assessment as part of this cycle is one tool by which, when used formatively, both confidence and autonomy can be promoted. SAs can provide the prerequisite knowledge and guidelines with which to promote confidence and autonomy, by evaluating individual differences and acting on children’s right to the provision of the tailored support they need to achieve their potential.

Ethics

Autonomy, according to Dearden (1975), concerns the extent of self-determination a person exercises as a result of his ‘own activity of mind’ (p. 337). Similarly, Kant argues that individuals ought to think for themselves, and be responsible for their own actions. Both papers are of ethical importance; Kant sees reason as the source of morality, emphasising the need for individuals to do the right thing, while Dearden, although not necessarily equating morality with autonomy, does acknowledge the role of morality and truth. Related to Kant and Dearden’s explanations are the CfE’s values of wisdom, justice, compassion and integrity, which underpin its aim to develop successful learners, confident individuals, effective contributors and responsible citizens. Analogously, this ethical approach complies with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, 1989), which includes, for example, the right to be listened to (Article 12), the right to be fully informed (Article 13) and the right that schools should develop children’s skills and potential fully (Article 29). To begin then, it is clear that, in accordance with both Kant and Dearden’s ideals, autonomy should be promoted both as a moral right and as a central educational aim.

How then might SAs be compatible with this ethical code? First, the OECD review of Scottish education in 2015 (OECD, 2015) encouraged Scottish education to clarify standards across curricular levels and bring greater consistency and confidence to approaches to assessment. While most schools and authorities (29 out of 32) throughout the country were already using SAs prior to the introduction of the SNSAs, they were not aligned to CfE, and authorities were not all using the same ones, or in the same way. Standardising the assessments across the country can help ensure that all authorities ‘sing from the same hymnbook’ thus adding rigour to the process. It could therefore be considered right, proper and ethical, that the SG has taken the OECD recommendation onboard.

In addition to the CfE value of integrity, the General Teaching Council for Scotland’s (GTCS, 2019) Professional Values for teachers include integrity and the ‘development of openness and honesty’, as well as ‘respecting the rights of all learners’ referring to ‘their entitlement to be included in decisions regarding their learning experiences and have all aspects of their well-being developed and supported’. Both Kant and Dearden reflect on the need for rules, and attest that rules are not a limitation of autonomy. Diagnostic assessment reports could be viewed as guidelines or ‘rules’ by which to proceed ‘open and honestly’ with the learning and teaching process, in accordance with the articles or ‘rules’ of the UNCRC which reflect children’s rights to an education.

In order that schools can fully develop children’s skills and potential (Article 29), they must know the baseline from which to start in order to provide the appropriate tools and resources. Article 13 of the UNCRC specifies that children have the right to find out information. One way for children to exercise autonomy and take charge of their own learning and development is by starting with the provision of well-defined feedback and facts about where there they are on their development trajectory, being listened to (Article 12) and involved in their learning in a formative way. Without clear unambiguous knowledge about children’s strengths and weaknesses not only would it be exceedingly difficult to be ‘open and honest’ about their learning needs, but it would be impossible to address their needs, leaving teachers to plan based on vague chance and conjecture. No one would argue that both children and teachers deserve better than this.

Competitive global markets and the importance of high educational standards have resulted in a huge increase in the development of high-stakes testing and assessment in many countries. However, contrary to reports in the media, in Scotland, SAs are not high-stakes tests, but rather are designed to be formative in nature, informing and shaping next steps as one part of a Broad Assessment Model (BGE) based on the rationale of using a wide range of evidence including teacher professional judgements (SG, 2018b). Formative assessment is widely implemented internationally based on a wide body of research which endorses the process of identifying and addressing a gap in performance, in collaboration with the pupil at the centre. Formative assessment in Scotland is realised through Assessment is for Learning (AifL) which was introduced as a precursor of the CfE in 2005. John Swinney, in the debate on SNSAs in the Scottish Parliament on 5 September 2018, quoted the President of the Association for Directors of Education in Scotland:

A key principle of Scotland’s education system is that assessment is for learning. Assessment allows teachers to understand children and young people’s progress and to plan the next phase of their learning and teaching. Assessment is, therefore, a key tool to inform teachers’ professional judgment of the needs of the children and young people they are teaching … the Association of Directors of Education, therefore, see the assessments as an integral part of everyday learning for children and young people in P1, P4, P7 and S3 …

This statement further reflects the research behind formative assessment which claims that attainment improves when pupils are given information about what they are learning, are given clear feedback about their performance and what they need to do to improve, and are fully involved in the process. Black and William (2004) found that assessment for learning can have a positive impact on pupil motivation, engagement, confidence and achievement, and therefore, I would argue, a further positive impact on their autonomy. A diagnostic report following an SA is designed to help teachers support individual children formatively as early as possible in their educational journey; the SG makes the valid point that by starting the process early in P1, the widening of attainment gaps (currently a widely recognised difficulty in Scotland) can be avoided as children move up the school.

Clearly then, if SAs are considered formative assessments, in theory, they are fully in accordance with the principles of autonomy and the ethical foundations of CfE.

Freedom and independence

Dearden distinguishes between the interrelated concepts of freedom and independence, which do not carry the power and depth of autonomy itself. Both Kant and Dearden consider autonomy possible if freedom is granted, although Dearden deems that freedom alone is not sufficient for the development of autonomy. Autonomy cannot be sought or expected at all times, whereas freedom may be offered at the beginning of the continuum. An example of how freedom, which may not necessarily result in autonomy, is given in schools is in the form of self-assessment (CfE), which involves children reflecting on their own learning and planning individual goals. While this approach is ethical, and clearly corresponds with the understanding of autonomous activity of mind, asking a child to do this before they have the ‘relevant knowledge, skills, initiative and experience’ (Dearden, 1975: 335) is likely to undermine their confidence, resulting in ‘self-frustration’ rather than ‘self-determination’ (Dearden, 1975: 344). It is unrealistic to expect some children to self-assess before they have the skills and competencies to do so. I would therefore argue that SAs would be more beneficial in the first instance to provide a baseline which once established can help determine whether a child is ready to self-assess or not.

Furthermore, a child who is granted freedom but unsure or lacking in confidence may choose what they think the teacher or parent wants them to, which is arguably a heteronomous decision rather than an autonomous one. One of the arguments highlighted against SAs is that teachers are giving differing amounts of support to children during the assessment where children found them too challenging to do independently, guiding children to give their responses. This would undermine the results of the SA as well as children’s autonomy in providing genuine responses. However, the SG has claimed to address this concern following a review of the first year of implementation, and has committed to modifying SA usability particularly for P1 to ensure children are able to conduct them entirely independently (SG, 2018b). Therefore, I would argue that SAs are not a barrier to autonomy when implemented appropriately.

Related to the concepts of freedom and independence, confidence and the curricular principles of personalisation and choice (CfE) is my observation that some children do not necessarily want, or feel ready, to be autonomous, and may become anxious when such freedom is given. Dearden likewise draws attention to the assumption that autonomy is automatically desired by all children, citing Fromm’s (1942, cited in Dearden, 1975) concern about the negative outcomes for children who are given freedom for the exercising of autonomy, but are not ready to embrace it. However, with autonomy as an ultimate aim, I believe that the self-esteem and confidence necessary to become autonomous can be facilitated with support and scaffolding (Bruner, 1978), allowing for autonomy’s development in degrees as and when children are ready. This support can be provided in part through the knowledge gained through SA results, allowing teachers to plan according to need. Nevertheless, due to individual differences, regardless of the support provided, some children may still choose a more heteronomous route in learning, which should, in itself, be viewed and respected as an autonomous choice, and made provision for in their educational trajectories. This cognisance does not negate the importance of autonomy in education, but demonstrates how it may emerge gradually.

So autonomy will not develop on its own, just by the permissive granting of freedom or independence. Care must be taken to ensure these conditions are not given as an abdication of responsibility, but specified within a considered, structured and supportive framework, starting with comprehensive and clear knowledge about the child’s educational needs. SAs, I would argue, are one way of providing the benchmark from which to build this framework. As stated earlier, Dearden and Kant expressed the need for rules; guidelines, a moral code of conduct and time to think and reflect are needed to provide the structure within which real autonomy can develop.

Well-being and confidence

Well-being has a central focus in the CfE, acknowledging its importance in learning and development. Dearden refers to the indisputable degree of dignity, pride and satisfaction that is gained by the exercising of autonomy. Furthermore, it is important to understand that feelings of emotional well-being are not only gained by the exercising of autonomy, but are actually crucial prerequisites to the exercising of autonomy in the first instance, as discussed earlier. (While Dearden discusses self-knowledge, and Kant refers to courage and maturity, surprisingly neither refers specifically to the significance of confidence and self-esteem, although the reason for this may simply be that the vocabulary and terminology used was of a different era but essentially meant the same.) This relates to both the UNCRC and the notion of the necessity of confidence and self-esteem in order to develop autonomy. Moreover, the value of fostering children’s emotional well-being through genuine participation in their learning is so fundamental that care must be taken not to offer it in a token or perfunctory way. With information gleaned from SAs, a more substantial foundation can be established from which to proceed. In order to gain confidence and well-being, it is crucial that accurate baselines are established to provide appropriate next steps in learning which will provide a progression pathway to success and feelings of achievement, which in turn will foster confidence and increased exercising of autonomy. SAs and the diagnostic information they deliver, rather than increasing anxiety and emotional distress, can provide a benchmark of needs which will allow ‘the garden to be watered and fed with the nutrients it needs to flourish and grow’ (Clarke, 2001). Therefore, I attest that SAs are a useful adjunct to the development of autonomy and well-being rather than an unhelpful one, and can lead ultimately to feelings of dignity, pride and satisfaction as described earlier.

If autonomy is given unreservedly without cognisance of children’s fears or anxieties, I would argue that the long-term effects would be to the detriment of the cultivation of autonomy. If, however, adequate and appropriate support is given to the child in the development of confidence and self-esteem, then the exercising of autonomy in the future is a real option. Again, this underlines the need for a clear basis from where to begin; targeted support can only be provided with the knowledge of the child’s needs in the first instance, and the best way to develop skills is through knowledge (Christodoulou, 2013; Didau, 2015, cited in Paterson, 2018).

One of the arguments against SAs in P1 is that children were becoming distressed about the process. Certainly, it is true that negative emotions can impede learning (Coles, 1998) and negative pedagogical experiences can lead to reduced confidence and self-esteem. Stress and anxiety reduce flexibility and scope for thinking, potentially leading to poor decision-making (Spendlove, 2008) and can cripple a child’s ability to learn (Goleman, 1995) and lead to poorer academic performance in the long term (Seipp, 1991). However, it is equally true that success and achievement in learning can promote increased satisfaction and happiness, which facilitates positive dispositions and behaviours for learning, thus reinforcing happiness and repeating the cycle (Frederickson, 2000). Encouragingly, according to the SNSA review (SG, 2018b), many teachers commented that the children found the assessments ‘an engaging and positive experience’. Some teachers, however, stated that children’s digital skills were not advanced enough to carry out the SA independently, but the SG has promised to make the SAs more usable to all. Therefore, if these, and other changes, are implemented as claimed in the review (SG, 2018b), SAs need not cause distress but may rather be considered an enjoyable experience thus increasing feelings of emotional well-being and consequently motivation and autonomy.

Learning environment and individual differences

Finally, it is important to understand, as Dearden (1975) states, that ‘autonomy cannot be absolute’ (p. 337). Our social environments and backgrounds are wrapped up in every ‘autonomous’ decision we make, including my reasoning in this article. However, if we accept both that autonomy is an important aim of education and that the social environment moulds us as individuals, then the educational environment we provide is crucial in determining whether individual children will develop autonomy to greater or lesser degrees. Hence, not only should we provide a setting that facilitates autonomy, as opposed to an authoritarian environment that quells individuality, but we must take account of individual differences such as diverse learning styles and additional support needs. I reiterate that this is only possible when we have a clear picture of where children are on their development trajectory. With a clear understanding of their strengths and weaknesses, we can put in place the appropriate environment which for some may be as simple as changing the classroom seating environment. When children are unduly influenced by others, as Dearden confirms, they may not make truly autonomous decisions. This could, for example, involve seating arrangements that provide good role models for children, who may otherwise be dominated by autonomy sapping peers. Or it may concern the fact that some P1 children may be more suited to a play environment that does not require a table to sit at, but it is equally important to provide that table, chair and writing materials for the P1 child that warrants it, for whom the play environment is not structured enough. As Dearden (1975: 345) said, autonomy is ‘not purely a maturational process’; the appropriate individual resources must be provided in order for autonomy to flourish, and these will be different for each child.

Questions have also been raised about whether the P1 SAs are in line with play-based learning in the early years, or are contrary to the Froebelian principle of holistic play-based learning. However, I am not aware of any substantial evidence to suggest that SAs are necessarily contrary to a play-based approach, when presented appropriately. While Froebelian theory did not advocate ‘testing’, the theory was developed in another time before children viewed interactive digital games as play. Furthermore, Froebelian practice encourages autonomy and self-directed play, and when presented appropriately, SAs could be another modern day tool by which to increase this. The SG review (SG, 2018a) stated that

Where good practice was observed, the SNSAs were often set up at a table or activity station for small groups of children to engage with as they moved round the classroom, completing different tasks which were often presented through play and active learning.

As stated previously, some teachers said that children found the SAs motivating, easy to use and fun. Many young children are familiar with interactive games and may see SAs as another piece of self-directed play, rather than as a ‘test’.

As Priestly et al. (2015) state ‘agency is ecological’ and people behave according to their environment, with ‘cultural (meaning, interpretation and understanding), structural (relationships, power) and material resources’ all important to the development of autonomy in greater or lesser degrees. The promotion of teacher (and arguably children’s) agency is therefore not solely a matter of enhancing individual capacity but also requires change to the cultural and structural conditions within which teachers, and in my view children, work (Priestly et al., 2015).

One of the arguments put forward against assessment is that some of the OECD highly ranked countries do not ‘test’ in the early years. However, countries such as Finland are culturally and structurally very different to Scotland, and most importantly at a different place in their educational journey. In order to make Swinney’s ‘radical change’ and begin our path to improvement, we must start assessing the early years to know how to tailor our approach to specific need. It is fundamental that we take stock and understand where we are before we can embark on meaningful progress. Without a baseline, we are at risk of continuing on a very tenuous path hoping that somehow everything will reach a satisfactory conclusion, leading to more frustration and exhaustion in the teaching profession, not to mention doing a disservice to our children who risk leaving school without the minimal standards in literacy and numeracy. Feasibly one of the reasons attainment in Scotland has fallen since the introduction of CfE is because the previous 5-14 curriculum provided a set of national SAs for assessing whether a child had reached a particular level. Priestley and Minty (2013) found that many teachers expressed concern at CfE assessment levels being too general and nebulous to be meaningful, as no similar assessment was introduced with CfE. Indeed, when CfE was first introduced, many teachers questioned the vagueness of assessment criteria hinged loosely on experiences and outcomes that teachers themselves had to spend time adapting to suit. Teachers also highlighted importantly that parents still want to know what level their child is and that it was therefore crucial to have clear criteria to measure and assess. Finally, now teachers have an opportunity to resume a form of SAs to help them to meet these goals. For those who argue against SAs to suggest that schools should rely entirely on teacher judgement to establish what level a child is at this is particularly concerning in the current climate, in part due to widely acknowledged current excessive teacher workload. With the best will in the world, and an extraordinary amount of goodwill not asked for in any other profession, a teacher working well over the contracted 35-hour week in the climate of inclusion where he or she may teach, for example, 33 children, half of whom may have social, emotional or behavioural difficulties, cannot be expected to know each individual child as well as necessary to make an accurate professional judgement about each child’s attainment. How then can he or she be expected to plan appropriate work for each child without a simple diagnostic assessment of need? To use an analogy, a doctor could not be expected to diagnose and prescribe appropriate and beneficial treatment for each patient without first running assessments such as blood tests or scans to produce an unambiguous picture of the patient. This same doctor also sees one patient at a time and has a team of professionals to run and provide the diagnostics on his behalf. How then is it accurate or ethical to assume a teacher can do all this herself with 33 children in the classroom as she tries to assess, manage behaviour and teach according to each individual need? Autonomy in this environment risks escalating into chaos without any rigorous framework to measure against.

Conclusion

This article has investigated the potential congruency of SAs with Scottish educational policy’s emphasis on autonomy, using elements of Dearden’s ideology. It is evident then that when viewed through the lens of Dearden’s idea of autonomy, SAs have the potential to be a valuable time saving tool in progression towards pupil autonomy, learning and resultant attainment. However, successful enactment of SAs in schools will depend on substantive understanding of their benefits and implementation, requiring human and physical resources as well as those of mind, and I believe we need to be very cautious in considering the potential true reasons for negativity towards SAs.

Upon reading the SG’s review (SG, 2018b), a number of other factors may point to the true reasons for negativity towards the introduction of SAs. For example, a number of concerns were raised about the time required to administer the SAs and the resources required to support this. These include human resources to support the children which impacted on staff time and workload in already stretched environments, necessitating the use of managers to help and the redeployment of support staff from classes where they were much needed, causing other stresses and problems for the school. Problems with physical resources such as IT equipment and adequate space and rooms, and problems with broadband coverage, were also highlighted. In some cases, the teachers were not seeing the data immediately leading to frustration about the usefulness of the SAs. These issues are undeniably important and need further exploration into how these barriers can be overcome, but if examining the use of SAs from the perspective of Scotland’s policy context and Dearden’s notion of autonomy SAs are entirely justified and valid.

Another reason for negativity towards SAs from parents and groups such as UPSTART (2018) may be due to a misunderstanding about the difference between high-stakes tests and SAs. I contend that it need not be a case of ‘Play Not Tests’ as UPSTART’s campaign espouses, as these two notions are not dichotomously opposed when understood and implemented appropriately. Evidence shows that many schools are successfully adopting a play-based approach, and SAs need not interfere with this. The SG, in efforts to address these concerns, plans an assessment summit in 2018/2019 to consider the benefits of SAs and how their approach can be strengthened further. SG proposes to investigate how parents and the public may be reassured about SAs, considering that they are used differently in many other countries. The SG plans to include all relevant participants in the summit, for example, global assessment experts and teachers, and other key stakeholders. Furthermore, in accordance with the principle of participation and autonomy, the SG will also introduce a short age-appropriate survey for children at the end of each assessment, to encourage them to feedback on their experience, providing teachers and schools with further tools to formatively plan next steps. Simultaneously, apart from the SG’s review and amendments, it would be cogent for further investigation into SAs to be conducted to ensure research-based and accurate information is disseminated which may dispel the apparent myth that SAs cannot exist alongside play and Froebelian practice.

While this article has focused on largely pupil autonomy, teacher autonomy is also worthy of mention. CfE was intended to increase teacher autonomy and Priestly and Minty (2013) found that many teachers welcomed the freedom and flexibility that the less prescriptive CfE brought. However, some felt that the CfE needed more guidance (or ‘rules’), adding further credence to the view that that SA results would ameliorate this process by providing a clear unambiguous picture of children’s levels, thus affording teachers the clarity they need to teach accordingly. SAs are intended to incur less paperwork being entirely digitally conducted from input to results, giving teachers a clear standardised picture of where a child is at. Efforts to build learner autonomy begin with their participation in the assessment and learning process; SAs can help identify gaps in learning to help teachers to work autonomously towards building learner autonomy. Surely no one can argue that this can free up teachers to get on with autonomous planning and teaching instead of devising their own means of assessment.

It is clear that autonomy, when it is understood and cultivated appropriately, is of enormous significance in ‘the important area of life’ (Dearden, 1975: 343), that is, education. Freedom and independence are not enough for the development of rational autonomy, which requires time, knowledge and consideration. The development of knowledge starts with a baseline, which in part can be accomplished with the results of SAs. If the aims of the NIF, CfE and UNCRC, and the development of autonomy are to be accomplished, not only should we invest in appropriate physical learning environments, but in resources of mind such as self-knowledge and maturity, confidence, motivation and genuine participation. Autonomy is morally imperative; it is part of children’s right to participate fully in their education and fulfil their potential. The individual differences of every child, and the implementation of a commensurate educational environment, will impact on the degree to which autonomous choices, decisions, deliberations, reflections, plans and judgements are realised.

Finally then I conclude that SAs can promote autonomy rather than diminish it and can be a valuable tool at the beginning of Scotland’s road to improvement. However, this is on the proviso that the conditions for adopting the SAs are fully understood and resourced and that SAs are not simply another ill-considered initiative foisted upon already overstretched educational professionals.