ASSESSING PUPILS' ATTAINMENT AND PROGRESS IN …



[pic]



‘BEYOND LEVELS’: ASSESSING PUPILS' ATTAINMENT AND PROGRESS IN RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

CURRICULUM AND ASSESSMENT PAPER W1.1 BACKGROUND

WHY CHANGE?

In 2013 the government announced that schools should no longer use the existing attainment targets and level descriptions as the criteria for assessment in national curriculum subjects, thus marking the end of a controversial approach to assessment dating back to1998.

The problems with levels

The reasons for the demise of levels have been summarised by Oates[1]. It is important that any new proposals for developing approaches to assessment take account of these criticisms, which have met with widespread agreement in the academic community[2]

Oates reports that assessment based on levels:

• led to a lack of precision in reporting because the level descriptions were so general;

• was unreliable because of competing interpretations of the levels;

• led to an erosion of trust between primary and secondary schools;

• resulted in a best-fit judgment which failed to take account of major gaps in children's' knowledge;

• contributed to superficial coverage of the curriculum because the levels-based system (especially the use of sub-levels) encouraged children to move on to new curriculum content without secure grasp of key areas of a subject;

• failed to give children or their parents clear and accurate information about their strengths and weaknesses.

Weaknesses in assessment in RE

Other lessons from the past that will be taken into consideration in the LTLRE model are taken from Ofsted's most recent report on religious education (RE)[3]. The relevant points are these:

1. The quality of assessment was good or outstanding in only a fifth of the primary schools visited and was also one of the weakest aspects of RE provision in the secondary schools being good or outstanding in just under a third and inadequate in three of 10 of the schools visited.

2. In both the primary and the secondary phases, most teachers were experiencing significant difficulties in using the levels of attainment set out in the locally agreed syllabus. This contributed to several problems:

• Very few pupils were able to say how much progress they had made in RE. In comparison with other subjects, they did not know what they had achieved or what they needed to do to improve.

• Very few schools were using levels effectively in developing assessment tasks. Many of the tasks, particularly in secondary schools, did not challenge pupils because they were not pitched at the right level.

• In most of the schools visited, judgements about pupils’ progress made using levels were very inaccurate. As a result, the data available to subject leaders were too unreliable to provide an effective basis for self-evaluation.

• Few of the schools used levels effectively when planning the curriculum. As a result, work rarely built on earlier learning.

3. In secondary schools, RE departments were increasingly using sub-levels in their assessment, in response to requests from senior managers. In most cases, this was a fairly meaningless exercise because the levels were not defined clearly enough to sustain this degree of differentiation.

Ofsted's concerns here are not dissimilar to some of those expressed by Oates. The National Society (Church of England) also highlighted similar problems in Church primary schools where generated data was ‘unreliable’ and ‘over-generous’ (Page 8, Making a Difference, National Society 2014).

It is also important to bear in mind those aspects of assessment which, says Ofsted, worked well. These should also be considered when developing new approaches. Ofsted reported that assessment was most effective where:

• the criteria for assessment were clearly identified in curriculum planning

• curriculum planning identified specific points when assessment would take place

• pupils were helped to understand how they were being assessed and to apply the criteria in evaluating their own or each other’s work.

THE FOCUS OF THE LTLRE MODEL of ASSESSMENT

2 Priorities for subject assessment

While schools set up assessment systems, it is up to subject teachers to decide what is to be assessed, and why. This is to be the focus of the LTLRE model.

Pitching the curriculum

One of the fundamental differences between the old assessment system and new proposals is that assessment is now expected to be tied to expectations of pupils' understanding in relation to the curriculum, rather than to some predetermined abstract statement of their theoretical standards, expressed in levels.

The LTLRE model will address issues of curriculum because of its symbiotic relationship with assessment. Decisions on the order of curriculum content in episodic subjects, such as RE and history, are often subjective in comparison to maths and science where learning is sequential. If assessment is to result in realistic statements of what pupils understand and can do, the curriculum to which these assessments are attached must be realistic also. We will not be offering an alternative curriculum to the national framework but it is likely that we will suggest principles for prioritising through progressive content; particularly for identifying Key ideas and essential knowledge in RE.

Key ideas and essential knowledge in RE

One of Oates' key phrases, which appears throughout his papers on assessment is the key areas of the curriculum and variants such as 'key areas of a subject',' key ideas and essential knowledge', 'key elements', 'essential ideas', 'core knowledge', 'key abilities', and 'key content'.[4]

The significance of these phrases becomes clear in the context of Oates' priorities for assessment[5].

i. 'To ensure secure understanding of key ideas and essential knowledge, we need to engage with the detail of learning' i.e. we need to know precisely and in subject contexts what a child understands and can do, not that a child is 'Level 3a'.

ii. 'The focus is on secure learning of the real content of the curriculum'; formative assessment must be 'focused on secure understanding of the specifics of the curriculum'.

iii. 'The new National Curriculum is a well-grounded statement of the key things which pupils need to acquire'.

iv. Schools should focus on secure understanding.

v. It is vital to read the Aims of each subject.

vi. 'Children readily grasping material can stay on the same key elements rather than rapidly moving on, expanding and consolidating their understanding. Challenge does not always come from being moved on, but by being presented with new application of core ideas.

vii. 'We need to ask probing questions of the right kind'. These questions 'help us gain an understanding of how far a child has progressed in understanding essential ideas, building core knowledge and key abilities'.

viii. It is important that teachers design their own probing questions, which engage with the exact focus of their teaching.

A DfE paper[6], heavily influenced by Oates, summarises that; 'For any assessment reform to be successful…a shared understanding of the assessment standards [must] be applied'. Oates' dimensions that contribute to ’high expectations for all' include:

i. Maintenance of high expectations.

ii. A focused curriculum with appropriate depth. Such clarity supports high quality learning of essential knowledge, and is particularly important in primary education.

iii. Tangible learning objectives. The focus here is on authentic learning rather than on the acquisition of labels associated with abstract and over-generalised levels.

iv. Resolute commitment to essential knowledge for all. Here we draw attention to the necessary commitment by schools to ensuring that all pupils attain the ‘essential curriculum core’.

The same paper also draws attention to assessment that enables teachers to 'pinpoint the aspects of the curriculum in which pupils are falling behind and to recognise exceptional performance'.

Taking account of DfE guidance, the LTLRE model will draw on the experience and expertise of its associate advisers, researchers and teachers in order to:

1. Identify the 'essential curriculum core' which all pupils should attain, with reference to the national framework for RE. It is desirable that essential ideas, core knowledge and key abilities will be identified for each year group, taking account of differences between agreed syllabuses. We do not underestimate the challenges inherent in this task. The RE professional community is still not in agreement over what constitutes RE and this is an issue which we will not ignore. The simple solution will be to identify the common core from the national framework but as said above, we will consider other presentations of RE

2. Identify tangible learning objectives closely related to the curriculum. The model will include examples of this at several stages (e.g. end of key stage, end of year, and end of unit of work).

3. Include a statement of what constitutes the acceptable standard for all pupils at the end of each key stage.

4. Include formative assessment tasks designed to identify specifically what pupils have learnt in direct relation to what has been taught.

5. Include examples of alternative teaching and activities for pupils who have not demonstrated learning.

6. Identify new applications of the core for pupils who have achieved the 'key elements'. This is an essential part of the model. RE has a very poor track record here.

In addition the LTLRE submission will include key guidance for teachers on how to adapt the principles and examples in the model to the requirements of their curriculum and to the assessment system in their school (including new GCSE RS requirements).

Defining a rationale

The LTLRE model for assessment and progression is underpinned by a clear rationale.

In the past many attempts at writing levels for RE were based loosely on Bloom's taxonomy[7]. This was problematic in that the levels based on Bloom were seen as increasing in difficulty from Y1-9 (i.e. a Piagetian model). This implied that higher order skills such as analysis, synthesis and evaluation were reserved for Key Stage 3. This did not fit with the experience of primary school teachers that younger children could also acquire and apply these abilities, albeit at a simpler level and in relation to simpler contexts and concepts. It is equally apparent that learning in RE is not linear. Pupils can move from one unit to another with limited reference to previous learning. Technically a student beginning to study Sikhism for the first time in Y9 will begin by achieving retention, the lowest of Bloom's cognitive abilities.

In the new system where assessment is so closely related the curriculum, it may be that Bloom's taxonomy, or one derived from it, can be applied in a spiral rather than linear manner. Potentially taxonomy can underpin assessment in every unit of work. Progression could be achieved by increasing the challenge of the curriculum and the demands of the 'spiral' every year. For example, Year 3 pupils will have to do more in more challenging concepts to demonstrate their ability to evaluate than will Year 1 pupils.

SUMMARY

This paper is just the beginning of our supply of materials to provide innovative professional development to schools in the south-west region and beyond. We will present a model for assessment that is responsive to school needs and contexts, based on current research, closely referenced to the non-statutory National Framework for RE and to new examination reforms, and innovative in terms of its approach to the idea of ‘subject mastery’ and accurate assessment of pupils’ progress.

-----------------------

[1] Tim Oates (2014) Living in a levels-free world. ()

[2] e.g. Gipps (1992)

[3] Ofsted (2010) Transforming Religious Education. London. Ofsted.

[4] Oates (2014)

[5] ibid

[6] DfE (2014)

[7] Bloom, B. S.; Engelhart, M. D.; Furst, E. J.; Hill, W. H.; Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Company

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download