Tracking at Key Stage 3 Our response to the report by the Commission for Assessment Without Levels 1
Contents 1. Introduction 2. Why systems are needed to support Assessment without Levels 3. Implementing a Mastery approach to formative assessment 4. The information used to judge Mastery 5. Designing a Planning, Monitoring and Assessment System for the National Curriculum Appendix 1 The Commission on Assessment without Levels Why Levels were removed Mastery Learning Formative and summative assessment Choosing an external assessment system Accountability and Inspection A personalised approach Appendix 2 Our commentary on the Commission on Assessment without Levels report 2
1. Introduction In the pages which follow, we explain why a systemic approach to assessment in schools has many benefits in relation to management, information sharing and reporting. It can remove the need for systems based on paper, whilst providing the convenience and ability to aggregate and share information. It offers the additional benefit of being able to provide diagnostic and summative reports. The government sets out a National Curriculum which is a list of the things that pupils should know as a result of three years of teaching. These are holistic goals. A teaching programme will break these into lesson-sized chunks with many elemental learning goals (lesson objectives) designed to build over time. So what is it that should be tested to see if the National Curriculum is being assimilated? The answer is that it will change over time, and it is explained in the guide how the assessment focus can move over time from elemental learning goals across years 7 and 8 towards more holistic assessment of the National Curriculum Attainment Targets in year 9. The guide also explains how Formative Assessment will form the basis of day-to-day evaluation of how effectively pupils are learning, but from time to time there should be standardised opportunities for Summative Assessment. Subject Leaders, in planning for teaching the National Curriculum Subject Content, will need to go through a process of planning involving analysing the Subject Content, developing a Scheme of work which describes what will be taught in each lesson over the three years. In doing so they will identify the Key Concepts and Big Ideas which underpins understanding of the fundamentals of the subject. They can then identify how they will use Formative Assessment to identify what pupils are learning based on using a Mastery approach. They will then need to plan opportunities for Summative Assessment to see how pupils are progressing towards being GCSE-ready. Then they will consider how reporting should work. 4Matrix will aid this process by providing a system, aided by templates, to support the analysis of the Subject Content and the planning of the Programme of Study. It will aggregate information across school subjects avoiding the problems of managing and aggregating a large number of spreadsheets. It will provide a convenient system to help record an overview of how each pupil is Mastering the Subject Content. It will provide a method for tracking the progress of pupils towards their expected number grades at key stage 4 and for diagnostic and summative reporting. 4Matrix will do this by providing a Multi-Layer Tracking Matrix for managing pupil Progress at key stage 3. The Layers are called Attainment, Learning, Outcomes, Results, Teaching and Planning. These layers capture the complete picture of analysing, planning, scheduling and managing an assessment system for key stage 3 which provides a balance between formative and summative assessment. Appendix 1 provides a summary of the Commission on Assessment without Levels report. This explains why the Government decided to remove the use of Levels for tracking pupil Progress. It explains the difference between Summative Assessment and Formative Assessment, and describes what is meant by a Mastery Approach, which it suggests is a suitable approach to delivering the new National Curriculum. Appendix 2 provides our commentary on the Commission on Assessment without Levels report. We explain why we agree with the findings of the Government about the demerits and overuse of Levels. We explain that the Commission s report marks a systemic acknowledgement of the need to re-examine the differences between Summative Assessment and Formative Assessment in designing fresh approaches to managing assessment. 3
2. Why systems are needed to support Assessment without Levels There is a need for schools to monitor the effective delivery of a Programme of Study in each subject. In particular, subject leaders should be able to show that the Scheme of Work was planned to deliver each area of the Subject Content for each subject. Whilst the Scheme of Work is being taught, the emphasis will be on diagnostic feedback, i.e. tracking how effectively pupils are learning in the planned elements of the teaching programme. This will be in the form of tests, or homework questions, or questioning during lessons as has always been the case in the teaching of a subject. The Commission s advice to avoid the unnecessary recording of formative assessment outcomes is relevant here. Form time-to-time, more formal local assessments will take place to examine the outcomes to teaching, i.e. the extent to which pupils are assimilating and are able to apply the Subject Content. There may be fewer at the start of key stage 3 than towards the end of the key stage. So, for example, it would be pertinent to administer a test at the end of each term during years 7, 8 and 9 for this purpose. These tests would, over time become standardised in the sense that they would become way markers of pupils journeys towards expected number grades at key stage 4. This would be supported by the evidence of how previous cohorts later performed in their GCSEs. Simple systems are needed to support this process of formative and summative assessment so that information about teaching and learning can be shared within a department and with school leaders. Whilst much informal diagnostic feedback will either be unrecorded or be held conveniently in teachers mark books, it will make sense to have some higher-level information about pupil s responses to the teaching. Whether that information should be held on paper, or if there is value in using an electronic system, will be question for each school to decide. Issues like ease-of-use and availability will help determine the answer to this. So, within a typical subject, we would expect to see the National Curriculum Subject Content analysed in terms of the learning attributes to be taught, what pupils should know, apply and understand, and the matters, skills and processes which will form the basis for the Attainment Target for each subject. This would be translated into a Scheme of Work covering the three years of key stage 3. Into this there will be planned opportunities for informal and formal assessment. Decisions will be made during the planning process about which information would be useful to record and share. 4
3. Implementing a Mastery approach to formative assessment Formative assessment is intended to inform teaching and learning. It consists of the range of interactions with pupils which occur on a day-to-day basis, including discussion and questioning, feedback on homework set, and short tests based on lesson content. Such interaction can inform and modify the teaching in order that groups and individual pupils can learn more effectively. Guidance from Ofsted (for September 2015) includes the following characteristics of effective teaching, where teachers : have secure subject knowledge plan lessons effectively use questions skilfully and identify misconceptions give students enough time to practise what they have learnt identify any learners falling behind check systematically for understanding give incisive feedback and ensure pupils use feedback provide challenging homework provide parents with information on how to support their child The planning and preparation of a Mastery approach to each subject should make provision for each of these features. At key stage 3 it will start with an analysis of the Subject Content in the new National Curriculum to identify attributes acquired through effective learning in the subject, followed by the planning of lessons which ensure that the subject content will be delivered over the three years. The teaching should include opportunities for formative assessment that will inform feedback to pupils and information for parents. Formative assessment can usefully follow the Commission s recommendation to use a Mastery approach. The most frequently-seen approach use the four categories: Emerging, Developing, Secure and Mastered. However, it will be possible to edit these names to match the preferred terms used in particular schools. There is a need to be able to quantify such terms if they are to have value as measures of pupil s progress. The concept of GCSE-ready is significant in helping to guide us on this matter. Being Secure and Mastered implies that pupils have assimilated the key concepts and big ideas in a subject, and have sufficient subject knowledge in order that their predicted attainment would equate to the higher GCSE grades. In the new number grade system the PISA comparison with other countries defines GCSE number grade 5 and above as the new A-C expectation for performance, in practice, a grade range starting slightly above a C grade. Although further discussion may be needed on this, these four categories will roughly overlay pairs of GCSE number grades as follows: Emerging 1 & 2, Developing 3 & 4, Secure 5 & 6, Mastered 7 and 8. Where a number grade 9 is used, or if it is introduced for all subjects in the future, this will mark the highest level of attainment possible within the Mastered category, broadly equivalent to an A**. The concept of Mastery applies to each component of a Scheme of Work. Mastery in the key concepts and big ideas in a subject would imply that a pupil had gained sufficient grounding in a subject that, with the building of further knowledge, would provide the basis on which to expect the pupil to attain the higher GCSE grades, were they to continue to study the subject to the end of key stage 4. It is important to note the differences in granularity for formative and summative assessment. Mastery categories span two GCSE number grades each, and in practice there will also be an element of doubt about where the borders to each category may lie. These are broad terms designed to be useful for diagnostic feedback between teacher and pupil, rather than for accountability or 5
forecasting. Mastery categories enable a student to understand how well they are doing and whether what they currently know, understand and can do in broad terms would equate to the higher GCSE grades. Mastery across a broad range of learning objectives, or Subject Content, provides an acknowledgement that a pupil is working at a level that would be considered to be GCSE-ready, i.e. that they would achieve GCSE grades above a GCSE number grade 5. Formative assessment will be mostly based on a feedback process where a teacher forms a view of how well pupils are responding to a taught programme. They will use a range of techniques including questioning, responses to homework, work in notebooks over time, short tests etc. to form this view. From time to time, it will be useful to note, using accessible systems, how well pupils are responding to what has been taught. It may only be necessary to do this around once or twice per term. Tracking used for formative assessment will be a broad process which will conveniently show teachers the extent to which a planned Scheme of Work has been taught, the degree to which individual lesson objectives have been assimilated, which components of the Subject Content have been learnt, and for each pupil the extent to which they are moving towards being GCSE-ready. The main advantage of having a system to do this is that it will collect aggregated information and will allow a department, and specifically a subject leader, to look at the consistency with which the teaching programme is being delivered, and pupils range of responses to it. The other advantage is that it will provide a good basis for diagnostic reporting at the level of detail of the components of the Scheme of Work. From time-to-time there will be more formal opportunities to gauge the most likely grade that a pupil would attain at GSCE, were they to continue the subject into key stage 4. Using the concept of a Flight Path these values could be displayed for each pupil and matched with other estimates of future performance, for example, from pupils attainments at key stage 2, or with estimated Attainment 8 grades. Summative reporting may only be necessary or sensible to do once per term, or maybe only once per year for year 7 and 8, but more frequently towards the end of the key stage, i.e. in year 9. It provides an opportunity to stand back from the formative information and ask the question What is the most likely grade that would usually be attained by pupils working at this level of Mastery at this point in time? In doing this we would move from a Mastery category of two grade range to a one grade category. 6
4. The information used to judge Mastery At the start of key stage 3, in Foundation Subjects, in most cases pupils will probably be starting foundation subjects with a limited prior knowledge of the subject. The basis on judging Mastery will be slight until pupils have covered enough areas of the teaching programme so that it is possible to have a sufficient knowledge and have developed some conceptual understanding of the subject. So, tracking at the start of key stage 3 will be about following how the planned teaching programme is being taught. Over time, it will become possible to place pupils in the four categories of Mastery in each component of the teaching programme that has been taught up to this point in time. The order of teaching the Subject Content and the corresponding teaching programme will, of course, vary between schools, so schools will need to define this for themselves. Towards the end of key stage 3, tracking will increasingly be about assessing pupil progress in a more holistic manner, i.e. the extent to which they are on course to achieve the Attainment Target for the subject, defined as pupils expectation to know, apply and understand the matters, skills and processes specified in the relevant programme of study, that is, the Subject Content for each subject. Hence we can expect to see the tracking of Mastery as being based on the taught components of the subject at the start of key stage 3, and the assimilation of Subject Content by the end of the key stage. In year 9, the template against which Mastery can be judged can usefully be the Subject Content listed in the National Curriculum if subject leaders judge that pupils will have a sufficient holistic view of the subject for this to be applicable. Within year 7 and 8 it is more likely that the template will be based on the components of what is being taught in individual lessons, i.e. lesson objectives. So, we can deduce that assessment will take the form of a wedge shape over key stage 3, characterised by a movement from formative to summative assessment over the key stage. Formative assessment using the four Mastery categories will be relevant throughout the key stage. It will be based on the taught components of the subject at the start of the key stage, moving to being based on the Subject Content by year 9. Summative assessment, in terms of the most likely grade expected, will take place from time-to-time throughout the key stage, but will be of more significance within year 9, when a greater part of Programme of Study has been taught. 7
5. Designing a Planning, Monitoring and Assessment System for the National Curriculum The Commission distinguishes between formative and summative assessment, thus: Formative assessment is intended to inform teaching and learning. Unnecessary recording of formative assessment outcomes should be avoided. An effective local summative assessment is one that provides schools with information they can use to monitor and support pupils progress, attainment and wider outcomes. If we are to translate this understanding into a workable system, the following activities will need to be undertaken by subject leaders. These actions will need to take place whichever approach is chosen to manage the monitoring and assessment in that subject, i.e. whether it be a paper system, or using an IT system developed for this purpose. 1. Analysing the Subject Content to decide on what should be taught and what outcomes it will give rise to A subject leader will need to be clear about what a pupil is expected to learn as a result of being taught the specified Subject Content for the new National Curriculum subject, so that this can be planned for. 2. Planning a subject Scheme of Work which defines what will be taught and what pupils will learn It will be necessary for a subject leader to convert the Subject Content into a scheme of work for years 7-9, and to identify the learning objectives for each lesson. It will need to be made clear that all of the specified Subject Content will be taught to pupils over key stage 3. The objectives of each lesson will describe what it is intended that pupils will learn. This will often be made up of elemental ideas, knowledge or concepts, particularly at the start of the course. These elements will build over time to give rise to the broader statements of outcomes in the Subject Content for each subject. Specifically, these Attainment Targets for each subject are described as follows: By the end of key stage 3, pupils are expected to know, apply and understand the matters, skills and processes specified in the relevant programme of study. 3. Tracking the delivery of the Learning Objectives for each lesson Although unnecessary recording of formative assessment outcomes should be avoided, there still needs to be some sort of system which enables Formative Assessment to be organised so that the evidence of what pupils are learning can inform the teaching. The subject of Formative Assessment will be the Learning Objectives for lessons planned through the key stage. Formative Assessment will occur on a day-to-day basis through questioning, the marking of books, short tests at the end of lessons, and other ways. Some record of pupils responses will need to be recorded from time-totime, otherwise there is no way to ensure that appropriate action is being taken, or to know what that action was. The key design feature is that the process of recording should be straight-forward and of obvious value. The evidence of what pupils are learning will lie in the elemental ideas, knowledge or concepts that relate to individual lesson plans, i.e. Learning Objectives for each lesson. Over time, the outcomes to pupils learning will be reflected in the broader statements of outcomes in the Subject Content for each subject. 4. Assessing the outcomes to pupils learning at the end of the key stage, and at staged intervals Local summative assessment is a holistic process by which from time-to-time we take stock of the outcomes to what is being taught and learnt and compare it with some sort of external reference. The reference could be standardised tests, or age-related statements of attainment, or GCSE examination criteria. Summative assessment can show where on the learning journey pupils are, and what their likely outcome will be. Over time, local summative assessment will usually become internalised by subject specialists, who will know from evidence of a pupil s current performance 8
what sort of grade they might expect to attain at GCSE. Teachers judgments, informed by a range of evidence, will form the basis for assessing pupils attainment in a subject. The prime point in time to offer summative assessment is at the end of the course when all Subject Content has been taught. Clearly, if not all Subject Content has been taught, pupils won t be able to achieve the highest grades. So it is important for a school to be able to show that all Subject Content is being delivered through the planned Scheme of Work. In the absence of Levels, the most obvious unit of measurement of attainment at the end of key stage 3 will be a GCSE number grade. Using GCSE number grades through key stages 3 and 4 has the advantage of using the same currency in both key stages. Traditionally, summative assessment has also taken place at the end of each year, using tests that become standardised over time (once pupils taking them go on to do their GCSE exams). If schools feel confident to do so, summative assessment using standardised tests might also take place at the end of each term. Other tests can be given as frequently as they always have been, but don t need to be recorded. So, in practice, pupil progress will be monitored using both formative and summative assessment; formative to monitor the learning of the content of the course, and summative to provide an indicator of the likely grade that could be achieved by making this amount of progress. Clearly, the balance between formative assessment and the frequency of summative testing will be for a school to judge. 5. Reporting what pupils are learning, and the outcomes to that learning A key feature of any system used to help schools to manage the process of delivering and assessing pupil s progress will be its ability to produce reports for a range of audiences. An advantage of having a system which stores the detail of what is taught and what is learnt is that it has the information which can form the basis for diagnostic reports. Furthermore, the presence of summative information makes it possible to provide summative reports at the end of key stage 3. These will be of particular interest as an outcome in subjects which pupils won t continue to study at key stage 4. 9
Appendix 1 1. The Commission on Assessment without Levels The Commission on Assessment without Levels report of July 2015 describes the reasons why the government decided to remove the use of Levels for the assessment of the day-to-day progress of pupils, whilst providing guidance to schools in developing new approaches to in-school assessment. The full report can be viewed at : https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/483058/commissi on_on_assessment_without_levels_-_report.pdf The following is a brief summary of that report. Why Levels were removed The use of levels in the accountability system led to a curriculum driven by attainment targets, levels and sub-levels, rather than the programmes of study. Levels came to dominate all forms of assessment. The Commission believes that this has had a profoundly negative impact on teaching and learning. Although levels were intended to be used to assess pupils against the whole programme of study, the results of almost any assessment were translated into a level or sublevel and used as a measure of overall attainment. Progress became synonymous with moving on to the next level, but progress can involve developing deeper or wider understanding, not just moving on to work of greater difficulty. As a result, formative classroom assessment was not being used as an integral part of effective teaching. Instead of using classroom assessments to identify strengths and gaps in pupils knowledge and understanding of the programmes of study, teachers were simply tracking pupils progress towards target levels. Levels did not lend themselves to assessing the underpinning knowledge of a concept. The changes to the new national curriculum now provide the basis for a different, more secure assessment based on deeper learning. Assessment without Levels gives schools the opportunity to develop their own approaches to assessment, to simplify assessment and focus on teaching and learning and the effective delivery of the curriculum. Removing the label of levels can help to improve pupils mind-sets about their own ability. Differentiating teaching according to pupils levels meant some pupils did not have access to more challenging aspects of the curriculum. In reviewing their teaching and assessment strategies following the removal of levels, teachers can aim to ensure they use methods that allow all pupils access to the whole curriculum. The expectation to collect data in efforts to track pupils progress towards target levels considerably increased teachers workload. The Commission hopes that teachers will now build their confidence in using a range of formative assessment techniques as an integral part of their teaching, without the burden of unnecessary recording and tracking. Levels emphasised the summative functions of assessment, which drew focus away from the benefits of day to day formative assessment for teaching and learning. The Commission strongly believes that a very much greater focus on high quality formative assessment as an integral part of teaching and learning will have multiple benefits, improving the quality of teaching, contributing to raised standards and reinforcing schools freedoms to deliver education in the ways that best suit the needs of their pupils and strengths of their staff. 10
Mastery Learning Mastery learning is a specific approach originally developed by Benjamin Bloom in the 1960s. In Bloom s version, learning is broken down into discrete units and presented in logical order. Students are required to demonstrate mastery of the learning from each unit before being allowed to move on to the next, with the assumption that all students will achieve this level of mastery if they are appropriately supported: some may take longer and need more help, but all will get there in the end. The new national curriculum is premised on this kind of understanding of mastery, as something which every child can aspire to and every teacher should promote. It implies a shared understanding that all pupils should have access to the whole curriculum and that it is pupil support and the depth of learning which teachers should differentiate, not the content covered. Levels were not consistent with this approach as they encouraged progression onto more difficult work while pupils still had gaps in their knowledge or understanding. In developing new approaches to assessment, schools have the opportunity to make mastery for all a genuine goal. Formative and summative assessment The Commission on Assessment without Levels is primarily concerned with supporting schools with in-school formative assessment and local summative assessment. Formative assessment is intended to inform teaching and learning. Unnecessary recording of formative assessment outcomes should be avoided. An effective local summative assessment is one that provides schools with information they can use to monitor and support pupils progress, attainment and wider outcomes. Teachers reported spending hours recording and analysing data on multiple programmes and reporting it in different ways for different audiences. The Commission has heard anecdotal evidence, that many schools are implementing vastly over burdensome systems to collect and report data. The systems are often complicated and demand a large amount of teachers time to design and use them. The Commission believes that much of this time is taken up unnecessarily and could be better spent in the classroom. There is no point in collecting data that actually provides no information about genuine learning. Choosing an external assessment system Before considering any commercially available assessment tool, schools should make sure their policies on assessment have been confirmed. Any tool should be evaluated in terms of how well it supports delivery of that policy. -Does the product support the school s policy on assessment? -To what extent will the assessment tool support delivery of that policy? -Is the assessment approach implied by the assessment tool credible? -Does the tool provide good value? Accountability and Inspection When making judgements about the effectiveness of teaching, learning and assessment, inspectors will evaluate the extent to which: - assessment information is gathered from looking at what pupils already know, understand and can do, and is informed by their parents/previous providers as appropriate - assessment information is used to plan appropriate teaching and learning strategies, including to identify pupils who are falling behind in their learning or who need additional support, enabling pupils to make good progress and achieve well 11
In evaluating the accuracy and impact of assessment, inspectors will consider how well: - teachers use any assessment for establishing pupils starting points, teacher assessment and testing to modify teaching so that pupils achieve their potential by the end of a year or key stage. - assessment draws on a range of evidence of what pupils know, understand and can do across the school s own curriculum - teachers make consistent judgements about pupils progress and attainment, for example within a subject, across a year group and between year groups When making judgements about the effectiveness of leadership and management, inspectors will consider: - the effectiveness of the actions leaders take to secure and sustain improvements to teaching, learning and assessment - how effectively leaders and governors monitor the progress of groups of pupils to ensure that none falls behind and underachieve, and how effectively governors hold them to account for this. A personalised approach Assessment of pupils progress should be directly linked to their curriculum. It can be more challenging for schools to create their own assessment system for pupils with SEND, some of whom may be following an alternative curriculum. Any assessment methods and tools used must reflect this and support a personalised approach. 12
Appendix 2 Our commentary on the Commission on Assessment without Levels report As a provider of a system designed to help schools manage their performance data conveniently, we welcome and agree with the recommendations in this report. It explains why the pressures of accountability on schools had led to an overemphasis on summative assessment, i.e. reporting Levels at the expense of opportunities to monitor and diagnose how well pupils were learning. Levels were measures designed to quantify the learning outcomes resulting from the teaching of a subject Programme of Study. Levels were defined across (old) National Curriculum subjects using sentences of competencies to support a best fit judgement about what a pupil had attained by the end of the course. Levels were intended to be applied at the end of a key stage. During the key stage, what is monitored should be the delivery of the Programme of Study, and in particular, what pupils are learning as a result of engaging with the teaching programme. The reason for monitoring this should be to ensure that the right things are being taught and the right things are being learnt. The information that can be gathered about this will have a diagnostic purpose in tuning the teaching, and supporting the learning, particularly in the fundamentals of the subject, which are often referred to as the Key Concepts and Big Ideas. So essentially, Levels were being used by schools as a day-to-day currency to apparently compare pupils attainments, and hence provide measures of the progress they had made. This was mainly happening to satisfy the perceived requirement for accountability in providing evidence of pupils progress to visiting inspectors. A significant part of a judgement about a school is based on evidence of pupil Achievement - which is a combination of the Progress and Attainment of pupils at the school. So it is not surprising that schools tried to have ready evidence available of the Progress of pupils - and the measure of this was Levels. The Government itself added to this over-emphasis on Levels by providing information, including Transition Matrices, which used national data on Levels to show Progress between key stages in core subjects. It was but a small step for schools to use such tools as tracking devices, and seek to gather regular information on the perceived Levels and sub-levels of pupils in order to show whether a subject was on target. The situation that arose over the misuse of Levels was a system-wide issue. The Commission on Assessment without Levels report marks an important step in recognising that we should remind ourselves of the differences between formative and summative assessment, and to reflect upon these differences in how we manage teaching and learning. 13