The bodger was an important element of life a few hundred years ago. Someone who would turn up, with very simple tools, then use the available materials to effect repairs on furniture. As these were often with green timber cut from nearby trees, the repair might prove to be a more temporary measure than expected. Doing a bodge job means something a bit patched up, or cobbled together. The trouble with temporary measures is that, unless they are returned to and put right, they become permanent, until they fall apart. Some bodgers were effectively woodland artisans, often making chair legs for reputable furniture companies.
I’ve come to think that recent changes in the education system have the feel of a bit of a bodge job, possibly tending to be a botch job, which is far worse, as although the bodge might be serviceable, the botch may not hold for long.
We’ve had curriculum change, exam change, SEND change, assessment change, all within a very short period. In addition, there are a dozen commissioned groups looking at different aspects. While change is definitely in the air, teachers, up and down the country, are seeking to make sense of the whole, so that their children don’t suffer. While policy makers might be engaged in bodging the whole, schools and individual teachers will do what they have always done, sought to make it all work. It may not be perfect, but it will fit together, with regular reviews to check that is so.
The trouble with the changes is that, realistically, a great deal of effort has gone into making things work, over and above the day job, as curriculum has been reformed, assessment systems created, or bought, either way demanding considerable time for real understanding.
We’ve had curriculum change, exam change, SEND change, assessment change, all within a very short period. In addition, there are a dozen commissioned groups looking at different aspects. While change is definitely in the air, teachers, up and down the country, are seeking to make sense of the whole, so that their children don’t suffer. While policy makers might be engaged in bodging the whole, schools and individual teachers will do what they have always done, sought to make it all work. It may not be perfect, but it will fit together, with regular reviews to check that is so.
The trouble with the changes is that, realistically, a great deal of effort has gone into making things work, over and above the day job, as curriculum has been reformed, assessment systems created, or bought, either way demanding considerable time for real understanding.
Assessment is likely to be a matter of contention for some time to come, as the realities of letting each school decide a system becomes apparent. Ofsted will need to come to terms with a different system on each visit. Secondary schools will receive transfer records from multiple schools, and, more than ever, are likely to put these to one side and retest the children. Transfer between schools will become complex, as systems don’t quite match up, so individual schools will come up with some form of arrival assessment to find equivalence. SEND will be affected, as any transfer between special education and mainstream will be affected in this way. Records may be less than useful. SEND will also be affected where a school seeks an EHCP assessment, where the rigour and accuracy of the internal record may be a factor in the decisions. Putting significant responsibility onto classroom teachers with regard to SEND without ensuring the quality of skill in decision making also potentially embeds another layer of issue.
The biggest issue is that the system is not holistic, and as a result, contains holes, through which potentially vulnerable learners might fall, not necessarily at school level, but through misunderstandings; the law of unintended consequences.
Assessment, to me, is the biggest bodge/botch job of all, in that a National system was cast aside, ostensibly because it was misused for data and because “parents didn’t understand it”. In reading the first draft of the proposed National Curriculum replacement document with the attainment target statement to essentially know and understand the contents of the curriculum, suggested, when assessment was hived off for schools to make decisions, that it had been done so in order that the curriculum could stand as read. So, however it is dressed up, in effect, children either achieve or not, with different “levels” of achievement, as a scaled score or in words. As this is based on an examination outcome, there is still room for children to have gaps in their learning, as long as they get a pass score.
The biggest issue is that the system is not holistic, and as a result, contains holes, through which potentially vulnerable learners might fall, not necessarily at school level, but through misunderstandings; the law of unintended consequences.
Assessment, to me, is the biggest bodge/botch job of all, in that a National system was cast aside, ostensibly because it was misused for data and because “parents didn’t understand it”. In reading the first draft of the proposed National Curriculum replacement document with the attainment target statement to essentially know and understand the contents of the curriculum, suggested, when assessment was hived off for schools to make decisions, that it had been done so in order that the curriculum could stand as read. So, however it is dressed up, in effect, children either achieve or not, with different “levels” of achievement, as a scaled score or in words. As this is based on an examination outcome, there is still room for children to have gaps in their learning, as long as they get a pass score.
This week, I have had a number of experiences that have brought all this to the fore; mainly a Governor briefing on the changes in assessment and a visit to a local special school for serious needs, where I am supporting a trainee teacher.
The former was something of a waste of time, in that it felt unstructured and over-generalised in scope. Maybe this was for the lay audience, but there were several ex-heads and teachers in the audience, as well as well-informed Governors. As assessment change was flagged up a couple of years ago, to be at this point with advice was significantly disappointing. Clarity was not forthcoming, nor did it appear that it would be, in the short term.
Assessment, seen as something to be done at the end of a period of study, to me is the weakest form of assessment.
Assessment for Learning, I have argued in a number of blogs, should inform all decisions. Starting with general knowledge of children, plans are created with structured tasks that enable the teacher to engage with the learning, asking the right questions to elicit thinking and to unpick any issues arising, to adjust to evidence then to reassess the journey based on outcome evidence. All this to be against a general background understanding of what can be expected of children of a similar age. End testing might check the specifics of what has been retained in knowledge terms, but to test all that has been covered often proves very difficult. Like all MOTs, it is also only really valid on the day of testing.
The visit to the Special School raised the issue of record keeping. This school, as it takes serious SEN needs, will require good understanding of the learning needs of the children who will be coming. Equally, they are required by the authority to have a system of their own for assessment, and, having selected their preferred model may find that any transfer back to mainstream will require interpretation or equivalence checking to support the transition.
Equally, the ITE trainee, while they pick up the needs of this school, may find that, in a second practice and in their first school, they encounter significantly different systems. Of course this will apply to any teacher moves.
Given the current complexity in the system as a whole, could there be a time where teachers choose to stay in one year group, to avoid having to relearn the curriculum for another, as well as having growing confidence in their assessment abilities, based on their experience of outcomes? This could mean that schools then need to find specialists in a particular year, within already limited fields of candidates, or be prepared to allow a significant settling period. There will be issues with short term cover, as supply teachers grapple with different systems.
I wonder who will get the blame for any botched system changes?
The former was something of a waste of time, in that it felt unstructured and over-generalised in scope. Maybe this was for the lay audience, but there were several ex-heads and teachers in the audience, as well as well-informed Governors. As assessment change was flagged up a couple of years ago, to be at this point with advice was significantly disappointing. Clarity was not forthcoming, nor did it appear that it would be, in the short term.
Assessment, seen as something to be done at the end of a period of study, to me is the weakest form of assessment.
Assessment for Learning, I have argued in a number of blogs, should inform all decisions. Starting with general knowledge of children, plans are created with structured tasks that enable the teacher to engage with the learning, asking the right questions to elicit thinking and to unpick any issues arising, to adjust to evidence then to reassess the journey based on outcome evidence. All this to be against a general background understanding of what can be expected of children of a similar age. End testing might check the specifics of what has been retained in knowledge terms, but to test all that has been covered often proves very difficult. Like all MOTs, it is also only really valid on the day of testing.
The visit to the Special School raised the issue of record keeping. This school, as it takes serious SEN needs, will require good understanding of the learning needs of the children who will be coming. Equally, they are required by the authority to have a system of their own for assessment, and, having selected their preferred model may find that any transfer back to mainstream will require interpretation or equivalence checking to support the transition.
Equally, the ITE trainee, while they pick up the needs of this school, may find that, in a second practice and in their first school, they encounter significantly different systems. Of course this will apply to any teacher moves.
Given the current complexity in the system as a whole, could there be a time where teachers choose to stay in one year group, to avoid having to relearn the curriculum for another, as well as having growing confidence in their assessment abilities, based on their experience of outcomes? This could mean that schools then need to find specialists in a particular year, within already limited fields of candidates, or be prepared to allow a significant settling period. There will be issues with short term cover, as supply teachers grapple with different systems.
I wonder who will get the blame for any botched system changes?
RSS Feed
