Last
update: 27/05/2012
| |
Consultation on revised level descriptions for MFL
This page draws attention to the public consultation on proposed new MFL
National Curriculum Level Descriptors.
QUICK LINKS:
Consultation Link
The direct link is http://www.qca.org.uk/qca_22260.aspx
(or enter www.qca.org.uk/curriculumconsultation
and then click on "subject level descriptions").
OR here::
In order to contribute, you need to register online, and then you receive a
link to the online questionnaire which must be completed in one session, and
does not allow for review once you have left a page.
To assist those who wish to take time to consider their answers, and to
discuss with colleagues before submitting a representative response, there is a
copy of the questions for both the initial registration and the consultation
itself in a word document here.
It is important that teachers contribute to the
consultation. There is a statutory duty on QCA to produce a report
on the outcomes of the consultation.
As Chair of the Secondary Special Interest Group, Helen will be working with
ALL Director Linda Parker to coordinate
a response on behalf of ALL. Please do not hesitate to contact
her with any comments. They do not have to be direct answers to the
questions on the survey. (Please state if you are a member of ALL).
There are 7 questions and the opportunity for a free flow comment of no more
than 200 words.
The first question asks you which subject you are referring to.
Then for each of the 6 questions below you are asked to what extent you agree
(strongly agree, tend to agree, tend to disagree, strongly disagree, not sure)
 |
The
proposed level descriptions from levels 1 to exceptional performance maintain
standards |
|
The
proposed level descriptions from levels 1 to exceptional performance provide
appropriate progression |
|
The
expectations set out in the proposed level descriptions from level 1 to
exceptional performance are appropriate for
children |
|
The
proposed level descriptions are an
appropriate basis for National Curriculum
assessment requirements of relevant aspects of the proposed new
primary curriculum |
|
The
proposed level descriptions are an
appropriate basis for assessment of secondary National
Curriculum subjects |
|
The
proposed level descriptions from levels 1 to exceptional performance can
be used and applied to assess children's work |
If you would like, please give reasons for your
responses (maximum allowance is 200 words)
Click here to download a collection of responses as
gleaned from various emails to the fora, or read below ..
Proposed Changes To National Curriculum Attainment Targets -
Modern Languages
(Separate document for context / questions etc)
This is a formal public consultation which is analysed and a summary of the
responses will be made available. Up until last week, only 40 responses had been
submitted.
| Direct link to the questionnaire: http://www.qca.org.uk/qca_22260.aspx
(or enter www.qca.org.uk/curriculumconsultation
and then click on "subject level descriptions"). |
| On the right hand side of the page you can download the proposed revised
level descriptions and also register to complete the online questionnaire. |
| If you are only responding about the MFL level descriptions (and you can
simply ignore all the other subjects if you wish) it will not take you long.
There are only seven statements to respond to. |
| There is an open response box, but if you feel that 200 words are not enough
for your comments, send an email to Chris
Maynard All responses, whether online, via email or verbal to Chris are
recorded. |
Questions
Would suggest 'Strongly disagree' to all questions so that the statistics
flag up disagreement expressed in the text.
"Reasons for responses"
There is a space for 'reasons for responses' at the end of the questionnaire
of up to 200 words. The first art of the text below is within this limit.
However, Chris Maynard (QCA ML Subject officer) has indicated that he would be
interested in further longer responses. Note that these would not be part of the
'statistics' so it is very important to responses to the questionnaire as well
as sending any other comments.
Ideally, different responders should respond in their own words (although
realistically a straight 'cut and paste' would be better than nothing!) please
note that there are many point/phrases in the second part of this document which
individual respondents may wish to highlight.
PARAGRAPHS / PHRASES
(as gleaned from various meetings / emails to fora etc)
These are grouped under the two main areas of change:
(1) The addition of the attainment target 'Intercultural understanding'
(2) The merging of 4 separate ATs (L, S, R and W) into 2 (L&S, R&W)
(1) The addition of the attainment target 'Intercultural understanding'
|
Area |
Points |
|
It is important to distinguish DELIVERY from ASSESSMENT. |
|
|
DELIVERY |
|
Delivery very important |
ICU is already in the Programme of study. We strongly support this and
wish to promote this very important area of the curriculum. No teacher
would disagree with the aims of the NC in respect of intercultural
understanding:
"Pupils learn to appreciate different countries, culture communities
and people. By making comparisons they gain insight into their own culture
and society". (The National Curriculum 2007)
Equality, diversity and community cohesion are all high on the
educational (incl OFSTED) agenda and ICU fits very well with this. |
|
ICU is the responsibility of the whole school |
ICU is a critical part of the Citizenship Programme of Study.
It would be insufficient to deliver it solely through the experience of
language lesson .. possibly limiting the experience to understanding of
the culture of the language being taught |
|
Evidence of ICU beyond the ML department |
Skills of understanding and empathy are best evidenced in the way that
pupils behave to one another, to their family, .. in their response to
national and international issues.
It would be artificial to limit delivery to the experience of the
language lesson.
If limited to the language lesson, the lesson would have to allow for
more use of English in order not to exclude those with language learning
difficulties. |
|
ASSESSMENT |
|
ICU is not an appropriate aspect to be assessed |
ICU is extremely important.
Note that it is
| a sensitive area |
| a subjective area |
| involves feelings, empathy and understanding
|
|
|
Assessing ICU would have a counter-productive / damaging effect |
It is paradoxical that at a time when it has been widely recognised
that formal assessment damages a creative and inspirational curriculum
(the Rose Review) there should be a proposal that such an important and
sensitive topic as intercultural understanding should be assessed.
As soon as you have to assess something, it can destroy the climate you
need for teaching (especially for such a sensitive area)
A colleague in Australia reports on the enormous problems they have had
in trying to assess ICU. (Ref: Steve Smith's blog)
Assessment would be detrimental to the teaching of ICU |
|
There is worth in a curriculum area, even if it is not assessed |
We need to move away from the obsession that 'if you can't measure it,
it is worthless'.
We note that there are other areas of the curriculum which are very
important but which are not assessed in levels (e.g. other areas of the ML
PoS, PSHE, cross curricular elements) |
|
Attainment targets are not the appropriate means to 'lever' a school
into delivering the PoS |
OFSTED's new framework, (especially with a school's delivery of
equality, diversity and community cohesion as a limiting grade), should
make it easier for qualitative judgements to be made, not based on
statistics of levels e.g. ensuring schools have EDCC (Equality, Diversity,
Community Cohesion) in place, interviewing pupils, watching more lessons
etc |
|
Assessment levels potentially narrows / limits / reduces the curriculum |
There is a danger that if levels are reported, by which schools are
openly judged, the curriculum will be narrowed to focus on the level
descriptors, encouraging a 'tick box' mentality.
Levelling will have a reductive effect.
Note the concerns about the primary curriculum e.g. in Year 6 when
schools focussed on those areas for which there was an external test, with
results published.
Contrast with the generally positive experience of primary languages
where teachers do not have to report levels publicly and can enjoy
teaching them without the stress / constraints of assessment. |
|
Reductive description of levels |
Note that the language of the levels reduce ICU to those outcomes which
are objective / identifiable. The words 'understanding' and 'empathy' do
not appear.
They cannot help using factual language. They reflect an intellectual
approach rather than an emotional approach.
1:identify; 2: show knowledge/awareness; 3: identify, compare; 4:
understand, identify; 5: understand, describe; 6: select, present,
compare; 7:investigate, explain; 8: research, present, conclude, compare.
EP: research, analyse, present, respond |
|
Inappropriate element to merge with language skills for an overall
level. |
There is no connection between the level descriptors for ICU and those
of the other 4 skills.
It would be totally feasible for a pupil to have a EP level in ICU yet
not to be able to use the language. They would be penalised if evidence
had to be shown in Target language (this would be unreasonable).
This raises the same CLIL discussion points which are raised across
Europe - testing the knowledge over the language ability or vice versa.
These changes would result in very different ATs between KS3 and KS4 +
AS/A2, and lead to a variety of problems |
(2) The merging of 4 separate ATs (L, S, R and W) into 2 (L&S, R&W)
|
Why take it from 4 to 2?
What is to be gained? |
There would need to be a compelling reason for change
If there is a desire to change the status quo, a process needs to be
established for consultation over a reasonable length of time to allow the
whole language community to be involved and to discuss fully.
Currently teachers are facing a wide range of changes (KS2 Framework,
KS3 Framework, new GCSE specifications, variety of externally accredited
qualifications, new A2, Diploma). Where these changes clearly benefit
learning and teaching, they generally are willing to co-operate and
support. If there is no compelling rationale, this could be 'the straw
that breaks the camel's back'.
The levels have just been amended with the introduction of the New
Curriculum in 2008. It is time again for some consolidation |
|
4 skills a national an international 'norm' |
For many years, the international language community has defined
language skill in the 4 skill areas of listening, speaking, reading and
writing for the purposes of assessing attainment.
The reality is that everything is organised around those 4 skill areas.
This does not mean that teachers have ever taught these skills in
isolation. |
|
4 skills are not taught in isolation ; they are combined in a variety
of ways |
The proposal may be based on a well-meaning aim to encourage teachers
to avoid teaching skills in isolation one from another and to encourage
them to use the guidance of the Frameworks.
However, there is no need to use 'assessment levels' as a lever for
this. The established and well used methods of teaching naturally bring
all skills together, in a variety of combinations - not just those
implicit in the proposed ATs e.g.
When presenting language, the pairing tends to follow the pattern of
(1) a receptive skill followed by (2) a productive skill
| listening and understanding .. leads to speaking |
| reading and understanding ... leads to writing |
When practising language ...
| any number of skills can be combined e.g.: |
listen to a news item then
- give a verbal response (S)
- read a newspaper article to see if matches (R)
- write a letter to a newspaper to give a response (W)
The KS2 and KS3 Frameworks give helpful non-statutory guidance on
teaching. Awarding separate levels to separate skills will not compromise
good teaching. |
|
4 skills an external assessment 'norm' in UK |
Skills can be used separately in authentic situations e.g. listening
to a range of media for enjoyment / information (TV, radio, film, web); reading
for enjoyment / information (e.g. newspaper, magazine, web, letters);
giving an oral presentation, leaving a message on an ansaphone; writing
a letter, an account, a poster, an advert etc)
GCSE tests 4 skills separately
Language Ladder (Asset) tests 4 separately.
To assess separately is a fair, valid and reliable way to assess
performance e.g.
| It would be unfair to penalise the standard of someone's speaking
skills they failed to understand a question posed in a particular way. |
| It would be unfair to penalise reading skill for failing to
understand the specific question posed in French
|
|
|
Less manageable in on-going assessment for learning |
It is false to assert that a reduction in ATs would be 'more
manageable' for teachers. In fact it makes it much worse. And if ICU were
included this would in fact increase teacher workload.
The reality is that teachers will try to be as precise as possible when
assessing pupils for their learning, and unpick the elements even within a
skill area.
To combine 2 skills will necessitate even more 'unpicking' and make it
more difficult to assess progress. e.g. typically pupils find the
receptive skills relatively quicker to pick up than the productive skills.
It would be rather confusing for colleagues using both systems of
National Curriculum levels and language ladder levels to compare the two
systems. The aim of a reform is to make things more logical and it should
work in favour of the students. This has to be doubted in this case. |
|
Not appropriate to draw direct comparison with learning mother tongue |
The process for learning a second language is different from mother
tongue, and it is not appropriate to align language ATs with those of
English. In a foreign language the difference between reception and
production is very marked. It will be very difficult for teachers to make
an accurate assessment of pupils' progress using these new ATs. |
It may be worth raising the concern about the lack of definition in the skill
descriptors... although it would be understandable if this were not changed now,
as we are arguing that it is not appropriate to change without the usual full
process of revision.
Here is a reminder of the nature of concerns expressed during the last
revision:
|
Nature of the descriptors - little change from the separate skills ..
brought together.
|
It is understandable why the individual descriptors have not changed,
as they have been subject to recent discussion.
It may be worth repeating the points made in the original consultation
about the danger of context-free or content-free descriptors. Currently
the wording does not give any indication as to the breadth of vocabulary
needed to demonstrate a level and can be seen as too 'vague' or 'woolly'
It can be argued that it is possible to get a student to level 6 by
teaching him/her all the necessary phrases, grammar, etc. within one topic
area - e.g. holidays. As soon as the student has to talk about food /
health problems / issue with a car / tell a story /write a creative poem
the only things he/she can think of have something to do with the topic
area holiday. Another student might not be taught the grammar needed to
gain the necessary level but has learnt a variety of phrases / verbs etc.
in conjunction with many topic areas. Who is more likely to get along in a
conversation - the latter one!
At what level ought a pupil to be able to use conjunctions (rather than
connectives e.g. then, finally etc) to make compound sentences (as opposed
to complex). It still appears that you can reach Level 5 and still not be
joining sentences with and / but (?). Complex sentences have different
implications across the languages, and this has never been resolved. Where
do modal verbs fit in? - again a complex issue, depending upon the
language. |
|
Role of Assessing Pupil Progress (APP) guidance to address these
concerns |
One of the value of APP would be the elaboration /clarification /
amplification of the level descriptors .. BUT this would be contingent on
the APP strands matching the Attainment Target strands. |
|
