Introduction. General. Consultation on the performance. descriptors for use in key stage 1. and 2 statutory teacher assessment

Transcription

1 1 Consultation on the performance descriptors for use in key stage 1 and 2 statutory teacher assessment for 2015 / 2016 NUT response December 2014 Introduction The National Union of Teachers (NUT) welcomes the opportunity to respond to this consultation on important changes to the performance descriptors for use in key stage 1 and 2 statutory teacher assessment for 2015 and We want to support the development of effective assessment for all ages of children and young people, we have concerns about the pace and timing of changes to the curriculum, the removal of level descriptors and a rushed exercise to consult about the new performance descriptors, after the introduction of the national curriculum. Approaches to assessment should be based on children, not about measuring teachers or the education system. A fundamental question to be asked is, do these performance descriptors benefit a child s education, or rather are they about measuring teachers and schools? We call for a renewed focus on the needs of the individual child rather than on the way government can show they are having an impact. Assessment approaches should be collaborative, localised and creative. There is insufficient grasp shown in the consultation about how to support schools to develop and share good practice in assessment. General We note in paragraph 8 Structure of the performance descriptors that a number of individuals have been involved in the design of the performance descriptors. We would ask the following questions: Is there a list of schools that have been involved? Has there been any dialogue with teacher professional organisations, or organisations such as the Chartered Institute of Educational Assessors? For such an important consultation we would press for the greatest input from teachers and school leaders that is possible. The NUT is concerned that no schools or teachers have been involved in the development of these performance descriptors when these descriptors will become such a significant driver of what happens in schools. In addition, these descriptors will impact on secondary schools. Has any secondary school-based expertise been used in the development and design?

2 2 We would also counsel against any uplift in the levels contained with the performance descriptors. We note the suggested Next Steps and maintain that the proposed timescales are unrealistic. A trial of one term is not enough to provide adequate and high quality guidance for schools. We also press the DfE to provide at least one extra INSET day to properly equip teachers with the knowledge and understanding to use the new performance descriptors as a basis for sound assessment. Teachers are very wary about the way that these performance descriptors label children. The descriptor below national standard is an unhelpful way to describe children. There is inconsistency in the number of descriptors across key stage 1 and 2. For example, there is only one for mathematics at KS 2 but yet there are four at KS1. Teacher assessment should play an equally pivotal contribution within each key stage. We would like to see one performance descriptor working at the national standard and children are either working towards the national descriptor, or working at. High achieving pupils should rightly be celebrated, but for their individual achievement, not in league tables, or to the detriment of other children. The context section of the consultation, states that Ofsted will continue to examine schools assessment of pupil performance. However, there is a huge lack of clarity on what measure will be used. These performance descriptors have been designed separately from the development of the national curriculum, again without time for proper dissemination. The DfE must invest in proper, nationally available training for teachers. The performance descriptors should have been piloted and evaluated for several years prior to a system wide implementation, as happens in other parts of the UK. Although the descriptors should only be used to form teacher assessment, they are also likely to be used for planning, and are therefore, too long. We would urge that the statements be shorter and sharper, covering broader elements. We are concerned that the descriptors show no sense of deep learning. The emphasis should be on assessing skills and depth of learning and understanding, not simply that which is easily measureable. There is an inherent contradiction between promises to teachers that they can develop an innovative curriculum and restrictive approaches to what must be actually assessed. Teacher assessment should be at the heart of the system, not descriptors with excessive detail that lend themselves to commercially-produced IT based tests. Children with Special Educational Needs or Disability (SEND) It is unfortunate that the section which refers to pupils with special educational needs has the heading Lower attaining pupils. Teachers have high expectations of all

3 3 pupils and it is unhelpful for a Government consultation to begin with the assumption that all pupils with SEN are going to be lower attaining. Paragraph 16 emphasises the crudity of the measure that a child or young person is either judged as having met or not met the National Standard. This takes no account of the smaller steps of progress which many children and young people will make who are working towards the below national standard content but who do not meet the criteria for assessment against the P-scales. P-scales should be used by teachers as assessment tools which inform future planning for individual pupils and not as a nationwide assessment and target-setting tool. The progress of children with SEN may not be measurable as an exact science. In reality P-scales are not widely used in many mainstream schools and teachers who have to constantly report a child or young person as working below National Standard may feel that P-scales better reflect a pupil s progress. This could highlight a training need for schools in regard to the use of P-scales which should be addressed. The performance descriptors in the consultation contain a gap between those achieving P8 and the category of being below national standards. There is very widespread concern that the new primary curriculum is too focussed on particular skills in reading, writing and mathematics to the exclusion of all other subjects. We are also concerned that the level of national standard 1 is roughly two years above the National Curriculum Level currently considered achievable by the end of Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2. The performance descriptors provide too crude a measure for pupils with special educational needs, many of whom will make tremendous progress in school. This progress which is appropriate and excellent for them may, for the whole of their primary education, be measured as below national standard. This is not the way to motivate and recognise pupils achievements, strengths and contributions. We are concerned about the apparent lack of evidence of any thought about differentiating these performance descriptors or of taking account of children who, due to their impairment, will need reasonable adjustments in how they are graded. For example take handwriting in written English, there will be a range of pupils who will never be able to develop their handwriting due to their impairment. They will however be able to express themselves through using a keyboard, speech to text or other switching systems. In 2016 these will form the new floor targets, below which OFSTED says a school is failing. Schools with larger numbers of children and young people with SEN will be particularly hard hit. We are concerned that the proposals ignore the equality implications and the need for reasonable adjustments. We are concerned to avoid situations where schools feel unable to admit pupils with SEND because of the impact this will have on their standing in league tables.

4 4 We maintain the view that schools should be properly supported in order to be inclusive to all children. Performance Descriptors Key Stage 1 Reading descriptors The NUT is pleased to see the importance of reading for pleasure. However, the increased role of Phonics and assessment in the Early Years and Primary sector, undermine and constrain the excellent work schools do to engender a love of reading. NUT is fundamentally opposed to the Baseline test, phonics test and statutory testing at Key Stage 1. We would also question the validity of requiring pupils to recite a repertoire of poems by heart. This certainly will not engender a love of poetry. The descriptor places far too much emphasis on testing phonics, rather than an ability to actually read words. How will de-coding skills, syntax and other cues that we all use to read effectively be assessed? There is an inherent danger in assessment being based entirely on phonics. This is also an issue for spelling in the writing descriptors. Assessment should be of the strategies used context cues, picture cues. We do agree that assessing the comprehension of texts is key to advancing pupil understanding. Key Stage 1 Science descriptor The descriptor look closely at the natural and humanly-constructed world around them is vague. In addition, dividing science at an early age into biology and chemistry is unlikely to provide an engaging, holistic curriculum or to ignite a passion for science subjects. Key Stage 1 and 2 Writing descriptors We challenge the validity of using grammatical terminology contained in the POS. A more effective way to assess use of grammar is by its correct use, not by testing knowledge of what these terms are. We also challenge the validity of dictating sentences and writing from memory, which is very dull for children! The unintended consequence of this will be weekly dictations in schools. Surely we do not want this for our children. Key Stage 2 Reading and mathematics descriptor The most effective way to assess pupil progress in these subjects is through teacher assessment and not an externally set test. In particular, the new mathematics curriculum rightly focusses on the power and beauty of mathematics and skills such as problem solving. The curriculum is in some ways progressive, but assessment materials rely upon excessive rote learning, including remembering Roman

5 5 numerals. This approach undermines the problem solving, investigative theme of the curriculum. It is not assessing what the government want teachers to teach. The lead HMI for mathematics has raised the problem of having too much focus on pupils reaching a certain level rather than assessing deep conceptual learning. A particular incidence of this is the replacement of the mental mathematics test with written mathematic test, a test in which a pupil will only gain marks for working out if these are in a particular format. Recommendations There is such inconsistency in the large number of descriptors that we should just have one national expectation working at the national standard. Then it will be for teachers to determine how students work above and below the national standard. The NUT calls for a wider and more innovative approach to assessment. Balanced and integrated approaches to learning should be supported by more diverse and balanced approaches to assessment. This rebalancing will involve a greater role for education professionals in the assessment process. A more professionalised approach to assessment will also involve reducing the influence of factors (such as league tables) that undermine ethical and objective approaches to assessment. The NUT is concerned about the timescale and pace of change in the education arena. The trial is too short to provide adequate guidance on performance descriptors. Changes in the early years are particularly high risk and may restrict the social and emotional development of our youngest children. We should be using the age appropriate and balanced sets of indictors and expectations in the EYFS to develop confident learners, ready for later school life. Conclusion Rather than genuine improvement these proposals would exacerbate the worst features of the current system by increasing the frequency of statutory assessment for the youngest primary children and increasing the threshold for expected levels of performance. The close links to accountability means that these are high stakes for schools, thus perpetuating and indeed extending the problems and inequalities of the present arrangements. The proposals also continue to focus on absolute attainment rather than assessing and celebrating the genuine progress made by pupils and their schools. The NUT disagrees with the view which underpins the proposals contained within the consultation document, that statutory assessment in core subjects at the end of key stages is crucial for robust external accountability. This view is informed by the experience of the NUT s members working in schools as well as based on national

6 6 and international evidence, such as 1 across school systems, there is no measureable relationship between these various uses of assessment data for accountability purposes and the performance of school systems. As the Government is committed to evidence-informed policy making, attached to this document is a summary of the research evidence which underpins the NUT s policy on primary assessment and accountability. We would refer to the Joint Statement issued in response to the draft National Curriculum consultation in April The NUT, along with many notable organisations in the education arena, counselled against a curriculum that places unrealistic and inappropriate expectations on children at too early an age. A prescriptive approach will not achieve the Government s aim of raising standards. In this joint statement, the following point was made: The assessment requirements should have been published at the same time as the National Curriculum draft framework there is concern that these will be high stakes and target driven, further distorting the balance between core and foundation subjects. It seems that the performance descriptors are also set to embed the overprescription of the curriculum and the stifling of curriculum innovation in schools. We therefore repeat our call on the Government to allow for further debate and involvement of the profession and researchers in assessment as these proposals for assessment and accountability are re-developed. 1