Assessment without national curriculum levels

[Amber]

according to our head teacher, there is nothing written down yet about the new system, expected in September!

Be careful what you wish for yoyo. Lack of documentation has rarely been a problem for the English education system.

[wonderwoman]

Lack of documentation has rarely been a problem for the English education system.

Indeed. When I qualified as a teacher in June 1989, I was expected to teach the National Curriculum in the following September, but the folders (if anyone remembers them) didn't arrive in schools until late in the summer term.

Our school plans to continue with NC levels for the time being.

[southbucks3]

Can someone give a noddy guide to why they are dismissing 6+1x (interesting auto-correct that one!) I meant, NC levels anyway? I know there selected reports to read on here, but tbh I'm lazy.

[mystery]

That paper linked to earlier explained the rationale behind the scrapping of the old national curriculum levels. The paperwork about the new national curriculum has been around for quite a while now and the notion that nc levels were being scrapped and schools being given more freedom about ongoing assessment has been public for a long while now.

I don't really understand what schools will do that say they are going to continue with levels. The levels apply to the old curriculum. What would be the point of each school trying to adapt the old levels to the new national curriculum in their own particular way?

I don't understand why some schools are waiting for ofsted or dfe to tell them what to do - it's been made very clear that they won't.

What are other schools doing that have thought of something other than levels?

[Guest55]

mystery - the actual topics aren't changing in maths so we can still level as before. Why do you think it will be difficult?

[mystery]

I wasn't just thinking of maths. Maths is probably relatively straightforward to do what you say but what is the benefit of doing it that way if you no longer have to?


It has always seemed a little bit random to me which aspects of which topics are placed into which levels for maths and levels seem (although they do not have to) to affect the sequence and timing of the way the primary maths curriculum is taught.

I thought the maths associations were very anti the new maths curriculum which bits particularly bothered them.

[Guest55]

Most parents understand levels so we plan to keep them.

I'm not going into why the new maths curriculum is a concern here. Basically it's the focus on 'traditional methods' of calculation, fractions coming so early and having to teach e.g. Roman numerals. If schools focus on the aims which are to do with increasing problem solving then it'll be ok.

[mystery]

How would keeping levels work for, say, primary English? The level descriptors apply to the old national curriculum not the new one.

I am not sure many parents really understand levels and it doesn't seem long ago that levels were detested in some parts as unnecessary bureaucracy etc. Maybe schools the choose to use levels of their own free will will grow to love them!

Does anyone know a primary school that is not deciding to somehow stick to levels? I think that Moved on another thread was hinting at some different approaches that some schools were adopting.

[wonderwoman]

How would keeping levels work for, say, primary English? The level descriptors apply to the old national curriculum not the new one.

Just my opinion. Teachers have a lot of experience with the old levels and are, despite what many people think, fairly standard across the country. So when a new pupil arrives at school with reading, writing and maths levels I can make a reasonable judgement about what to expect. It makes the transition between schools more straight forward.

When I mark a piece of writing, I am usually quite accurate about the level. If it is formally assessed I would go through a step by step check against criteria, but I'm usually correct. So even with the new curriculum I could give a piece of writing a level. Most parents I speak to do understand levels. They know what level their child was at last year and frequently ask what level they are at mid year and know whether they are above average or not. They might not be able to relate that to curriculum content - but I am happy to explain why a piece of writing is a 4B rather than a 5C - rarely get asked though.

If schools use their own methods I think it will be difficult. I suspect we will come up with something closely related to whatever is reported at ks1 & 2. Then we can track and show progress, not only for Ofsted, but to ensure no pupil is lost or overlooked.

[mystery]

It will be interesting to see what schools each come up with. I just thought that the thinking would be further on in individual schools by now but as this is primarily a parent site it's hard to tell from here.

From my own experience as a parent I would like it to be very closely linked to the new national curriculum documents because, at a minimum, I want my younger child to be taught the new national curriculum so that whatever the new tests turn out to look like they have a chance to do themselves justice. I would like some feel as to what material from the new national curriculum they have covered and whether or not my child has "mastered" it.

It shouldn't be necessary for schools to see the new 2016 ks2 tests to decide on their own internal ways of assessing progress. That would suggest "teaching to the test" rather than teaching the syllabus (and more as the nc is not supposed to be the sole content of school).

I have a child will sit the new tests in 2017 - the second year of the new tests. So far they could have been taught the new national curriculum for quite a while as the new curriculum has been printed for a long while now and it was made legal for the current year 3 to be exempt from the old curriculum before the start of this school year. However, I don't think my child is being taught it yet - I can't detect any difference from what was covered with my older children, and as I am just told nc levels and not content mastered I can't really tell what is going on.

The new national curriculum documents are pretty clear in maths and English. I haven't looked at the others. The thing I think might go wrong is the interpretation of the year by year "blocks" set out in the document. I think some schools will stick to these very literally which I don't think is the intention at all, is it?