Yesterday I had the privilege of hosting a webinar with Bill Lucas, Professor of Learning and Director of the Centre for Real-World Learning in the UK. Bill is also a co-founder of Rethinking Assessment, a movement advocating for significant reform of England’s assessment system. (NB this webinar was organised by the Stonefields Collaborative Trust – more details may be found on their website).
Over the two days before hosting this webinar, I was in a primary school in the North Island working alongside teachers as they implemented the structured literacy, mathematics, and writing initiatives currently being promoted through the New Zealand Ministry of Education.
What struck me most wasn’t simply the teaching approaches being used, but the assessment capability I observed being demonstrated by the students themselves. As I moved between classrooms, I saw learners confidently referring to progression statements, explaining where they believed they were on the learning pathway, and pointing to examples of their work as evidence. There was a shared language about progress that many educators have been striving for over many years.
It was impressive to see. But as I reflected on those experiences on the flight home, another thought began to surface. What I had seen felt necessary – but not sufficient. The progressions helped make learning visible in important ways. But I struggled to see the same level of intentional focus on the capabilities and dispositions that shape how learners apply their knowledge – things like curiosity, creativity, critical thinking, collaboration, and the confidence to tackle unfamiliar problems.
Then today’s conversation with Bill Lucas provided an interesting lens for thinking about this. Bill often talks about the importance of looking at education through a “split screen.”
On one screen sits the development of knowledge and foundational skills – the kinds of things curriculum progressions and structured approaches are designed to strengthen.
On the other screen sits the development of capabilities and dispositions – the habits of mind and ways of engaging with the world that influence how knowledge is used.
Both matter. But if our assessment systems focus primarily on one screen, the other can easily fade into the background.
From “assessment” to “evidencing progress”
The conversation with Bill ranged widely – from the purpose of education to the practical realities of assessment in schools – but one idea kept resurfacing: we need to shift from assessing learning to evidencing progress. This was certainly consistent with what I had observed in the school in the days prior.
Bill began by reflecting on how deeply embedded the language of assessment is in our education systems. Much of it was designed in an era when the dominant priorities were efficiency, standardisation, and comparability. Those priorities produced the familiar architecture of grades, tests, and examinations – tools that are useful for accountability, but often struggle to capture the full richness of learning.
Instead, Bill suggests reframing assessment as “evidencing progress.” The difference may sound subtle, but it represents a profound shift in emphasis. Rather than asking What grade did a student achieve?, the question becomes What evidence shows how this learner is developing over time? That shift moves assessment closer to the learning process itself – something that informs learners, motivates them, and helps teachers adapt their practice.
Reconnecting curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment
Another theme Bill returned to repeatedly was the interdependence of curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment. Too often these elements are treated as separate policy levers. A curriculum is written. Pedagogies are promoted. And assessment systems are designed afterwards. But in reality they form a single ecosystem.
If a curriculum values creativity, collaboration, and critical thinking – but assessment measures only what can be easily graded in a test – then it is the assessment system that ultimately shapes classroom practice.
This is certainly the ‘tail wagging the dog’ scenario that I feel we’ve seen a lot of in our education system here in NZ – particularly in our secondary schools. Bill’s argument is that each of these elements (curriculum, pedagogy, assessment) must be given space to exist alongside each other – in the way all of the elements in a forest ecosystem co-exist, and so often support and complement each other.
The capabilities question
A large part of Bill’s work focuses on what he calls dispositions – the habits of mind that influence how people use their knowledge. He prefers this term to “competencies” because it emphasises the tendency to behave in certain ways, not simply the ability to perform a task once. Curiosity, perseverance, collaboration, creativity – these are the qualities that shape how learners approach unfamiliar challenges.
This perspective aligns closely with thinking emerging from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which emphasises that effective education systems develop not only knowledge and skills, but also the attitudes and values that enable learners to apply them in complex situations.
Yet as Bill pointed out, these broader capabilities often appear prominently in curriculum aspirations while remaining largely invisible in assessment systems. And what isn’t assessed rarely receives sustained attention.
What the evidence suggests
Bill also shared insights from his involvement in the development of the PISA Creative Thinking Assessment. One common concern raised by critics is that emphasising creativity or broader capabilities might undermine performance in core academic subjects such as mathematics. But the evidence suggests something different. Students who perform strongly in creative thinking often perform just as well in mathematics and other academic domains – and sometimes better.
One factor appears to be self-efficacy: the belief that you are capable of tackling unfamiliar problems. In other words, developing creativity and confidence doesn’t dilute academic learning. It can actually strengthen it.
A useful moment for New Zealand
Listening to Bill during the webinar, I couldn’t help reflecting on how these ideas sit alongside the reforms currently underway in New Zealand.
On one screen, there is a strong policy focus on strengthening foundational learning. The refresh of the New Zealand Curriculum, the introduction of structured approaches to literacy and mathematics, and changes to the achievement standards within the National Certificate of Educational Achievement all reflect a clear intention to bring greater clarity and consistency to how learning is taught and assessed. These initiatives respond to legitimate concerns about equity and achievement. Ensuring that every learner develops strong foundations in reading, writing, and mathematics is essential.
But on the other screen sits something equally important. For decades, the New Zealand curriculum vision has emphasised developing confident, connected, actively involved, lifelong learners – young people who are creative, curious, collaborative, and able to apply their knowledge in new situations. Those capabilities remain central to how many educators think about the purpose of education. Which raises an interesting question. How do we ensure our systems of assessment recognise both?
Holding the split screen
If assessment focuses primarily on what is easiest to measure, it may strengthen attention to foundational knowledge – but risk narrowing the broader capabilities we say we value. But if assessment expands to recognise richer forms of learning, it must still remain credible, equitable, and manageable for teachers and schools.
This is not a simple either-or choice. It’s more like learning to hold two truths at the same time. Strong foundations matter. So do the dispositions and capabilities that determine how those foundations are used.
A question worth sitting with
Perhaps the most valuable contribution of Bill Lucas’s work is not that it provides a neat solution to the assessment challenge. Instead, it invites us to look more closely at the systems we have built – and to ask what they make possible. Assessment systems shape what teachers prioritise, how students understand success, and ultimately what kinds of learning flourish in classrooms.
So here’s the question I’ve been left with after today’s conversation:
If our assessment systems continue to evolve around what is easiest to measure, will they still recognise the kinds of learning young people will need most in the future?
Or put another way:
How might we design assessment systems that strengthen foundational knowledge while also making visible the curiosity, creativity, resilience, and collaboration that define capable learners?
For educators in New Zealand right now, that may be a useful split-screen question to keep in view. Because the future of learning will almost certainly require us to pay attention to both.
