Constructing a coherent key stage 3 assessment system

I’m embarrassed to admit that I hadn’t really considered how assessment might be a coherent system in key stage 3 until recent years. This process began when we were asked to consider how we would assess in our subjects when levels were no longer necessary. We’ve been lucky enough to be given the time to continue to develop our ideas over the past couple of years rather than having to have a  system that we were stuck with. Sadly, some schools hastily implemented new systems that were essentially levels rehashed. I blogged on the ‘Emperor’s new clothes’ of levels here and how some have replaced levels with levels.

At the start of this process, I initially thought about what it is that we wanted to assess. I ended up with a lot of potential ideas. This is where RE colleagues are divided; what can/should we assess in RE. I took ideas from the new A Levels and GCSE. I don’t believe that it is our job to attempt to assess things like empathy or students’ own opinions. I think that students should be taught argument writing skills and key ideas of critical thinking in order to create coherent, well evidenced arguments. Alongside this we should be clear what knowledge we want them to learn and be able to apply throughout the keys stage.

Our original ideas started with far too many things for the curriculum time we have. We have reduced what we assess down to very few things. We see year 7 once a week; it would be impossible to assess everything all the time. Reading Daisy Christodoulou’s book ‘Making good progress’ confirmed my instinct that we don’t need to assess everything all the time. I’ve come to the belief that less is more; they shouldn’t be doing everything needed for GCSE at key stage 3 and key stage 3 shouldn’t be full of GCSE exam questions. However, key stage 3 should be a foundation for those who take GCSE but also a foundation in logical argument skills if they choose not to continue their study of religions.

We’ve treated the skills as we have treated knowledge. In order for students to develop and improve their skills we have repeated them and spaced them over time. However knowledge itself is really important. It is included in two ways. Students are tested using multiple choice quizzes at the start/middle/end of each topic and then these quizzes are spaced/interleaved throughout the year. We’ve yet to do this across year 7 and year 8. I’ve not heard of anyone doing this and I’m not sure that it’s necessary with so little curriculum time. I’m prepared to be challenged on this.

The second way we look at knowledge is through these written assessments. We look for depth of knowledge and use of specific keywords to show their understanding of the content they’ve been taught.

The tracker above shows the frequency of coverage and at the moment they are used as a RAG system. We have 6 ‘assessments’ over the year, one each half term indicated by 1a, 1b etc. These are linked to clear, ‘objective’ criteria for each element. For example, using quotations includes using quotation marks, referencing and explain what the quotation means.

I’m currently pondering if this is sufficient as there can be many ways that a student partly meet the criteria yet the system isn’t detailed enough to show this. I want to keep it simple but it needs more clarity of development. Any thoughts/ideas on developing this, welcomed.

Is it a levels system?

The key to ensuring that this isn’t levels rehashed is that we don’t have to amalgamate these individual aspects of their learning to create one letter/number/level/grade. We use this tracker and other sources to use out professional judgement on whether students are making progress. It’s not a science but we’re moving towards making it as clear and objective as possible.

This system has the same issues as many assessment systems. One written assessment is not necessarily a true snapshot of what a student can do. Using it to consider progress is full of flaws. However, as we continue to refine it I feel it is better than using generalised summary statements or grades that conflate everything into one. We’re still working on it. Suggestions welcomed.