The problem of assessment Gavin Larcombe

Within this essay I wish to examine the issues surrounding the assessment of students’
artwork within secondary schools. I will begin by attempting to define the meaning of the
term and give a brief history with regards to its development. From this I will explore the
purpose of assessment, whilst outlining the various approaches in order to evaluate its impact
upon teaching, learning and the curriculum. Finally I will examine whether assessment
criteria has led to orthodoxy in secondary art education in UK schools.

Assessment or to assess can be understood as a process of judging the worth or importance of

something. It can be thought of as a term which encompasses several other terms including,
evaluation, testing, grading, examination and achievement. In 1988 saw the development of
the education reform act and the introduction of the National Curriculum. It became a legal
obligation for teachers to formally assess record and report on the performance of pupils. In
2000 the performance of pupils in both primary and secondary school became defined by
eight different levels of attainment. In all subjects including art and design each level has
since been used to help determine a child’s ability judged in relation to a specific set of
criteria. By the end of primary school, known as ‘key stage 2’, year 6 pupils are expected to
aim towards reaching a level four and by the end of ‘key stage 3’, year 6 pupils in secondary
school are expected to aim towards reaching a level eight. The original content for the
National Curriculum in art and design focused on a programme which encouraged pupils to
fulfil the following aims:

1) Explore and develop ideas.

2) Investigate and make art, craft and design.
3) Evaluate and develop work.

Resources provided from the Qualifications and Curriculum Agency now known as the
(QCDA), include exemplar material and schemes of work. Organised as a sequence of
projects the schemes of work are designed to enable teachers to fulfil the overall aims.
Although they can be altered or ignored it is still necessary for teachers to develop a
curriculum that enables pupils to achieve the objectives set. Although the NC explains how
teachers do not need to keep detailed records of the pupils work it does suggest that the
outcomes of pupils work should provide evidence that reflect the expectations within the
level descriptors.
 ‘A grade comment or mark can be used to indicate achievement, preferably focusing on
the results of complete units of work. A judgment based on a summative piece of work
or test, can be used when considering how individual pupils are achieving in relation to
the end of unit expectations.’ (National Curriculum 2000, p12).

Within the NC guidelines, teachers are encouraged to make a judgment on the attainment of a
pupil in relation to the level descriptors by the end of a unit, or key stage. Found within
guidelines titled ‘Good assessment practice in art & design’ (2003) provided by the Office
for Standards in Education (Ofsted), it suggests that, ‘many of the most effective departments
have successfully introduced assessment and recording schemes derived from the National
Curriculum programme of study’. (Ofsted, 2003).

The NC also encourage the use of optional tests provided by the Schools Curriculum &
Assessment Authority (SCAA) in order to diagnostically determine their level during the
transition from key stage 2 to 3 or at the end of year 9 before GCSE studies. Another example
of diagnostic testing is the Cognitive Ability Test (CAT). Other versions include ‘Yellis’ and
‘MidYIS’ tests which are usually given at the end of key stage 2 and 3. The tests claim to be
‘an effective predictor of future academic achievement’ (Rayment & Britton, 2007, p42). They are
usually comprised of three different papers including verbal reasoning, non-verbal reasoning,
and quantitative. In terms of assessing a child’s predicted performance in art and design it
could be assumed that the non-verbal battery would provide the most reliable information as
it claims to provide information relating to general intelligence.

‘Non-Verbal Reasoning involves no reading, so can provide insight into the abilities of
pupils who think more easily in images. It identifies the potential in all pupils as the
assessment is word-free and non-culturally specific, and therefore not biased towards
any social, cultural or linguistic group.’ (GL Assessment 2013).

From my own experience the results of these tests have been used to provide pupils with a
predicted grade and attainment target for their GCSE subjects including art and design. I
believe this is common practice in most senior schools and the predictions are also used to
determine the performance of the teacher. For pupils who achieve better or worse than their
predicted score the teacher either gains or loses what is known as a ‘value added point’. In
some schools particularly in the state sector ‘value added is used to support the assessment of
teachers’ salary threshold application’. (Rayment & Britton, 2007, p42). This demonstrates an
example of performance related pay and could lead, as some would argue, to an arts
education led by assessment.

‘In our high stakes education system it should be no surprise that teachers are adept at
finding effective prescriptions for their students to follow that raise examination scores
and in turn, satisfy the various demands of league tables, inspection and threshold
payments/ a form of payment by results.’ (Mason & Steers, 2007, p13).

There is evidence that suggests that GCSE marks studied do seem to represent a measure of
attainment that has some form of overall symmetry with their CAT scores. However on
closer examination of the data there appears to be some conflicting evidence. Although it
could be assumed that the most accurate element of the tests would be provided by the non-
verbal reasoning battery, the data which included the strongest association with GCSE results
was reflected in the quantitative test. Perhaps due to an assumption regarding the ‘expressive’
and ‘visual’ nature of art this data might appear confusing. However, some would argue that
it ‘perhaps does make some sense in terms of a reductionist, prescriptive exercise, that many
would assert, assessment in school based art has become.’ (Rayment & Britton, 2007, p44).

The impact of formal assessment on secondary school art education

Since the development of the NC and the implementation of a more specific assessment
structure it has led many to ask whether it is perhaps ‘a necessary evil, a generally good thing
or something which will tear the soul out of art.’ (Hickman, 2007, p79). Since the 1980s views
regarding the increasing development of assessment strategies have resulted in divided
opinion. There are some who question not only whether it is necessary, but whether it is even
desirable. Within the context of the Thatcherite government Malcolm Ross draws on the
relationship between the changes that took place within politics, education and society at
large. Ross suggests that the drive towards ‘accountability’ in education was a direct result of
economic, industrial and social policy.

‘The rush of aspiring teachers to join new management courses in education testifies
the extent to which the secretary of state’s big business dream has become reality.’
(Ross, 1986, p85).

In many ways the picture Ross has illustrated here relates to the current proliferation of
‘academy’ and ‘free’ schools across the UK funded by large companies or businesses in the
private sector. Ross continues his point by questioning the impact assessment practices upon
what he describes as ‘personal creativity’ by arguing that ‘constraining and curtailing
personal creativity in the interests of meeting the requirements of external examinations, an
anticipating the predilections of external examiners, forces a compromise over fundamental
principles.’ (Ross, 1986, p87). Although it is difficult to grasp what Ross would define as
‘fundamental principles’ presumably in art, nevertheless it is possible to understand his very
clear concerns regarding an art curriculum defined by the need to fulfil assessment criteria.
Understood in relation to more recent developments in our understanding of language and
presentation, some of Ross’s ideas about art practice may appear outdated. However his fears
have been supported by current antagonisms towards the impact of formal assessment. In a
culture where teachers are under pressure to ensure good results there are some who believe
this has led to a culture whereby pupils are no longer assessed by the quality of their work but
by their adherence to the assessment matrix. The result has led to a development in which the
artwork produced in many schools has taken on a particular kind of character. Anything
more challenging that does not conform to the particular frame work of examination is less
likely to be properly rewarded, thus encouraging further orthodoxy.

What is school art?

Before exploring in further detail the character of artwork produced in most secondary
schools I would firstly like to give a brief outline with regards to the assessment objectives
found within GCSE art and design. Currently there are four assessment objectives applicable
to both coursework and exam projects.

AO1: Develop ideas through investigations informed by contextual and other sources,
demonstrating analytical and cultural understanding.
A02: Refine their ideas through experimentation and selecting appropriate resources,
media, materials, techniques and processes.
AO3: Record ideas, observations and insights relevant to their intentions in visual and
other forms.
AO4: Present a personal, informed and meaningful response demonstrating analytical
and critical understanding, realising intentions and, where appropriate making
connections between visual, written, oral or other elements. (Edexcel, 2008, p35).
Within each of these assessment objectives the pupils’ work is compared to one of five
brackets defining their achievement as; limited, basic, competent, confident or fluent. This
form of criteria is designed to help both the examiner and teacher make judgments about the
work produced. In support exemplar material provided by the exam board is often designed
to aid the teachers when making decisions about marking or designing a unit of work.
However, some would argue that these materials can lead to a prescription. With reference to
a resource developed by the exam board Edexcel it is possible to find evidence which might
support this argument. Found in the 2009 specification are two exam projects or case studies.
Analysis of both projects focuses predominantly on the candidate’s use of technique,
demonstration of formal qualities and adherence to the assessment objectives. Both projects
reference artists from a modernist canon of male European painters. In one project the
student’s work focuses on self-portraiture based on direct observation and realistic forms of
representation. Methods of pictorial distortion are used to develop the student’s ideas along
with references to Cubism and Picasso. (See fig1). It is important to note that there is nothing
inherently wrong with these modes of representation. Within my own GCSE practice I have
also developed a similar approach which I believe is not uncommon. Perhaps the main
concern however, is the cause in the development of this pedagogical approach, which might
appear quite restricted. Clearly one could argue that the resources could be interpreted only as
suggestions. Whether through a lack of confidence on the teachers’ behalf, exemplar material
can contribute to a prescribed practice by perpetuating a vague notion of ‘good practice’.

‘When examination boards use exemplar material as a way of illustrating the meaning
of stated criteria they can incur the risk of becoming prescriptive and creating
orthodoxy; given that there is no finite definition of art, the process of art education
must allow for idiosyncrasy, divergence and uniqueness.’ (Mason & Steers, 2007, p20).

Further evidence can be found by referring back to the ‘Good assessment practice in art and
design’ document provided by Ofsted. Within the document a description of good assessment
practice is given outlining methods in gathering information about the attainment of year 7
pupils entering key stage 3. It explains that ‘where assessment is effective, information is
both comprehensive and accurate. In some schools, evidence is derived from observational
drawing tasks undertaking at the beginning and end of year 7’. (Ofsted, 2003).

Again it is possible to notice an emphasis on a specific method of drawing and mode of

representation.

In a report commissioned by the National Foundation for Educational Research, (NFER) and
the Arts Council for England titled ‘School Art; what’s in it? Exploring visual arts in
secondary school art departments’ information was gathered from a cross section of schools
in order to gain a clearer picture regarding secondary art education. Within the report, ‘skills’
were classified into the following groups: ‘Manipulation of materials, formal elements,
research skills, observational drawing, using art to express meaning.’ (Downing & Watson, 2009,
p28). Manipulation of materials, formal elements and observational drawing were ranked as
three most significant skills identified within taught modules. As the report suggests there
appears to be a ‘tendency to concentrate on the craft skills of art making rather than on the
critical and expressive skills’. (Downing & Watson, 2009, P29). In response there are some who
would argue that ‘the formal elements are a means and not an end, and that privileged and
dominant forms become naturalised over time and should be subject to investigation.’
(Addison, 2010, p 105&106).

Two years before the NFER report was published the NC for art and design was updated in
2007. Emphasis was placed on four key concepts including creativity, competence, cultural
understanding and critical understanding. The guidelines also encourage the potential for risk
taking, collaborative activities, using new technologies and an engagement with
contemporary art craft and design. As a result it is perhaps too early to appreciate the
influence the revised NC guidelines will have on art education in schools.

There are some who would attribute an emphasis on developing pupils’ technical skill in key
stage 3 to the sequential character of the GCSE assessment objectives. A sequence which
begins with the recording of observations, leading to the development of ideas in response to
other artists, followed by experimentation, finally culminating in a finished piece of work.

‘It is perhaps inevitable that this pattern should lead to the establishment of a single,
linear methodology which consisted of a sequence of progressive activities leading to a
finished presentation.’ (Binch, 1994, p124).

There are some however who believe that this is a narrow interpretation of the assessment
objectives and they should instead read them as ‘open expansive statements capable of being
evidenced in a variety of ways and forms.’ (Walker & Parker, 2006, p300). In an article titled
GCSE art and design: an arena for orthodoxy or creative endeavour’ the authors provide
case studies that suggest ways of avoiding prescription. They explain how students should be
encouraged to make a ‘personal response’, whilst developing a ‘non-linear’ interpretation of
the assessment objectives in order to develop a more creative response. Despite this it is
evident that within their analysis there remains an emphasis on practical skill. Statements that
include ‘thoughtful use of techniques and application of formal elements’, ‘experimentation
with techniques and formal concerns’ (Walker & Parker, 2006, p305) are just a few examples.
Despite this they conclude that ‘there is no inevitable conflict between creative endeavour
and the need to evidence GCSE assessment objectives.’ (Walker & Parker, 2006, p306). In many
ways there is some truth in this opinion. The objectives themselves do not clearly state an
emphasis on practical skill. Neither do they demand that students should focus on specific
mode of representation or develop ideas based a particular canon of art. It is in many ways,
how the objectives are interpreted, which is perhaps where the conflict lies. Reflecting on my
own personal experience of GCSE moderation I can remember such statements advising me
to ‘encourage pupils to provide more evidence of observational drawing in order to fulfil the
objectives’, despite the fact that observational drawing is not an explicit requirement within
the assessment objective themselves. If an open, expansive interpretation of the objectives is
possible then examiners need to acknowledge this and be prepared to assess a greater variety
of work in a fair and unbiased way.

Another concern which relates to this issue is the perceived disparity in art education between
school and art college or university. Arthur Hughes believes that this apparent gulf has been
caused by a lack of critical and contextual studies in school and suggests more discussion and
debate needs to take place in the classroom.

‘Twenty first century youth needs a visual vocabulary that enables them to decode
visual images, not just the (technical) means of reproducing what they see.’ (Hughes,
1998, p44).

The encouragement of debate and classroom discussion relates to using methods of formative
assessment. In 2004 the government promoted an approach called ‘Assessment for Learning’
to raise standards. AfL encourages pupils to become active participants in the assessment
process in the hope that they gain a better understanding of how they learn and how to
improve.

‘The central tenant here is the idea of a discursive environment, one in which talk not
only supports action through instruction, but where dialogical process of reflection and
speculation leads to a shared, subject specific vocabulary and critical knowledge of
practice.’ (Addison, 2010, p96).

Addison demonstrates the merits of discussion and reflection within the classroom and refers
to ideas borrowed soviet psychologist Lev Vygotsky. It is understood that certain types of
knowledge can be gained through instruction leading to a reiteration of facts which can be
tested. This is perhaps similar to the banking model critiqued by Paulo Freire. However,
Vygotsky believed that we learn and develop as a result of how we are helped by others to
use such knowledge. This involves not just remembering a fact but by being helped to
remember a fact for a specific use or purpose.

‘Over the decade even the profoundest thinkers never questioned the assumption; they
never entertained the notion that what children can do with the assistance of others
might be in some sense even more indicative of their metal development than what they
can do alone.’ (Vygotsky, 1978, P85).

The difficulty however is how a teacher documents and records debate in order to provide
evidence for the external examiner. ‘The most constant grumble about GCSE moderation is
the apparent disregard of anything which is not in the form of a display and there is much
dissatisfaction about the way in which immediate judgements are made by assessors on the
basis of looking at the finished work, i.e. the outcome.’ (Binch, 1994, p124). The most common
method of documenting thought process and discussion would be to encourage pupils to
annotate their ideas and write an evaluation at the end of a project. However this can prove
difficult if pupils have difficulty with literacy. It can also be understood as an add-on,
perceived as a chore which can result in a superficial form of reflection. One solution could
involve the use of a video or audio device in order to record on going refection or critical
debate. However this would need to be clearly structured and edited for the purpose of
external moderation. Practical concerns including time restrictions for both teachers and
external moderators may contribute to some of the reasons why this is not a common practice
in most schools.

Other reasons which might suggest a lack of debate in the classroom may stem from a
‘romantic myth of the isolated mute practioner from whom creating is supposedly a force of
nature’. (Addison, 2010, p97). Whether this is accurate or not is open to debate, however it does
raise an interesting point regarding the possibility of a pedagogical approach in schools based
on modernist ideals.

Some suggest that it is because schools are grounded in values of ‘self-expression’ and
‘individuality’ has resulted in a simplistic understanding of assessment. Cunliffe argues that
despite the use of assessment criteria there is still too much emphasis being placed on the
assessor’s intuitive response to the work. Cunliffe instead presents an argument in support of
a need for specific criteria. He explains how during the period in European history known as
the ‘enlightenment’ the first of the following dualisms was privileged; objective/subjective,
rational/irrational, certainty/ambiguity, analytic/creative, tuition/intuition. As a result Cunliffe
argues that ‘the modern paradigm of art education persistently plays out a false and futile
contest by polemically affirming the second category of concepts in relation to the first.’
(Cunliffe, 2007, p96). He goes on to explain how we should move beyond such dualisms and
believes that an over reliance on intuition, which could appear rather vague is perhaps why
some examiners fail to acknowledge all aspects of the pupils work. He believes it is ‘wrong
to argue that it is inappropriate to use well formatted specific criteria to inform
assessment.’(Cunliffe, 2007 p97). He also explains how criteria will not always cover the endless
variety of work produced but suggests that life itself is always more detailed than any system
by which we use to evaluate it.

The question of whether it is possible to find an appropriate method of assessment in art is a

point I wish to elaborate later on in this essay.

Similar to Cunliffe, Hulks also advocates the use of a rigorous assessment structure.
According to Hulks the initial fears concerning an assessment regime becoming over
burdensome were justified. However, this led to a form of resistance by many including
Malcolm Ross who sought to protect art from assessment and maintain a focus on practical
concerns rather than an engagement with critical studies. Hulks argues that this potentially
weakened the status of art in comparison to other subjects.

‘The idea that art is a mysterious human endeavour that cannot be measured and that
the academic aspect of art was too difficult for children was left unchallenged.’ (Hulks,
2003, p135).

Hulks believes the challenge for teachers is to embrace, rather than resist assessment and
reject ‘insular ideas about art as a place for retreat, as this will only cause the subject to
become even more marginalised.’ (Hulks, 2003, p142).

This may hold some relevance in light of the current coalition government’s proposal to
introduce the English Baccalaureate (EBacc) qualification to replace GCSE. As a result this
could lead to further marginalisation of the creative subjects as they would no longer
contribute towards league table results. Fortunately this idea has recently been scrapped,
although it does highlight the way in which the government perceives the importance of the
arts within education. In order to guarantee the survival of art and design in school Hulks
believes criteria in assessment is important as it will provide clear feedback for pupils in
order to ensure success, thus giving the subject credibility.

‘Simple assessment systems allow students to be told clearly how they are doing and
how to improve, none of which is new. What will change is the way lessons will be
based far more precisely upon identifying needs and in response to much more accurate
guidelines.’ (Hulks, 2003, p141).

The use of clearly defined criteria within assessment has however, been met by others with
some caution. Dennis Atkinson explains how although categorisations in assessment
discourse are necessary in the evaluation of pupils work they are also fundamentally
problematic. This is because he believes the categorisations never fully capture or represent
the work being assessed. He supports this argument with the ideas expressed by the French
psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan who developed ideas based on structuralism and Freud’s
theories on psychology. Within structuralism it was believed that the human race is able to
logically make sense of the world by (re)presenting it through a series of symbols or signs
developed within language. This theory of semiotics focused on the ‘signified’, for example
our physical concept a tree, and the ‘signifier’, the word, picture or symbol that represents our
understanding of what a tree is. Lacan developed this idea further by suggesting that our
meaning is derived from the relations between signifiers and not between signifier and
signified. This means that we understand the concept of a tree not because of the relation
between the word and the physical object but between the concept of a tree as opposed to a
concept of a rock or flower. This is similar in some respects to Derrida’s concept of
‘differance’, in which we categorise or determine something from things which it is not;
therefore meaning is always put off or differed. This system of language is known as the
symbolic order, or what Lacan describes as the ‘Other’, which should not be confused with
the term ‘other’. The ‘Other’ therefore constitutes the symbolic frameworks, linguistics and
visual, which form our understanding of art practice and our identification of students’ ability
in art practice.’ (Atkinson, 2002, p117). Developing the ideas of Freud, Lacan introduced a
concept known as the ‘mirror phase’. When a baby recognises itself in the mirror for the first
time it is confronted with an image, which appears complete, but is in fact an imagined or
heightened vision of its self. Following this stage the child enters the world of language, the
symbolic order or ‘Other’. The child then develops an understanding of itself not in relation
to the imagined signifier found in its own reflection but the imagined signifiers of other
children found within the symbolic order/Other. Therefore we can assume that ‘we can only
know the other person through the order of the symbolic, that is to say within the practices of
language’. (Atkinson 2002, p117). However, Lacan believes that the symbolic order or ‘Other’ is
always lacking. When we enter it as a child we lose something of our pre-symbolic existing.
‘Therefore language can never quite capture what we want to express. (Atkinson, 2002, p117).
For Lacan this loss of being results in a desire to achieve that which it has lost.

‘Within education the ‘Other’ relates to these curriculum discourses and practices
within which teachers and students are formed, those signifiers relating to practice and
assessment which provide a sense of identification. (Atkinson, 2002, p118).

The cause of desire to recoup a lost sense of self due to our relationship with the ‘Other’ is
something Lacan describes as ‘objet petit a’. Atkinson relates our desire to find a signifier to
fully represent our sense of self to assessment criteria which desires to fully represent the
essence of a piece of artwork. As a result he questions whether ‘assessment matrices and
criteria constitute a fantasy framework that covers the lack of this object?’ (Atkinson, 2011, p99 ).
In response he refers to the ideas expressed by Slavoj Ẑiẑek and his thoughts regarding
commodity and exchange based on Karl Marx’s analysis of the capitalist economy. Ẑiẑek
describes how the symbolic function of money has no value; however we continue to act as if
money is a direct embodiment of wealth. Atkinson relates the fetishistic properties of money
to the discourse found in assessment practices. He refers to the use of the formal elements in
art, (line, tone and texture) in which to describe the qualities attributed to a drawing or
painting. Atkinson argues that these terms act as a screen that enables us to make judgements
but they are not inherent characteristics of the work. They are only qualities inherent within
the construct of language. To reinforce this point Atkinson refers to a video recording of a
discussion involving a group of teachers who are assessing two different drawings, one of
which is judged more favourably. Atkinson questions the use of language in such as ‘better
composition, better structured finer balance, more awareness of texture and perspective.’
(Atkinson, 2011, p139). Atkinson believes such terms, which relate to notions of accuracy,
assume that there is a clear uncomplicated relationship between vision and representation.
For Atkinson these statements act in Lacanian terms as ‘points de capiton’ or signifiers which
help structure an assessment discourse. Similar to Ẑiẑek’s notion of commodity exchange
such terms are fetishistic. Despite being constructed within language we continue to use such
terms in the hope that it will best describe the inherent qualities of a child’s work.
Assessment and contemporary art practice as an approach in school

By adopting some aspects of contemporary art practice as an approach towards pedagogy and
the curriculum it is possible to anticipate a number of concerns, particularly with regards
towards assessment criteria and discourse. Despite this there is a growing recognition and
interest in some schools to teach and learn through contemporary art.

The notion of contemporary art itself is perhaps difficult to define as our understanding of it
is never fixed. It might therefore be important to ask how this could benefit art education in
school. ‘One way of thinking about the incorporation of contemporary art is a broadening of
the subject, a discovery of other conceptual spaces, and extending the capacity of the art and
design curriculum.’(Adams, 2005, P22). It could also be suggested that some current forms of art
practice contain issues that are relevant to the lives of young people. The difficulty however
is whether a constantly evolving curriculum can be achieved in light of the arguments
surrounding assessment.

Returning to the ideas expressed by Dennis Atkinson it is possible to acknowledge the

significance of this dilemma. With reference to Giorgio Agamben, Atkinson describes how
assessment discourse is based upon aesthetic discourse. Agamben explains how the concept
of the creative genius which followed as a result of the enlightenment was a major factor in
the development of aesthetic discourse. Before this point the artist, the viewer and the work
was unified predominantly within the development and appreciation of religious
iconography. During the enlightenment the artist became a subject in themselves and was
perceived as an expert in taste and aesthetic judgment. As a result Atkinson suggests that ‘this
introduces a tricky paradox: are judgments on art worth more than art?’ (Atkinson, 2011, p106).
In terms of assessment do we value the object of assessment discourse more than the
students’ work? The implication of which, according to Atkinson means assessment
discourse is a representation of prior action. To support this argument he refers to the ancient
Greek terms Poiesis and Praxis. For the ancient Greeks a distinction between theory and
action was not important. Greater emphasis was placed on the differences between different
human actions and their forms of reasoning. One form of human action known as praxis
involves an activity in which the ends are determined. The other form of human action,
known as poiesis involves an activity in which the ends are not predetermined and its
subjectivity is in a process of becoming. Atkinson suggests that poiesis could be related to
those practices in school which resist categorisation and do not fit easily with assessment
discourse which rely on existing practices. This could therefore present a lack in our desire to
fully represent a piece of work based on contemporary forms of practice.

‘If we apply these terms to assessment, a poietics of assessment suggests that the
product of assessment lies beyond its practice, in that it denotes an emerging world.
Here assessment has to contend with a becoming of practice and a new subjectivity;
whilst in a praxis of assessment the product is pre-determined by prior intention.’
(Atkinson, 2011, p109).

Atkinson therefore suggests that in order to assess a more challenging piece of work which
lies beyond the existing assessment discourse, assessment needs to adopt an approach more
closely related to poiesis rather than praxis. A discourse of assessment that is endlessly in a
process of becoming.

Within this essay I have examined the developments in assessment practices within
secondary school art education. Since the Education Reform Act and the development of the
National Curriculum there has been an increasing need for a more structured assessment
framework, which has aimed at providing clear pupil feedback and evidence of improved
attainment. Some believe that the increasing emphasis on accountability has caused art
teachers to focus on a specific method of working resulting in an art education based on
orthodoxy. Others believe that prescription in school has been the result of a narrow
interpretation of the assessment requirements and that art education would be marginalised if
clear assessment procedures were not used. It is clear from both arguments that a common
approach to art education in secondary schools appears to privilege the acquisition and use of
technical skill, based on specific modes of representation. Others would believe that
assessment discourse in art needs to acknowledge its inability to fully represent a constantly
evolving practice. In response it should be willing to adjust, with more emphasis on its
potential for reflection rather than a mechanical or summative use, which merely confirms
existing forms of art practice.
Bibliography

Adams, J. Worwood, K. Atkinson, D. Dash, P. Herne, S. Page, T. (2005). Teaching Through

Contemporary Art: A report on Innovative Practices in the Classroom. London, Tate
Publishing.

Addison, N. Burgess, L. Steers, J. Trowell, J. (2010). Understanding Art Education:

Engaging Reflexively with Practice (Teaching School Subjects 11-19), Oxon, USA &
Canada, Routledge.

Atkinson, D. (1999). ‘A critical reading of the National Curriculum for art in light of
contemporary theories of subjectivity’, Journal of Art & Design Education, 18, 1, 107-13.

Atkinson, D. (2002). Art in Education: Identity and Practice, Dordrecht, Boston, London,
Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Atkinson, D. (2011). Art Equality and Learning: Pedagogies Against the State, Rotterdam,
Sense Publishers.

Beard, R. (2008). Teacher’s Guide Edexcel GCSE in Art and Design, Mansfield Notts,
Edexcel Publications.

Binch, N. (1994). The Implications of the National Curriculum Orders for Art for GCSE and
Beyond, Journal of Art & Design Education, 13, 2, 117-31.

Cunliffe, L. (2007). Towards a more complex description of the role of assessment as a

practice for nurturing strategic intelligence in art education, in Rayment, T. (Eds), (2007).
The Problem of Assessment in Art and Design (Readings in Art and Design Education
Series), Bristol, Interlect Books.

Downing, D. Watson, R. (2004). School art: what’s in it? Exploring visual arts in secondary
schools, Slough, NFER.

Hickman, R. (2007), (In defence of) whippet- fancying and other vice: Re-evaluating
assessment in art and design, in Rayment, T. (Eds), (2007). The Problem of Assessment in
Art and Design (Readings in Art and Design Education Series), Bristol, Interlect Books.

Hughes, A. (1998). Reconceptualising the Art Curriculum, Journal of Art & Design
Education, 17, 1, 41-9.
Hulks, D. ( 2003). Measuring artistic performance; The assessment debate and art education,
in Addison, N. and Burgess, L.(Eds) (2003). Issues in Art and Design Teaching. London:
Routledge.

Mason, R & Steers, J. (2007), The impact of formal assessment procedures on teaching and
learning in art and design in secondary schools, in Rayment, T. (Eds), (2007). The Problem
of Assessment in Art and Design (Readings in Art and Design Education Series), Bristol,
Interlect Books.

Rayment, T & Britton, B. (2007). The assessment of GCSE Art: Criterion-referencing and
cognitive abilities, in Rayment, T. (Eds), (2007). The Problem of Assessment in Art and
Design (Readings in Art and Design Education Series), Bristol, Interlect Books.

Ross, M. (1986). Assessment in Arts Education: A necessary Discipline or a Loss of

Happiness?, Oxford, New York, Bejing, Frankfurt, Sao Paulo, Sydney, Tokyo, Toronto,
Pergamon Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes,

Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, Havard University Press.

Walker, K. Parker, J. (2006). GCSE Art and Design: An Arena for Orthodoxy or Creative
Endeavour?, Journal of Art & Design Education, 35, 3,297-307.

Other Sources

(2013). Non Verbal Reasoning, GL Assessment, URL:http://www.gl-

assessment.co.uk/products/non-verbal-reasoning. [14 April 2013].

(2003). Good assessment practice in art and design, Ofted,

URL:http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/good-assessment-practice-art-and-design. [10 April
2013].

Art and design: A scheme of work for key stage 3 Teachers Guide, (2000) London, QCA
Publications. Art and design: Programme of study for key stage 3 and attainment target,
(2007) London, QCA Publications.
Figures

Fig 1)