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.
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.
Ofsted Curriculum Research Review
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