Letters
Letters
How to rebuild after Key Stage 3
The Debate article on what could follow the National Curriculum Tests at Key Stage 3 (Summer, page 18) has prompted this letter. I marked Key Stage 3 Science for several years. Although as a retiree I miss the money and feel the abrupt way the tests were axed was silly, the decision to terminate them was in my opinion, both correct and long overdue.
We were instructed we had to mark so teachers could not, when the papers were returned to schools, alter pupils' answers or write in answers where a space had been left blank, and then request a re-mark. This was a time-consuming process of scoring through spaces or circling incorrect answers and we felt we were there to eliminate cheating rather than recognise pupils' efforts. Frankly, a system that made teachers so desperate that they sank to altering papers was inexcusable and should have been scrapped as soon as the malpractice was proven. Secondly, science papers were far often too long. Slow or weak readers had no chance of struggling through 30 pages in an hour, and competent readers frequently missed parts of questions that were buried in the mass of words.
I suggest the random sampling procedure pioneered by the NFER many years ago when both disruption to teaching, and potential to create student stress were minimal. Pupils thought that they were 'helping out' by sitting tests, and their efforts helped build a national picture of standards. In the 1980s I did an MEd with Dr Ros Driver and admired the work of the Assessment Performance Unit at that time. In 40 years we have amassed much knowledge in assessment and I should like to see us draw on that to create an improved 'preferred model' for Key Stage 3 testing.
Alec Denton, CIEA Associate Member, Leeds
READER REVIEW
Author: Shirley Clarke
Publisher: Hodder Murray
ISBN: 9780340974452
Price: £18.99
Ratings (out of five)
readability (4), usefulness (3), relevance (4)
If any teacher is looking for a concise guide to the principles and techniques of formative assessment then they should find it here. In answer to the pressures of new initiatives and changes in specifications, the book will help teachers to empower themselves and their students to raise standards about learning to learn. The reader can follow a step-by-step approach to improving their performance.
The book can be used on a day-to-day basis for planning and evaluating teaching practice and provides a wealth of research-based evidence to support suggested strategies and techniques to improve teaching and learning in a class room setting. From time-to-time, the reader is reminded about the relevant DCSF/QCDA documents and academic references to explain and justify the importance of using formative assessment in
the classroom.
Clarke provides a detailed set of answers to some frequently asked questions. For example, she tackles how formative assessment can help to enhance student participation in their learning. The book guides the reader to competent solutions based on practicalities, rather than theoretical explanations, and here assessment is embedded in all stages from the pre-planning to plenary stage.
The book would be beneficial to NQT and Assessment Co-ordinators and all those who want to improve their professional performance, either in terms of classroom practice or in developing management skills to conduct in-house CPD for others.
My only reservation is the heavy emphasis on primary school work with only marginal references to the secondary sector.
Gill Nash is a secondary school teacher of Sociology, and department head
Head to head: How best to assess at Key Stage 2
Campaign for change
Mick Brookes
Mick Brookes argues the professionalism of teacher assessment can give accurate and timely information on every child's progress
The joint Assessment Reform Campaign being conducted by the NAHT and NUT has a solid professional and educational case. The current regime in Key Stage 2 detracts from the broad and balanced curriculum on offer to 10/11 year-old children; the tests put an unnecessary additional strain on teachers; the results are prone to inaccuracy and used to hold schools to account.
To have the recognition this summer of the Shadow Secretary of State, Michael Gove, was welcome, even if his remedy (of moving Sats testing into Year 7) has some serious shortcomings.
Tests have always been, and will always be, part of the assessment apparatus, but they need to be used judiciously and to be recognised as being an indicator, not a determinant, of pupil progress. If the promised diploma programme eventually takes off, there will be real challenges to be met in assessment of a unit-based curriculum. Even with the current range of GCSEs, some subjects are assessed by moderated coursework. In Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, Key Stage 2 attainment is assessed by teachers and underpinned (not undermined) by tests that are used appropriately. Therefore why not in England? Why is it that English Year 6 children are the only ones to suffer the iniquities of the Sats system?
One reason ministers in England will not give up Sats, we are told, is that children in Wales do less well than children in England. This is not true; Wales outperforms every English region bar Outer London, the South East and North East in 5 A*-C outcomes despite issues of urban and rural deprivation.
Appropriate, proportionate assessment is our goal; appropriateness not only being an issue about frequency and scope, but age-related readiness to sit tests in an environment that is contrary to the collaborative work environment that typifies the primary classroom.
It is quite clear from my observations of three decades of working with primary children, that some of them have not yet achieved the dimension of abstract thought and independent working to do well in tests where they are isolated. These children will under-perform in the high-stakes test environment and probably not do justice to the progress they have made in the classroom, sometimes against the odds. There is a high correlation between these children, who turn up in Year 7 demotivated, demoralised and disenfranchised, and those young people who leave the education system with nothing to show for 10 years of schooling.
The only reason testing remains in Key Stage 2 is out of political expediency and the bizarre notion that the only way that schools can be held to account is on the basis of a set of tests that have only an 80 per cent chance of describing actual levels of attainment reached by children.
There is an old adage that: 'education is what you remember when you have forgotten everything else you learned.' This is why Year 6 children quickly forget the facts they have crammed in the springtime of their youth. Learning is unlikely to be embedded because gaining that knowledge has been an experience typified by drudgery and a narrow focus.
As the DCSF itself says in the School Report Card Prospectus: "Experience shows that this (the publication of league tables) frequently leads not to the establishment of a balanced view of a school's performance... but to the choice of a single aspect of schools' performance as summing up their
full contribution."
If that is the understanding, surely the remedy is obvious?
About the author
Mick Brookes is NAHT General Secretary
Sarah Maughan
High stakes- no gambling
Sarah Maughan argues that tests still have a role to play
Teachers assess children every day as part of normal classroom practice. They are naturally best placed to know what the children in their class are good at and how they need to improve. The judgements made by teachers use a wide range of evidence from different sources and in different formats. So the assessments have the potential to be valid and reliable.
Changes to the national curriculum testing system in England mean there is to be a greater emphasis on teacher assessment as part of the arrangements. In 2005, assessment at Key Stage 1 was altered so, although it is still necessary to use the tests with the majority of pupils, reporting of children's levels is based on teacher assessment. More recently, Key Stage 2 science and Key Stage 3 tests in all subjects have been abolished, and it is likely that these tests will be replaced by teacher assessment.
There is increasing debate about the remaining tests at Key Stage 2. But a key difference between these and the tests listed above is that they are used for holding primary schools and teachers to account (in secondary schools this purpose is served by the GCSEs). This is a high-stakes context and places demands on the assessments: not only must they be reliable, they must also be trusted by those who will use the results.
A number of school systems around the world use teacher assessment for high-stakes purposes; those most frequently quoted are Queensland in Australia and Sweden. In both these cases, teacher assessments are used as the main source of evidence for school leaving certification. These systems have loyal supporters and would seem to prove that it is possible to use teacher assessment for very high stakes purposes. However, a closer look at each of them shows that each system has a test component.
Much work has been conducted in England, and internationally, on the processes that are needed to support teacher assessment for summative purposes. Wynne Harlen (2005) suggests teacher assessment can be reliable when appropriate quality assurance is built into the system as well as the checking (moderation) of the final outcomes. So, the evidence would suggest that teacher assessment is widely used and can be used in high-stakes situations given appropriate quality assurance during the process and moderation of the final results. Does this mean that it would be suitable for replacing the Key Stage 2 tests? There would be a number of downsides to such an approach:
- Extensive professional development of teachers would be required before the system was introduced, and on an on-going basis.
- A robust process for moderation of the teacher judgements would be needed. This is likely to involve sizeable examples of pupil work being collected by teachers, and review of this work by panels of expert assessors.
- The pressure on the role of the teacher. The role becomes one of both leading on the teaching and learning, and of being the judge of whether that teaching and learning has been successful. Effectively teachers will be judging themselves. This is not an easy position to be in.
The use of teacher assessment at Key Stage 2 could result in a system that is time-consuming for teachers, costly in terms of professional development and robust systems of moderation, and would give teachers a conflict in their role. Although technically possible, the use of teacher assessment for the high stakes accountability purpose of Key Stage 2 tests is not likely to be the best solution.
About the author
Sarah Maughan is head of Assessment Policy and Impact at the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER)