ALL London branch

Last update: 27/05/2012

GCSE Review Outcome

DRAFT COMMENTARY- from Helen Myers.

Click here to download the new GCSE MFL subject criteria

Click here to download an annotation of the outcomes, with reference to the points made during the consultation period. It is reproduced below (not very readable, but I don't have time to tidy it up at the moment!!)

GCSE qualification and subject criteria

consultation outcome.

December 2007.

Guidelines and commentary

Draft from HEM as at 22-Dec-07

These may be of some help to ALL members as they consider the changes

Summary

This was a very important and complex consultation with several different strands.

ALL consulted with members submitted a response (see) and encouraged individual members to submit their own responses.

We suggested that the main areas of change which needed the most detailed consideration were as follows:	Was there a change in the final version?	Comment
A single tier for all examinations	Yes. Tiering for foundation and higher will be retained.	This will give all candidates additional time in an exam to demonstrate what they know and understand and can do rather than being faced with tasks they cannot attempt.
Short course specifications must examine two skills only	Still 2 skills, but the pairing has been forced : AO1 & AO2 OR AO3 & AO4	Seems to be the worst of all worlds, and is not a reflection of the 'general secondary education' which it is meant to accredit. Removes accreditation for centres who are currently using short course GCSE for all skills as a way of validating the typical learning experience in a foreign language at secondary level from Y7-11 Does not allow for personalisation according to individual skills (e.g. by allowing a 'build up' of assessment which could potentially lead towards a full GCSE eventually) Does not provide broad base for future study, leisure and employment (e.g. could not lead to AS .. pupils without reading or listening skills would find it difficult to 'survive' in a basic tourist/work situation .. etc etc.) Probably introduced for ease of definition, rather than for usefulness .. ie. difficult to define half of a course which has no content.
Scope for open-ended content in writing and speaking	Retained	Welcome
The balance of external : controlled assessment (75%:25%)	Changed to 40% external & 60% controlled assessment BUT NB forces the writing and speaking to be controlled assessment	Allows boards to develop forms of assessment which are less stressful BUT stipulation re: speaking and writing restricts the potential to assess reading and listening in controlled assessment (particularly concerning for listening, as Dearing identified this as an assessment which can be stressful, alongside speaking).
The nature of the 'controlled assessment'	Not defined yet.	Until this is defined, difficult to make judgements about the benefits of change.

Commentary on Final GCSE Qualification Criteria.

The criteria do not appear to raise any significant changes other than with respect to 'where unitised'.

Commentary on Revised Subject Criteria.

It is helpful to have a copy of the original , draft and final criteria when judging the changes.

	Link to the former criteria: http://www.cilt.org.uk/14-19/docs/gcse_criteria_langs.pdf
	Link to the modern foreign languages draft criteria: (which currently has everything except the grade descriptors) -18 page document http://www.qca.org.uk/libraryAssets/media/qca-07-3468_gcsecriteriamfl.pdf
	Link to final criteria: http://www.qca.org.uk/libraryAssets/media/qca-07-3468_gcsecriteriamfl.pdf

The purpose of this document is to highlight the key differences between the former, draft and new GCSE subject criteria.

Throughout, the word 'students' has been changed to learners'.

Reminder:

GCSEs are governed by two sets of regulatory criteria.

The GCSE Qualification Criteria set out general rules relating to content, assessment and reporting for all GCSEs.
The GCSE Subject-specific Criteria set out additional detail covering aims, content, assessment objectives and scheme of assessment. Awarding bodies must adhere to both sets of criteria when developing the detail of their specifications.

Column 1 summarises the area

Column 2 summarises former wording.

Column 3 indicates if wording was broadly retained or changed at the draft stage. Where additional rows are added in column 2, this indicates new content.

Column 4 indicates if wording has been broadly retained or changed at the final stage.

Column 5 gives a commentary on the similarities / differences, raising questions which ALL members may find helpful to discuss / reflect on as they judge the outcome.

Area

Original (1999)

Draft for consultation (June 07)

Final (Dec 07)

Commentary / questions

Description of the remit of the subject specific criteria - how they set out criteria which satisfy common GCSE criteria, and provide criteria against which specifications are drawn up (by exam bodies)

1. Introduction

1.1 What the criteria do - what the terms of reference

no significant change - put into points 1 & 2

same

1.2 Title

point 5

As well ads full course, now includes two new short course definitions:

GCSE in [language]; spoken language (short course)

GCSE in [language]; written language (short course)

1.3 Requirement that specs with significant language content must follow criteria.

point 4

same

point 3 - clarifies the purpose of having subject criteria

	consistency
	rigour
	build on NC and prepare for future
	help others know what has been studied

same

this addition incorporates the terms of reference for the review i.e.. opportunity for progression, and assessment that is consistent (cf QCA statement of 'outcomes'

Aims & learning outcomes of the GCSE (Reference for question 6)

Aims & learning outcomes of the GCSE. This sets out broad aims of specifications. Note that this is not the same as 'assessment objectives'.	Heading: Aims	Heading: Aims and Learning outcomes	same	Renamed .. uses terminology more commonly used now.
	2.1 - must give students opportunities to ....	Point 6. should encourage students to ....	same
	7 numbered aims:	6 bullet points:	Separated into two separate paragraphs: - Paragraph 6 summarises the personal/learning aspects and adds that they should be ';inspired, moved and changed' by the course, - Paragraph 7 has four bullet points defining outcomes relating to knowledge / skills
	(i) - L&R- range of contexts	6. bullet point 2 - simplified - develop understanding of the language in a variety of contexts
	(ii)- S&W - range of vocab/ structures	6. bullet point 4 -simplified - 'develop the ability to communicate effectively in the language' - no reference to a range of vocab/ structures
	(iii) Grammar & apply it	6. bullet point 3 - knowledge of the language and language learning skills
	(iv) apply knowledge in variety of relevant contexts which reflect previous learning and maturity
	(v) knowledge & understanding of countries and communities	6. bullet point 5 - awareness and understanding of countries and communities
	(vi) positive attitudes to language learning	2.1 bullet point 1 - enjoyment and benefit from language learning
	(vii) suitable foundation for further study and/or practical use of MFL	2.2. bullet point 6 - help them to take their place in the multilingual global society + (as point vii)

Specification Content

This section outlines what the specifications must require of students. This is a critical for looking ahead to the nature of the related assessments.	Specification content	Subject content
	3.1 Content must be specified	7 - similar - must allow students to develop the knowledge, skills and understanding as specified below	ADDED POINT 8 .. must reflect the learning out comes Draft point 7 now point 9 but adds 'as appropriate to the specification title] (thereby allowing for short course changes)
This section specifies the skills	3.2 Require candidates to:	8 - same	now point 10 -
	(i) Listen & respond to different types of spoken language	bullet point 1 - no change	same
	(ii) Speaking - express themselves in speech using range of vocab, syntax and structures	bullet point 2 - simplified to 'communicate in speech'	adds 'for a variety of purposes'	reference not made to specific content - we noted that this detail is incorporated in the assessment criteria
	(iii) read - variety - incl texts from ICT-based sources	bullet point 3 - simplified	same	reference not made to specific content - this detail is incorporated in the assessment criteria
	(iv) W - range of vocab, syntax, structures	bullet point 4- simplified to communicate in writing	adds 'for a variety of purposes'	reference not made to specific content - this detail is incorporated in the assessment criteria
	(v) Grammar at foundation	bullet point 5 - same, without reference to foundation	same
	(vi) authentic sources	not explicit		referred to elsewhere - logical not to have it here, as it is not a skill
	3.3 In addition, for higher ...			No separate skills identified for higher
Content. This sets out the requirements for the context for the skills.	3.4 Must specify topic areas consistent with NC order	9. Must set out contexts, topics, purposes - interest candidate, maturity, appropriate to culture, may relate to other curriculum areas		This explicitly allows great flexibility - including vocational, CLIL, locally relevant (although some boards noted that current arrangements already allow a great deal of flexibility which is rarely taken up by centres). Currently many complain that the range of topics / content restrict the opportunity to develop interesting tasks which develop the essential language skills. Does this explicitly reduce need to cover wide range of topics? How will comparisons be drawn regarding the comparative demands of different specifications with respect to the range of vocabulary expected, especially for the receptive skills? This is a significant element for ensuring validity / reliability across exam boards. How will this follow on from KS3? How will such an open-ended requirement satisfy the review's aim to make it clear to others what the qualification means students can do? How does it ensure progression to further study?
		10. for S & W must allow for choice incl possibility of proposing a context, topic, purpose of their own	point 12	This compulsory requirement ('must') should ensure the option of free choice of topic which will satisfy many current concerns
	For a GCSE short course specification a more restricted range of topics is required.	13. GCSE short courses must require candidates to demonstrate their ability in relation to only 2 of the assessment objectives	Now included in section 'scheme of assessment' specifies which 2 are to be paired i.e. AO1&2 or AO3&4 (unfortunately)	ORIGINALLY AGREED AT OUR MEETING: more restricted range of contexts, topics and purposes OR reduced assessment objectives. Such flexibility would have allowed for accrediting all language skills acquired by pupils through learning a language, at the same time allowing for selecting skills (similar to Asset approach) Are there any advantages in stipulating that a short course qualification must test 2 skills only? Presumably it is to get around the problem of not having content specified (see above) and therefore specifying reduced content. however, the content issue MUST be addressed separately. Seems to be the worst of all worlds, and is not a reflection of the 'general secondary education' which it is meant to accredit. Removes accreditation for centres who are currently using short course GCSE for all skills as a way of validating the typical learning experience in a foreign language at secondary level from Y7-11 Does not allow for personalisation according to individual skills (e.g. by allowing a 'build up' of assessment which could potentially lead towards a full GCSE eventually) Does not provide broad base for future study, leisure and employment (e.g. could not lead to AS .. pupils without reading or listening skills would find it difficult to 'survive' in a basic tourist/work situation .. etc etc.) Probably introduced for ease of definition, rather than for usefulness .. ie. difficult to define half of a course which has no content.
	3.5 must specify grammar and linguistic structures, + for foundation tier only, a minimum core vocabulary. Key words and phrases used in rubrics	11. Same ... except 'rubrics where applicable'	point 13 same	how will minimum core vocabulary be determined? How much will there be? Is it relevant to have core vocabulary for grades C and above as well? How can there be fair comparison across specifications regarding the amount / nature of vocabulary required? (especially in view of listening and reading assessments if they take place in external conditions)
	4 Key Skills	Deleted	same	Original revised version included these.

Assessment objectives (Reference for question 8)

Assessment objectives. This specifies what must be tested (as opposed to aims / learning outcomes which set out opportunities which must be given) and what weighting each objective is given	5. Assessment Objectives	Assessment Objectives in column one Weighting (see below) in column 2.	same
	5.1 LSRW	12. LSRW - simplified descriptions		Should language learning skills (one of the aims) be included as an assessment objective? This could be tested by a task which deliberately allowed pupils access to common reference materials and tested their appropriate use of them (e.g. dictionaries / approved word lists)

Schemes of assessment and assessment techniques (Reference for question 9)

Scheme of assessment. This specifies how the objectives are to be assessed:	6. Schemes of assessment and assessment techniques	Scheme of assessment
How they are weighted	6.1 equally weighted skills	Weighting in column 2 in previous section each skill between 20-30 %	same	This allows for Edexcel applied GCSE pilot to match criteria ... flexibility to increase, for example, writing / speaking. Does this affect comparability across specs?
	6.2 10% to grammar for S & W	15. same	same
		16. targeted at full range	targeted either at Foundation or Higher
How much controlled assessment there can be	6.3 terminal exam 70%, staged 50%	17. 75% to external assessment - 25% controlled	point 20 changed to 40% external and 60% controlled assessment	Critical area which needs to be discussed in depth in the light of members' concerns, Dearing's recommendations and controlled assessment regulatory views. Definitions of 'staged' and 'terminal examination' needed. Generally speaking, 'controlled' conditions' equate to a less stressful experience. Dearing has reported the common view of teachers and pupils that listening and speaking exams are particularly stressful. The examples given in the controlled assessment documents both relate to writing. There would seem to be an extremely strong case for allowing as much 'controlled assessment' opportunity as possible for ML, at least in line with other 'performance' / practical subjects. For L + S+W the 'control' aspects which are the most stressful are those related to the 'task taking' (1) time (2) resource. The task setting and task marking could both be at a high level of control, thereby ensuring validity / reliability / rigour.
How they are 'tiered'	6.4 two tiers of grades	16. single tier	change - 2 tiers	The advantage of the single tier = removing 'playing safe', entering pupils for foundaionlevel and denying them access to higher grades. The disadvantage of single tier = (a) pupils sit an exam which has elements which are inappropriate for them - especially damaging in receptive listening and reading exams for the least able. (b) less time to test and give pupils the opportunity to show what they actually know understand and can do by making them spend time on tasks which are too easy or too hard for them ... even greater chance that they lose out. Dearing refers to an exam pilot of a 30-minute listening exam where pupils can control input on a computer. How feasible is this for a typical year entry of at least 50% of the cohort? A solution would be a return to the compulsory foundation level for all, then the option of adding higher level. Although this would entail more testing, it would give a pupils a better chance of showing what they know, understand and can do and would remove the temptation to 'play safe' and restrict their grades.
Restrictions on entry	6.5 must be entered for either foundation or higher for each tier			see above
How much controlled assessment there can be (see above)	6.6. internal assessment no more than 30%			see above for discussion about controlled conditions - need for definitions
How the instructions must be worded	6.7 instructions in target language	Deleted		It was agreed at the meeting that this would allow for testing which is 'fit for purpose', which is the main aim of the assessment, and for more authentic texts / task types.
	6.8 restrictions on use of English	14. must require pupils to express themselves in the language when speaking and writing		We assume this is for the tests whose objective is to test S & W (not L & R)
What access to resources they can have	6.9 use of dictionaries not permitted in external assessment	19. same - see below		Does this restriction interfere with the assessment objectives? Note that Language learning skills are specified as an aim, but not an assessment objective. Would there be a case for including intelligent use of reference resources as a criterion? Does this preclude the use of booklets common to all candidates (e.g. as in the geography Decision Making exercise where reference is issued 6 weeks in advance and candidates have access to it in the exam)
Controlled assessment	No detailed instructions on coursework	Controlled assessment Point 18	point 21 changed Assessment of S&W must be by controlled assessment consistent with the guidance developed by the regulators (what is this guidance?)	Satisfies brief for the review 'assessment that is consistent'. How easy will it be for QCA to make comparisons between different levels of control required by different specifications? Can we be involved in discussions relating to this extremely important and complex area?
		19. The use of dictionaries will not be permitted in any external assessment.	same	Does this restriction compromise coherence with the emphasis on language learning / use of resources / process skills highlighted in the new Secondary National Curriculum?
	Grade descriptors	Not available	Not available	Need to check these .. but we were told that this was not the area for the review.
Appendix	Appendix
	* Foundation / Higher lists	up to grade C / above grade C	foundation / higher same content	Note that there is little difference between demands of above C and AS/A2. Is this a time to raise this?

The rationale for little change is that standards are not changing. However, following review of the AS and A2 exams, it was noted that there was little difference between higher GCSE and AS, and some higher level structures were moved to AS.

We know that exam boards have made independent suggestions to QCA. Suggestions which have been accepted are detailed below, but there were several other recommendations which they made and which have not been accepted, in particular suggesting that various structures should become receptive only.

Chris Maynard has helpfully supplied a summary of changes as below. It would be helpful for subject communities to comment on these.

French
· Foundation – one change only:

Adjectives: comparative and superlative: regular - meilleur, added which currently features only at Higher tier

Five items at Higher were originally moved to AS, but exam boards have recommended reinstating four of these (as indicated)

	relative: lequel, auquel, dont [R]. The draft criteria reinstate 'dont [R]
	demonstrative (celui). The draft criteria reinstate celui as Receptive [R]
	le mien. The draft criteria reinstate as Receptive [R]
	verbs: dependent infinitives (faire réparer)
	subjunctive mood: present in commonly used expressions [R]. The draft criteria reinstate this.

German

· Foundation – Adverbs: common adverbial phrases. The following examples have been added: (ab und zu, dann und wann, letzte Woche, nächstes Wochenende, so bald wie möglich)
· Foundation – Verbs: .. 'strong' replaced by regular

· Foundation – Conjunctions: co-ordinating and subordinating - examples given : coordinating (most common eg aber, oder, und) and subordinating (als. obwohl,wenn, weil).

· Higher – Verbs: one line reworded as follows: Verbs: imperfect subjunctive in conditional clauses haben and sein.

Four items at Higher have been moved to AS.

	infinitive constructions lassen with infinitive [R]
	tenses: perfect modal verbs
	passive voice: verbs with direct objects
	subordinating: als ob, seitdem [R]

Spanish
Changes at Foundation –

	Adjectives: possessive, long form (mío)
	Time: use of desde hace with present tense, to be (R) only, plus some more examples added.

	Foundation – Verbs: imperfect now receptive (R), with the currently required active use in weather expressions to be maintained, (and therefore to be added to the Higher list).
	Foundation – Verbs: present subjunctive - Removed "for formal positive and negative commands and for familiar negative commands"

Walk-through the outcome with respect to the consultation questionnaire and cross-reference to comments in relevant sections above

The QCA has published a consultation summary report here:

http://www.qca.org.uk/qca_15551.aspx

But I cannot find summary of the subject specific questions.

There were 147 individual responses from the MFL community representing 11.7% of the total responses. This was less than classical subjects (162, 12.9%), Media (158, 12.6%) and RS (312, 24.8%), but more than all the other subjects (28 subjects in total).

Section	Comment	OUTCOME
1. Introduction	Worthwhile reading this carefully to be aware of context and its constraints.
2. Questions	Personal
3. Changes to the GCSE criteria	SEE 'REMIT' SECTION These questions refer to the draft GCSE qualification criteria for all subjects .. not the subject specific.
1. Do you think GCSE criteria are appropriate?	There as been little change. not very contentious.	Same as draft
2. Unitisation (does this mean modular? - these comments made assuming this is the case)	You may wish to note the problems when a subject is generally regarded as 'linear' or 'spiral' in approach. It can be difficult to build in allowance for this when testing at an early stage in the course, and this can raise problems when trying to equate 'unitised' GCSEs with others. (modular vs linear) In ML the reason unitised courses are popular for some may be more to do with the more candidate -friendly means of testing (e.g. more relaxed when they know they can re-take, less burden on memory when being tested on a narrower range of content at a time). If less stressful means of testing were to be introduced into non-unitised courses (albeit in 'controlled conditions'), this may remove the need for this option. (e.g. on going controlled conditions assessments which can be taken more than once)
3. Proposals that unitised assessment have 50% at end of course.	With existing testing systems, understand the need for this to make more comparable... however, if more 'controlled' assessments permitted, this could remove the need for this terminal control.
4. Balance of assessment	This question is about the principle of putting subjects into two categories. Question 9/2 addresses ML specifically. There does not appear to be a question which invites comment on the definitions and explanations given about controlled assessment. Clarification of this is key to a helpful response to these questions.	Principle adopted
	The balance of assessment types should reflect what is fit for purpose of the particular subject area. It seems unnecessarily artificial to constrain subjects into two groups. How does this make 'assessment more rational and transparent for the learner'? If it does achieve the aim of transparency and rationality, how does this balance with the need for an assessment which is fit for purpose and allows the learner to show fairly what s/he knows, understands and can do. Which is more important?	Two groups remain
5. GCSE subject-specific criteria	Heading for the next set of questions. See grid above comparing current with draft for each of these sections.
6. Aims and learning outcomes Appropriate?	SEE 'AIMS AND LEARNING OUTCOMES' SECTION Suggestion: include aim which recognises the inherent benefit of learning a language per se, without necessarily a practical or future application e.g. 'provide a coherent, satisfying and worthwhile course of study for all students'	Broadly the same as draft
7.Specification Content	SEE SPECIFICATION CONTENT SECTION Interesting note regarding additional / optional content. How is this decided? How are the specs fairly compared regarding volume of content?
1. Up to date?	Content very similar to current , but worded in a more 'up-to-date way using current terminology (e.g. language awareness and language learning skills) Content seems to avoid any reference to specific topics - and is therefore in line with new Secondary National Curriuclum. However, this raises issues for coherence and progression in a subject which has to have content. See below - section 11.	Same
2. Appropriate progression to A level?	Skills appropriate for further study to AS and A in its current format. Is it too demanding, since there is little difference between requirements for AS and GCSE. [note comments on appendix- some aspects removed then reinstated] Concern that any decisions about KS3 should allow for relevant progression. How can we ensure this?	No change made .. still concern that grammatical demands are too close to those of AS and A
3. Content cover areas of study that should be required of all student?	Difficult to answer without seeing sample of 'core vocabulary' and knowing how judgements will be reached about suitability of the proposals from exam boards. When / how can this be discussed? Appendix detailing grammatical content sets out more specific information which raises concerns since structures have reappeared which A level review suggested should be removed or made 'receptive only'. Re: short course - see section 12/2 below For tiering comment - see section 12/3 below
8. Assessment objectives.	SEE SECTION 'ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVES'
1 Do they indicate clearly what has to be assessed?	Four skills clear. Is there a case for introducing assessment objectives which cover other 'aims and learning outcomes' e.g. language learning skills. [could lead to demonstrating appropriate use of reference materials] / cultural knowledge [note that this has been removed from some AS/A level exams as it was seen to penalise good linguists who may have not referred to target language examples] Not for short course. Pupils naturally develop in all 4 skill areas, and would be disadvantaged not to have the option of receiving credit for more than 2 skill areas. Should short course be more flexible and allow for reduced content but all skills?	No change to draft Unsatisfactory outcome re: short course
2 Any overlap between assessment objectives?	The review team acknowledged the argument that assessment objectives could be tested jointly and that in 'real life', situations require more than one skill at a time sometimes (e.g in a conversation as opposed to a monologue). However, very important to be aware that for a fair and reliable test, discrete skill testing is better for the candidate to demonstrate what they know, understand and can do. To test speaking and listening together (e.g. marking response and production in a conversation), while useful in a teaching situation, could doubly penalise a candidate in a time-limited testing situation, and would not lead to a valid reliable test fit for purpose. (e.g. if they did not understand a question they would lose marks for comprehension and production, even if they actually know how to form the answer)
3 Assessment objectives collectively cover all that is essential for assessment of this subject at GCSE?	Acknowledge that some of the aims are not explicitly tested, but recognise that this would be difficult to do at the same time as adhering to a subject criteria (e.g. cultural knowledge / understanding / enjoyment)
4. Relative weightings of Assessment objectives appropriate?	Flexibility may lead to lack of comparability across exam boards? Would lower weighting for highly stressful assessment objectives (e.g. speaking) reduce the risk of unfairly penalising a pupil who suffers from nerves?	Flexibility still in place (20-30% per skill)
9. Scheme of assessment and tiering	SEE 'SCHEME OF ASSESSMENT AND ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES' SECTION
1. Proposed arrangement appropriate?	See notes. Need to give full and considered response to this. Real concerns - will students be able to have the same opportunity to show what they know in a single tier listening / reading test?	Changed back to F/H split
2. Balance controlled / external assessment	See notes above. Very strong case for allowing ML to have exam conditions which are less stressful, especially in the light of Dearing recommendations. If the GCSE 'brand' is to compete with other level 2 qualifications which are less 'stressful', it needs to allow for more flexible testing.	Changed
10. Maximising accessibility and equality
1. Take into account all learners?	Pupils with sensory deprivation are particularly excluded from ML (e.g. if selective mute/ severely hearing impaired). Is there any way of taking this into account? Can the qualification have the same currency if certain skills are waived / significant allowances made?
2. Promote cultural understanding, diversity, and gender equality appropriately?
3. Restrictions for disabled? If so:
4. Requirement restricting access
5. Disability group likely to be affected
6. essential
7. Desirable
8. Not needed
9. Reasonable adjustments during controlled assessment
11. Curriculum opportunities within the GCSE subject criteria	The review took place before the KS3 / secondary review was published and before Dearing report was published.
1. Criteria make clear the ways in which subject complements and reflects the revisions to the overall objectives for KS4 curriculum?	Flexibility in content reflects current move to make meanings relevant. Although the aims and learning outcomes of the new criteria seem to be coherent with the new secondary curriculum for languages (launched July 2007), it is difficult to judge whether the content / assessment criteria expected offer coherent progression, and the scheme of assessment (if 75% external assessment removes access to support and access to reference sources) does not seem to offer coherence. The main change in the programme of study is the removal of any reference to topic headings [with the exception of speaking level 3 - talk about their interests] and the increased emphasis on any references to creativity. The levels remain largely the same, avoiding precise quantification / exemplification of words and contexts (e.g. 'range' 'short /longer' passages', 'simple / complex' 'familiar' 'unfamiliar' 'some / little repetition' 'at times' ) and maintaining an emphasis on opinions and tenses. How will judgements be made about comparability of specifications with respect to range / content? How will assessment criteria reflect the emphasis on process / concepts? Will the continued emphasis on opinions tenses and complex grammar stem or perpetuate the temptation to provide formulaic tasks / and responses which 'tick the boxes'? Note that the description of 'exceptional performance' still appears to describe near-native level. Is this consistent with demands of other subject area descriptors? (i.e. near mastery of the subject area). All skills make reference at some point to the use of support or reference sources. Examinations which preclude this support (and which in the current draft would count for 75% of an assessment) would appear not to allow for accreditation of these relevant and useful processes.	Still need to watch this area as content not published Flexibility of controlled assessment should help to address some of the concerns raised.
2. More coherent?	see above. Lack of content and scheme of assessment which restricts access to reference sources likely to reduce coherence. Schools tend to prepare students from KS3 with the requirements of KS4 in mind.	Still need to watch this area re:content
3. Aims: successful learners / confident individuals / responsible citizens	Learners will feel successful and confident if given realistic tasks matching their abilities. Performing in languages is acknowledged to be stressful (see Dearing report) The aim of a positive learning experience is essential. A positive experience of language learning can make pupils feel more positive as international citizens. A negative experience can reinforce prejudice. The scheme of assessment is a critical element for providing a positive experience. Elements of the draft criteria which may compromise this experience are: Single tiered exams, lack of access to reference resources / support, restricted skills in the short course, unknown content for the reading and listening exams.	Two tiers + controlled assessment will address some of these concerns hopefully.
4. Use subject to develop contexts beyond school?	The chance to respond to questions set in English lends itself to more relevant, authentic tasks which may be met in a context beyond school. (Current assessment tasks are often very artificial and unlikely).
5. Support development of personal, learning and thinking skills?	This is implicit in language learning. It is important that the assessment schemes reward these skills appropriately by giving realistic tasks matching their abilities (see above)
6. Sufficient flexibility to develop specs that reflect subject and curriculum initiatives and developments?	Flexibility of topics will allow for cross-curricular and vocational themes within the GCSE. Flexibility of entry to different tiers, different skills or combining different languages would be the 'ultimate' response to current curriculum initiatives and developments and may reduce the need for centres to be running several types of 'qualifications and increase the chance of having an assessment system which satisfies one of the key desired outcomes of this review: 'A wider choice of GCSEs that present all learners with an opportunity for progression, and assessment that is consistent'	Change to 2 tiers will help this area of concern.
12. Subject specific
ML:2-5 2. Short course - 2 objectives?	see SPECIFICATION CONTENT NOTES: ORIGINALLY AGREED AT OUR MEETING: more restricted range of contexts, topics and purposes OR reduced assessment objectives. Such flexibility would allow for accrediting all language skills acquired by pupils through learning a language, at the same time allowing for selecting skills (similar to Asset approach) Is short course content appropriate for all? .. least able can normally manage a low level in all 4 skills. Requiring testing in just 2 skills only will not give them the opportunity to demonstrate what they know, understand and can do. Dearing (para 3.29) does not recommend this approach. He recommends sharper in focus, aimed at those whose interest is in basic functionality in a language in a range of meaningfully relevant contexts to the learner. Are there any advantages in stipulating that a short course qualification must test 2 skills only? Presumably it is to get around the problem of not having content specified (see above) and therefore specifying reduced content. however, the content issue MUST be addressed separately.	Seems to be the worst of all worlds, and is not a reflection of the 'general secondary education' which it is meant to accredit. Removes accreditation for centres who are currently using short course GCSE for all skills as a way of validating the typical learning experience in a foreign language at secondary level from Y7-11 Does not allow for personalisation according to individual skills (e.g. by allowing a 'build up' of assessment which could potentially lead towards a full GCSE eventually) Does not provide broad base for future study, leisure and employment (e.g. could not lead to AS .. pupils without reading or listening skills would find it difficult to 'survive' in a basic tourist/work situation .. etc etc.) Probably introduced for ease of definition, rather than for usefulness .. ie. difficult to define half of a course which has no content.
3. Question papers not tiered?	See SCHEME OF ASSESSMENT NOTES: The advantage of the single tier = removing 'playing safe' and denying pupils access to higher grades. The disadvantage of single tier = (a) pupils sit an exam which has elements which are inappropriate for them - especially damaging in listening and reading exams for the least able. (b) less time to test and give pupils the opportunity to show what they actually know understand and can do by making them spend time on tasks which are too easy or too hard for them ... even greater chance that they lose out. A solution would be a return to the compulsory foundation level for all, then the option of adding higher level. Although this would entail more testing, it would give al pupils a better chance of showing what they know, understand and can do and would remove the temptation to 'play safe' and restrict their grades.	Draft changed to revert to 2 tiers
4. All specs must include controlled assessment?	Would welcome detailed consultation on nature of controlled assessment. Is it essential to have controlled assessment as compulsory? The nature of external assessment could allow for less stressful circumstances if tasks were known in advance and access to a common reference source allowed. [these are lower control elements which are appropriate for most writing and speaking tasks]. Such an arrangement may reduce the need for as much 'controlled assessment' and lead to an even more reliable assessment régime.	No detail yet
5. Permit use of dictionaries in controlled assessment?	Need for more discussion about the nature of controlled assessment. Can we envisage a realistic and relevant task which would credit appropriate use of reference materials in language learning. (Hence this could be an assessment objective).	This has not been precluded .. only use of dictionaries in external assessment specified (unless I've missed something)