It was challenging of SecEd to offer column inches to those with a view on what should fill the gap after the ending of statutory testing at key stage 3.

In the past weeks that challenge has been taken to with a vengeance, with creative ideas to structure learning for a future in which today's students may have 18 to 25 jobs in their lifetime before retiring, which is what one commentator emphasised, while another gave a warning against filling the gap with even more "stuff".

However, with the need to monitor achievements and improvements in learning, and to maintain accountability, testing needs to continue in some form at least. And so who will do that and how will it be done?

The Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) has set up a panel of experts in assessment to review the changes needed. It is due to report this month.

This panel's work continues the government's drive to redress the balance between internal and external assessment. Other recent initiatives, such as the Diplomas and the launch over the summer of DCSF's Assessment for Learning strategy, have formed part of a wider move aimed at strengthening internal assessment within schools and colleges.

The reasons for this may already be clear. International education league tables inform us that higher performing countries on average have a greater reliance on valid and reliable internal assessment.

One of the top performers, Finland, shows that children can start their education later and achieve higher standards using internal assessment as a key driver to inform educational attainment, rather than external assessments as used in England and elsewhere.

Government too may believe that the extension of education and training for all young people up to the age of 18 means that the impetus for external testing at key stage 3 has diminished.

This may leave some schools facing an assessment vacuum, while they search for new forms of reliable benchmarking prior to the start of key stage 4 to ensure that all learners have the right support in place to achieve their full potential.

But what elements would be required in a move to internal assessment at key stage 3 to ensure that schools had access to some form of quality-assured testing arrangements to maintain reliability and validity in the education system?

The first must be the integration of existing agencies. There are moves in this direction with the demise of the National Assessment Agency (NAA), now to be disbanded and merged with Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to form the new Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency.

Ofqual has also made clear its desire to extend its remit into any form of accredited internal assessment system, while the NAA, before being abolished, supported new internal assessment arrangements for the Diplomas. So there is the opportunity to take the best of the evolving new world of educational assessment and to use it to best advantage for the future.

Professional teachers, trained to assess, must be at the heart of any new system, for without that crucial element any new structure would be likely to fail. CPD must be strengthened and extended to support any new testing arrangements.

The model of CPD adopted by the college sector through the Institute for Learning might help crystallise thinking around a more formalised CPD system. It is independently accredited and officially supported within colleges.

I would therefore encourage the expert panel to review the support systems and CPD available for teachers in the secondary sector.

Accreditation of the overall internal assessment system, as well as the individuals operating within it, also has an important part to play in any reform.

Through external validation by sampling, for example, we could ensure greater consistency, not only within discrete subject domains, but also between different departments within and across schools, locally, regionally, or nationally.

Local authorities have a statutory duty to moderate the Early Years Foundation Stage profile assessments, and these primary judgement arrangements could be extended, with the right controls in place, to secondary school assessment arrangements.

These could be co-ordinated with the support of a professional body, such as the Chartered Institute of Educational Assessors or the Association for Achievement and Improvement through Assessment.

Alternatively, the awarding bodies could be called upon to moderate internally assessed work on a sample basis nationally to ensure greater consistency between teachers and across schools.

Overall, the opportunities facing the expert panel in assessment are momentous, challenging and a great chance to ensure that teachers are given the authority and responsibility, with the right professional support and development, to have a greater say in judgements about the attainments and achievements of their learners.