[Advisory] RE: [Primary] New curriculum signed off

[Ian Lynch]

Ray, Pam and all,

A few more things that I think worth mentioning. Compartmentalising
learning into Key Stages and subjects is an administrative convenience
rather than a professional straightjacket. (well one would at least
hope so). If AFL principles are "good education", they should
transcend what are inevitably artificial boundaries and spread to all
subjects and all ages. The reasons it hasn't are complex often to do
with politics, admin. costs, resource limitations etc not that in
principle it's going to damage learning. These principles are not even
particularly new. I used them with many other teachers in Suffolk
Coordinated science back in the 1980s. Ironically, the NC largely put
paid to it at that time.

The features below are all characteristic of good assessment for
learning provision. (So is the use of standards files where they
exist) The labels we ascribe to the collective is arbitrary.

Regular classroom testing and the use of results to adjust teaching and learning
Feedback between teacher and learner (oral, written, "hidden").
The active involvement of all learners.
Building their self-belief through success
Self and peer-assessment by learners

The constraining contexts include meeting statutory requirements (KS
programmes of study and assessment to NC attainment targets.) Making
this manageable in widely differing and changing circumstances means
developing flexible support tools is essential. However, flexibility
gives scope for misuse as well as good practice. There has to be some
trust that teachers do have the professionalism to organise their work
so that legal requirements are met without sacrificing good education
even if some desirable aspects such as "official standards files" are
not yet available. If I was teaching Geography, I would not wait until
QCDA defined the APP model in Geography with a Geography standards
file in KS N before taking what is essentially good practice and
applying it to my teaching to support pupil progress through formative
assessment. Even if they later did it in a slightly different way, or
someone made adjustments to the NC POS, would my actions have damaged
my learners? Would inaction be worse?  The judgement is not about
perfection, it's  "is this line of action better than what I did
before?". Really only individual teachers can make that call in
non-statutory areas and on balance we should trust them even if some
get it wrong.

I would hate to think we are getting to a point where no-one can use
any judgement to make changes to their teaching until it is decreed
"Official" by a government agency. I'm sure the agencies don't want
that either.


On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Counsell, Pamela (National
Strategies) <Pam.Counsell@nationalstrategies.co.uk> wrote:
> Ray
>
> I appreciate the point.  The general AfL guidance covers all the subjects, and APP work started for Primary in English and Maths.  It is only for ICT that the APP work has not been covered for Primary - who knows with the Rose review it may be.  So QCDA have only done the APP criteria for ICT from level 3 to Level 8.  Using the level 3 and 4 standards files has been really useful where Las have done this in Primary schools.  My point was that there are not any official QCDA APP criteria for level 1 and 2 or the accompanying standards files.
>
> Also on another point the APP criteria developed for secondary are on the new programme of study, whereas primary are still using the old programme of study - which has some subtle differences - particularly for control and measurement - worth remembering if anyone uses the secondary criteria.
>
> Pam
>
> Pam Counsell
>
> Senior Adviser, ICT, National Strategies, Secondary
>
>
>
> National Strategies
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: advisory-admin@talk.naace.org [mailto:advisory-admin@talk.naace.org] On Behalf Of Ray Tolley
> Sent: 27 November 2009 08:34
> To: advisory@talk.naace.org; secondary@talk.naace.org
> Subject: [Advisory] RE: [Primary] New curriculum signed off
>
> Hi, Pam,
>
> You said, " The APP criteria and standards are only level 3+.  Anyone who
> puts anything up for level 1 or 2 should not be labelling them APP."
>
> I bow to you greater knowledge but the Assessment for Learning Strategy
> document clearly emphasises ' to improve assessment for learning at *Key
> Stages 2 and 3* - their emphasis (page 3).  Also (on page 9) it states that
> 'APP materials for Key stages 2 and 3 are available on the Primary and
> Secondary Frameworks.'  It further states (page 4) that '*every child* knows
> how they are doing'.
>
> Repeatedly the document states or implies that APP is a 'whole school'
> process or an attitudinal approach to assessment.  The Primary timeline
> again underlines this and nowhere can I find that teachers at KS2 or
> teachers at KS3 dealing with SEN should be using two different approaches.
>
> (The document further states that APP is 'a structured approach to teacher
> assessment developed by the QCA')
>
> Pam, I'm not being pedantic.  I really want to understand how APP can be
> applied as a whole-school approach where pupils may straddle levels 1,2 and
> 3.  Please advise if I'm missing something!  Links would be helpful.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Ray Tolley  FEIDCT, NAACE Fellow, MBILD
> ICT Education Consultant
> Maximise ICT Ltd
> P:  http://raytolley.v2efolioworld.mnscu.edu/
> B:  http://www.efoliointheuk.blogspot.com/
> W:  http://www.maximise-ict.co.uk/eFolio-01.htm
> Winner of the IMS 'Leadership Regional Award 2009'
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: advisory-admin@talk.naace.org [mailto:advisory-admin@talk.naace.org]
> On Behalf Of Counsell, Pamela (National Strategies)
> Sent: 26 November 2009 20:07
> To: Ian Lynch; Bush Andrew
> Cc: ian.lynch@theingots.org; John Wasteney; Susan.Mould@derbyshire.gov.uk;
> Kathy.Smedley@longcrest.co.uk; allison.allen@outstream.co.uk;
> advisory@talk.naace.org; primary@talk.naace.org
> Subject: RE: [Advisory] RE: [Primary] New curriculum signed off
>
> Just a minor clarification, as National Strategies and QCDA seem to be
> mentioned interchangeably.
>
> QCDA are the authority which hold the standards.  The advisory community
> tend to think that APP is National Strategies because this is the
> mechanism by which APP has been disseminated through consultant training
> and then to subject leaders by the LAs(and yes we have supported QCDA
> substantially with this work).
>
> What is important is that APP is a process and not just a set of grids -
> they should be used with the handbook and the standards files. QCDA are
> the only authority which can say - this is a level 5 etc - this is the
> importance of the standards files.  When the national strategies have
> produced work over the years which has attributed any levels we have
> always worked with QCDA.
>
> The APP criteria and standards are only level 3+.  Anyone who puts
> anything up for level 1 or 2 should not be labelling them APP.  They are
> assessment outcomes, and putting them as APP will be confusing to
> teachers who will assume these are from QCDA.
>
> Pam
>
> Pam Counsell
>
> Senior Adviser, ICT, National Strategies, Secondary
> National Strategies
>
>
>
> Website: www.nationalstrategies.co.uk
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: advisory-admin@talk.naace.org
> [mailto:advisory-admin@talk.naace.org] On Behalf Of Ian Lynch
> Sent: 26 November 2009 15:18
> To: Bush Andrew
> Cc: ian.lynch@theingots.org; John Wasteney;
> Susan.Mould@derbyshire.gov.uk; Kathy.Smedley@longcrest.co.uk;
> allison.allen@outstream.co.uk; advisory@talk.naace.org;
> primary@talk.naace.org
> Subject: Re: [Advisory] RE: [Primary] New curriculum signed off
>
> Ian
>
> On Nov 26, 2009 1:09 PM, "Bush Andrew" <Andrew.Bush@sheffield.gov.uk>
> wrote:
>
> Ian, you've acknowledged the grids on your site are taken from KS3
> Strategy, well in the bits you've choosen to keep match word for word.
>
>
> Me: Yes, they also have anchors in the html so that people can direct
> links directly to specific criteria. The intention is  to add
> something not in the original, if it was simply to make the original
> visible, I would have just made a link. I think you will find quite a
> few people reproduce the NC criteria word for word in quite a range of
> publications. They are so common that I rarely see acknowledgement of
> the source. While in principle the copyright holder could complain I
> suppose the reason they don't is that they want people to make
> practical use of the things without bogging teachers down in yet more
> bureaucracy.
>
> You are breaching copyright. The APP grids for level 3+ are Crown
> Copyright. You can reproduce extracts as long as you acknowledge Crown
> Copyright. I can't see that acknowledgement on your APPcriteria page.
>
>
> Me: Well I suppose I can put it there. If the copyright holder
> complains I'm quite happy to remove it and simply make a link to the
> page but that will be rather less useful for teachers.
>
> All I can see is Copyright yourselves. You are also asked to reproduce
>
> Me: The reason that the copy right attribution is to TLM for content
> on the web site is that copyright queries can then refer to one point
> and it is standard practice to use this method for sharing resources
> under a common license. Again aimed at reducing bureaucracy for
> over-worked teachers.
>
> these extracts accurately. As John mentioned you've changed the grids
> from level 3+:
>
> Me: As I said I'm happy to remove it if the copyright holder
> complains. I think you will find at least one LA that has done the
> same. I could be wrong but my dealings with QCDA lead me to believe
> they want to encourage use of APP methods so I'll wait for them to
> tell me otherwise. I have meetings with them soon so I can ask them.
>
> "What appear to be missing on the version referred in this thread are,
> in my view, the most crucial...
>
> I agree totally with John, it is the most crucial statement. I've spent
> years talking to Primary schools about assessing ICT capability and
> stressed this point every time. You can't say a child is at level x
> based on a single piece of work it is about a holistic view.
>
> Me: Where did I ever say this was based on a single piece of work? I
> can't see how you would interpret APP methods in that way. If you
> understand the QCF and the national occupational standards you will
> know that the criteria are tools to make holistics judgements about
> learning objectives usually in more than one context. That is why a
> range of context examples is provided with the units. Of course we
> have to trust the professional judgements of teachers to an extent.
>
> Don't get me wrong, it is good that you are sharing what you can with
> the community but it does need to be your to share. If it isn't yours
> then copyright and/or source need acknowledgement.
>
> Me: Ok, I'll acknowledge the source, my aim is to please :-)
>
> --
>
> Andrew Bush
>
> Senior Consultant ICT
> Sheffield Learning and Achievement Service
> Telephone : 0114 2930971
> Mobile: 07753904612
> Skype: andybush
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Ian [mailto:ian.lynch@theingots.org]
> Sent: 26 November 2009 07:18...
>
> Subject: RE: [Advisory] RE: [Primary] New curriculum signed off On
> Wed, 2009-11-25 at 23:02 +0000, ...
>
> Back the Bid! Back Sheffield's bid to be a host city for the FIFA
> World Cup in 2018. To support the...
>
> _______________________________________________
> Primary mailing list
> Primary@talk.naace.org
> http://talk.naace.org/mm/listinfo/primary
> _______________________________________________
> Advisory mailing list Advisory@talk.naace.org
> http://talk.naace.org/mm/listinfo/advisory
> To unsubscribe send a message to Advisory-admin@talk.naace.org with the
> body text:
>
> unsubscribe Advisory YourEmailAddress
>
> or: send a message to Advisory-request@talk.naace.org
> with the body text:
>
> unsubscribe YourPassword YourEmailAddress
>
> This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan
> service.
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________
> Advisory mailing list Advisory@talk.naace.org
> http://talk.naace.org/mm/listinfo/advisory
> To unsubscribe send a message to Advisory-admin@talk.naace.org with the body
> text:
>
> unsubscribe Advisory YourEmailAddress
>
> or: send a message to Advisory-request@talk.naace.org
> with the body text:
>
> unsubscribe YourPassword YourEmailAddress
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Advisory mailing list Advisory@talk.naace.org http://talk.naace.org/mm/listinfo/advisory
> To unsubscribe send a message to Advisory-admin@talk.naace.org with the body text:
>
> unsubscribe Advisory YourEmailAddress
>
> or: send a message to Advisory-request@talk.naace.org
> with the body text:
>
> unsubscribe YourPassword YourEmailAddress
>
> This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan service.
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________
> Advisory mailing list Advisory@talk.naace.org http://talk.naace.org/mm/listinfo/advisory
> To unsubscribe send a message to Advisory-admin@talk.naace.org with the body text:
>
> unsubscribe Advisory YourEmailAddress
>
> or: send a message to Advisory-request@talk.naace.org
> with the body text:
>
> unsubscribe YourPassword YourEmailAddress
>