Sue Hackman AAIA September 2007 Developing assessment

Key Stage 3 English (2006)

Key Stage 3 English: high attainers (2006)

Key Stage 2 Maths (2006)

Key Stage 4 Maths: FSM boys (2006)

Key Stage 3 English 2006 GirlsBoys

Addington High School KS3 English % of pupils achieved Level 5 or above in % of pupils achieved Level 5 or above in % achieved Level 4, of which: 3% Absent 5% Stuck at Level 4 11% Slow Moving through Level 4 1% Fast Moving through Level 4 0% Regressed to Level 4 2% No KS2 record 5% at Level 3 12% at Level 2 or below

Two different Local Authorities White FSM Boys GCSE English Key Local Authority ALocal Authority B

The elements of the Making Good Progress Pilot Progression tuition One-to-one tuition for pupils who entered below national expectations, and still making slow progress. Progression premium An incentive payment to improve the proportion of pupils adding 2 levels of progress Assessment for progression Level-by-level “when-ready” tests to improve the pace of progression Pupil tracking, reported termly. Progression targets Increase by 4% the number of pupils making 2 levels of progress in the key stage” – it would apply to all pupils. Key stages:KS2 and KS3 Subjects:English and mathematics Local Authorities:10 LAs, geographical spread Duration:Two year pilot over 2007/08 and 2008/09

152 responses, a third of which were from professional associations, unions and other groups Most respondents agreed that the whole system should have a stronger focus on progression 65% of respondents agreed that we should pilot the four strands described in the consultation document The big picture of responses for each strand of the pilot: Assessment for learning: strong support for a more systematic approach Single-level tests: quite strong support, but there were some concerns about how the tests will work, over-testing and teacher workload Targets: responses varied; some questioned the whether two levels of progress per key stage is the right target Premium: the least popular strand; many not convinced it would reach the hardest-to-reach pupils Responses to the MGP consultation

Levels 1-8 Sheet of A3 for Reading, Writing, mathematics Termly reporting (sub-levelled high/medium/low) Underpinned by APP Same criteria used in Single Level Tests Tracking

Reading, Writing, mathematics Like the Music model Externally marked Twice-yearly window – an opportunity not a compulsion Short Entry when teacher is sure the pupil is secure at that level Expect most pupils to pass if accurately teacher-assessed Latest result in the result Single level tests

Retains accountability Emphasises the forward trajectory as well as the accurate assessment of individuals Attends to all children, not just borderliners Motivational during long key stages Teacher assessment leads, the test is confirmatory Tracking criteria are also the test criteria The MGP pilot backs up assessments with research, tuition and incentives Benefits

Securing continuity of standards The initial bulge of entries Having to do both types of test What happens if it works? Some headaches at this stage

Progression Personalisation Assessment for learning (the promised training) Intervention Same thing, really An integrated agenda

Moving from Catching up to Keeping up Fewer set piece ‘by age’ programmes, more ‘just in time’ interventions by stage Alignment of other progression ladders in system Teaching by stage A significant change Implications for practice

Questions and comments? Now and later AAIA’s role

Sue Hackman AAIA September 2007 Developing assessment