Abstract

This paper defends certain of Andrew Davis's arguments on assessment from critique by John Gingell and Christopher Winch. It emphasises the role of personal acquaintance in assessing `rich' understanding, criticises Antony Flew's claim that assessment is a necessary part of teaching, and rejects the argument that public assessment is necessary for purposes of accountability. It also suggests that parents' monitoring of their young children's progress could act as a yardstick, suitably modified, for what might be done in formal education. The conclusion raises problems about the assessment of moral development and about the justifiability of leaving assessment under political rather than professional control.