Not for the first time, the Department has decided to issue some clarification about the writing assessment framework at Key Stage 2 (and its moderation!). For some inexplicable reason, rather than sharing this clarity in writing, it has been produced as a slowly-worded video – as if it were us that were stupid!
Here’s my take on what it says:
Some Clarity – especially on punctuation
- For Greater Depth, the long-winded bullet point about shifts in formality has to be seen in several pieces of work, with more than one shift within each of those pieces.
- For Expected Standard, it is acceptable to have evidence of colons and semi-colons for introducing, and within, lists (i.e. not between clauses)
- For Expected Standard, any of either brackets, dashes or commas are acceptable to show parenthesis. There is no need to show all three.
- Bullet points are punctuation, but the DfE is pretending they’re not, so there’s no need to have evidence of them as part of the “full range” of punctuation needed for Greater Depth.
- Three full stops to mark ellipsis are also punctuation, but again, the DfE has managed to redefine ellipsis in such a way that they’re not… so again, not needed for Greater Depth.
A bit of guidance on spelling
This was quite clear: if a teacher indicates that a spelling needs correcting by writing a comment in the margin on the relevant line, then the correction of that spelling cannot be counted as independent. If the comment to correct spellings comes at the end of a paragraph or whole piece, without specifying what to correct, then it can still count as independent.
No clarity whatsoever on ‘independence’
Believe me, I’ve re-watched this several times – and not all of them at double-speed – and I’m still bemused that they think this clarifies things. The whole debacle is still reliant on phrases like “over-scaffolding” and “over-detailed”. Of course, if things are over-detailed then there is too much detail. What isn’t any clearer is how much detail is too much detail. The video tells us that:
“success criteria would be considered over-detailed where the advice given directly shapes what pupils write by directing them to include specific words or phrases”
So we know specifying particular words is too much, but is it okay to use success criteria which include:
- Use a varied range of sentence structures
Is it too specific to include this?
- Use a varied range of sentence openers
- Use adverbs as sentence openers
There’s a wide gulf between the three examples above. Which of these is acceptable? Because if it’s the latter, then schools relying on the first will find themselves under-valuing work – and vice versa, of course. That’s before you even begin to consider the impossibility of telling what success criteria and other supporting examples are available in classrooms at the time of writing.
The video tries to help by adding:
“success criteria must not specifically direct pupils as to what to include or where to include something in their writing”
But all of those examples are telling children what to include – that’s the whole point of success criteria.
If I’ve understood correctly, I think all three of those examples are acceptable. But it shouldn’t matter what I think: if the whole system depends on what each of us thinks the guidance means, then the consistency necessary for fair and useful assessment is non-existent.
The whole issue remains a farce. Doubtless this year Writing results will rise, probably pushing them even higher above the results for the externally tested subjects. Doubtless results will vary widely across the country, with little or no relationship to success in the tested subjects. And doubtless moderation will be a haphazard affair with professionals doing their best to work within an incomprehensible framework.
And to think that people will lose their jobs over data that results from this nonsense!
The full video in all its 11-minute glory can be found at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQ-73l71hqQ