Monday 6 December 2021

Points to make re DfE GCSE MFL subject content and Ofsted curriculum research review

This article is downloadable as a word doc here from my Google Drive.

The two topics are actually intertwined and cross-referenced, with the combined impact covering both the ASSESSMENT and the PEDAGOGY.

This intertwining is highly problematic (see below) for aspects which should be separate.

DfE GCSE MFL subject content

There is a temptation to jump into countering the proposals themselves, but we need to step back and ask:

Why have GCSE French, German and Spanish been singled out for revision?

… especially as the 'new' specifications have only been examined as exams twice.

Are these specifications significantly worse than other subjects?

No evidence has been put forward.

Are the details of the specifications (as opposed to other possible factors) deterring pupils and schools from studying Fr, Gn, Sp?

No substantive evidence has been offered, given that the content of the exam will still need to maintain standards including preparing for A Level.

But there is widespread concern about the decline in numbers taking GCSE Fr, Gn, Sp.  Surely this revised content will improve matters?

This is tantamount to “something must be done.  This is something.  We must do it!”.  There is no evidence that these proposals will improve the situation.  Indeed, anecdotal evidence on social media and elsewhere is that for typical comprehensive pupils, the NCELP materials (whose pedagogy underpins the p[roposals - see below)  are dry and uninspiring.

There is widespread agreement that severe grading in French, German and Spanish must be tackled to bring the grading into line with other EBacc subjects,  to remove the situation where pupils can see that they are getting a grade lower in ML than their other subjects, and reasonably conclude that they are worse at ML, and schools suffer in performance measures.

Surely if these proposals increase standards, then grades will go up.

NO. “Comparable outcomes” means that whatever the “standards” are, then the grade distribution will remain the same (subject to any changes in prior attainment).

Are there sensible adaptations which could be made to current specifications (without need for new specification)?

Very much so.  One of the tempting aspects for teachers when the consultation came out was to see proposals dealing with three concerns about the current specification.  These have been made into three sensible adaptations which have the support of exam boards.

1.      Have a defined word list for ASSESSMENT (but not to intertwine this with the NCELP pedagogy.)  Exam boards could be required to provide lists of vocabulary with, say  50% High Frequency, 50% other vocabulary [-the current specifications are not required to have a list, and if they do, 10% of language tested must not be on the list] and a list required for receptive use could be larger than that for productive use.  [The proposals require all vocabulary and grammar to be productive.]

2.      Use English for rubrics / instructions / testing comprehension. [Currently (a) questions prompting spoken or written target language are required to be in the target language, and (b) a certain percentage of comprehension questions must be in the target language and require answers in the target language.]

3.      Require speaking 'at no faster than a moderate pace, where each word is clearly discernible' for the purposes of listening comprehension. [Although admittedly making each word discernible is more of a challenge in French which has liaisons]

Fundamental contradiction

Although teachers may have concerns about the details of some of the current themes, all the feedback including the ALL webinar polls indicates that teachers want to keep themes, as this gives the context and content for teaching which will then be assessed in the GCSE

However, there is a fundamental contradiction between retaining themes (i.e rejecting the DfE proposal to remove themes) and mandating a 1700 word list constructed using adult general corpora.

Why might there be a difference between responses given at the start of the consultation period with those given towards the end?

The DfE are  saying that the majority of teachers support the proposals (in response to the official DfE consultation begun in March) and yet, since April, surveys and public statements including over 100  teachers and organisations signing the APPG statement, are asking for reconsideration of the proposals.

 To use the sporting cliché, it’s been a game of two halves.  Evidence for this comes from both what was published by organisations and looking at social media.

 “First half”: Consultation launched on 10th March.  DfE publish supporting PowerPoint; 17th March (within a week of the launch) NCELP and associates distribute copious materials to support the proposals.  Teachers working at NCELP schools supportive.  Teachers attracted by the idea of word list and making the GCSE “easier”. [See 'sensible adaptations' which could answer these concerns without radically changing the specification and which are approved by the exam boards.]

 “Second half”:  Analysis by ALL and others highlight the consequences of using a restricted range from adult corpora to generate the word list, and the contradiction with retaining themes. ALL run two webinars  [25th March, before spring break + 20th April after spring break] and conduct polls att eh second webinar [20th April]. Following concerns expressed by wide range of organisations, APPG produce statement [13th May] asking for pause and effective collaboration with language and teacher organisations.   This is signed by a wide range of organisations and 1000 teachers before the consultation ended on 19th May.

 The date for the end of the consultation coincided with the date for completing the process for gathering evidence of Teacher Assessed grades during this exceptionally highly pressured period as a result of COVID.

Why is there a fundamental problem of the DfE citing Ofsted research?

 Circular argument within an echo chamber

There are real concerns that the latest letters from DfE written to individuals and organisations who are expressing concern about the GCSE subject content proposals refer to the Ofsted Curriculum research review.

1.      This review has been widely criticised for its selective use of research, and cross-referencing to that referred to in the GCSE subject content proposals

2.      Ofsted is focussing on the curriculum and pedagogy, whereas the DfE GCSE subject content should be focussing on GCSE content, but veers out of scope in promoting a particular pedagogy, and forms of assessment.

“Culture” is an attractive concept, but what does it mean when applied to a specification?

Do you assess culture?  This is highly problematic and echoes past issues when discussing the possibility of  assessing'citizenship'.

Is it not a code for 'themes covering aspects of life'?


We hope that this series of questions helps us to step back and address the fundamental issues underlying these proposals, and can help to avoid getting bogged down in the detail of debating pedagogy - arguments which can distract us from the fundamental questions we should be asking.

 Helen Myers + David Blow.

Ofsted Curriculum Research Review

 More reflections to follow, but meanwhile,

This post covers the issue of contradiction between National Curriculum and 'may statements

This post covers the review in detail

This page gives links to webinars and presentations relating to the review.

 


No comments:

Post a Comment