Thursday 4 January 2007

2020 Vision

This 2020 Vision report is quite interesting. It was done by a review group linked to the government and it analyses the current school-level teaching and learning setup and suggests improvements. It's way too long to go through everything in one post, so feel free to download it and look at the entire thing yourself. I'll be going through what I consider to be the most important bits in this blog entry.

The following are five points from part 2 of the report that were suggested to improve assessment:
  1. Engineering effective discussions, questions and tasks that elicit evidence of learning.
  2. Providing feedback that moves learners forward.
  3. Clarifying and sharing learning intentions and criteria for success.
  4. Activating pupils as the owners of their own learning.
  5. Activating pupils as resources for one another.
Point 1 is expanded by the report suggesting things like pupils having more time to answer a question. How long is 'longer'? That could be interpreted in a number of different ways. If a pupil has more time it doesn't necessarily guarantee that they'll know the answer. There should be more of a focus on content and it's delivery, not timespans for answering questions.

I agree with point 2 - feedback is so crucial, but I think it should be for all tasks and not just a selection. Also, it should be alongside marks - not a replacement for them.

I agree with point 3. The report suggests providing access to mark schemes, which is what universities do already.

Points 4 and 5 are perfect examples of management speak. I agree with point 5 - working with other pupils is good, but point 4 is dubious as it suggests pupils selecting from tasks. This could lead to them only picking the easy ones which won't help at all.

Part 4 of the report focuses on what happens when some pupils fall behind. I'm glad they covered this as it's important to make sure everyone gets to a good standard. However, most of the points in this sectin are fairly generic and/or only mention access to additional support - not what the actual support is. It's not going to be any good if the access is excellent and the support is rubbish. Pupils will then either be left in the same position or worse.

the government should use the opportunity of the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review to introduce a national and school-level aspirational target for there to be no ‘stuck’ pupils. This should provide a focus for increasing the rate of progress between KS1 and KS2 (thereby reducing the number of children leaving primary school with below expected levels of attainment) and between KS2 and KS3.

This is ok, but doesn't suggest options for what the target should be, which doesn't make it too useful. It also points out the obvious - that there should be support for the core subjects of English and Maths from KS1 upwards.

The report also covers learning spaces and Continuous Professional Development (CPD), which is an equivalent of Personal Development Planning (PDP). I'm not surprised by the PDP issue, the government are pushing PDP in universities so it would make sense to implement it in lower levels so it is truly 'continuous'.

The report has a few points about learning spaces:
  1. Be flexible enough to allow for a variety of learning and teaching approaches and greater diversity in the size and age mix of pupil groupings.
  2. Be familiar and welcoming for parents and the wider community, inviting them and encouraging them into school.
  3. Emphasise participation and collaboration, through being open, safe and inviting.
  4. Support interaction, knowledge sharing and learning amongst teachers and support staff.
  5. Use technology - both within and outside classrooms - to enhance learning.
I don't disagree with these points, but they are far too generic. As there is so much room for interpretation, some schools could comply with the five points and still not have good learning spaces. For instance, 'Use technology' could mean either two computers and a printer with a few bits of software, or it could mean loads of networked PCs, with WiFi access, projectors etc. and continually updated programs that are totally relevant to the course.

Catering for different styles is also mentioned. This could be good, but it depends on how it's implemented. It could mean increased paperwork and unnecessary complexity.

To conclude, I would say that the report highlights several points that are worth considering to improve schools, but some parts are far too generic and could mean a 'good standard for all' is unobtainable.

A DfES article about this report can be found here.

What do you think?

1 comment:

Wesley Mason said...

For the most part I completely agree, however I don't believe any of these suggestions or changes will ever make the slightest bit of difference in the grand scheme of things.
Why?

Without necessary levels of parent support and interaction no discernable different can be made. There are plenty of kids falling way behind even at ages 3-9 who go to great primary schools with lots of support from hard working teachers, and yet you can go into many primary schools and see 9 year olds with the reading age of a toddler, who have trouble writing, let alone spelling, their own name; in this respect, it is all about the parents, if they don't care enough to support their children, their children will be "damaged" now, and the years it can take to recover are not small. That is, if they are ever willing to recover again, as many who become adults take on their parents attitude "the school failed me, it's not my responsibility".
This is what many parents believe, they believe it is the schools responsibility alone to educate their children. Attitude to education needs to be enforced at home, with parents reading with and supporting their own children, before any change to schools will frankly make a "dam".