The authors,  Francesca Wah and Tick Ngee Sim of the National University of Singapore’s Psychology Department say that if we want to keep pushing for excellence in our classrooms, we need to be applying more evidence-based practice.

Be aware that the age range of the children involved is ‘Primary 3 and 4’.

• 1,000 primary age children
• Found that children of all abilities who competed in groups against other groups (rewards such as verbal praise and actual prizes) achieved higher scores
• Suggests that a common goal of winning and an ‘us versus them’ mindset encourages higher achieving pupils to help the weakest in their group do better.
• A team approach is preferable to rewarding just the best student  at the expense of others
•  It was also found that these children became more prosocial.

The authors are critical of some previous work done on reward – noting that several have been in ‘laboratory-like’ conditions that are not like classrooms at all.

They note that different rewards work for different pedagogical approaches and that ability level plays a significant part in response to the reward incentive.

There are some very interesting comments, such as the citing of Sansone and Harackiewicz (2000) who argue that rewards only work for those who think they can achieve them.

There are very complex issues at play here and the whole paper needs to be read carefully. There are many nuances.

However, the authors claim that cooperative-competitive reward is a way forward (at least for their researched group) and that we can stop discussing whether or not to use rewards and think about how best to use them.

This report strongly believes that education is the way to providing opportunities.

Much of the content relates to young offenders and suggests how departments such as the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office can play their part. However, it is this paragraph in the Conclusions and Recommendations section that sharpens the focus on our work:

“9. We are deeply concerned by the evidence we received around the downgrading of arts subjects in schools, with all the consequent implications for children’s development, wellbeing, experiences, careers and, ultimately, life chances. It is not enough for the DCMS and DfE to simply expect schools to provide a ‘broad and balanced curriculum’: they need to take action to ensure that this is actually happening. The Government has not shied away from a prescriptive approach to other facets of education policy, for example specifying which times tables primary school children need to learn.(Paragraph 74)”

OfSted’s role in this is also highlighted:

“12. The Education Minister told us that Ofsted will be ‘strengthening’ its inspection regime during 2019. The DfE and DCMS should work alongside Ofsted to design an inspection regime for primary and secondary schools that measures the volume of cultural education; the integration of cultural education with other areas of the curriculum; and the universality of schools’ cultural offers in ensuring that all children have access to the benefits that cultural participation can bring.”

They state that

• they are deeply concerned about the gap between the Government’s reassuring rhetoric and the evidence presented to us of the decline in music provision in state schools
• The Government should commit to extend funding for the Primary PE and Sport Premium beyond 2020.

Do you think that this is work that a lot of people in our schools will be interested to see?  Don’t keep it hidden away. 

The author ( Benjamin M. P. Cuff, from Ofqual’s Strategy Risk and Research directorate) is keen to point out that:

‘This report does not attempt to arrive at any conclusions as to which assessment method is ‘best’, because such conclusions would largely depend upon the purpose and uses of particular assessments within individual contexts.’

We think that the coverage of international practice is interesting. In this section, the author posed these questions:

1. What is the main method of assessing writing?

2. What are the main intended uses of the outcomes of the assessment?

3. What are the stakes of the assessment?

4. What specific skills within writing does the assessment aim to cover?

5. How is the assessment marked/graded?

The assessments reviewed are part of a wider assessment approach that includes other subjects – reading, maths, science, and/or social studies. There are low-stake and high-stake tests noted.

A range of assessment methods is noted, including multiple-choice and computer based variations., some of which are adaptive (responding to how well the students answers questions).

There is certainly variety in the approaches (p23).

• Most other jurisdictions  assess writing via an external test – some paper-based, some computer-based.  England is the only one that uses teacher assessment.
• Although most use ‘extended response’ – requiring a response of at least one paragraph in length, some are based upon  short-responses : single words/sentences or multiple-choice.
• Some assessments focus  on writing for specific purposes (eg narrative or informative writing), some have an expectation that pupils should be able to write for a range of purposes (in a less specific manner), and others have very little or no focus on writing for a particular purpose.
• In some, pupils produce a relatively small amount of material for assessment (eg multiple-choice tests); in others, they produce a relatively large amount (eg portfolios).
• For extended responses, a best-fit level descriptors approach (ie where assessment decisions are made according to fairly holistic descriptions of attainment), whereas only  England uses a secure-fit model (specific ‘pupil-can’ statements).
• Finally, variation also exists in the intended uses of assessment outcomes, in terms of providing information on pupils, schools, and/or jurisdictions. Some assessments are used for high-stakes purposes, whereas others are not.

The international perspective is interesting. Have a look at the report for the finer details and percentages.

In several places it looks like England is the only place that uses particular approach. It is for you to decide whether this is good or not.

Accountability and performance are key factors. The sustainability of these pressures contributes significantly.

The authors say that ‘teacher attrition constitutes a problem for governments internationally’ and cite a 2002 report that 46% of teachers in USA leave within 5 years of starting. This appears to be the highest.

They suggest that performativity (performing in order to demonstrate competence) can lead to a sense of deprofessionalisation as teachers  and that schools are ‘increasingly preoccupied with policies of achievement, particularly examination results.’

Notably, lack of support from management by 38% of respondents sends a message to leadership.

The authors also offer some useful caveats, such as:

‘… there is the problem that response might be limited to only those who feel they have something to say, either positive or negative’.

This report by Cambridge University  (Nuffield Foundation funded) says that ‘maths anxiety’ may be fuelling a national crisis. It states that one in ten children suffer from overwhelming negative emotions towards the subject, ranging from rage to despair.

The work is done having questioned 1,700 children aged 8 – 13. These negative thoughts are not confined to lower achievers,  but with  77% of those with ‘maths anxiety’ are normal to high achievers.

The report notes the vicious circle of anxiety leading to poor performance and, in turn, that increasing the level of anxiety.

It is also reported that girls suffer more form this situation.

The RECOMMENDATIONS are on p 4.

Summarised:

o Teachers – be conscious that  maths anxiety can affects mathematics performance.

o Teachers and parents –  be conscious of the fact that your own mathematics anxiety might influence student mathematics anxiety. Recognise that gendered stereotypes about mathematics
suitability and ability might drive to some degree the gender gap in maths performance.

o SO, parents and teachers –  the first step to helping your children or students could be tackling your own anxieties and belief systems in mathematics .

o The situation can be best remediated before any strong link with performance begins to emerge.

o Teacher training should clearly highlight the role of both cognitive and affective factors behind maths learning in schools.

This academic paper by  Laura A. Outhwaite,  Anthea Gulliford and Nicola J. Pitchford (University of Nottingham) and Marc Faulder (Burton Joyce Primary School) is titled –  A Randomized Control Trial Raising Early Achievement in Math With Interactive Apps.

The Ethical Leadership Commission, founded by The Association of School and College Leaders in 2017 has published this report.

Driven by recognising issues around:

• How well do we fulfil our roles as trusted educators?
• What kind of role models are we for the children in our care?

… this ethical framework, they suggest, could help boost teacher recruitment and retention.

You need to be aware that this is published by a professional association and might reflect its political leaning. We make no comments here about that. As usual, it is for you to come to your own conclusions.

To give you a flavour of the report, this is quoted from p11:

“Schools and colleges serve children and young people and help them grow into fulfilled and valued citizens. As role models for the young, how we behave as leaders is as important as what we do.

Leaders should show Leadership through the following personal characteristics or virtues:

Trust | leaders are trustworthy and reliable
We hold trust on behalf of children and should be beyond reproach. We are honest about our motivations.

Wisdom | leaders use experience, knowledge and insight
We demonstrate moderation and self-awareness. We act calmly and rationally. We serve our schools and colleges with
propriety and good sense.

Kindness | leaders demonstrate respect, generosity of spirit, understanding and good temper
We give difficult messages humanely where conflict is unavoidable.
Justice | leaders are fair and work for the good of all children
We seek to enable all young people to lead useful, happy and fulfilling lives.

Service | leaders are conscientious and dutiful
We demonstrate humility and self-control, supporting the structures, conventions and rules which safeguard quality. Our
actions protect high-quality education.

Courage | leaders work courageously in the best interests of children and young people
We protect their safety and their right to a broad, effective and creative education. We hold one another to account
courageously.

Optimism | leaders are positive and encouraging
Despite difficulties and pressures, we are developing excellent education to change the world for the better.”

There are comments relating to Initial Teacher Training. Creating an ethical climate in the school is an important consideration.

There is a recognition that schools are not being led particularly ‘ethically’ at the moment. This is a reaction to that.

This is a useful discussion point for anyone who is concerned about how accountability has affected leadership and, therefore, teachers’ work.

GL Assessments Survey Report asks several key questions. The say their research, “… makes for sobering reading.”

They  comment:

“It is hard to find anyone – teacher, employer, parent,
politician or policymaker – who isn’t in favour of a broad and
balanced curriculum.”

One answer:

“In England the accountability system wags everything else,”
says Stephen Tierney, CEO of the Blessed Edward Bamber Multi Academy Trust.

In its conclusion, the survey report states:

“There are, too, widespread fears about the immediate and
negative effects exam pressure is having on student wellbeing
and behaviour… The responsibility for that they lay firmly at the door of school accountability.”

The report notes that some secondary schools are starting work on GCSE programmes in Year 7 and that there are similar pressures in the run up to KS2  national tests.

Here are some of the Key Findings:

• 71 % of teachers are concerned that teaching a more restricted curriculum has a negative impact on classroom behaviour.
• 65% said parents ought to be worried about children being
  moved onto a so-called “GCSE flight path” too early,  61% of parents agreed.
• 87% of teachers believe teaching pupils a more rounded curriculum from a younger age would better prepare children for later academic success. 76 % of parents  agreed.
• 91%  of teachers and  believe teaching pupils a more
  rounded curriculum from a younger age would better prepare children for life after school. 78 % of parents agreed
• 78 % think a restricted curriculum does not address children who
  develop at a later stage than their peers.
• 72% think that students have switched off from school because of earlier experiences of exams

There are five years worth of teachers that have never worked with National Curriculum levels, so having this information is good. It puts where we are now into context.  The document is here.

As usual, we suggest you look at the parts of the document that apply to you.

The removal of levels was hoped to

• provide the chance for increasing pupil motivation and engagement
• make better use of formative assessment in the classroom
• reduce the time spent by teachers in recording and tracking
• release time for more in-depth teaching and formative assessment

Whether or not that has been the case in your school will depend on how its leaders have approached things.

Case studies tend to be the best evidence (as long as they haven’t been chosen to make a specific point whilst disregarding any alternative evidence). With this is mind, have a look at the blue boxes for examples. Here are some extracts-

p19: Example 1: one school’s response to AWL
A secondary academy developed its own bespoke assessment system which has subsequently been adopted by other schools in the MAT. The approach is underpinned by the school’s belief that assessment should be driven by curriculum design. Curriculum
leads began by devising key performance indicators (KPIs) based on their curriculum and what they expected students to achieve by the end of year 11 (in their GCSEs). They then worked backwards to identify what needed to be achieved at different points along
the way. The curriculum and KPIs focus on 3 key skill areas – knowledge, understanding and literacy. Teachers devised their own summative tests to ensure that they related to the school’s curriculum. A teacher explained how this prioritised high-quality teaching:
‘It’s made us write the Scheme of Work first and think about the learning and the assessment comes afterwards. Whereas before [we] would have written all the assessments and then written the Scheme of Work around the assessment.’

p20: A senior leader said that the staff were pleased to remove levels, because they considered them to be ‘meaningless’. Now the focus has moved towards students learning the curriculum content and meeting individual targets, with assessment being used to monitor and support this.

Example 5 p42: improved communication with parents
Staff at this large maintained primary school had found it challenging to engage parents in their child’s education. Prior to the removal of levels, staff identified a need to work with parents to explain the upcoming changes and the details of their new approach. They wrote to parents using plain language to describe their new assessment model.
Parents receive reports called ‘progress maps’ 3 times a year in the autumn, spring and summer terms. The system uses emoji faces to summarise each student’s attainment and progress in core subjects. The progress maps also include individual targets for each
subject and tips on how parents can support their children’s education outside of school.
Describing their approach, a year 4 teacher explained ‘Our reporting starts off on the basis of ‘is your child at, above or below expected’. Parents understand this clearly. If the children are below, we still frame it in a positive way and explain [that] ‘your child is below
the expected at the moment, so we’re doing this, this and this to help your child’.’
Parents are also invited into school for face-to-face progress meetings so that teachers can explain anything parents do not understand in the progress reports. In order to encourage parents to attend, the school offers whole-day informal ‘drop-ins’ to provide
increased flexibility. Staff report that these sessions have increased parental engagement – attendance at the ‘drop-ins’ has been good, with an average of 20 parents attending from a class of 30 pupils.

SEND implications? p27

Only a minority of interviewees felt that their school’s assessment approach worked well for pupils with SEN. Others said that their school’s approach did not adequately recognise the small steps of progress made by pupils with SEN. This concern was typically, but not exclusively, mentioned by interviewees from primary
schools.

The workload issue? p27

Most interviewees reported that teachers were now spending a similar amount of time on assessment as before. A few reported a continuing increase in workload due to the requirements of their school’s new approach.

We often hear what business wants from schools and there is no shortage of horror stories about school leavers who can hardly read, write or do the most basic arithmetic.

This report puts some evidence forward. Paragraphs like this:

“The majority of businesses reported that they are satisfied with the academic results and/ or qualifications of young people who have applied for jobs during the past 12 months, with fewer than one in ten (9%) reporting dissatisfaction.”

Here are some selected quotes, directly taken from the document. As usual, we suggest you look at sections that apply to/ interest you most.

• Standards of literacy and numeracy are a cause for concern, with one in four employers (25%) not satisfied, while around two in five businesses are not satisfied with the aptitude and readiness for work of young applicants (44%) and/or broader skills such as communicating and problem-solving (38%)

• In the primary school phase of education, up to age 11, the majority of businesses want to see schools developing pupils’ STEM skills (82% rank this among the top three most important areas for action), together with digital and IT skills and broader skills such as teamwork, creativity and listening (72% and 70% respectively)

• To achieve the government’s ambition for a ‘Global Britain’, we have to get language teaching in our schools right, with the major European languages of French (54%), German (51%) and Spanish (50%) most commonly in demand among businesses.

The authors are keen to promote the improvement of IT skills.

More evidence to support some kind of coverage of languages, teamwork, creativity, listening, communicating and problem solving.