Revisiting the curriculum without levels
A reminder that levels have been removed from the National Curriculum. There were several reasons for this: first, they had become disconnected from their original purpose, which had been to create a system which would show progress through a curriculum.
‘There are a number of compelling reasons for levels being dropped.’
- Professor Tim Oates.
A reminder that levels were removed from the National Curriculum seven years ago. There were several reasons for this: first, they had become disconnected from their original purpose, which had been to create a system which would show progress through a curriculum. But, in spite of their good intentions, they were used for purposes for which they were never intended. They were only ever ‘best fit indicators’ to describe standards at the end of a key stage; they were not able to provide information about what a pupil could or could not do, they were never designed to be broken down into sub-levels or for fine measures of progress, their use often meant that pupils were rushed through content due to the cliff-edge threshold between levels, they gave a false impression of parity between subject and they implied that progress is linear. As Jamie Pembroke argues, ‘progress is catching up, filling gaps, deepening understanding, and overcoming barriers. As much as we'd like it to, can all this really be accurately represented by a single, simple, linear point scale?’ And there were real problems when they became connected to performance management, because teachers were under pressure to ‘show’ progress through improving and rising scores on spreadsheets, which might often mask significant gaps in learning.
Two examples to exemplify this; Shaun Allison, deputy headteacher at the Durrington School: ‘I was observing somebody who came for a job interview at our school. During the lesson he said the following: “If your target is a level 5, you can try the extension task.” Now, I’m sure many of us have said similar, but if we unpick that statement, it’s not useful. Why should we limit deep thinking to those students who have managed to acquire the arbitrary label of a level 5? Why not seek to challenge all students to think more deeply? The second was from a headteacher, reflecting on the presentation on our approach: “Thinking about it, our KS3 teacher assessments are always bang on target or above… but our GCSE results are awful!” This speaks for itself. Levels haven’t really provided us with accurate assessment information.’
The removal of levels in the latest curriculum allows schools to move to a model based on focused assessment of the specifics of the curriculum. As chair of the expert panel that reviewed the National Curriculum between 2010 and 2013, Tim Oates studied many high performing jurisdictions across the world and found a common theme among them was that primary school age children studied fewer things in greater depth. ‘They secured deep learning in central concepts and ideas. Assessment should focus on whether children have understood these key concepts rather than achieved a particular level.’ There continues however, to be a problem, particularly at Key Stage 3, where assessments are linked to the criteria for GCSE. These statements were only ever intended to be used as descriptors for the final exam, they were never meant to be criteria for judging work in earlier key stages. What seems to have happened is that in attempting to prepare younger pupils for the demands of the GCSE, there has been undue focus on the generic skills, rather than concentrating on the content to be learnt for that key stage. As Daisy Christodoulu says, ‘Curriculum planning and its formative assessment should be structured around mastery of the building blocks, not ‘retrofitted’ to the test structure and requirements.’[1]
So, the new curriculum provides far more specific age-related content with an increased expectation of attainment. The question in relation to assessment is simple: if I have taught it, have they got it? And if not, how do I know? And it is here that questions are helpful. For example, with multiple choice questions, pupils will identify the correct answer or answers if they truly understand the distinctions in the range of possible answers. Daisy Christodoulou has some helpful examples which show the power of thoughtful questions. In one version: which of the following words can be used as a verb?
a) run
b) tree
c) car
d) person
e) apple
It is likely that the majority of pupils will get the correct answer. However, a more nuanced response to pupils’ understanding is likely to emerge from a question such as:
In which sentences is ‘cook’ a verb?
a) I cook a meal.
b) He is a good cook.
c) The cook prepared a nice meal.
d) Every morning, they cook breakfast.
e) That restaurant has a great cook.
And it is in the discussion about the correct answers which both support the identification of misconceptions and secure deeper learning. It is the use of these which provides clearer insights into what pupils really understand.
The second area which needs to be considered relates to comparative judgement. Instead of the artificiality of vague criteria, we look at pupils’ work and make judgements about which is better. This calls on the innate professional knowledge of teachers and, when carried out at scale, across a school or nationally, it provides a greater degree of reliability and locates the quality in the actual work itself. The work on comparative judgement is still being developed and it might not be suitable for every part of the curriculum. The greatest benefit is that it gets teachers talking about the features of quality work and how these might be developed in their own classrooms. Jen Reynolds, a teacher and adviser, has written about how she has worked with local schools to make judgements about the quality of pupils’ written work. There are a number of promising aspects to the comparative judgement work - teachers reading lots of work by children from other schools, being able to see how the work of their own classes compares with others, a clear picture of what strong work looks like and what gaps might need to be addressed, and a real sense of professional collaboration rather than suspicion and defensiveness, which sometimes characterises moderation sessions. Comparative judgement meets the criteria for a curriculum without levels.
And in thinking about the curriculum without levels, we need to remember this, from Tim Oates ‘every child, with the right support, is capable of anything.'
[1] Christodoulou, D. (2017) Making Good Progress: the future of formative assessment
Thoughts on assessment
The word ‘assessment’ comes from the Latin ‘to sit alongside’. Now, it is not realistic for us to sit alongside every pupil. But it does have something to tell us about how we might think about assessment - that it is the process of gaining insight into what our pupils know, understand and can do as a result of what we have taught them.
‘Assessment is, indeed, the bridge between teaching and learning.’
- Dylan Wiliam.
The word ‘assessment’ comes from the Latin ‘to sit alongside’. Now, it is not realistic for us to sit alongside every pupil. But it does have something to tell us about how we might think about assessment - that it is the process of gaining insight into what our pupils know, understand and can do as a result of what we have taught them. In doing this, we will have greater insight into what appears to have been learnt, what needs to be consolidated or revisited and where the gaps are.
If the purpose of robust curriculum planning is to ensure that pupils are taught the demanding aspects of a topic, then checking whether they have got it needs to be done through assessment. There are formal and informal ways of doing this. Not all results of assessment instruments need to be captured on spreadsheets or other documents. But whether documented formally or not, the information should be fine-tuning the next stages in learning.
At its lightest touch, assessment can be done through talk. In fact, I would argue that assessment for learning involves high-quality conversations about learning and then acting on that information. Dylan Wiliam, whose work was instrumental in driving assessment for learning in schools, said ‘responsive teaching’ is one side of the coin: I have taught something and I need to know whether my pupils have ‘got it’ and to what depth? The information I gain from this light-touch assessment will determine where the learning and the work go next. It is through the ‘to and fro’ of questioning conversations in the classroom that I know not only whether pupils have completed something, but whether they have understood and are able to apply it in different contexts. There are very effective ways of developing this across a class - the work done by Alex Quigley[1] on techniques such as A, B, and C. The teacher asks a question, one pupil gives an answer (A) a second pupil builds on it (B) and a third either contradicts or contributes (C). Building this kind of structure during lessons, with no hands up, so that any child, within reason,[2] can be asked a question without warning, ensures that all are kept on their toes, and have to listen to one another’s answers in order to be able to contribute. If, as a result of doing something like this, I find that pupils are able to respond with A and B but have less to either contradict or make further contributions, then I will realise that there is more to do. Conversely, if all seem secure, then I will make the decision to move on. The second side of the assessment for learning coin is this: what pupils will do differently as a result of the feedback: how will they change their work and how will I know?
If the purpose of this light-touch assessment is to provide information about where to go next, then this is formative assessment. The critical thing is that it provides information about where the gaps are and also what can be celebrated, in terms of the distance travelled - so that we and our pupils are able to say we didn't know that before and now we do. And there is still this to be grappled with and understood. Whatever information is gathered and whatever feedback is given to pupils, the important thing is that they act on it.
Too much feedback is generic and imprecise, such as ‘use more imaginative vocabulary in your writing.’ Well, the pupil would have used more imaginative vocabulary if they’d known that more imaginative vocabulary was available. Without the prompts for the missing links, pupils are likely to be adrift.
More formal, but still low stakes assessments, are also part of the assessment process. For example, pupils sit vocabulary tests, times tables tests and key terms recall, and all provide opportunities for checking whether something has been learnt. The most powerful way, identified by Dylan Wiliam, is for the results of these sorts of tests to be private to the pupil. They need to be reassured that there is no shame in getting things wrong, because, with practice, that is how we learn. It is in the process of trying to recall an answer that the learning, in other words, what is remembered, becomes stronger. Both multiple-choice and short-answer quizzes enhance later performance.[3]
It also appears that if we get an answer incorrect, our neural pathways are more sensitive to finding the correct answer. So, the paradox is that learning is often more powerful, albeit uncomfortable, when we get things wrong and search out the correct answer, than when we get something correct in the first place. If pupils know this, they are likely to persevere longer with knowing and remembering things. A further benefit of this light-touch but efficient way of assessing is that it demands revisiting. And it is the revisiting, over time, which secures the learning in the long-term memory.
A further benefit of assessment is that it is possible to see the distance travelled. It is deeply rewarding to see the difference in knowledge and proficiency at the start of a course or unit of work, as we make progress through it and at the end. When we consider examples like Austin’s Butterfly, we can see that through careful critique and feedback, those basic attempts, refined and practised over time, become solid pieces of work. It was in the assessing, discussion and reworking that the impressive piece of work was produced. This would not have been possible without thoughtful, sensitive and robust assessment.
[1] https://www.theconfidentteacher.com/2013/12/disciplined-discussion-easy-abc/
[2] Caveat here: I would not call on a pupil if I knew they had been recently bereaved, for example. But I would check that they were paying attention.
[3] [PDF] Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20, 3-21.[PDF]