It is probably true that: “The removal of levels from the curriculum creates an amazing opportunity to redefine success and progress for children…and to reshape teaching (and assessment)” It is also true that poor thinking or planning of a new curriculum could lead to the promotion of mediocrity and the inching over thresholds or jumping through false hoops that hang in the air… and ultimately results in slower progress that has a detrimental impact on learning and progress.
From September 2014 levels have been removed from the curriculum (except Y2 and Y6). Tim Oates provides a good case fro their removal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q5vrBXFpm0 Whilst a number of schools have chosen not to jump and retain levels, a brave few have jumped to new approaches. It would be fair to say that Primaries are ahead of the game in their thinking in this new world (the compulsion to act has been greater).
Which begs the question what should be considered in the new world without levels?
The following attempts to offer a set of What if… comments that underline the new opportunities that are presenting themselves and how a set of key principles can be applied to seize this opportunity. It is clear that this will play out differently across 3-19 (we must however anchor our approaches around the same principles).
What if we saw the move away from levels as an opportunity not to just re-do/rethink assessment and how we track progress?, but instead asked the question what should teaching look like in a post level world? This initially shifts debate toward pedagogy and away from how do we replace numbers/levels/labels. It is proving very easy to shift to a system that simply reframes levels and replaces with grades for example.
What if we considered the age related standard that children should reach each year. What if this is clearly located around what would be the expected standard of a child in terms of knowledge, skills, understanding, application, conceptual awareness and mis-conceptions?
What if the age related standards are clearly communicated on single sheets that show the specific areas – not dissimilar to PiXL Covey table or PLC grids…a DTT approach. What if deliberate practice approach is then used in lessons and intervention to close gaps.
What if we then further embed ideas around Blooms and SOLO taxonomy? That “by age” we were very clear about what is expected (what competences children need to know or be able to do?)…and that this provides the framework for depth, teaching, questioning etc. as it already does in many classrooms.
What if the achievement of these age related standards were delivered through a Mastery approach – such that teaching was given the time and focus (and teachers the permission) to secure the age related standards…and that this was non-negotiable.
What if we were able to teach to depth around these age related standards because the necessity to cover lots of content is removed. What if there was a real stickiness around redrafting and re-doing, such that children were challenged to do their best work and this enabled students to achieve age related standards.
More generally, in top performing education systems the curriculum is not mile-wide and inch-deep, but tends to be rigorous, with a few things taught well and in great depth.
What if we did not seek breadth and reduced the burden on teachers; freeing them from the need to skim and teach at pace.
What if we made a far greater investment in developing (continuing to develop) teacher subject, conceptual (and mis-conceptual) and pedagogical understanding.
What if instead of using KS3 as the basis for performing in GCSE exams that we asked what do we need student to be able to do and know, so that they are set up to perform well at GCSE and in the rest of their lives?
What if this is firmly located around a growth mindset model (Dweck) – where an anything is possible – what if it was the absolute expectation that children had to meet the standards. …ensuring, of course, that we do not set the bar too low.
“People with Growth Mindsets and who show GRIT achieve more when they engage in deliberative practice … it is this practice that achieve marginal gains (Steve Peters), inching toward excellence.”
In Finland, Japan, Singapore, Shanghai and Hong Kong, students, parents, teachers and the public at large tend to share the belief that all students are capable of achieving high standards. (BBC news)
And yet, results from Pisa tests show that the 10% most disadvantaged 15-year-olds in Shanghai have better maths skills than the 10% most privileged students in the United States and several European countries. (BBC news)
What if we focused more on the journey; on the “near win” (Sarah Evans)
“The pursuit of mastery is an ever onward almost.” … “Grit is not just simple elbow-grease term for rugged persistence. It is an often invisible display of endurance that lets you stay in an uncomfortable place, work hard to improve upon a given interest, and do it again and again.”(Sarah Evans)
What if that when children achieved the standard for their age the focus shifted to greater depth (not breadth) moving to the top of Blooms and across SOLO taxonomy and not moving to the set of age-related targets.
What if all of this also sought the ethic of excellence, because… https://dannicholls1.wordpress.com/2015/01/24/the-ethic-of-excellence-powerful-lever/
“Once a student sees that he or she is capable of excellence, that student is never quite the same. There is a new self-image, a new notion of possibility. There is an appetite for excellence.” (Ron Berger)
What if this seeking excellence required an unswerving expectation that all teachers were purposeful, deliberate and precise around formative feedback and that this was within tasks and lessons and not bolted on.
What if we judged the quality of feedback much more on the quality of what students produce and less on ticks or comments or forced dialogue in books.
What if we described progress not in terms of levels but is terms of a child’s progress in line with age related standards. Perhaps the conversation at parents evening becomes much more powerful and useful: compare “your child is below what would be expected at this age, we need to focus on…” “with your child is a 4a to move to a 4b we need to focus on…” Levels can mean little to (parents and students).
What if we are very aware that there is a real danger that we could teach to the middle and even bottom with this approach and that we should embed from the beginning the ability to challenge children to depth to ensure that those on steep progress trajectories continue to accelerate improvement.
What if parents evening was a discussion not about a series of letter or numbers, but real clarity about what is expected by this age and a rich discussion around the students work (in books), oracy, knowledge and practical skill.
What if summative assessment remained a key part of preparing and testing students. That this could test against age related standards and also indicate present GCSE grade and given professional judgement and trajectory the most likely grade at end of KS4. Keeping an end in mind.
What if the curriculum was interleaved so that the age related standards are re-visited to embed and secure new knowledge and understanding?
Maybe then we would have a curriculum and teaching that:
- was purposeful, deliberate, formative, to depth…
- sought to move all children through age-related standards… and these raised the bar…
- used a mastery approach, a growth mindset and an ethic of excellence focus to expect much from every child…
- is really focused to depth on the things that mattered…
- enabled teachers to not race or skim content, but to focus on quality outcomes…
- invested heavily in formative assessment…
- measured progress on security of the age related standards…
- used evidence to show progress not movement between random numbers…
- reported formatively to secure next steps…
- was not hung up on numbers or grades…
- used summative benchmarking to quality assure and formatively develop teaching and children.
And finally all of this requires time, thought and professionalism. Teacher and team ownership is crucial and particularly the setting of appropriately challenging and well communicated age related standards the detail really matters, because this is worth getting right.
Pingback: If not now, when? Raising Achievement | Dan Nicholls
Pingback: If Not Now, When? Raising Achievement | Blogs of the Month
What if ‘standards’ were not age related but responses to where each individual is at? I dream of art assessment with no levels and no targets- where some will achieve the skills and creative confidence to excel at GCSE and A level, as they do now, and perhaps some won’t, as they do now…but all will make progress without a pressure to confirm to a mediocre or idealised standard, (arguably, of all subjects, this applies to the creative ones most). That’s growth mindset surely- not comparing yourself to an age related mediocre standard but striving to improve at every step no matter what standard you are at?
I enjoyed reading this – detailed and much to think about. I just worry about the way we bandy about words like ‘non negotiable’ – for some children with learning needs, there need to be negotiable outcomes. And for a child in crisis too. This is not lowering expectation, it is being humane. While it is true that high expectations characterise many of the so called outstanding education systems, it is also worth bearing in mind the fact that Shanghai don’t actually enter their disadvantaged children for PISA tests – the most disadvantaged are the children of migrant workers and they are not entered. And in Finland, reduced class contact hours mean that teachers are more able to spend one to one time with pupils who are struggling. We can’t separate their successes from other contributing factors. As for mastery models, a focus group of Year 7s put it this way to me the other day “we repeat stuff over and over again until we get a headache and want to jump out of the window”.
Pingback: A departmental review part 1 – Assessing learning targets | #hackthecurriculum