Performance Descriptors for Use in Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2 Statutory Teacher Assessments for 2015 / 2016
To whom it may concern,
Please find below the response to this consultation from The Communication Trust. We are a coalition of 50 not-for-profit organisations. Working together, we support everyone who works with children and young people in England to support their speech, language and communication.
Our work focuses on supporting children and young people who struggle to communicate because they have speech, language and communication needs (SLCN) as well as supporting all children and young people to communicate to the best of their ability. The Trust, which is a partner of the Department for Education, was set up in 2007 by children's charities Afasic and I CAN, with BT and the Council for Disabled Children.
We have chosen to structure our response as a letter rather than using the response form because the questions posed in it do not allow us to outline our fundamental problem with the proposal - that there are no performance descriptors for spoken language. Additionally, we have considerable concerns about the performance descriptor terms used in other curriculum areas which refer to or rely on speech, language and communication skills.
The issue and evidence
Lack of inclusion of spoken language performance descriptors
The Government response to the consultation on primary school assessment and accountability[1] stated clearly that descriptors on spoken language would be included for Key Stage 1 in autumn 2014. We are therefore extremely disappointed that they have not been included in the proposals of this current consultation.
We are additionally concerned, as we have outlined in previous consultations on primary accountability, about the lack of statutory assessment relating to the spoken language programme of study at the end of Key Stage 2; and consequently the lack of any form of definition around expected attainment in this crucial area of the curriculum as pupils leave primary school. We would like to strongly reiterate that robust statutory assessment of children’s spoken language skills at the end of Key Stages 1 and 2 and effective performance descriptors to outline this attainment, is crucial.
The Trust therefore considers the lack of spoken language[2] performance descriptors to be a major omission. This has the potential to lead to inconsistent and incomparable teacher assessment of these crucial skills across local areas and nationally. We are concerned that the lack of performance descriptors undermines the importance of speech, language and communication skills both in their own right and as pre-requisites to acquiring literacy skills and supporting learning.
The consultation states that the performance descriptors are ‘closely aligned to the new national curriculum’. However, the omission of spoken language descriptors clearly highlights that this alignment has not been effective.
We are additionally concerned that their omission will further compound the challenges for schools raised by the removal of attainment levels in the national curriculum and the lack of clarity and specificity within the current programme of study for spoken language. The new national curriculum for spoken language is broad and requires schools to define their own progression. Teachers are required to work out appropriate expectations for these skills for children of different ages, in order to plan content, demonstrate progression and identify children who aren’t making expected progress in spoken language. We are particularly concerned therefore, that there will be no benchmarked expectations for teachers around the spoken language elements of the curriculum at vital stages in pupils’ development. It is absolutely the role of performance descriptors to support teachers in their work and the lack of content around this vital area is unacceptable.
Overall, the omission of descriptors for spoken language results in a significant challenge to school accountability processes for pupils’ progress from reception to the end of Key Stage 1 and beyond. The guidance on the reception baseline is clear that assessments will be required to include content from the EYFS, of which language and communication is one of the three prime areas. The current proposal provides no mechanism to ensure schools are accountable for their pupils’ progress in spoken language or to give an accurate national picture of children’s attainment in spoken language by the end of Key Stage 1.
As mentioned previously, this is further the case at Key Stage 2, where there is no statutory assessment for spoken language nor therefore performance descriptors. Progression can only be evidenced where there are clear guidelines and baselines to measure against; lack of clarity in spoken language will challenge the expectation on teachers in “making effective and consistent assessments of their pupils’ attainment”.
Speech, language and communication skills underpin all key subjects in the curriculum and support for them is essential for all children; for those with SLCN as well as those who are developing typically. The lack of nationally defined expectations of pupils’ development in spoken language, will impact on the effectiveness of schools’ identification of children who are not making expected progress and who may have speech, language and communication needs (SLCN). Major research shows language impairment as a risk factor for low achievement, with language difficulties an important factors for predicting attainment on Key Stage 1 and 2 English and Maths national curriculum tests[3]. This research is also reflected in outcomes for children who are deaf, who if not properly supported, are likely to struggle with their educational attainment[4].
Speech, language and communication needs (SLCN) are very common. 10% of all children and young people will have long term SLCN. Language delay is even more prevalent, with more than a third of children not working securely in communication, language and literacy by the time they reach the end of the Early Years Foundation Stage. In areas of social deprivation, this number rises to more than four in ten[5].
However, evidence has consistently shown that many schools and teachers lack confidence and skills in identifying language levels for all children, including those with SLCN[6]. Evidence from Ofsted highlights issues for trainee teachers in understanding what typical language development looks like[7]. Whilst SLCN is currently the most prevalent primary need identified in schools[8], there are still a significant number of pupils whose SLCN are not identified by schools[9]. It is essential that children’s SLCN are identified and supported as early as possible and we feel that the lack of defined performance descriptors at the end of Key Stage 1 will mean that even more children’s SLCN will go unidentified.
There will be particular challenges for teachers working with lower attaining pupils. Point 14 highlights that teachers will determine whether to assess pupils using P-Scales or performance descriptors – we are concerned about what teachers will practically do in relation to spoken language as there are no performance descriptors. We feel there will be real uncertainty for pupils experiencing difficulties with speech, language and communication skills and for those with SLCN. This is an unacceptable position for teachers, children and families to be placed in; and we have considerable concerns over how the attainment of such pupils in spoken language can possibly be captured effectively and shared meaningfully with parents and families. This is very pertinent now due to the introduction of a new system of school based SEN support which is part of the SEND reforms- where it is essential that schools can assess need, identify and put in place support and track progress toward intended outcomes.
In summary, The Communication Trust believes that not having performance descriptors to support teacher assessment of spoken language at the end of Key Stage 1 is likely to have significant and wide ranging effects, including:
· In many cases, teachers will not be able to make an accurate assessment of children’s progress in this vital area without some defined expectations to judge against. This will lead to a lack of identification and support for those children who may be falling behind or struggling.
· It is well evidenced that children from socially disadvantaged areas are more likely to have delayed language[10] and this means that this group of children will be at an increased risk of being missed and not given the support they need to catch up with their peers. Mobility between schools can be a significant issue in these areas, so at least defined expectations at a key point in time will help transition between the wide range of different progress measures that schools will have developed, minimising the potential of children’s needs falling through the net.
· There is a significant group of children with SLCN who will need targeted or specialist additional support to help them access education. The lack of descriptors around spoken language to help teachers identify these pupils and monitor their progress accurately is of concern.
· Schools will be insufficiently accountable for their pupils’ progress in spoken language skills. Parents may not then receive consistent and accurate information on their child’s strengths and areas of need in spoken language, nor will they value the importance of good spoken language skills for later school performance.
· There will be considerable, specific challenges for teachers working with lower attaining pupils, in terms of describing, monitoring and reporting progression.
Comment on performance descriptors for other curriculum areas
We feel strongly that terms used within the performance descriptors for other curriculum areas which refer to or rely on speech, language and communication skills are unhelpful, and will not effectively describe pupils’ attainment in those areas. For example;
· The distinction between ‘working towards’ and ‘working below’ is not made sufficiently clear to ensure teachers can use them confidently to indicate a level of progression intended.
· The word ‘mastery’ will be inaccessible and vague to many, including children and their parents. It’s not a description used more broadly in education reporting and doesn’t accurately reflect the process of development of language which continues throughout our lives. For example, understanding new words in reading is something which continually develops according to the level of abstraction of vocabulary and complexity of context, so describing children as mastering this aged 7 is not helpful, objective or indeed possible.
· We are concerned that the use of the term ‘below national standard’ is a negative way to describe the attainment, progression and real achievements of any children but particularly those with special educational needs and is therefore unacceptable. It is also not in keeping with the spirit of person centred planning, support and review which are at the heart of the 2014 SEND reforms.
Recommendations
As is made clear in the consultation document itself and by Ofsted, “what matters is that schools can show what their pupils know, understand and can do”. Without clear performance descriptors to support teacher assessments at the end of Key Stage 1, we feel that this is unachievable.
We firmly believe that to ensure accurate assessment of spoken language skills, and the subsequent role this has in identifying and supporting those children who are not progressing as expected, it is absolutely essential that there are clearly defined national performance descriptors as part of statutory assessment at the end of Key Stage 1. These should also be added to those outlined for reading, writing, mathematics and science.
We would suggest that the terms used within the performance descriptors for other curriculum areas are reviewed to ensure that they are understandable, truly reflect progression and are appropriate for any language skills within the whole national curriculum and for all pupils’ level of attainment.
We would once again recommend that teacher assessment of spoken language is part of accountability measures at the end of Key Stage 2 as well as Key Stage 1, and that performance descriptors are developed for this accordingly. The importance of spoken language skills at secondary school cannot be over estimated. Evidence of a pupil’s progress in spoken language should be an important part of the information passed on to their secondary school at this key transition time and under the current system and new proposals, this does not happen effectively.
Beyond holding schools to account for their pupils’ progression in spoken language, providing descriptors for this area will also support schools to provide parents with clear and detailed information about their child’s progress. We know that communication skills are an area of development that many parents value highly because of the impact they have on children’s independence and inclusion and this is particularly the case for parents of children with SLCN[11]. This is essential both for reassuring parents that their child is progressing well, but also crucially empowers parents who have concerns about their child’s communication development to work with the school to investigate these further and put appropriate additional support in place.
As outlined in our response to the consultation on primary accountability, we would be very happy to share our expertise in children’s speech, language and communication development to work with the Department to explore what these performance descriptors should look like for spoken language.
Yours sincerely,
Anne Fox,
Director, The Communication Trust
Email- Tel- 0207 843 2526
[1] Government response to consultation on primary school assessment and accountability www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/297595/Primary_Accountability_and_Assessment_Consultation_Response.pdf
[2] Please note that we use the term ‘spoken language’ to encompass the expressive use of the English language in whatever mode may be appropriate for pupils whose ability to speak may be limited.
[3] Dockrell, J., Ricketts, J., Palikara, O., Charman, T., and Lindsay, G., (2012) Profiles of need and provision for children with language
impairments and autism spectrum disorders in mainstream schools: A prospective study. Better Communication Research Programme.
[4] Research into oral deaf children aged around 10, reported late 2014 (but not yet published) by Herman, Roy and Kyle (City University) and funded by the Nuffield foundation, found that around half were ‘poor’ readers and 70% had problems with vocabulary which the authors expected would have further negative impact in reading as they matured.