Rochford Review Consultation

6. If the statutory requirement to assess pupils using P scales was removed, would any important information no longer be available to you?

The P scales were considered no longer 'fit for purpose' by 70% of respondents to the Rochford Review group. Problems included using a 'best fit' model and linear assessment, not appropriate for SEND pupils which benefit from developing an in-depth understanding, across a range of contexts. They were also based on the old national curriculum, resulting in problems in pupils’ progression from P scales to the new curriculum due to a lack of alignment.
However, there were advantages to the P scales; they used a ‘small steps to learning’ approach, particularly supportive of pupils at the earlier stages/lower levels and the scales did enable teachers to gain an overview of a wide-range of learning skills to enable them to identify individual patterns and profiles of strength or needs. Furthermore they provided a consistent framework that facilitated the sharing of information between different teaching staff, both within and across settings.
It is important that the new system retains this consistency in order to fully support: pupils working below the key stage standards, for staff to know next steps, for schools and LAs to be able to compare and moderate assessment information and to ensure meaningful reporting to parents.

7. In your opinion, are the pre-key stage standards clear and easy to understand?

In many ways, the pre-key stage standards offer more clarity than P scales – arguably the change to a ‘secure-fit’ model as opposed to the ‘best-fit’ model, requiring pupils to fulfil every part of the criteria will lead to less uncertainty on judgement than under the previous system. However, it is worth noting that some pupils (due to their specific needs) may never be able to achieve certain aspects of the pre-key stage standards, which could mean that they would never progress to the next standard. This is something the flexibility offered by the ‘best-fit’ model would have catered for.

8. Do the pre-key stage standards support and encourage progression on to the statutory national curriculum tests for pupils who are able to do so?

The pre-key stage standards support and encourage progression to the national curriculum tests (presuming that pupils are able to do so) much more adequately than P scales did, partly because they have been created with the new curriculum in mind. The fact that ER3, EW3 and M3 (for Key Stage 1) and ER5, EW5 and M5 (for Key Stage 2), sit just below the level required to be put in for the standardised testing arrangements supports progression to the statutory national more effectively than was the case with P scales.
However, the government also need to be mindful of the fact that there are areas of the national curriculum that are not covered within the pre-key stage standards, such as Science (which was covered under P scales). As such, it may take a bit of time for pupils progressing to get used to the increased number of subjects that the national curriculum assesses.

9. Do you agree that statutory assessment should focus on cognition and learning?

Although we agree that cognition and learning should be a key area within statutory assessment, we do not agree that statutory assessment for pupils who are not engaged in subject-specific learning should be limited to this area. Communication and interaction, an area of need specified within EHC plans, is another vitally important area that needs to be given due focus. Without communication and interaction, pupils not engaged in subject-specific learning would be unable to show evidence of their cognition and learning – it is an essential skill that it is impossible to function without, and as such it needs to be given due weight. Communication does not have to mean spoken communication – augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) aids can be used in order to ensure that pupils who are physically unable to speak can still be effectively assessed.

10. Do you agree that assessing against the seven areas of engagement listed above is the right model to be used in the statutory assessment of these pupils?

We believe that assessing against the seven areas of engagement (Responsiveness, Curiosity, Discovery, Anticipation, Persistence, Initiation and Investigation) is the right model to be used in the statutory assessment of pupils not engaged in subject-specific learning. However, it is important that the Government looks at how assessment using the seven areas of engagement supports progression to the pre-key stage standards. The introduction of these two very different systems for assessing pupils with SEND (as opposed to the one system that was used previously) will present challenges in ensuring that pupils who are able to progress can do so smoothly. Particular regard should be paid to the entry and exit skill levels between the two assessment standards to ensure the gap is not too great making progression and transition unachievable for pupils. This would also accommodate pupils who may have relapsing or degenerative conditions.

11. Do you believe that assessing pupils against the seven areas of engagement for cognition and learning would give parents and carers meaningful information about their child’s attainment and progress?

We believe that if done correctly, assessing pupils against the seven areas of engagement would give parents and children meaningful information about their child’s attainment and progress. The fact that the report recommends that schools should be free to assess each pupil against the seven areas of engagement ‘in the way that best reflects the needs of the pupil and what the school already knows about his or her pattern of progression’ is to be welcomed, as it will ensure that assessment is tailored to an individual’s needs, providing parents with a unique profile of his or her progress. However, we would like to add a note of caution that too much open flexibility may lead to inconsistency which has its own set of problems. We would therefore recommend offering schools guidance and a suite of tools and materials to enable them to tailor their assessment approach to the needs of the individual pupil.

12. If you did not agree that statutory assessment should only focus on cognition and learning, do you think that the seven areas of engagement would be useful in assessing the other areas of need as outlined in the ‘SEND Code of Practice: 0-25 years’ (communication and interaction; social, emotional and mental health; sensory and/or physical)?

Although, as stated above, we disagree that statutory assessment should solely focus on cognition and learning, we believe that the seven areas of engagement are broad enough so that they would be useful in assessing communication and interaction, sensory and physical and social emotional and mental health.

13. For those working in educational settings, if the government accepted the recommendation that schools should decide the best way to assess the seven engagement areas of cognition and learning, would you be able to assess pupils against the seven areas using the guidance provided in the Rochford Review’s final report?

14. The Rochford Review recommends that schools should not be required to submit assessment information to the department for pupils not engaged in subject-specific learning. Do you agree with this recommendation?

Whilst assessment of pupils with SEND is not necessarily appropriate for comparison with other pupils or settings, removing the requirement for schools to submit assessment information for those not engaged in subject specific learning appears to suggest that achievement and progress for this cohort does not hold the same value as it does for those working at the pre key stage level or key stages.
Not only does this run the risk of creating a culture where supporting a child to reach their potential is not adopted for children with SEND working below the pre key stage levels but also implies that progress for these children is also not important to Government. Summative assessment data is used by Government to hold schools to account so this would suggest that accountability is not applicable for settings with pupils working below the standard of the pre key stages and that we should not expect these children to progress any higher.
The Communication Trust believe that all children should be expected and supported to make progress regardless of their setting, level of need or background. High expectation should apply equally to pupils with SEND, but must also take into account the amount of effort the pupil puts in as well as outcomes achieved. These assessment standards do not need to be age or key stage specific (which is often unhelpful with pupils with severe and profound needs due to their high variability and unique needs) but could be still developed to meet the needs of this population and support consistency and shared best practice across settings.

15. How can we ensure that ITT and CPD provision adequately supports those who work in schools with the assessment of pupils who are not working at the standard of national curriculum tests? What kind of training, materials and support would be helpful?

Learning around supporting pupils with SLCN should be embedded across every ITT curriculum rather than delivered as an extra module or add-on subject.
The Government needs to mandate for ITT to include high quality information and training around supporting children and young people with SEND in general and speech, language and communication needs (SLCN) in particular. Teachers should be provided with a range of effective universal strategies for whole class teaching that are inclusive and effective for all pupils. The importance of equipping new teachers with teaching strategies suitable for pupils with SEND, including SLCN cannot be underestimated, and the Government must be held accountable for ensuring that the minimum standards set out in the framework of core content for ITT are upheld by all providers, with an expectation that many will exceed the minimum standards.
It is essential that those assessing pupils with SLCN have the knowledge and skills to ensure that assessment captures an accurate reflection of the pupil's skill level. For example, if a child has age appropriate comprehension but an expressive language disorder then teachers should fully understand the implications of this in assessment and provide the appropriate support to ensure accurate assessment of the pupil's knowledge and skill in the subject area, not expecting the pupil to express their knowledge and learning verbally.
16. The Review suggests that schools should work collaboratively across different types of educational settings. How could schools best be supported to share good practice?

In terms of collaborative work, there is already great work being done across multi academy trusts and teaching school alliances, but often it can be harder to get this good practice out to the wider schools workforce. The Department for Education should direct schools to key guidance on how to develop case studies and examples of best practice, and key examples of these should be disseminated to the schools workforce through newsletters, social media and networks. It is important that the government takes responsibility in ensuring that all schools understand about good practice and what is happening elsewhere.
17. Would additional guidance for the statutory assessment of pupils who are not yet working at the standard of national curriculum tests and who have English as an additional language be helpful?

Yes - there is still much confusion around the communication skills of children who are learning English as an additional language, especially when it comes to SLCN. This was highlighted in The Communication Trust's 2017 workforce survey in which half of respondents reported they would benefit from learning to support children who are learning English as an additional language with their speech, language and communication development.

18. What steps could we take to reduce any burdens on those involved in the statutory assessment of pupils not yet working at the standard of national curriculum tests?

Equalities:

19. Do you think that any of these proposals could have a disproportionate impact, positive or negative, on specific students, in particular those with 'relevant protected characteristics' (including disability, gender, race and religion or belief)?

20. How could any adverse impact be reduced and are there any ways we could better advance equality of opportunity? Please provide evidence to support your response.