Scrapping spelling, punctuation, and grammar (SPaG) tests, replacing scaled scores and ending the publication of school-level results are among changes that should be made to primary school tests, a new report says. Research on primary assessment by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), a think tank known to be influential in shaping Labour policy, made four policy recommendations that should be implemented as soon as 2027-28. It also includes a fifth recommendation which could be put in place further down the line. Their analysis of Department for Education (DfE) data shows just 4 per cent of disadvantaged pupils met the higher standard in reading, writing and maths combined, compared to 11 per cent of other pupils. Conor Carleton, children and young people policy consultant at IPPR, said: “Too often the primary assessment system encourages a narrower curriculum and intensifies pressure on teachers, and ends up reflecting children’s circumstances rather than their potential. “We need to see urgent change. This doesn’t mean abandoning standards or accountability, but it does mean redesigning the system so that it supports schools, teachers, and pupils to succeed.” Here’s are the key recommendations… 1. Get rid of SPaG test The report states the DfE should remove the standalone spelling, punctuation and grammar test entirely, rather than try to reform it, describing it as “not fit for purpose”. But it argues that spelling, punctuation and grammar should still be assessed as part of wider key stage 2 assessments, particularly in the English assessment. It points to studies which show that teaching grammar through learning abstract rules and terminology has less of an impact on pupils’ writing, and that it does not improve their comprehension and understanding of English. “Removing the SPaG test removes the standalone, high-stakes, faulty test, not the imperative to teach those concepts.” Paul Whiteman, general secretary of NAHT, said the union agreed “that the current SPaG test has outlived its usefulness”. “Grammar, punctuation and spelling are already assessed through children’s writing, and many school leaders question whether a separate test provides any meaningful insight into pupils’ ability to communicate effectively.” 2. End publication of school-level results The DfE should stop publishing school-level key stage 2 results, which would end league tables. Instead, schools would have rolling averages (for instance, three or five-year averages) of attainment data from DfE and Ofsted, for internal monitoring and inspection. The report argues that the current approach creates a perverse incentive for schools to teach to the test, rather than provide a broad curriculum, and drives inter-school competition. It adds that this has a particularly negative impact on disadvantaged children. Creating rolling averages also means schools are “judged on sustained performance, and not a single-year snapshot”, the report adds. 3. Replace scaled scores with ‘competency framework’ Schools should use a “competency framework” which shows what pupils can do, rather than give them a “pass” or “fail” label, the report adds. Under the current system, raw marks are converted into scaled scores. Pupils are told whether they are below or meeting the expected standard, and whether they achieved the higher standard. The competency framework would give parents and secondary teachers more specific information about what each pupil can do, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. For instance, it could say that a pupil has a strong understanding of fractions and geometry but needs more support with algebra. Whiteman said the competency framework proposal “is one possible approach that merits serious consideration”. 4. Create independent audit for bias The research found that the content of primary tests routinely assumes cultural experience and background knowledge that pupils do not equally have. It points out that past papers have included writing tasks which refer to skiing or foreign travel. IPPR argues this has a significant impact on disadvantaged pupils who may not have access to these experiences or context. The report recommends that the Standards and Testing Agency (STA) should deliver an annual independent “statutory accessibility and bias audit”. It would review key stage 2 test papers against several criteria, including cultural bias, linguistic complexity and accessibility for pupils with additional needs. The STA already has its own internal framework, which checks that tests are accessible for SEND pupils, and an external review group checks that subject matter in reading tests is appropriate for all pupils. But the researchers argue this is “not sufficient to remove the structural disadvantages that some groups of children face”. Tiffnie Harris, Primary and Data Specialist at ASCL, said modern technology could create a “more adaptive and humane style of testing than the current one-size-fits-all approach”. “This would allow questions to be tailored according to the ability of each child, allowing them to demonstrate their knowledge without being confronted with the stress of questions they cannot answer.” 5. Introduce random sampling approach Instead of having one series of high-stakes tests at the end of year 6, the report argues for a random sampling model across years 3 to 6 across a broader range of subjects. The DfE would issue assessments to different year groups and subjects each year across different schools. It may not be that every school is assessed each year. The report argues this would make it impossible for schools to predict who and what is being assessed, and remove the incentive for them to narrow the curriculum down to what is being assessed. It would also allow the DfE to monitor local and regional trends, and look at how the primary system is functioning across different years. Progress 8 would not exist in its current form, and the report acknowledges that there would need to be further work on how this recommendation would fit with secondary school accountability measures. The DfE has been contacted for comment.