Dockrell stated that ‘Learners need to know whether or not they are doing what is required of them if they are to learn at all, and they need to know what they are doing right and what they are doing wrong if they are to improve.’ Postlethwaite & Ross, (1992) found that assessment and feedback provide a highly effective way of improving learning at all stages from primary school through to higher education. This finding was mirrored from teaching around the world. Postlethwaite & Ross, (1992).
Cross & Cross (1980-1981) further found that students who received written feedback in addition to letter grades were more likely than other students to believe that their efforts, rather than luck or other external factors, determined their success in school.
In conclusion assessment can be diagnostic, formative, summative or Evaluative. The primary purpose should be for the progression of learning. Assessment aims to identify pupil’s performance, predict expected performance, uncover possible difficulties, give feedback to pupils, teachers parents and authorities, allow for selection and finally give certification.
Consider and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the National Curriculum as an assessment framework for school children aged 5-16. (40marks)
The National Curriculum sets out a clear, full and statutory entitlement to learning for all pupils up to the age of 16. In relation to assessment it determines how performance should be measured and reported. An effective National Curriculum gives teachers, pupils, parents, employers and the wider community a clear and shared understanding of the skills and knowledge that young people will gain at school.
Assessment by the national curriculum from the age of five through to 16, involves the completion of Key Stages. These Key Stages are founded upon ‘attainment targets (AT’s) which pupils are expected to have reached at certain stages of schooling. The attainment targets are articulated at a series of ten levels. The AT’s are articulated at each of the ten levels by a series of criteria or statements of attainment which form the basic structure of a criterion-referenced assessment system. The series of ten levels is designed to enable progression. Assessment of the attainment of AT’s is implemented by both teacher assessment and external tests called Standard Assessment tasks (SAT’s). Years one and two of primary school are known as Key Stage 1, years three to six are known as Key Stage 2, years seven to nine are known as Key Stage 4 and finally assessment by GCSE examinations is carried out at age 16.
Assessment in the national curriculum is carried out by both summative and formative methods. Progression through the curriculum however leads to a heavier weighting towards summative assessment. The strengths and weaknesses of the national currculum as an assesment frame work in relation to the areas of subject definition, content of assessment, purposeful learning, reliability, validity, pressure, the allocation of resourses and finally feedback to parents.
The problem of subject definition
As highlighted by Shorrocks & Nelson (1994) the national curriculum represents a set of specifications and criteria that are hugely varied and in many circumstances ambiguous, this calls into question the dependancy of test assessment, in turn assessment outcomes are specifiable only in terms of the categories to which they measure. Due to these factors the test and assessment outcomes in the national curriculum can only stretch to represent relatively gross characteristics of a child’s knowlegde, undertsanding and skills. In line with this the issue of judging the reliability or dependability of the outcomes can be translated into decision consistency, that is, is the level a child is awarded through one or numerous assessment a true reflection of the childs knowledge and skills.
The defining of subjects is vital for the development of the syllabus and its testing however the defining of such clear boundaries discourages a wholistic approach to learning. Research highlighted in QCA’s 2004/2005 annual report based on activities to investigate curriculum assessment and qualifications for the suject of maths found that suject association members reported that using and applying methematics did not feature sufficiently. Ofsted stated that ‘ there is a concentration on specific objectives at the expense of wider knowledge, experience and links across topics in the subject.’. The structure of the national currculum assessment limits the application of learning topics to wider concepts and real life situations. This is an issue under current debate as a more wholistic approach to learning is progressed towards.
The content of Assessment
Manageability of assessment has been an area of discussion from the start of the National curriculum. In early versions of national curriculum assessment criterion-referenced schemes were too complex and too detailed. The consequence was that the benefits of such detailed assessment were lost, as overloaded teachers made little use of the findings and had little confidence in the results, assessment became perceived as a fragmented and bureaucratic ‘tick box’. If results are misunderstood or misused validity is reduced. This was highlighted by a teaching assistant working within the Yorkshire Lea, who expressed concern for the rigidity of the national curriculum describing the process of curriculum coverage as reduced to a ‘tick boxes’ style. This in turn limits the creativity of teachers and reflects a heated debate from recent years between teachers and the government. The balance between a structured and through assessment and the de-skilling of teachers who feel limited in their teaching abilities and creativity is an ongoing debate.
In relation to this tension arises if schemes are too simple however as the result produced is information which is severely limited. The results from current tests do not seem to be used formatively, and quickly become what Patricia Broadfoot (1994) described as ‘dead data’. This is compounded by the external marking of key stage tests. Due to this teachers loose much valuable information when the tests are returned to the schools and may fail to apply the results. The main use teachers appear to make of them is to check the marking to see if there should be an appeal.
Finally in defense of the curriculum as a framework it is essential to highlight its strengths particularly in relation to substitute teachers. The frame work of assessment in the curriculum does provide a vital measurement for substitute teachers who can immediately understand the stage of learning a class has already achieved and what they need to further learn. This is especially important for poorly resourced schools and schools which frequently require substitute teachers.
A final point which again relates to the positive uses of the curriculum is reflected in many teachers acceptance and desire for a stricture to work from. This issue further involves resources and the issue of time. A teacher working within primary education of the Yorkshire Lea praised the use of the curriculum by highlighting that its absence would result in an overload of paperwork, involving lesson planning and topic defining. It should finally be noted that as an assessment framework it is essential for individuals new to, or entering the field of teaching to be able to study and understand a clearly defined assessment program in order to develop their teaching skills and understanding of government aims and resources.
Assessment for the purpose of Learning
The emphasis on using assessment for accountability purposes through mechanisms such as performance tables has led to the neglect of assessment for the purpose of learning. The professional role of teachers is to use as a means of helping students to learn. Importance is placed on ‘closing the gap’ between performance and desired performance. In observation of the development of the national curriculum it is clear that as is usually the case, an attempt to serve multiple assessment purposes has come to grief, with the more formative and diagnostic uses the first casualties. As the main purpose becomes the monitoring and comparing of schools, so the emphasis is placed on external tests to ensure the reliability of these ‘high-stakes’ assessments. The teacher’s role in the assessment is then diminished.
The power of an assessment regime to determine curriculum teaching is therefore double edged. At its best it is able to improve the curriculum and make teaching more imaginative and at its worst it can reduce the curriculum to what is in the test and reduce teaching to training in test-taking techniques. The dangers of 'teaching to the test' are well known and if only a limited range of facts and skills are assessed, and if 'high stakes' are attached to the results in terms of the consequences of the publication of league tables, then we can expect teachers to teach to the test and restrict the curriculum accordingly. There is already evidence that this is happening in some schools, which does not bode well for the development of rounded education. In line with this point a teacher from the West Yorkshire LEA pointed out that the national curriculum placed great emphasis upon cognitive development and the assessment of this however fails to give enough value to other important aspects of child development such as social and emotional development. It further gives little weighting to the development of practical skills and physical development for example assessment of physical education.
Reliability and Validity
As an assessment framework it is essential to address the reliability and validity of national curriculum assessment methods. Validity refers to the effectiveness of purpose of the assessment. However in practice it is not the purpose itself but the purpose to which it has been put which is crucial. The primary purpose of nation curriculum is the improvement of learning however assessment at Key Stage 3 and GCSE has rapidly been used for selection to both secondary schools and sixth form colleges and subject choices. The validity of an assessment method is in turn dependent upon the reliability. That is whether the assessment produces the same results at any given occasion. The weighting of summative assessment within the national curriculum draws question to its reliability. The influence of exam stress and pressure as well as simply individual responses to different forms of assessment need to be considered and are again mentioned within the area of pressure. A further issue is that of the contribution of the assessor. Inconsistency of individual assessors, as well as differences amongst assessors, is a frequent problem where there is subjective marking. Concern for this issue was revealed by QCA’s 2006 research study of qualifications & curriculum authority. Results from the survey found that 11% of GCSE teachers expressed concern about incorrect grading and marking of exams. In defense of nation curriculum assessment however it is important to remember that the same issues arise for any assessment to a greater or lesser extent.
Pressure
In interviewing a teacher from a school within the Yorkshire Lea a reoccurring theme surrounding the problems of national curriculum assessment was that of increased pressure upon students. It was noted that the curriculum allows little leeway for individual differences. Some children respond well to summative assessment and teaching towards it with a clear goal however others show decreased performance due to worry and the boredom of learning a rigidly specified syllabus with less interactive and practical assessment. The QCA’s 2006 report concerning the research study of qualifications & curriculum authority highlighted concern for pressure imposed by GCSE exams. It was found that 19% of teachers were concerned about work load imposed upon students and 6% expressed concern for there being too much pressure and stress upon students. With reference to parent views 4% expressed concern for the amount of pressure and stress imposed on students. However it should be noted that 64% of parents did not voice any concerns. Again however it should also be noted that the study was carried out by teachers and not derived directly from parents, therefore they were only able to relay what had specifically been expressed to them. Had parents been asked themselves the results may have been very different.
The national curriculum further fails to account for students who show decreased performance due to assessment methods. It should be noted however that some children do respond well to assessment of this form and teachers awareness of this issue led to measures being taken to reduce its influence, such as practice exam papers quiz’s and silent working times.
Allocation of resources
A principle assessment purpose is that of the allocation of resources. National curriculum testing such as SAT’s do provide structure from which to attain how schools and areas are performing. This provides the government with information as to where resources need to be allocated. For example junior schools achieving low SAT test results may need to be allocated resources in areas such as teacher training, facilities and learning materials such as books and equipment National assessment tests may bring such needs to light.
Secondly in relation to special needs the national curriculum gives a standard to which children of certain ages should have attained. This is essential for the identification of special needs and further gives the teacher some evidence from which to take appropriate action for example further assessment or intervention.
Feedback to parents
Finally the national curriculum provides a framework from which parents can also use to encourage learning at home. A teacher from the Hertfordshire LEA pointed out that a benefit of the national curriculum is that it can reduce teacher parent conflict concerning the content and quantity of subject coverage. It further enables parents to monitor and understand their child’s progress throughout the education system.
Conclusion
In conclusion the National Curriculum does provide an assessment framework which is accepted by the vast majority of teachers. It is not however void of improvement. In relation to subject definition the rigid structure of the framework provides little encouragement towards the application of learning topics to wider concepts and real life situations. This is an issue under current debate as a more wholistic approach to learning is progressed towards. With reference to the content of assessment the structure is welcomed by many teachers who desire structure and is of vital use to substute teachers. It has been however criticsed for de-skilling teachers and limiting creativity and judgment within the classroom. The emphasis on using assessment for accountability purposes through mechanisms such as performance tables has led to the neglect of assessment for the purpose of learning, however such assessment are a valuable resource for assessing teacher and school performance, identifying need and allocating resources. Finally the issue of too much pressure being placed on students due to summative assessment methods is a concern. However QCA’s (1996) survey suggests that teacher concerns were expressed only as a minority. Therefore the national Curriculum does clearly provide a valid framework for assessment. It does however leave room for significant improvement and issues such as pressure and content may need careful negotiation to resolve.
Evaluate the SEN code of practice as an assessment tool for identifying school aged children with special educational needs (20 marks)
A child who has special educational needs requires learning difficulties which call for the provision of special education. Learning difficulties are defined in terms of having a significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of children of the same age, or having a disability which prevents or hinders the child from making use of education facilities of a kind generally provided for children of the same age, or finally are under compulsory school age and fall within the above groups or would do so if special educational provision was not made for them. The SEN code of practice is a set of government issued guidelines which aim to give practical guidance to local educational authorities and schools on their duties in special education. The code aims to enable pupils with special educational needs to reach their potential, be fully included in school communities and make a successful transition to adulthood.
In evaluation of the SEN code of practice the following areas of assessment, assurance, resource allocation and achievement have been identified as problematic and the areas and will be discussed in terms of strengths and weaknesses.
Cost of assessment
In reference to difficulties within the SEN code of practice a major factor for concern is that of cost. A commission report issued by the Audit commission (2002) estimated that each statement amounts to a cost of £2,500. From this it has been estimated that LEA’s are spending more than £90 million every year on statutory assessment and writing statements. The issue of statutory assessment is key as it weighs educational psychologists down with paperwork preventing more time from being spent working in schools. Secondly as a result of the demand made upon education psychologists the process of statutory assessment is lengthy and is frequently too long especially for young children whose needs are changing at a rapid pace. Further to however the audit commission field work revealed that statutory assessment rarely produces new information for the fulfillment of the child’s needs. A principal education psychologist stated that ‘ There are relatively few surprises in terms of recognition and identification of needs as a result of statutory assessment.’ However despite this it should be noted that statutory assessment does however compact information in order to plan and resource for the provision of needs.
However the process of statutory assessment despite weaknesses should not be discarded. Statements provide formal recognition of a child’s needs and this has been found to be highly useful and valued by parents and teachers. Statements allow the child’s need to be approached in a more constructive way. For example children with behavioral difficulties may be able to discard the label of ‘naughty’ and be recognized as in need of extra support. Statutory assessment also provides a coherent statement of assessment from which previous opposing or differing advice can be channeled into one plan of action. An early years head teacher stated that ‘Statutory assessment has been useful in assessing his needs thoroughly and documenting them and planning forward.’
Level of assurance to parents
The SEN code of practice can further come up against issues of monitoring and the standard of assessment and service provided. Again in relation to the Audit Commissions (2002) survey it was found that monitoring by governors to be highly variable and dependant upon factors such as skill level, experience and their perception of responsibilities held within their role. A final problem in relation to service and assurance given to parents may be due to delays, shortfall and gaps in provision. Some aspects of health and social services recommended or referred to by statutory assessment are unavailable in some areas or not available at all. This is a cause of distress to parents as the plan of action outlined in the statutory assessment cannot be out worked.
However despite these limitations it is important the SEN code of practice has also brought positive outcomes in relation to assurance to parents and support. SEN statutory assessment can draw support local agencies in order to provide support to the child. For example children may be more likely to be admitted into a school if they are supervised by the local authority. A further benefit of gaining statutory assessment may be that due to the identification of needs more benefit and monitoring is received in school, and extra care can be taken for transition through key stages.
Distribution of SEN resources
A negative feature of SEN in relation to the distribution of resources may be that funding is provided to schools in an inconsistent format with reference to intervention and inclusive practice. With reference to the cost of statutory assessment factors distinct from the Childs need may determine what provision is allocated. Findings by the audit commission (2002) found that children in certain areas received provision beyond their need in comparison to others who didn’t. Finally in relation to allocation of need the SEN code of practice directs resources predominantly to pupils who obtained a statutory statement however as discussed above this is influenced by other factors accept as well as need.
However in support of SEN code of practice it does allocate additional resources to children with exceptional need. The SEN code of practice in line with the 2001 Disability Act promotes and encourages the mainstream schooling of special needs children. It works to increase the extent to which disabled pupils have full access to the curriculum, access within school premises and finally requires schools to improve the provision of written material to suit special needs children.
Inclusion
A final important issue is that of inclusion. In relation to statutory assessment there provision may allow schools to divert responsibility when problems arise. Children may not be challenged and pushed to achieve their full potential while support is waiting to be received. Secondly the allocation of extra resources to a child may isolate them from their class mates. A more inclusive approach may reduce this such as making adoptions to the whole class in terms of organization or the school as a whole. A head teacher working in Hertfordshire noted that the instructions provided by SEN practice are restrictive and inflexible in carrying out measures to include special needs children in general lessons and school activities. A final point in relation to inclusion is that of labeling. The provision of statements may encourage children with special needs to be defined by the difficulties they have. However again this can vary, some parents may find a ‘label’ very helpful in explaining a child’s behavior and receiving help.
Achievement
In relation to achievements made by children with SEN there is a lack of research evidence concerning the outcome they achieve. A lack of monitoring of their achievement and a lack of relevant
performance measures make it difficult to recognize the good work in many schools, or to identify where children have failed to receive adequate help. This is perhaps an area for development in which SEN codes of practice could play a larger role in monitoring of performance achievement. However the pressure that schools face to achieve ever-better academic results whilst remaining inclusive should also be considered.
In conclusion in relation to assessment the number of children with statements in mainstream schools has grown however, a significant proportion continue to be educated in special schools, some residential. The trend towards inclusion has been very gradual over the last two decades. Parents of children with SEN may face limited options in education due to lack of resources in some areas. The SEN code of practice is useful in encouraging LEAs to seek to develop a spectrum of provision to ensure that, as far as possible, all children with SEN have the option of attending a local mainstream school. In relation to the issue of inclusion barriers such as inaccessible premises, lack of specialist support, and exclusion from aspects of school life need to be tackled. More attention should be given to assessment of attainment reached by children with SEN.
References
Alderson, P. (1999) Learning and Inclusion – The Cleves School Experience. David Fulton Publishers: London
Black, H (1993) Assessment: A Scottish Model pps.91-94 in Fairbrother, R , Black, P.J. and Gill, P. (eds.) TAPAS : Teacher Assessment of Pupils: Active Support. King's Education Papers No.3. London: C.E.S. King's College.
Black, P.J. (1993 ), Formative and Summative Assessment by Teachers. Studies in Science Education. 21. 49 - 97.
Birkett, V. (2004) How to support and teach children with Special Educational Needs. LDA: Cambridge
Booth, T., Ainscow, M. (2002) Index for Inclusion – developing learning and participation in schools. Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education (CSIE).
Department for Educational and Skills (2001) – The SEN code of practice.
Desforges, C. (2003) An introduction to Teaching – Psychological Perspectives. Blackwell: oxford
Dockrell, W. B. (1988). Achievement, assessment and reporting. Edinburgh, Scotland: Scottish Council for Research in Education.
Helsby, G., McCulloch, G. (1997) Teachers and the Nation Curriculum. Cassell: London
Horton, T., Raggatt, P. (1983) Challenge and change in the curriculum. Hodder & Stoughton, The Open University.
Johnson, G., Hill, B., Tunstall, P. (1992) Primary Records of Achievement – A teachers guide to reviewing, recording and reporting. Hodder & Stoughton: London
Learning & Skills Council – West Yorkshire. (2002) Provision for learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities in West Yorkshire.
Mitchell, C., Koshy, V. (1993) Effective Teacher Assessment – looking at children’s learning in the primary classroom.
Moon, B., Murphy, P. (1999) Curriculum in context. The Open University: London
Postlethwaite, T. N. & Ross, K. N. (1992). Effective schools in reading. The Hague, Holland: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
Qualification and Curriculum Authority (2004/5) – Annual report on curriculum and assessment - English
Qualification and Curriculum Authority (2004/5) – Annual report on curriculum and assessment – Maths
Qualification and Curriculum Authority (2004/5) – Annual report on curriculum and assessment – Science.
Qualification and Curriculum Authority – (2006) – GCSEs & A levels: the experiences of teachers, students, parents and the general public.
Ross, R., (2000) Curriculum Construction & Critique – Master classes in educational series. Falmer Press: London
The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority SCAA (1996) Planning the Curriculum – for pupils with profound and multiple learning difficulties. SCAA publications.
Torrance, H. (1995) Evaluating Authentic Assessment. Open University Press: Buckingham
Wragg, T (1997) Assessment and Learning- Primary and Secondary. Routledge: London
Web References:
Interview resources
Teachers within the Yorkshire and Hertfordshire LEAs.
