Tim Oates, the reasons for scrapping levels: AIBU to think this is a load of patronising doublespeak?

[diamondage]

Thank you mrz for in the thread titled: Does lack of levels mean poor progress shrouded? This is not, however, a TAAT.

It seems that Tim Oates (currently on the Cambridge Assessment Executive Board and previously of the QCA) had some very interesting things to say about why levels were bad and therefore required scrapping:-

1. Children negatively label themselves using levels. Of course children are completely incapable of knowing who finds subjects easy or hard without those bad old levels, so that's a quick win as self esteem will soar without levels. Never mind those new terms, below national standard or working towards national standard.
Win one.

2. Levels encourage undue pace to achieve maximum progress. In the past, with levels, children were apparently moved on without a deep, secure understanding. The new curriculum is a fundamental change due to teaching fewer things in greater depth, along with teachers ensuring children are ready to move on.

Of course any previous issues of undue pace and a lack of secure understanding was, most definitely, the fault of levels. Extra efficiency has been assured by issuing the new performance descriptors, which set out what pupils must achieve, i.e. the "national standard", without waiting to see what most pupils achieve after a reasonable period of being taught the new curriculum.

Do not dwell on the fact that the new curriculum has many things that were being taught to older children now being taught to younger children . This will not be the same as undue pace to achieve maximum progress because children will be taught at much greater depth.
Double win!

3. Levels are an 'odd idea'.
a) because test scores have low validity. This has been dealt with in the new curriculum by scoring the new tests differently which will ensure their greater validity.

b) APP was flawed due to being a best match, so that children were moved on before all concepts were understood. Teachers, you know it's true, and if you couldn't understand those bamboozling levels, what hope did us dim witted parents have?

c) Thresholds. Children could achieve L4 by being just in L4! This, of course, was the fault of levels and had nothing to do with where the threshold was set. It is good to know that there are no thresholds in the new national curriculum or the performance descriptors. The terms below national standard, working towards national standard, national standard and mastery, are in no way synonymous with thresholds. Just like the scaled score of the new tests - no thresholds there either.
Triple winneroo!!!

4. Other nations, that perform so much better than the UK in PISA, don't have levels. Whatever they use, it's not levels, nor anything like levels and therefore we can all see that previous poor performance in PISA was caused by those pesky, bamboozling levels.
Grand Slam!!!!

A final message to teachers from Tim:

You need to assess more, much more.

But differently, because in the past there has not been enough assessment of the right kind.

Previously you have not had to be experts in assessment - but now you need to be in a way you haven't been before. You need to think hard and choose questions that probe your pupils to see if they have really understood an item or body of knowledge you are teaching. What is required is rich Q&A that probes the knowledge of your pupils; along with probing and supportive learning.

Although you don't need to think that hard because there are hundreds of GCSE questions which you can use with kids of all ages even very young ones. These questions can be used to support learning and to assess whether your pupils have understood the ideas you are teaching.

And this is a really important and new approach.

End of Tim's message.

So whilst I brush the pile of egg shells away, let me hear you say hallelujah.

Our children are saved by the scrapping of levels. Watch us rise through PISA by deep, secure understanding, plenty of probing, no levels (stop using the old levels until you have new levels, there are to be no new levels (apart from those documents being created that look remarkably like old style APP grids but populated with the new curriculum)) and get searching for those old GCSE questions - our primary kids are ready!

Caveats:
This post précises excerpts of the video for effect.
This post is ironic and tongue in cheek at multiple points - I trust you can tell which points.
I apologise for the length of my post, but, given the content of the video, I just wanted to get it all out.

[ReallyTired]

I am glad that schools are thinking in terms of skills. I am utterly worried that my son cannot do a moderately difficult division sum without a calculator. I have been told not to worry as my son is 6B. I feel that the old level system allowed teachers to cover up terrible cracks in their teaching.

For a child to given the grading "exceding" or "mastered" they have to secure in most or all the work for that level. I feel that a child should not be allowed to leave primary with a decent grasp of arthrimetic just because they are good at geometry.

It is really a bad thing that mumsnetters can not boast that their child is level 100.

[EvilTwins]

The bit about kids pigeon-holing themselves is not bull. We started moving towards "life without levels" two years ago (secondary) and I have been assessing students at KS3 without the need for made-up levels and sub-levels ever since. First time I presented a yr 9 group with a skills progress grid and asked a child where he thought he was on it, he asked me what level it was. I told him that was irrelevant, and that he should look at where he was in terms of skills. The difference was quite astounding - children DO think of themselves as "level 5 in maths" or whatever. That first yr 9 group are yr 11 now. Not knowing what level they were at the end of KS3 has certainly not had a detrimental effect on their GCSE predictions.

My own childrens' school has never reported levels, except at the end of KS1. I have never thought that I don't know how my kids are doing.

[Micksy]

I think levels have been scrapped so that private industries can stop in and peddle their own various systems at profit. But then again, I am a cynic.

[mrz]

I think they will do the same as with EYs assessments and phonics ... they will produce a list of accredited programmes rather than a single national method.


Many programmes have already been, dare I say it, assessed to see if they are suitable.

[HPFA]

Never mind the schools, how will Mumsnet survive when we can't boast about our children's levels. All those posts starting "My five-year olds at Level 100 - is that good?" Saying "my child's above the national standard" just isn't going to sound the same.

[noblegiraffe]

There is no current system though, schools can do their own thing re assessment.

I agree that this is a national pilot. They won't let schools do their own thing for long.

[christinarossetti]

I went to a meeting at my dc's school about the new curriculum and 'transitional year'. It seemed to me that the government are using schools' resources to fund a pilot, at the end of which they'll take the bits they like, roll it our nationally and claim credit for it.

And any problems won't be their fault, as they were only going on what schools reported.

[mrz]

Well Tristan Hunt has stated he has no plans to alter the current system should Labour win the next election so it might not be wise to pin your hopes on that.

[Feenie]

I meant like the new curriculum of 2010 - must have been typing prophetically last night.

[rollonthesummer]

Actually, putting my head in the sand and ignoring new initiatives has been a pretty good teaching tactic for me so far.

Yep, I like this. Seems to work for me!

Except it isn't a new initiative, you can ignore, but a statutory requirement of the National Curriculum.

If the Torys are voted out next year, how long before that version of the NC is defunct?!

[noblegiraffe]

What does the national curriculum say?

[mrz]

Except it isn't a new initiative, you can ignore, but a statutory requirement of the National Curriculum.

[whathaveiforgottentoday]

opps didn't mean to cross that out, meant to make it bold. It must be bedtime!

[whathaveiforgottentoday]

Actually, putting my head in the sand and ignoring new initiatives has been a pretty good teaching tactic for me so far

Best advice I've heard in a long time and something I adapted long ago!
To be honest I adapt the ones I like and ignore those I don't. Generally most go away in the end.

Our discussions on levels generally go along the lines of 'what the fuck are we going to do?' 'What are the primary feeder schools doing?...... oh they don't know either' 'Well lets keep the current levels and wait and see what everybody else does!'

[Feenie]

Every school in the country working on this problem individually is such a waste of time and resources.

Especially when they know it might all get chucked out come May, exactly like the new curriculum of 2014.

Currently waiting out growth mindset also

[noblegiraffe]

Actually, putting my head in the sand and ignoring new initiatives has been a pretty good teaching tactic for me so far. The amount of stuff that I could have been an enthusiastic early adopter for that was then shelved or found to be balls has saved me from wasting time on two different VLEs, VAK learning, iPads in the classroom and loads of other minor stuff. I'm currently waiting out 'growth mindset'.

I bet something new will come out about assessment in the next couple of years and all schools will be forced into doing something else.

[mrz]

Schools putting their heads in the sand and hoping someone will tell them what to do isn't a good way forward ... How long do they plan to wait?

[mrz]

Now noblegiraffe they were just giving teachers the freedom to use their professional judgement

[noblegiraffe]

Yeah, but given that when asked what sort of system should be implemented the DfE just shrugged their shoulders, said 'fucked if we know' and then offered thousands of pounds to any school who could come up with something halfway decent, it's not surprising that some schools have waited to see if some other school nails it so they can steal it.

Every school in the country working on this problem individually is such a waste of time and resources.

[mrz]

Schools have known since June 2012 that they needed to have a system in place for September 2014 to replace levels - hardly knee jerk

[voddiekeepsmesane]

My child is in year 6 and is part of the last cohort to get levels. Personally I think this 4 tier system ...eg below attainment, working towards attainment, expected attainment or beyond attainment is silly and reminds me of Early years attainment, surely children and parents are eyond this by end of KS2.

They say children were pigeon holeing themselves into a level and giving them a "fixed mindset" according to the report. What a load of bollocks. and being in one of these 4 catergories is to going to pigeon hole children??? My child happens to be in the top 10% of his school year and is set to attain level 5A/6 in his year 6 SATs, A working above attainment is not a true representation of where he is at and for those of us that have had to do 11+ unless we go and get them assessed by outside tutors then we would not know whether they were able enough to take the test.

Also really feel for future parents who are looking at schools to send their child to and all the get is a percentage of children that are "beyond attainment"doesn't really give that much information, It's like the senior schools saying they have 90% A-C GCSEs but actually only have 5% A-A

[LePetitMarseillais]

What's scary about a gradual change over as opposed to instant knee jerk?

Frankly I couldn't give a stuff what they do as long as they inform us parents sooner rather than later.

[mrz]

Very very scary!

[toomuchicecream]

The advice from the county I teach in (large, high achieving) is to carry on using levels for another year - they've even provided resources to match the new curriculum to levels.

[noblegiraffe]

The APP grids with low, secure and high made perfect sense to me, capturing how a child will be at different points within different strands (depending on individual strengths and weaknesses) and requiring teachers to use professional judgement regarding how to level them overall.

Yeah, that doesn't sound like totally subjective bollocks at all . And a load of extra paperwork for teachers too. APP was thankfully ditched before it came near secondary.