NCAR Final Writing Frame – information requested from TSAs

To help with the final NCAR summary can you please complete the attached and return to me no later than July 14th. Next week I will send two models of a writing frame for your individual projects – which you may wish to use to upload your report to your TSA website

Please complete the following tables with the requested information:

Headings / School Names / Indicate Phase EY/P/S/Sp
Full name of Teaching School Alliance / Severn Teaching School Alliance / P
Name of Lead school for NCAR project / Holmer Lake Primary
Names of all other schools involved in the project / Randlay Primary / P
Hadley learning Community / P & S
Dot Hill Primary/ Charlton / P & S
Harlescott Junior School / P
Sir Alexander Fleming / P
Tibberton / P
Muxton / P

Please indicate which of the headings on the left your project has been focused on and what phase of schooling this has been with

Focus of approach / Primary / Secondary / Special
(1) Engaging a range of assessment tools in teaching to support progress / x / x
(2) Engaging a range of assessment tools to capture/attributeprogress / x / x
(3) Engaging technology as a recording and tracking tool of pupil progress
Support and capture (1&2) / x / x
Capture and record (2&3)
All three approaches (1,2,3)

Now please give more detail about the types of specific activities your approaches has been involved with linked to the approach and in what phase this has occurred

Focus of approach / Types of activity included
Engaging a range of assessment tools in teaching to support progress /
  • Use of SOLO taxonomy to engage pupils in visible learning in support of mathematical development. This resulted in a Primary document containing exemplification assessment questions for fractions across the Primary Phase.( KS 1 &2)
  • Using Revised Blooms taxonomy to plan for ways to assess progress in readingcomprehension. The group working on this activity developed a series of questions to assess children’s use of reading skills like inference and deduction. ( KS1,2 and 3)

Engaging a range of assessment tools to capture progress /
  • Use was made of the new curriculum statements for mathematics (Primary), focusing on fractions.
  • Summative testing of skill development and Knowledge were completed during the end of KS1 and end of KS2 standard assessment tasks. (KS2)
  • The group with a focus on maths produced a document that was shared with all schools. The document is called ‘Fractions Assessment Exemplification’ and contains details of the curriculum coverage for each age group and activities to support the assessment of children’s understanding at each stage of development.
  • The document has been shared with all maths subject leaders in the fifty schools across the Alliance.

Engaging technology as a recording and tracking tool of pupil progress /
  • The document was produced as a word document and is available for all schools in this electronic format.
  • The Alliance has a IT platform called Sharepoint and a site on here called the Torch. All schools can access the document on the Torch site and make additional contributions.

Please indicate (using ONE box below) how your NCAR project actively involved various stakeholders

Sought pupils perspectives / Sought parental perspectives / consulted both pupils and parents
The reading and maths exemplification materials have been trialled with groups of children in different schools.

Some schools began by doing an audit of what assessment practices were currently being used in schools. Please indicate which current assessment approaches were reported with evaluative weighting

(if you did not do an audit – please indicate here and move to next question

Current Assessment approaches / Primary / Secondary / Evaluative comment from findings
SWAT analysis completed
For the whole group at inital meeting link / X / X

Schools across the country engaged with the new national curriculum in various ways:

(Please indicate which subjects you have been concentrating on in your NCAR project and what phase)

New NC subjects / EY / Primary / Secondary / Special School / Totals
English / x / x
Mathematics / x
Science
Computing
History
Geography
Religious Education
Physical Education
Art
Music
Design Technology
P-levels

In response to the brokering the content of the new national curriculum, for pupil learning across the phases of schooling, teachers have now been exploring a range of evolving approaches. Please indicate which approach and phase matches your project and /or add your approach and phase if it is not mentioned here

Approaches / EY / Primary / Secondary / Special School / Totals
Emphasis on Afl in schemes of work – learning outcomes, success criteria, peer and self-assessments
Used Blooms Taxonomy (or revised Blooms grids) to chart in their planning, the kinds of knowledge and the kind of skills to be developed, observed, ‘tested, bookmarked, recorded’ as evidence of progress / x
Listed pre-set targets expected for each age group
Created “curriculum maps” across the year groups in subject areas so that thinking skills can be embedded in a more holistic and cross-curricular manner
Developed an approach built on Dwerk’s Mindset theory – having removed the levels – to ensure less rigidity of thinking to ‘fixed’ ability school cultures
Trialled a range of ‘feedback models’ influenced by evidence from Hattie’s visible learning insights
Writing assessment criteria for each subject
Developed concise assessment tasks, focused on testing competences based on yearly objectives as set out the primary NC – developed from NCETM materials / x
Using SOLO taxonomy to plan for and assess progress / x

Addtionally please supply the following:

  • The title of your NCAR project – if you had several within your Alliance please also list the others too.

Maths -Developing assessment tasks to judge the reasoning, problem solving, using and applying skills in maths , with a particular focus on Fractions.

English:

1 - Exploring the use of adult led questions to enable assessments to be made of children’s progress in deduction and inference when reading.

2. – Evaluating the use of SOLO taxonomy to support a clearer developmental hierarchy

  • the list of writers/ influences/literature you have drawn from (this will embed your work and research process as being evidence informed

Maths group:

  • Testbase
  • levelopedia
  • Nnrich
  • NCETM web site (

English group

  • SOLO taxonomy – Biggs & Collis, Pam Hook HookED
  • Previously in the Midpoint summary, you were asked to indicate any limitations/challenges you have been grappling with. Now are the ‘end’ of this part of the project, can you reflect on what challenges “linger” for you as you look ahead to the start of the new year – as “Next Steps”.This will enable the summary to highlight areas/aspects of professional practice, from across the country, that teachers will be continuing to work on/develop/explore/investigate/inquire into … (might also encourage further support for schools to continue to research!)
  • Many of the same challenges linger such as
  • The KS3 curriculum is presented as one end of KS3 expectation with no suggestion yearly programme.
  • Time is a one of the biggest limiting factors still
  • By way of an evaluation of this opportunity to engage in this research project, please identify from your Alliance,
  • three key significant outcomes of the partnership research process
  1. more effective sharing of best and emerging practice e.g. One school ran an introductory overview to SOLO. More effective use of existing online resources such as the NCETM website
  2. Collaborative links between schools have been developed and maintained.
  3. We all now know that no-one has THE answer, but a range of possible and equally valid alternatives are being trialled, in schools across the Midlands.
  • three significant impact indicators of the project
  1. A significant number of primary and secondary schools within the Borough are aiming to introduce SOLO taxonomy asinto their planning, teaching and assessment from September 2014, with CPD support from both teaching school and LA.
  2. The process of an action research project is better understood by most members of the group, including the importance of the cyclic process of plan / do / review. The risk element of the project (i.e. some of our efforts did not bare useful fruit) has made some member of the group more resilient and confident to experiment with new ideas. Learning to manage failure has led some teachers to consider whether we are as a profession too risk averse in our pedagogies?
  3. Primary and secondary teachers have recognised the benefit of cross phase CPD wherever the focus is a pedagogical one. This was evident in a cross phase SOLO workshop.
  • Please add any further comments …(these may be used anonymously in the appendicles of the final report)
  • Due to the time scale of the project and the lack of initial guidance, many teachers felt understandably ill at ease in the first stages of the project. If the outcomes of the project are to support other schools in moving forward, the work done so far should be regarded as just the first exploratory (high risk/ low success) phase.
  • Phase 2 should build on the promising areas and provide a more focused and co-ordinated approach with a more realistic time frame (three terms).
  • A web based forum is needed to allow all teachers involved in the project to continue to collaborate.

SWOT Analysis – completed by all team members at the beginning of the project

(See below)

STSA – National Curriculum 2014 – Assessment Research Project

SWOT analysis

Strengths of current levels based system

Personal

  • Comparable
  • Shows gaps which can inform next steps
  • Can be used for accountability
  • Existing knowledge of it
  • Planning already in place for it
  • Can be used as a guide/benchmark for where we are aiming to be
  • Like levels, huge amount of work establishing Sub-levelled LI’s
  • Supported by resources such as level up which appear “accurate”
  • Emphasis on teacher judgement
  • Moderation where used effectively
  • Shows progression

School

  • Enables tracking of individuals
  • Enables analysis of progress for individuals groups levels
  • Moderation supports CPD
  • Maths department have become experienced at assessing overall performance of pupil based of C/W (verbal = Written) together with written assessments
  • Children know next steps, have a goal to work to
  • Sense of achievement
  • Track progress easily
  • Regular assessments are accurate/valid
  • Set manageable/ achievable targets

National

  • Comparable – Levels and Sub Levels
  • Measurable
  • Schools can compare standards across schools / local / regions / nationally
  • New pupils into school, I know what a 6b pupil is like at maths. Experience is that data received is reliable
  • Parents can compare to national

Weaknesses of current levels based system

Personal

  • Knowing the meanings of statements
  • Different judgements
  • Need translating to “Child Speak”
  • Meaning can be lost
  • Can be a laborious process to do for each and every child + deciding ‘best fit’
  • Constant cross-referencing levels/grades as pupils reach yr 10
  • Some assessment grids too vague – not specific enough
  • Time Consuming
  • Current tests in use obsolete
  • APP not workable in Maths
  • Subjectivity- are judgements always comparable?
  • Comparability of different modules
  • Recording and reporting at whole schools level
  • Levels / APS / e-portal – data overload and everywhere
  • Foundation subjects are not well assessed

School

  • Requires Moderation
  • Time Consuming
  • Analysis
  • Teachers Judgements can vary – Moderation issues
  • Some people do not interpret the statements in the same way
  • Baseline data KS2 – KS3 is often given only as levels – a lot of difference between 4c and 4a
  • Different curriculum areas are not consistent at assessing “whole picture” will assess pupils high/low depending on units of work completed.
  • Lack of consistency
  • Lack of pace – can’t move on till key achieve this
  • Vague
  • Some sublevels are wider/bigger than others
  • We still teach by age rather than stage

National

  • No formal comparisons of APP standards across schools
  • Parents do not understand the detail of “level system”. Too much Jargon. Not enough user friendly advice or guidance
  • A lot of children didn’t reach national attainment EAL/SEN barriers
  • Y2/Y3 discrepancy
  • Teachers not consistent/accurate levelling

Opportunities/ Possible benefits of a move to a new system

Personal

  • Develop consistency
  • Ensure management of assessment model
  • Managing transition
  • By moving away from levels we may benefit from looking at the objective rather than a level
  • Personal input
  • Better understanding of NC
  • Might be more manageable
  • Provide something more consistent and reliable reduce subjectivity
  • Like change

School

  • KS2/3 and 4 aligned system
  • Pressure off y6
  • Consistency
  • Develop teacher Knowledge and understanding of practice
  • People to understand the bigger picture
  • Assessments more comparable
  • Might reduce bias for EAL/SEN
  • Tests may be comparable TA
  • Working together to create new systems manageable

National

  • Better parent understanding of where their child’s abilities actually fits in
  • Parents might understand next steps better
  • Better transition from KS2 to KS3

Threats of moving to a new system

Personal

  • Managing change
  • Lack of info on statutory assessments
  • Time
  • Ensuring other staff are on board
  • It is hard to dump enormous amount of word done in the past
  • Unmanageable
  • What replaces levels?
  • Keeping it workable
  • Developing teacher understands – training/time

School

  • Set structure often don’t work “well” in every school/situation
  • Need an element of flexibility
  • To focused on year groups – understand final aim/outcome
  • Scared of change/ reluctant
  • No progression
  • New model (curriculum) doesn’t clearly show progressions (reading comp)
  • Teachers – lack of understanding/ reluctance to change

National

  • Hugh task involved to establish “new” system won’t it need to be “drip fed” in?
  • Might think curriculum is to easy/hard
  • Not comparable to previous qualifications
  • If all schools do different things – will it be reliable? comparable?

1