Life after levels

Accounting for change: 25 June 2015

• What were ‘levels’?

• What was the problem with them?

• So what are we supposed to do now?

What were ‘levels’?

First appearance in the early stages of the statutory National Curriculum, back in 1988

Last versions in Feb 2010 by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA)

Levels were designed to describe of performance at nine levels for each attainment target (levels 1 to 8 and ‘exceptional performance’).

• Level 2 represented expectations for most 7 year-olds, • Level 4 represented expectations for most 11 year-olds and• Levels 5 to 6 represented expectations for most 14 year-olds.

What were ‘levels’?

Science (Biology) Level 4

Pupils describe some processes and phenomena related to organisms, their behaviour and the environment, drawing on scientific knowledge and understanding and using appropriate terminology, for example using food chains to describe feeding relationships between plants and animals in a habitat.

They recognise that evidence can support or refute scientific ideas, such as in the identification and grouping of living things.

They recognise some applications and implications of science, such as the use of predators to control pest populations.

What was the problem with them?

Tim Oates, head of Cambridge Assessment:

“Level descriptors in secondary Chemistry state that pupils must understand ‘that there are patterns in the reactions between substances’.

“Seemingly innocuous due to its generic character, this is, in fact, highly problematic. This statement essentially describes all of chemistry.

“So what should teachers actually teach? What are the key concepts which children should know and apply?”

What was the problem with them?

Nick Gibb, Department for Education

“Levels have been a distracting, over-generalised label, giving misleading signals about the genuine attainment of pupils. They have driven undue pace as Ofsted insisted on ‘progress against levels’. They have resulted in a lack of trust between primary and secondary schools and they have clogged up the education system with undependable data on pupil attainment.

“… international comparisons tell us that fast-improving countries around the world do not use levels - Singapore does not, Finland did not during its time of rapid improvement, Hong Kong does not, nor does Massachusetts. And it’s not that they are missing something …”

What was the problem with them?

Lacked validity: Criteria were considered vague, inconsistent and highly subjective

Lacked reliability: The vague criteria meant two teachers might easily ‘level’ the same work differently

Accountability ‘albatross’: Some schools interpreted Ofsted’s requirement for ‘progress in a lesson’ in terms of children moving up ‘sub-levels’ within any 20 min segment of a lesson.

Curriculum ‘straight-jacket’: Academies and free schools exempt from new National Curriculum. Maintaining expectation of reporting NC ‘Levels’ perceived as limiting freedom to innovate with the curriculum.

Opportunities and obstacles

What do you think?

• What are the problems you perceive now levels have gone?

• What are the potential benefits?

So what are we supposed to do now?

Nick Gibb Feb 2015

“There needs to be more assessment, not less - but not centrally determined and not high stakes.

“Schools need to develop their own assessments which provide clear evidence of attainment and progression, focused on real things: the reading of the pupil, the specifics of what they know and can do in maths, their understanding of key concepts in science and events in history.

“We need more assessment, but of a different kind.”

What about Ofsted?

Nick Gibb Feb 2015

“I can assure all teachers, heads and governors that the Ofsted inspection framework has been changed to reflect ‘life without levels’. Training for inspectors has been revised, and they will inspect schools’ approaches to continuous assessment of pupils’ attainment and progress in the key elements of the national curriculum.

“There will be no expectation that formative assessment will need to be benchmarked against some national standard other than the national curriculum for maintained schools and against the school’s own curriculum in the case of academies..”

What about Ofsted?

School inspection handbook, Sept 2015

Ofsted does not expect to see any particular system of assessment in place.

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 curriculum

Some questions to ask about assessment:

• What are you trying to assess?

• Why are you assessing it?

• Which assessment tools fit these purposes?

What do we need to assess?

• What do children know?

• What do children understand?

• What can children do?

To what extent do these indicate progress for that child?

Benchmarked against either the National Curriculum or the School’s Curriculum offer

Why are you assessing it?

• To provide feedback to children about their learning

• To provide feedback to parents/carers about how their child is progressing in school

• To help teachers to adapt and modify their teaching

The assessment toolbox

• Types of assessment• Types of data• Types of assessment structures• Types of benchmarking• Issues of validity and reliability

Which types of assessment should we use?

Summative assessment:

• Usually in the form of a formal test or exam• Involves careful sampling of material (stratified)• Intended to discriminate between students (avoiding

ceiling / floor effects)• Provides a snapshot of current attainment• Stressful – perceived as ‘high-stakes’ by

children/parents

How often do we really need these?

Other kinds of assessment include:

• Quizzes – frequent but low-stakes and low-stress• Formative – often focused on misconceptions and/or

identifying areas to improve• Diagnostic – to assess prior knowledge /

understanding• Ipsative – comparing to a ‘personal best’ rather than

the performance of others• Adaptive – IT based, adjusts challenge based on child’s

answers

What kind of data is useful to us?

• Quantitative – Scores, grades, percentages“Easy” to trackTells us very little

• Qualitative – Description, samples of workHarder to recordIn-depth – but time consuming

What balance between these is useful and sustainable?

How do we structure assessments over time?

• Modular – Teach a topic, then test itEncourages cramming“Disposable knowledge”

• Cumulative – Tests involve sample across all topics

Encourages frequent reviewLong-term memory consolidation

What benchmarking should we use?

• Norm referencedCompare to average or ‘expected’ performanceRewards coasting high-attainers?

• Criterion referenced Key knowledge, understanding and skillsCan easily become bureaucratic!

How valid is our assessment?

• Content validityDo assessments cover an adequate sample of the

key knowledge, understanding and skills identified in the curriculum?

• Predictive validityDo assessments predict eventual student outcomes (e.g. in externally marked exams)?

How reliable is our assessment?

• Problem of biasClass, ethnicity, personality can bias teacher assessment

• Moderation of assessmentWhat systems are in place to quality assure

assessments by teachers?

Not reliableNot valid

Low reliabilityLow validity

High reliabilityLow validity

High reliability High validity

Assessment seems really complicated!

It always was!

‘Levels’ provided a false sense of validity and consistency.

Time to make use of more ‘tools in the box’

It takes time to develop and mature assessment systems – iterative process

What teachers need to develop is merely a ‘first approximation’ which they can build and improve upon

What do you think?

What challenges does this present for vulnerable schools?

e.g. schools ‘requiring improvement’ or in challenging areas

What does this mean for vulnerable pupils?

e.g. pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds, SEN, EAL, etc

Final thoughts …

Could we develop assessment systems which …

… recognise / rehabilitate the importance of knowledge?

… help children see the relationship between effort and success?

… identify meaningful progress rather than simply attainment?

… don’t marginalise students with special educational needs?