The Michael Gove File

[ViolentPanda]

Thanks for the ad hominem. Do you actually have a counterargument?

It's not an ad hominem (check out the meaning, then facepalm yourself). It's an opinion on the content of your posts, where you've continually pooh-poohed things that don't, in your opinion, give accurate measures/assessments.
An ad hominem would have been "I bet you're a shit maths teacher, you're so managerialist".

Just to add, I doubt you're a "shit maths teacher", in case you take the example personally.

 

[SLK]

It's not an ad hominem (check out the meaning, then facepalm yourself). It's an opinion on the content of your posts, where you've continually pooh-poohed things that don't, in your opinion, give accurate measures/assessments.
An ad hominem would have been "I bet you're a shit maths teacher, you're so managerialist".

Just to add, I doubt you're a "shit maths teacher", in case you take the example personally.

You commented on me as a person rather than the actual content of the posts.
Yes, I pooh-poohed National Curriculum levels. They've received widespread condemnation and I've given links to better explanations than mine. I'm not really sure what the problem with condemning something for not effectively doing what it is supposed to be doing is? You clearly don't have a counterargument so you went for the person.

 

[SLK]

(check out the meaning, then facepalm yourself)

Jesus Christ. Seriously?

 

[Balbi]

Are you a secondary teacher SLK?

 

[spanglechick]

Levelling work is not a reliable assessment. Not surprising as that's not what levels are for. Not surprising as levels largely assess vague "skills" and not surprising given the breadth of levels (students can be level 8 on one thing (though a different teacher will give level 7) and level 4 on another). They're ridiculous.

So what is it that we're replacing them with that will be more reliable. It's like, my PVR sometimes records things but won't play them back properly. It needs replacing. But until I have something better to replace it with, I won't just go without entirely, cos most of the time, it's fine.

Also, why the scare quotes around "skills"?

 

[SLK]

So what is it that we're replacing them with that will be more reliable. It's like, my PVR sometimes records things but won't play them back properly. It needs replacing. But until I have something better to replace it with, I won't just go without entirely, cos most of the time, it's fine.

Also, why the scare quotes around "skills"?

I think some teachers have some form of Stockholm syndrome about levels.

Did you teach before levels? Were you able to assess and formulate a way forward. Levels were supposed to summarise assessment for each key stage. As has been correctly said, they weren't supposed to be bastardised and form targets and awful assumptions about linear progress in all subjects. Worse, they formed the growth of things like APP - which led to dozens of hours being spent levelling on different Assessment Foci every week in the core subjects (fortunately the materials were never distributed for all the foundation subjects as the people writing them got stuck, realising (apparently) that levels aren't for that - I think that was the start of the end [and then there was a change in government anyway])

That's up to schools to work out a valid form of assessment. I've already said I don't know what they're being replaced with - and I do have concerns about that. I'd much rather there was a ready made replacement. I know several Academy chains are working something out and will probably sell their models. There are already several different and better models on the market for maths than levels.

I understand some of my peers worries that the system of assessment won't be transferable between schools, but I genuinely think nothing is better than levels as they currently stand - they mitigate against progress, cap aspiration, and are an insult to teachers with subject knowledge. Daisy Christodoulou has collected a series of links with really exciting things that teachers and others are doing with the opportunity here: http://thewingtoheaven.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/replacing-national-curriculum-levels/

Incidentally, Tom Sherrington in that list has just been appointed head of Highbury Grove, which will be excellent for them.

Also from that link, this paper: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9817.1995.tb00063.x/abstract shows that students with a KS1 level 2 in reading had reading ages varying from 5-10. As if levels are helpful assessments!

 

[spanglechick]

I think some teachers have some form of Stockholm syndrome about levels.

Did you teach before levels? Were you able to assess and formulate a way forward. Levels were supposed to summarise assessment for each key stage. As has been correctly said, they weren't supposed to be bastardised and form targets and awful assumptions about linear progress in all subjects. Worse, they formed the growth of things like APP - which led to dozens of hours being spent levelling on different Assessment Foci every week in the core subjects (fortunately the materials were never distributed for all the foundation subjects as the people writing them got stuck, realising (apparently) that levels aren't for that - I think that was the start of the end [and then there was a change in government anyway])

That's up to schools to work out a valid form of assessment. I've already said I don't know what they're being replaced with - and I do have concerns about that. I'd much rather there was a ready made replacement. I know several Academy chains are working something out and will probably sell their models. There are already several different and better models on the market for maths than levels.

I understand some of my peers worries that the system of assessment won't be transferable between schools, but I genuinely think nothing is better than levels as they currently stand - they mitigate against progress, cap aspiration, and are an insult to teachers with subject knowledge. Daisy Christodoulou has collected a series of links with really exciting things that teachers and others are doing with the opportunity here: http://thewingtoheaven.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/replacing-national-curriculum-levels/

Incidentally, Tom Sherrington in that list has just been appointed head of Highbury Grove, which will be excellent for them.

Also from that link, this paper: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9817.1995.tb00063.x/abstract shows that students with a KS1 level 2 in reading had reading ages varying from 5-10. As if levels are helpful assessments!

i thin k you're misunderstanding what I and others are saying to you. No one is saying keep levels forever. We're just saying we want something better first. If the problem is inconsistency across different schools and staff, what you're suggesting surely just makes that worse... because surely you don't imagine that when we scrap levels they'll be abandoning the overwhelming tracking and monitoring we have now? How will they implement PRP if we don't have standardised progress? Gove is a cunt who presumes all teachers are incompetent and he and his minions will keep scrutinising the data until he proves that they are. There's no fucking way that we won't have some kind of measurable progress standard, and for teachers' own protection, that needs to be nationally recognised.

Of course, BITD we taught without levels, but in the past we weren't dealing with the performance management we have now and ofsted's criteria were completely different. Much as i'd love it, scrapping levels will do nothing to take us back to a time when teachers were trusted to oversee students' progress. What I will put money on, is that we'll be pressured just as much to achieve ridiculous, linear targets, but be robbed of any metric to map our progress to them.


And I'd still like to know what you meant by putting "skills" in scare quotes, because as a teacher of a skills subject, it seems properly fucking arrogant.

 

[SLK]

Levels do not ensure consistency, they are not just open to interpretation, but less effective than throwing a dice. Have you read any of the links I've given you or are you just determined to repeat the same thing. Levels are not suitable for purpose. By ditching them we ditch nothing useful.

I'm glad you've backed down on suggesting we can't tell kids how well they're doing or where they have to go without levels.

Earlier you were saying they were necessary for kids to know where they are and the English levels were accurate. Then I showed you that one level can be a difference of 5 years in reading ages (hence illustrating they're not only not accurate, but wildly nuts - I said that English is often used as the levels that are observably impossible to use), and now it's for teachers' protection in a performance management system. It sounds like you're not really sure why you're defending them. And it sounds like you haven't bothered to read any links.

We're an academy and due to our freedoms we're not imposing PRP. There's also nothing in the OFSTED evaluation schedule about it (despite inspectors believing there is) and we're confident enough to challenge any suggestion that we should provide the "anonymised piece of paper".

I also think that the scrapping of levels has encouraged schools to explore alternatives to levels. I gave another link to colleagues who are, and there are hundreds more examples. If levels still existed, it's unlikely that we'd be doing this. Events like the research in education conference in Birmingham, or the one in York, both of which I'm attending on my weekends, wouldn't have as big a focus on assessment. And I genuinely think developing an assessment system that is fit for purpose is the most important thing schools can be doing in the medium term at the moment.

I've no idea why I put skills in scare quotes. If you're determined to be offended I've given my view earlier and you've said you disagree. As I've said earlier that skills are built on knowledge and don't transfer across disciplines, and that I follow the argument in the seven myths about education. I think I pointed out Tom Bennett's superb front page TES from earlier this year. A basic version is that I think that skills are two or more pieces of knowledge rubbing against each other.

You don't agree. Be offended if you like. You have made all sorts of assertions about things that are supposed to (eg) "happen automatically" and then refuse to back that up when I ask you to.

I'd prefer there was something else in place. That doesn't mean we should keep an assessment system that is foisted on schools (sadly it still is by OFSTED as inspectors fail to get the message handed down by Cladingbowl and the like) and is inferior to that which trained teachers of subjects are able to come up with themselves.

 

[SLK]

Are you a secondary teacher SLK?

Yes

 

[Balbi]

Yes

Thought so. It's a different world up there

 

[SLK]

Thought so. It's a different world up there

Yes, people have different views about that. A lot of people say that we should work closer together, but I read a primary head's blog recently that suggested they shouldn't bother with secondaries. I can't remember the logic. I might try to find it.

 

[Balbi]

Probably that you're an emotionless pitiless meatgrinder to our careful raising and educating of what are, for the most part, 3/4 year old children through 7 or 8 years of incredibly vital socialisation and skills building. But I don't think that. Oh no.

 

[spanglechick]

Levels do not ensure consistency, they are not just open to interpretation, but less effective than throwing a dice. Have you read any of the links I've given you or are you just determined to repeat the same thing. Levels are not suitable for purpose. By ditching them we ditch nothing useful.

I'm glad you've backed down on suggesting we can't tell kids how well they're doing or where they have to go without levels.

Earlier you were saying they were necessary for kids to know where they are and the English levels were accurate. Then I showed you that one level can be a difference of 5 years in reading ages (hence illustrating they're not only not accurate, but wildly nuts - I said that English is often used as the levels that are observably impossible to use), and now it's for teachers' protection in a performance management system. It sounds like you're not really sure why you're defending them. And it sounds like you haven't bothered to read any links.

We're an academy and due to our freedoms we're not imposing PRP. There's also nothing in the OFSTED evaluation schedule about it (despite inspectors believing there is) and we're confident enough to challenge any suggestion that we should provide the "anonymised piece of paper".

I also think that the scrapping of levels has encouraged schools to explore alternatives to levels. I gave another link to colleagues who are, and there are hundreds more examples. If levels still existed, it's unlikely that we'd be doing this. Events like the research in education conference in Birmingham, or the one in York, both of which I'm attending on my weekends, wouldn't have as big a focus on assessment. And I genuinely think developing an assessment system that is fit for purpose is the most important thing schools can be doing in the medium term at the moment.

I've no idea why I put skills in scare quotes. If you're determined to be offended I've given my view earlier and you've said you disagree. As I've said earlier that skills are built on knowledge and don't transfer across disciplines, and that I follow the argument in the seven myths about education. I think I pointed out Tom Bennett's superb front page TES from earlier this year. A basic version is that I think that skills are two or more pieces of knowledge rubbing against each other.

You don't agree. Be offended if you like. You have made all sorts of assertions about things that are supposed to (eg) "happen automatically" and then refuse to back that up when I ask you to.

I'd prefer there was something else in place. That doesn't mean we should keep an assessment system that is foisted on schools (sadly it still is by OFSTED as inspectors fail to get the message handed down by Cladingbowl and the like) and is inferior to that which trained teachers of subjects are able to come up with themselves.

I read your fucking links you twat, I just left the thread the other day because your blinkered idiocy was making me stressed and i get enough of that at work. But, you know, imagine you've 'won' if it makes you feel better. I'm glad you work for a benevolent academy. My experience couldn't be more different, and sadly my experience is far from uncommon and becoming the norm, if not already. I do still believe levels as they relate to the two subjects i'm qualified to teach at the ages i'm qualified to teach them are broadly accurate. I used to mark English SATs, back when they had them in y9. The marking criteria were clear and were being used by teachers in their ongoing assessments. Your links support your perspective. But they too are just opinion. They don't make it fact, any more than any links I can post would make my opinions fact.

About skills, perhaps you have an odd idea of what skills are. As does this Tom Bennett. But lots of people disagree with you. Tell me what knowledge you think Art or drama should be teaching. Please. Because I'll tell you - it's about 5% of the drama curriculum - pretty much just 'knowing the right words for stuff'. Everything else is learning new skills techniques and getting better at them. Now I'm sure that's miles away from your subject... but that's why we can't design the fucking curriculum with a one-size-fits-all template.

Have you noticed how little support your perspective is receiving, btw? I've never met a teacher supportive of this process... except for one who' s a fucking scab anyway, and when challenged on that said that she doesn't see herself teaching in five years and instead hopes to be a Tory party adviser on education. I said when i raised the subject on this thread that I went to a massive meeting about this the other day and nobody, including one of Gove's closest advisors, the guy who runs our academy chain, had anything positive to say about it.

 

[Balbi]

Trying to establish a legacy innit

 

[SLK]

I read your fucking links you twat

Nice.

Why are you stressed about someone asking you for a link to positive assertions you made? Or are you stressed because you were wrong?

I used to mark English SATs, back when they had them in y9. The marking criteria were clear and were being used by teachers in their ongoing assessments.

Summative marking criteria of several papers whose marks then created an overall level were appropriate for marking individual pieces of work. Nice.

About skills, perhaps you have an odd idea of what skills are. As does this Tom Bennett. But lots of people disagree with you. Tell me what knowledge you think Art or drama should be teaching.

How to act, what to appreciate, what is good. Art is an incredibly academic subject, and I can't quite believe you'd say that. Interesting though.

Have you noticed how little support your perspective is receiving, btw?

Which one? No, I haven't at all. I've noticed that it's widely accepted.

I've never met a teacher supportive of this process...

What process?

except for one who' s a fucking scab anyway, and when challenged on that said that she doesn't see herself teaching in five years and instead hopes to be a Tory party adviser on education. I said when i raised the subject on this thread that I went to a massive meeting about this the other day and nobody, including one of Gove's closest advisors, the guy who runs our academy chain, had anything positive to say about it.

Say about what? Replacing levels or something else. I've sent you a load of links on that. There are lots of subjects on this thread. Which one did you raise? I have spoken with Tom Shinner on some of the things we've raised here, but I know he's not whom you're talking about. Was it John and Caroline Nash?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

How to act, what to appreciate, what is good. Art is an incredibly academic subject, and I can't quite believe you'd say that. Interesting though.

Isn't the point about practising and exploring techniques? There is no consensus among 'experts' in the art world (scare-quotes intended) about what to appreciate or what is good - you think there should be among schoolchildren?

 

[SLK]

Isn't the point about practising and exploring techniques? There is no consensus among 'experts' in the art world (scare-quotes intended) about what to appreciate or what is good - you think there should be among schoolchildren?

No, but I think Art History is important.
I totally agree on practising techniques. Not sure how much exploring is necessary. They're novices. Surely mastering stuff to become an expert is necessary before exploring (I think recent cognitive science such as that in Why don't students like school? by Daniel Willingham is very strong on the difference between novices and experts and not trying to get novices to ape experts).

 

[Balbi]

Oh for fucks sake. Educational theorists for whom the classroom is but a distant memory. Get to fuck already.

 

[SLK]

• Ultimately I think the aim of education should be to induct young people into what Michael Oakeshott calls the conversation of mankind. This means exposing them to the intellectual conventions of disciplines so that as experts they can participate and flourish in them.

I've no idea why this is underlined. Sorry.

Anyway, an amazing book on marrying the lessons of the future and the past is Martin Robinson's Trivium 21st Century. He is a drama teacher and I'm utterly convinced by his research.

 

[SLK]

Oh for fucks sake. Educational theorists for whom the classroom is but a distant memory. Get to fuck already.

Who, Willingham?

So you don't think education should be research led? You see no value in cognitive science? I'd be interested in a more lucid critique - the only person really advancing this view at the Research in Education conference last year was Frank Furedi and I don't find him convincing at all. He accused me of having my head in the sand like the catholic church of the past.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That's a fair point about practising first. Which can be hard work, which is why such a low proportion of novices make it to expert level.

I enjoyed art at school but was quickly judged not to be very good at it. I wasn't allowed that time to practise, although I gave up pretty easily too. From my perspective, this is what was lacking in my education - the space just to enjoy doing something without the prospect of being judged hanging over you all the time. That space was closed up completely when I left primary school.

If you want to talk about 'why students don't like school', that would be top of my list. Turn something into a chore, an assignment to be marked, and you suck the enjoyment out of it while also reducing capacity. Studies have been done showing that doing things for fun rather than for a specific reward can disinhibit the search for connections and new ways of looking at things.

 

[Balbi]

That's a fair point about practising first. Which can be hard work, which is why such a low proportion of novices make it to expert level.

I enjoyed art at school but was quickly judged not to be very good at it. I wasn't allowed that time to practise, although I gave up pretty easily too. From my perspective, this is what was lacking in my education - the space just to enjoy doing something without the prospect of being judged hanging over you all the time. That space was closed up completely when I left primary school.

It's pretty closed in Primary. What with the Phonics screen in Year 1, SATS in Year 2, the threat of OFSTED hanging over and the three year process of attaining the good SATS level, then everything that doesn't get examined gets binned off in favour of getting those results.

 

[SLK]

That's a fair point about practising first. Which can be hard work, which is why such a low proportion of novices make it to expert level.

I enjoyed art at school but was quickly judged not to be very good at it. I wasn't allowed that time to practise, although I gave up pretty easily too. From my perspective, this is what was lacking in my education - the space just to enjoy doing something without the prospect of being judged hanging over you all the time. That space was closed up completely when I left primary school.

I really believe in overlearning, which is why I'm quite critical of AFL. Interestingly, it appears Dilan Wiliam is coming to this view (he does believe we should be research led) according to his twitter. The problem with AFL and modern education is that we practice something until we get it right. In fact we should (and hence our students should) be practicing something until we never get it wrong. Practice makes permanent (a Doug Lemov phrase) though, so we have to practice correctly (hence need to the teacher).

If we practice enough whatever technique/ skill/ fact (times tables and number bonds, please practice these so no student comes to secondary without them, and don't worry about algebra and prime numbers - something I think primaries did before levels but have been forced to abandon since levels came in) enough it gets into long term memory, doesn't clog up working memory and hence doesn't cause cognitive overload.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's pretty closed in Primary. What with the Phonics screen in Year 1, SATS in Year 2, the threat of OFSTED hanging over and the three year process of attaining the good SATS level, then everything that doesn't get examined gets binned off in favour of getting those results.

 

[SLK]

It's pretty closed in Primary. What with the Phonics screen in Year 1, SATS in Year 2, the threat of OFSTED hanging over and the three year process of attaining the good SATS level, then everything that doesn't get examined gets binned off in favour of getting those results.

I believe practice gets results and ime it does, but I obviously have extremely limited experience of primary.

 

[Balbi]

I believe practice gets results and ime it does, but I obviously have extremely limited experience of primary.

Results in taking the tests, which are alien to actual teaching and learning. And real life.

And hey, there's a test for 4 year olds coming!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I In fact we should (and hence our students should) be practicing something until we never get it wrong. Practice makes permanent (a Doug Lemov phrase) though, so we have to practice correctly (hence need to the teacher).

That applies 100 per cent to martial arts training. It certainly has its place.

 

[SLK]

Results in taking the tests, which are alien to actual teaching and learning. And real life.

Yes, I think practice is great for learning. I also think more practice results in better test marks. I am about to read Daniel Korutz (not sure of spelling) book on assessment and he makes the point that you can only test a sample of knowledge and every test is imperfect. I will report back afterwards if you like.

 

[spanglechick]

Nice.

Why are you stressed about someone asking you for a link to positive assertions you made? Or are you stressed because you were wrong?



Summative marking criteria of several papers whose marks then created an overall level were appropriate for marking individual pieces of work. Nice.

How to act, what to appreciate, what is good. Art is an incredibly academic subject, and I can't quite believe you'd say that. Interesting though.

Which one? No, I haven't at all. I've noticed that it's widely accepted.



What process?



Say about what? Replacing levels or something else. I've sent you a load of links on that. There are lots of subjects on this thread. Which one did you raise? I have spoken with Tom Shinner on some of the things we've raised here, but I know he's not whom you're talking about. Was it John and Caroline Nash?

Nice? you have insulted my teaching and appear to think you know more about teaching arts subjects than a qualified, experienced teacher of those subjects with an 'Outstanding' track record. can you see why people might not like you very much?

No, what was stressing me was your Gove-like insistence that your opinion is the correct one and refusal to accept the common voice of other teachers on this very thread. I believe the phrase is *head-desk*. It's like been lectured at by a particularly aggressive brick wall.


And "how to act" *is* fucking skill. "how to explore a work of art" is also a skill ("what to appreciate", "what is good" would indeed be knowledge, but thank fuck we don't tell kids what they should appeciate! We help them to see why other people might appreciate it, just as we do with literature... but edcuation telling kids what arts they should like? Do you know any arts teachers?! - And art is not art history. They are separate subjects). Art is an academic subject, as is theatre studies. But even at A level, by far the majority of assessment is reliant on the demonstration of skill. At GCSE, for both subjects, it is almost exclusively this.

 

[SLK]

That applies 100 per cent to martial arts training. It certainly has its place.

The example often used is chess. A chess expert doesn't look at lots of things a novice does, because all those positions are committed to long term memory.