Assessing without levels For Soundhub, Kent

September 2014:
Some thoughts
Professor Martin Fautley

Where are we now?

As part of our reforms to the national curriculum , the
current system of levels used to report childrens attainment
and progress will be removed. It will not be replaced.
We believe this system is complicated and difficult to
understand, especially for parents. It also encourages teachers
to focus on a pupils current level, rather than consider more
broadly what the pupil can actually do.
(National Archives Website, 2013)

Fautley 2010

Identifying musical learning

Question: Is this still the case?

Secondary Strategy: DfES (2006)

How did we get to where we are

now?

NC Assessment levels
Originally intended only for use once, at end
of key stage
ie in lower secondary school at age 14

Using levels for individual pieces of

work

Teacher voice:
Perhaps the vagueness of the attainment targets can be excused by the fact
that they were never designed to be used as levels for regular assessment,
rather that they are to be used as a guide to an overall judgement about a
student AT THE END OF THE KEY STAGE. I was almost put on procedures a
few years ago for arguing this point! It also says that judgements should be
arrived at after reviewing a range of work from each student, not one single
piece.

Sub-levels
Had no official status
But were almost universal

Where did sub-levels originate?

The relatively large other category here turn out on analysis all to involve variations
on the answer school policy to use them. This means that some 94.4% of sub-level
statements were written without any external input at all.

Teacher voices
As with the whole levels, the guidance is
extremely woolly. I use them to mean a) Has
very comfortably achieved this level. b) Has
generally achieved this level although there may
be elements which are not yet secure. c) Just
about reached this level.
To be honest, I make them up as I go along. I
have no respect for this system.

Professional discretion

A teacher said:
I thought I was free to use my professional discretion but at
the end of the key stage was told to change the levels to meet
the % target

Is progression linear?

Galton, M., Gray, J., Rudduck, J., Berry, M., Demetriou, H., Edwards, J., Goalen, P., Hargreaves, L., Hussey, S. &
Pell, T. (2003) Transfer and transitions in the middle years of schooling (7-14): continuities and discontinuities
in learning.

Or

http://nationalstrategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/node/169945?uc=force_uj#a2

Or

Sub-levels progress required p.a.

Sublevels per year

2.86%

54.29%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

8.57%

50%

60%

70%

80%

5.71%

90%

Data (and some quotes) from Fautley, 2012

100%

The place of progress target

setting
These are progress targets based on statistical averages
These are often calculated by external agencies
They do not use pupil-specific data
Fischer Family Trust say Estimates are least accurate
for subjects where individual aptitude can impact
significantly (e.g. Art, music)*
Common for schools to use FFT D pupil progress
similar to pupils in the top 25% of schools nationally
last year

* www.lancsngfl.ac.uk/curriculum/assessment/getfile.php?src=299/FFT+Secondary+Guidance+Oct+07.doc

A teacher said
One [GCSE]child could only play a few
notes on a bass guitar, struggled with
composition and listening, and got a D which for
him was pretty good - but FFTD said he should
have got a B which was never going to happen
(unless we'd given him so much help that we
were almost doing it for him)
Personal communication from teacher

Consequences for teachers

Carpeting by line manager. Figures are flagged in
red on data sheet - inquisition into teaching and
learning in department by SLT [Senior Leadership
Team] if significant amount of 'red'. Insinuation
that schemes of work not engaging/enjoyable
enough so pupil voice questionnaire activated to
investigate why. Professional judgement of
teacher largely ignored

Yet another
Each half term, data is analysed in a progress tracker by a data
manager. The data is analysed by cohort (boys, girls, G+T, SEN, LAC,
FSM, NFSM). Following production of the progress tracker, I have to
meet with each member of my team to discuss the progress of each
cohort in each of their classes and they have to explain any
underachievement or leaps in progress. Each member of staff has
an action plan for each group which tracks the intervention they've
put in place with their classes. E.g. letters home, detentions,
homeworks issued. Following meetings with each member of my
team, I then meet with the SLT link for CPA who asks for feedback
from my learning conversations with staff and looks for areas of
good practice. At this meeting, a focus for the 1/2 termly work
scrutiny is agreed and I then have to carry out a work scrutiny and
feed results of this back to SLT. Somewhere in between all this I
think I manage to teach a bit of music!!!

And again

I get b*ll*cked!

Gaming the system:

We get told to increase them. This is directed
from the headteacher - but nothing is ever in
writing. This being the case - as long as we show
every child is improving by the levels, then that is
sufficient - whether they have or not!
SLT dont know what a level 5 or 6 in music looks
or sounds like. As long as you are giving them the
levels they require, they are happy.

NC levels (Ofsted)
In one lesson seen, for example, students
were told: 'Level 3: clap a 3 beat ostinato;
Level 4: maintain a 4 bar ostinato; Level 5:
compose an ostinato.' This demonstrated a
significant misunderstanding of the
expectations inherent in the level
descriptions (Ofsted 2009: 31)

Ofsted said in October 2012:

Music teaching is inadequate when:
Arbitrary grades are given for work, which are
unrelated to national grade/level criteria or
based on manufactured sub-divisions of these
levels.
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/generic-grade-descriptors-and-supplementary-subject-specific-guidance-for-inspectors-making-judgemen

Dylan Wiliam said:

If what you are doing under the heading of
assessment for learning involves putting
anything into a spreadsheet, then you are not
doing the assessment for learning that makes
the most difference to student learning.

(source: https://secure.ssatrust.org.uk/eshop/default.aspx?mcid=21&scid=31&productid=1325)

In other words:
Music teachers are inventing sub-levels;
schools are inventing progression rates;
statistical targets are being set by external
agencies; music teachers are changing their
teacher assessments (against their invented sublevels) to meet the targets.
The target has become a self-fulfilling prophecy

Therefore
Assessment in music is subject to gaming the
system
Not much use in determining actual outcomes
Of little use in measuring either pupil
attainment or school improvement
So, what are the uses of these assessments?

So, what now?

Assessing attainment
Probably should be criterion referenced
Criteria written specifically for the musical
task/project/activity being undertaken
Different criteria needed for each
task/project/activity being undertaken
Criteria need to be uniquely defined, and have
a scalable measure

Attainment and Progress

How can assessments measuring attainment
be used to demonstrate progress?
Are separate measures needed?
Are overarching curriculum goals the starting
point for progression measurement?

CPD needed

Constructing learning programmes

Thinking about destination/distance
Writing assessment criteria
Being freed from whole-school systems that
mitigate against learning musically

But.
Ofsted won't be bothered about all of
that when they visit us, as they will want to see
consistency across the school.
(personal communication from teacher)

Recent NAHT report

the adverse effects of levels caused by the
labelling of pupils and the oversimplification
of numerical measures (NAHT 2014,p14)
Pupils should be assessed against objective
criteria rather than ranked against each other
(ibid p.15)

Recent NAHT report

with the lack of trust exhibited by the
profession itself junior schools often report
that infant schools assessments of their pupils
are over-inflated, secondary schools argue that
they need to test pupils on arrival because
primary assessments, including national tests,
cannot be relied upon. In part, this lack of trust
is due to a lack of consistency and in part to the
perverse incentives resulting from a high stakes
accountability model. (NAHT, 2014 p15)

Recent NAHT report

secondary schools were likely to test pupils as
they came into year 7 rather than trust the KS2
assessments. This was generally seen as a
problem caused by the nature of the
accountability system rather than any
underlying lack of ability within the profession.
(NAHT 2014 p16)

Recent NAHT report

the unintended consequences of a high stakes
assessment system, for example the pressures
exerted by the publication of performance
tables which have created a perverse incentive
to inflate assessments (NAHT, 2014 p31)

Evidence in Music
Musical evidence: This will take the form of
sounds (see next slide!) NB: Not evident in a
book-work trawl!
Written evidence: This can either be
expressed in written text, or some form of
musical notation
Oral evidence: Things which the pupils talk
about
Pictorial evidence: Where the pupils have
drawn illustrations

Ofsted say
Across all the schools visited, audio recording
was not used enough as a means of ongoing
assessment but tended to be used only at the
end of a unit of work. As one pupil said, It is
good we record our work, but it would be
better if we could listen to it more and find
out how we could improve it (Ofsted 2009:
18)

Some Suggestions

Other Grading Criteria

Three levels of
attainment: - / = / +
Working Towards
Working At
Working Beyond

Or:
Can achieve with some
help
Can achieve
Can achieve well
Or other variants!

Example
Assessment Criterion:
Pupil composed piece demonstrates effective use of
dynamics:
- piece does not show effective use of dynamics
= piece shows effective use of dynamics
+ piece shows very effective use of dynamics
NB you do not always need to write down the
wordings, +/=/- will often be sufficient

If a teacher produced five or six (more than that might be

unmanageable) of such criteria for each project/topic/theme
being taught, after a while the results from these assessments
would build up into a profile of minuses, equals, and pluses. This
would give a view as to the progression of the pupils over time.
What can also be done is that assessment criteria can be re-used
over the course of the key stage.

Some teachers like to use a five point scale, as

they require more mark-shading, but again
beware of manageability.
It is also possible to convert the -/=/+ to
numerical scores and calculate a composite
grade for a topic, again, this can be used to chart
progress.

Some of my recent work

Recent work

Assessment grids

Specific to each project, apply only to that project

Source: http://drfautley.wordpress.com

To demonstrate my ideas for charting progression (and it is

important to note that this is an illustration only, each school
should come up with their own), I am going to take the five
strands of musical activity that Ally & I suggested to form the
basis of assessment. These are:
Singing, playing, improvising, composing, listening
To these I am going to add a sixth, which I shall call social,
which covers things like group work, ensemble membership,
and so on. These six strands form the central axes of
progression in music education which I shall be recording over
a key stage.

Reclaiming Assessment I
What is the purpose of this assessment?
To help the pupils
To audit attainment
To show progress

How might these affect the assessment

undertaken?

Reclaiming Assessment II
Move away from levels and (non-existent)
sublevels
Assessment for learning (and doing) not for
linear attainment forecasts
Validity: Assessment for musical learning in,
with, and through musical attainment

Reclaiming Assessment III

Assessment in music needs to be owned by
the music department
Progress needs to be really carefully thought
about
Learning programmes need to be constructed
carefully too

Questions.
What do I want to assess in music education?
Why do I want to assess it?
Who is the assessment for? The pupils? The teacher? Parents? The
system?
What do I want the pupils to learn, what do I want the pupils to do?
How can I construct specific assessment criteria for each of these?
What might an assessment for being musical look (sound?) like?
How important is the role of formative assessment in classroom music?
If it is important, what do I/we need to do to persuade SLTs of this?
Will my school let me assess musically, or will I be forced into a wholeschool straitjacket approach?
We need to disentangle assessment of attainment from assessment of
progress how can we best do this?

Suggested websites
http://www.teacherandmusician.com/2014/06/a
ssessment-strategies-revisited_20.html
http://mrsgowersclasses.wordpress.com/2014/0
1/02/should-what-come-before-how/
http://werryblog.com
http://community.tes.co.uk/ofsted_resources/b/
weblog/archive/2014/06/16/music-in-schoolswhere-words-finish-music-begins.aspx (Blog by
Robin Hammerton: Oftsed Music)

MF current thinking:
What do these words mean?
Measurement
Assessment
Evaluation

Attainment
Progress
Progression (speed of progress)
Target Setting

Professor Martin Fautley

email: martin.fautley@bcu.ac.uk
Twitter: @DrFautley
Blog: drfautley.wordpress.com

References

DfES (2006) 'Secondary National Strategy: Foundation subjects: KS3 music. Unit 1:
Structuring learning for musical understanding'. In DfES (Ed), Department for
Education and Skills.
Fautley, M. (2010) Assessment in Music Education, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Fautley, M. (2012) 'Assessment issues within National Curriculum music in the
lower secondary school in England. '. In Brophy, T. S. & Lehmann-Wermser, A.
(Eds), Proceedings of The Third International Symposium on Assessment in Music
Education, Chicago, IL, GIA Publications. Available from:
http://drfautley.wordpress.com
NAHT (2014) 'Report of the NAHT commission on assessment'. Haywards Heath,
Sussex, National Association of Head Teachers.
National Archives Website (2013) http://bit.ly/1hjdii5 Accessed 02/14
Ofsted (2009) 'Making more of music'. London, Ofsted.
Ofsted (2012) 'Music in schools: wider still, and wider'. Manchester, Ofsted.