Accountability

3 May 2020

Reforming the Key Stage 2 Reading SAT – Why it’s Needed and Possible.

Teachwell Assessment, Education Policy, Teaching and Learning Accountability, comprehension, Key Stage 2, knowledge, Reading, SAT, skills 0

What is the point of the Key Stage 2 Reading SAT?

In its current state, there isn’t one.

My experience of teaching in primary including Year 6, developing and teaching a knowledge-rich English curriculum and greater understanding of what reading comprehension is and isn’t, leads me to the conclusion that the Key Stage 2 Reading SAT is not testing what it’s supposed to be testing.

Before exploring this issue further, here’s some information about my views:

I have no objection to testing children in primary school.
I think teachers and schools should be accountable to the taxpayer via the government and parliament*.
I think that all children have the right to a knowledge-rich, unashamedly academic curriculum throughout primary, regardless of whether it leads to later academic study or not**.
I disagree with any proposals to reduce the intellectual content and rigour of the Reading test. I do not think the inclusion of The Park in last year’s SAT is going in the right direction and think we need more challenging texts like Music Box.

Why is the KS2 Reading SAT not fit for purpose?

What I will be arguing in a mini-series of blogs is that:

It is not a test of reading.

While it is reliable, it is not a valid test as it does not test what it claims to (generic reading comprehension skills) and does not provide information that is valuable or appropriate for its purposes (comprehension).¹

It aims to measure a sample of a content domain but it confuses some of the means of assessing reading comprehension (for example, inference questions) with reading comprehension itself.

The test awards no marks for what it is claiming to measure and assess (reading comprehension skills) but awards marks instead for knowledge (which it is not attempting to measure or assess).

The knowledge domain that it does measure and assess cannot be reasonably taught, measured, assessed, nor one that teachers or schools can be held accountable for.

The test is not based on research or evidence highlighting the vital role that background knowledge plays in comprehension.²

The test is inequitable. The knowledge it tests is not linked directly to the statutory objectives outlining the substantive knowledge for any of the subjects in the National Curriculum and disadvantages disadvantaged pupils in comparison to their advantaged peers, even when the former do well on the test.

It negatively impacts on the curriculum as well as teaching and learning in Year 6, and (particularly if schools use similar tests to measure progress) in other year groups.

The test, in its current format, provides no useful information for ongoing development in teaching and learning or the curriculum in any school.

Unreformed, the SAT will hinder the nascent development of a knowledge-rich primary English curriculum, a joined up English Literature curriculum between primary and secondary, the development of subject-knowledge CPD for primary teachers and securing genuine improvements in pupils outcomes in reading comprehension.

The reforms that I think are necessary, are as follows:

End the use of unseen extracts (which include unstudied content).
That the subject content of the non-fiction extract be taken from the subject domains for Science, History and Geography in the National Curriculum but only for units where the knowledge lends itself to a national assessment***.
The fiction extracts should be from texts set and taught in Year 6 but linked to literary text types outlined in the National Curriculum for Key Stage 2.

The upcoming blogs will focus on:

1. Validity: What the KS2 Reading SAT claims to test, what it actually tests and why it is not valid.

2. Unseen Extracts: Why the use of unseen extracts is unclear, unjust as it disadvantages the most disadvantaged pupils and yields little to no information that will lead to improvements in teaching and learning.

3. Accountability: How the KS2 Reading SAT creates perverse incentives for teachers and schools (not just in Year 6) and is not a suitable measure for accountability.

4. Reform: How a reformed KS2 Reading SAT can pave the way to the development of a primary English knowledge-rich curriculum and subject specific teacher development.

* It’s not going to be possible to convince someone, who, as a finance officer of a charity, created a rigorous policy that would hold me and any future incumbent to account, that trust is enough. The education system has moved from being high-trust low-accountability to high-accountability low-trust. Calls for no testing will not, in my opinion, support a move back to the former position. Only improvements in curriculum and assessment systems that do hold us to account (in a reasonable manner) will. If we won’t suggest it ourselves, especially in primary, it’ll be imposed on us, like it already is.

** I think we do need to improve the status and quality of vocational education but don’t think this is in conflict with a strong academic curriculum up to 14 or 16. I think there are arguments for both ages but this is a separate issue. The debate about what should be on the curriculum and why is separate too and won’t be addressed in this or subsequent blogs.

*** Not all units do allow this. One option could be this is focused on Year 6 content only but that would require primary schools to agree on units to be taught prior to the SAT. In addition, this would further place the burden on Year 6 teachers shoulders which I don’t agree with.

¹Kime, S., (2017), Four Pillars of Assessment Validity (https://evidencebased.education/pillars-assessment-purpose-validity/)

²Willingham, D.T., (2009), Why Don’t Students Like School? A Cognitive Scientist Answers Questions About How the Mind Works and What It Means for Your Classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

5 Apr 2016

Fear and Loathing in UK Classrooms

Teachwell Education Policy, Teaching and Learning Accountability, Education Policy, Ofsted, SLT, Teachers 0

Why do teachers need to be observed?

It seems to me the whole accountability regime is just a system of collective punishment for the fact that some teachers were not good at their job. Capability procedures have always been there but the argument goes that removing poor teachers is not easy – but why does that mean observations? There are many indicators that a teacher is not up to the job – children’s work, behaviour in the classroom, etc. I have never known a single time when everything was fine but the observation highlighted serious concerns. Except when bullying was involved – it’s strange how that happens…

What does observing all teachers achieve? It is a nit-picking exercise in many cases which is a waste of everyone’s time. Except of course people who are insecure and like to nit-pick at other human beings to make themselves feel better but that’s not a good reason to conduct observations.

As for the reliability of the feedback – it’s always a bit suspicious how quite a few teachers have the same area of weakness and how it has been noticed at the same time. Obviously this requires the whole school to implement a new initiative, which lo and behold, SLT have already researched and is ready to be deployed before the ink on the observations sheets is dry. Neat trick.

What has the regime of observations actually achieved?

I’m not convinced that all Heads and SLT believe in observations. I worked for an Executive Head once – if you got a good or outstanding he didn’t observe you again that year, only bothered to conduct observations for teachers who were struggling and needed support. I was told during teacher training that observations were a poor indicator of how good teachers were by a deputy head of a very successful school. How many heads have hired teachers off the back of an interview observation to find that it had no bearing to their day-to-day teaching? Are observations a good indication of whether teachers are good or are they the only way you know how to assess a teacher? The latter reason does not justify observations.

For many teachers, grades are meaningless and discredited as they know it relates more to the politics in school, how secure SLT are in their roles, and what game needs to be played for Ofsted, than their actual teaching performance.

There is no proof that after all this time we genuinely have more schools that are performing well or better teachers (every new group of teachers is the best yet, until they are burnt out – the timeframe of which is getting shorter and shorter). In 1988 when this whole debacle started, it was in the then Governments interests to be biased to get their reforms through, a trend which has continued with each meddling Education Secretary who has manipulated the figures to justify their ‘reforms’. In this way the politicians have provided excellent role models for insecure Heads and SLT members everywhere, whose first job when starting a new job is to ensure that observation grades are low so they ‘rise’ steadily under their leadership.

The more a school subscribes to a micro-managing accountability regime – the more they need members of SLT to spend their time doing the micro-managing. They don’t even know why they are doing it any more just that it needs to happen because Ofsted will want the evidence. Even when Ofsted have said they won’t, it is not believed and they carry on. This is what is so disturbing about the current state of education – even when there is legislation, never mind rhetoric, that could make life easier it is not acted on…

Where to go next?

Here are some suggested questions that might actually help develop some teachers.

When have teachers improved their practice genuinely?
What was the process?
What helped?
What didn’t?
Are there any patterns emerging from the above answers?

In the current climate, good and outstanding are just meaningless words on a sheet of paper, not a reflection of teaching practice – if they were then those teachers on whose observation sheets they are written would be more confident, given greater freedom and be trusted by Heads and SLT. This is not the outcome we have seen. Let observations go, like all those pointless fads before them, we’ll all be happier as a result.

Originally posted on the Labour Teachers website.

21 Mar 2016

Is Academisation Undemocratic?

Teachwell Democracy, Education Policy Academisation, Accountability, Centralisation, Conservative Party, Education Policy, Labour Party, Local Authorities, Local Democracy, Primary School, Secondary School, Teachers, White Paper 9

As could have been predicted, there are a lot of people who are angry about mass academisation. The last time I saw the word privatisation this many times in a day, I was reading about Thatcher for an essay. If that isn’t 1980s enough, some people are threatening to flee the country and go live abroad, mimicking celebrity reactions to the idea of Labour being elected. Mary Bousted is tweeting every bit of the white paper that she thinks is ridiculous. The NUT are going to fight academisation to the death (or near enough).

There’s a petition which has over 100,000 signatures. People power to the rescue? There will have to be a debate about a public inquiry into academising all schools. Nevermind that there was going to be a debate about the white paper regardless.

In EduTwitterWorld revolution is in the air but how educators from EYFS to Higher Education are going to manage it given their breathtaking lack of understanding of the British political and electoral systems, is beyond me.

Here’s a guide from an ex-political scientist.

UK Population: 63 million

Electorate: The exact number who are eligible to vote depend on who is eligible to vote and this differs (see: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/total_number_of_registered_voter).Before anyone spots a conspiracy theory – actually go ahead – if the trains heading to Paranoia Central I’m not going to stop it reaching it’s destination.

The BBC’s election 2015 website stated 46 million (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results) however it’s not clear if this is registered or eligible voters.

Electoral System:

“It’s not fair – we need PR”

Well there have been many attempts to reform the electoral system – see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_reform#United_Kingdom for a quick overview. It is worth noting that demands for PR usually come from those whose party have lost the election and really don’t like the party who won. It is rare that such arguments are made when one is happy with the results, government or policy being implemented. Neither has the electorate penalised any of the political parties for failing to introduce electoral reform.

“Not enough choice. They’re all the same”

Sigh – will come to this later.

“But the Conservatives don’t represent the country they only won a minority of votes”

Indeed they got 36.9% of the vote share but crucially in a first past the post system it is winning constituency seats that matter. They did get a majority – with 331 seats overall.

Is it unfair? Let’s look at the 1945 election in comparison:

Your eyes are not deceiving you – the Labour Party won a majority of seats with a minority of the overall votes. Yep – just like the Conservatives in 2015.

47.7% is better than 36.9% I grant you, but still a minority of the votes and any argument that hinges on a government needing a majority of the votes applies here too. The turnout was better but not by much 72.9 % compared to 67.7%. Still roughly a third of voters did not vote in either election.

“The majority did not vote for the Conservatives or their policies”

The majority of those (registered or eligible) to vote in 1945 did not vote for the NHS, the system of welfare benefits for the sick and unemployed, free secondary education for all, nationalisation of industries or full employment.

Now if you are Labour and you have a beef at the moment, then the Conservatives in 1945 would have had an even bigger one – they won 36.2% of the vote compared to Labour’s 30.4% in the last election. Oh I know the Corbynites think that they have the third of voters who didn’t vote in the bag but proof of the pudding is putting x’s on ballot papers.

“But it’s not in their manifesto – no one voted for it”

Well here’s the Labour Party manifesto from 1945. There are many things the Labour Party did in their term of office, including maintaining rationing, that were not in the manifesto. Manifestos are rarely adhered to in their entirety, usually because circumstances influence what you can implement.

“But they should stick to their manifestos.”

Should they? In which case the Conservatives should not have agreed to fly in 20 000 refugees – wasn’t in their manifesto.

“That’s different”

Remarkable how it always is.

“Attlee was different, he ran the government for the whole country”

Well it’s clear from the fact that a welfare state was introduced that he didn’t give a fuck about the overall percentage of votes, the opposition or those who did not vote. Neither did he worry about representing the entire nation’s views.

If you don’t like first past the post, fine. You live in a country where you can do something about it. If you think that you can only choose from the main political parties then let me show you the 2015 results again.

Even the stoneheads managed to get their act together, started up Cannabis is Safer than Alcohol and stood some candidates. All political parties start somewhere.

Democracy does not lead to utopia. It involves compromise. It involves putting up with the occasional government you don’t like. It involves the implementation of policies that you will not always agree with. If you think the Conservatives are evil incarnate so be it. I think I have a greater claim than most on having been adversely affected by the Conservative governments in the 1980s – but they are not on a par with undemocratic regimes I studied and spent years writing essays about.

First Past the Post may not be ideal for some but PR systems ultimately have winners and losers too and their own lists of pros and cons.

The anomalies of the first past the post system have existed for a long time. Change it by all means but retrospectively delegitimising governments because they are not to your liking does not wash.

The 2015 elections were free and fair (fair in the way they were held rather than fair to you personally and if that is patronising – well I am doing my best here in the face of what is utter ignorance of the system we live in, it’s history and evolution over time).

Personally, I would rather have an imperfect democracy – Conservative government and all – than exist under the dicatatorship of the self-appointed righteousnous police made up of educationalists (who think votes only count if cast by people they agree with for MPs they want in parliament).

And if I am going to live in a dicatorship then of course I want it to be to my liking and sure as hell not yours!