Assessment at Key Stage 3

The problem 

Always a subject that has generated more heat than light, assessment continues to preoccupy heads of history and with good reason. When they are under such pressure to prove that pupils are making small steps of progress, subject leaders are being forced to sub-divide the levels in a way that was never intended. What occurs as a result is nothing short of fraudulent. Pupils are being described as level 3.3, when no such thing exists. They are called 4c, when there are no national criteria for 4c. Even if there were, pupils would not always perform at this level on each aspect of history. We all know pupils who are strong on evidence-handling but weak on interpretations. Others have a good chronological awareness but fail to fully grasp the concept of significance. So what do we make of their progress when they move from one unit of work which is (correctly) weighted to cause and consequence to the next which looks at change over time. If they are stronger on one than the other , they will seem to have regressed, when we all know that is not true. It's like asking how good is a gymnast at all the various activities. The truth is that there are some areas that are stronger than others and you only arrive at the final judgement when you have taken all aspects into account. So are there any solutions?

Some possible ways forward.

1. As the number-crunching data managers' spreadsheets will never go away, no matter how hard we plead, we need to establish a position. Mine would be to have a number of assessment tasks across the key stage which allow you to look in detail at pupils' understanding of one or two concepts. The scores from these pieces of work, which would be in the form of short unseen tasks, would be recorded and given high status as it was done individually in class, 'unseen'.

2. I would draw myself, as subject leader, an imaginary line of progress, rather like the Pupils Tracker /Autumn Package graphs, which show the progress that pupils with particular prior attainment should make. With this in mind, I would be looking to set numerical targets for each teaching group in each year. As long as most were making the progress that you feel they should I would, heretically, suggest that you try to find evidence that proves this to be the case.  Show the pupils' work that exemplifies the qualities required of the various 'levels'. Who will challenge it anyway? Far better that than fielding lots of questions about why Louise is only 3.5 when she ought to be 3.75, and then having to write a detailed explanation for each apparently underachieving pupil. This may seem dangerous, but I firmly believe that most of your efforts should be spent improving not just proving pupils' performance in history.

What you will find on the site are:

• 1. A range of high quality, stimulating, fully resourced, diagnostic tasks which have been widely used across the country.
• 2. Intelligently conceived mark schemes accompanying these tasks that you can use with the pupils
• 3. A portfolio of pupils' answers to these tasks, along with expert commentary from an OFSTED inspector, highly skilled in KS3 work scrutiny.

£49.95 for 12 months unlimited access.