QCA Secondary Curriculum Review - Naace position paper

Naace Position Paper: 11th April 2007
QCA Curriculum Review

1. Background Information

This position paper highlights the views of the Naace membership in relation to the QCA's Secondary Curriculum Review.

2. Overview

Naace welcomes the move to provide a curriculum that is inspiring, challenging and adaptable and which aims to raise standards while providing opportunity for schools to personalise learning to meet individual pupils' needs.

Naace strongly agreed with the four main aims of the review: to reduce prescription; increase flexibility; ensure a smooth transition between key stages; and advise on how to improve assessment.

In particular Naace would wish to stress the importance of:

• assessment of progress being integral to the process; and
• the principle that schools should be able to design a curriculum for their pupils that builds on their natural enthusiasms and that provides greater choice about the content and encouraging new curriculum opportunities as contexts for learning;

The Naace membership is already working to maximise this opportunity. ICT is a popular Key Stage 4 subject and there are over 85 courses in section 96 to choose from. Some of these courses allow creativity, some don't. Teachers make those choices; and student achievement is primarily the outcome of how well the subject is taught.

Naace most strongly advises that the biggest challenge to achieving the aims of the review will be linked to progression and how progression can be made from Key Stage 2, through to Key Stage 3 and on to Key Stage 4; and through the embedding and integration of Functional Skills with Key Stage 4 courses. In order to make good progress in ICT for all pupils at Key stage 3 and to ensure an effective delivery mechanism for Functional ICT in the 14 to 19 curriculum, timetabled time for specialist teachers to teach appropriate ICT lessons is essential. Naace wishes to work with all key stakeholders to ensure that this challenge is met.

The use of ICT across the curriculum will encourage innovation, personalisation and creativity for all learners. Naace have already provided a robust position in this area, which also incorporates the role of assessment, in its response to the Gilbert Review: 2020 vision, which can be found within Annex 1.

3. Proposed Changes to Level Descriptions

Overall, the Naace membership agrees with the proposed changes to level descriptions but do have some general concerns and these are outlined below:

• There is a perception that the aims of the review to reduce prescription and increase flexibility, and the resulting vagueness in new level descriptors will make it more difficult for teachers to interpret them. The level descriptors will need translating to students in order for assessment for learning to take place, and this could lead to considerable variations and an associated risk that some teachers may use flexibility to enable a move away from less popular, harder to teach areas.
• Similarly, the Naace membership has raised concerns that if the purpose of assessment is to inform students of what they have achieved and how to improve, it is vital that they understand the criteria they are being judged by. The revised level descriptors for ICT do little to help in this area
• Even in well performing schools, it is unusual for students to work at Level 7 in ICT and yet as Key Stage 3 targets are tied to Maths there is an expectation to have increasing numbers of students achieve at this level. Further, with one lesson per week allocated to ICT, it is impossible to achieve Level 8. Whilst it does seem possible to achieve Level 8 in Maths, there is a view that this is because Maths mainly teaches skills, whilst ICT also includes capabilities which take time to produce evidence. With limited time, the students are unable to provide the evidence required at level 8. This is an area that requires further consideration.
• Higher levels need clearer alignment with Bloom's taxonomy

The Naace membership has provided detailed responses to the proposed changes to ICT Level Descriptors within six main categories:

Rationalisation to avoid duplication with other subjects

The removal of reference to sensors from Level 5 in particular has caused great concern for the Naace membership, along with much of data logging and control. Not only do pupils enjoy this element of work, but it is this work above all that gives them insight into how the ICT systems they encounter in daily life actually work.

Although sensors are used in Science and Design and Technology, within these subjects pupils are not taught about advantages and disadvantages; social effects or given any understanding of how computers process the data. This only takes place in ICT lessons.

There is a growing perception of a tendency to focus ICT on the use of exciting software without any teaching of important concepts that will provide a basis for progressing to GCSE and beyond. Whilst Naace strongly supports the embedding of ICT into other subjects as a tool to support learning and teaching, this should not detract from the importance of ICT as a subject in its own right to develop capability and subject expertise. ICT is multi faceted and is much more than the narrow study of applications. We are already seeing a decline in numbers studying IT at higher levels and such a move could only lead to further decline.

Explicit incorporation of the "key characteristics" of each Level

The Naace membership strongly agrees that key characteristics should be incorporated within each level. Naace was represented on the original QCA group that helped formulate key characteristics for level descriptors that gave generic progression but which were not statutory. Most of the new level descriptors now have these characteristics embedded, but not all. As significant activity throughout the past five years has focused on motivating teachers to use these key characteristics to develop teacher assessment, it is essential that QCA ensure they are contained within all new level descriptors. Our members are confident that as described, and if used carefully, they have potential in assessing the level at which a child is performing.

Incorporation of established "good practice" and commonly recognised Level markers

Naace welcomes the incorporation of "good practice" and commonly recognised level markers. However, some members have urged caution that good practice changes over time and consideration should be given to how the sharing of current good practise can be achieved and maintained.

Technological change

Naace agrees with the suggested rewording under technological change to ensure that the rapid rate of technological change does not result in outdated descriptors.

E-safety

Naace welcomes the move to replace very specific terms with more general ones. However the Association wishes to stress the need to point to practical examples as part of the sharing of good practice. Members have expressed specifically, the importance of the need to teach e-safety, whilst maintaining a good balance in keeping pupils safe in the use of technology.

Primary concerns of the membership relate to fit with the Sample Teaching Units from the National Strategy Framework. ICT teachers have spent several years implementing this and will have to rewrite large sections of courses as a result.

Annex 1 - Response to 2020 Vision report