1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

DfE Consultation on Primary Assessment - please respond

Discussion in 'Primary' started by geoconuk, Nov 12, 2014.

  1. geoconuk

    geoconuk New commenter

    Apologies if I've missed it already, but has there been a discussion about the current consultation on primary assessment (closing 18th December)? I am very worried about the implications of this proposal.

    The consultation itself is at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/performance-descriptors-key-stages-1-and-2 and my response (which people should feel free to use in part or in whole) is at https://www.scribd.com/doc/246073668/Draft-Response-to-DfE-Consultation.

    I just submitted this response (it only takes a few minutes via the website) and got a confirmation that I am respondee number 78, which seems to be a very low number given the impact this could make!

    Thank you,

  2. lardylegs

    lardylegs Occasional commenter

    UP! Just had a look at this. What a load of cobblers. Working towards v below? What's the difference? Who can tell? Good response, George, too.

    So, does YOUR Headteacher know about this? If not, why not? What are they doing to earn their megabucks, other than sitting on their backsides in that office dispensing staff targets ("I'm disappointed, Lardy, that you've failed to meet this target for the 3rd year running..." No ***, Sherlock and what are you going to do about it? Dock my pay? Bring it on) and "Well done, you're a superstar" stickers to the kids who don't smear the walls with excrement that day?
  3. s1oux

    s1oux New commenter

    What a fantastic, measured, well articulated response. I couldn't agree with you more. I'll respond too, with the hope that someone reads and listens, which unfortunately, I doubt.
  4. mystery10

    mystery10 Occasional commenter

    I know I am being dense and I have only flicked through it, but why is there only national standard at KS2 in maths, reading and science?
  5. michaelt1979

    michaelt1979 Occasional commenter

    Because they'll only be interested in their test score for those subjects. They've had to make up levels for writing because they scrapped the tests.

    Incidentally, can I echo the original post. We really need to act as a profession to try to get these changed. I've blogged about their many problems here:

  6. mystery10

    mystery10 Occasional commenter

    Well that's kind of what I thought. But what's the point in calling it a teacher assessment in the other areas and then only having one thing on offer to use which is "national standard". I don't really understand the logic. And wouldn't it be useful to have a list of things which a child might have to achieve in the KS2 tests to be below national standard, approaching national standard, above national standard, master, black belt etc
  7. michaelt1979

    michaelt1979 Occasional commenter

    It might... but you're thinking of it from a teaching & learning point of view.

    These have been written from an accountability point of view. The two are almost mutually exclusive!
  8. geoconuk

    geoconuk New commenter

    I decided to also send a letter to my MP via writetothem.com. I suggest others do likewise!
  9. Benbamboo

    Benbamboo Occasional commenter

    Replying to this for the bump. It seems to be a consultation in name only, left on the website for those who look but no-one I know has been sent it to be consulted on. It was brought up in our recent SMT meeting as our deputy happened to find it. I will be responding for sure.

    - Why so many criteria for teacher assessed writing, but only a pass/fail for externally tested papers in reading and maths? Does this signify a lack of trust in the profession to assess their own pupils accurately?

    - How is 'working towards' not the same as 'below national standards'?

    - Why include a science assessment at all? Are there no attainment targets or expectations for ANY other subject? Don't they matter any more?

    - How is the data to be presented when published?

    - Given that there are two scales BELOW national standard, but only one above, is there a lack of recognition for the gifted and talented students, since there is a category that the most severe SEN children will occupy, why not have one for the most gifted?

    - Why is there an attainment gap between P scales and 'below national average'? The consultation document says a separate grade will be added at a future data to cover this gap, why not make the 'below national average' strand start at the end of P8? What is the purpose of having a third different grading criteria after P scales and the new suggestions just to fill a gap?

    Cynically, a pass/fail exam at the end of primary school is a back door return for the 11+. The only positive I find for this is that it matches the national curriculum objectives at end of KS1 and KS2 so we aren't juggling objectives. Otherwise it just seems pointlessly vague, almost like they are making it up because they don't know how the new curriculum will work and plan to fill in the gaps later.
  10. modgepodge

    modgepodge Established commenter

    I'm baffled. Surely any child who doesn't reach the 'working towards' target is by definition, below he standard, why bother to spell out what 'below' would look like? What if a child can't meet the below expectations?!

    Also, there's a big focus on enjoying reading and choosing to do so at ks1 and ks2. Whilst in an ideal world, all children would love reading, some just don't. They can read, they can understand, their reading is perfectly functional for educational purposes; are they below the required standard?

    All a bit confusing if you ask me.
  11. mystery10

    mystery10 Occasional commenter

    I am glad it isn't just me that is confused. All the previous national curriculum documents made complete sense to me - whether or not one agreed with them. This one just baffles me. Is it because of some personnel changes I wonder? It needs a re-write.

Share This Page