The main purpose of The Commission on Assessment Without Levels is to not only “set up to provide advice and support to schools in developing new approaches to their own in-school assessment” but to also “ensure they have information to make informed choices about what might work for their pupils, staff and curriculum” (McIntosh 5). The study is, therefore, mainly concerned with both analyzing the current framework for assessment as well as implementing strategies that can help to provide more useful opportunities in the future. This paper aims to demonstrate the underlying importance of developing strategies that can contend with the dynamic and complex nature of education. This presents the need for the development of effective strategies in implementing better educational methods in the future. The need for this presents the importance of the study and the intended audience. Furthermore, in analyzing the level of discursive saturation within the paper, a better understanding of how well its content can be understood by those reading it can be achieved.
The study is inherently concerned with the underlying capabilities of the students in school and derives its purpose from the need to better understand their ability to keep up with and comprehend the material that is being presented. The main concern that the paper has in this sense is that “too frequently levels also came to be used for in-school assessment between key stages in order to monitor whether pupils were on track to achieve expected levels at the end of key stages” (McIntosh 5). In presenting the ability to develop an understanding of the nature of these opportunities the paper attempts to be essentially concerned with the ability for the assessment to point out issues and provide capabilities for advancement. The use of the term “key stages” is important as it expresses the underlying importance of various points within the lesson plan. This language is used in order to express the ideas o these important aspects of educational planning.
Another major concern that resulted in the creation of the report was the tendency for students to be pushed forward in order to meet standards, although they may not have had the necessary knowledge necessary to do so. “Depth and breadth of understanding were sometimes sacrificed in favour of pace” (5). This had the result of making it all the more difficult to accurately determine the position that a student was in to succeed. This is one of the major challenges that the study found in the development of assessments that can help to determine the state of a student's education. This can help to provide a sense of relative importance in regards to the capabilities that students have been assessed with. The study, here, seems to be focused on those educators that have failed to account for the individual needs of the student. By using these ideas, “depth and breadth” the authors present the importance of establishing a relationship with students on an individual level. The research is, therefore, done for the sake of both teachers and students, due to the need to create effective teachers in order to educate.
Saturation within the study is high, as is evident in the focus that it has on clearly defining the concerns and laying out ways of contending with them. The study suggests that the best way to present information to students is to make sure that it is “clearly tied to its intended purpose” (5). Making sure that the students are clear in how they can utilize the knowledge that they are going over is, in this way, an essential part of the development of curriculum. Accurate collection of data as well as the implementation of policies that utilize this data is important in the development of these methods. This is important in establishing more effective means of ensuring that students are provided with the best possible education and that they are prepared for their futures. Here, the study indicates the need for presenting the evidence to a wider audience.
The assessment that the government made of the study presents the essential considerations that the standards that have been considered important. The study has found that one of the major concerns was the implementation of the levels. This is evident in the fact that they had to “remove levels from the national curriculum because it was clear that they were no longer fit for purpose” as well as the fact that they “were often having a negative impact on teaching” (STA 3). For this reason, it has been considered to be important to develop methods that overcome these limitations. By removing these levels, students are given a more flexible pat towards achieving a specific level of education. Here, the government's assessment is clearly directed towards the establishment of a structure that removes hierarchy. The use of the term “purpose” and the discussion of the implications of a negative impact present the importance of their position in relation to educators.
The assessment is the result of the understanding that students will face numerous challenges going forward in the development of future assessment strategies. These difficulties have provided underlying need to develop more accurate policies. In order to achieve this, schools will require from their governments “varying degrees of support” (STA 4). The support that they receive can, therefore, help them to establish better standards for education within the educational system through providing the best ways to develop these conditions. By providing flexible support based on the specific needs of a school, those schools will be better equipped to develop curriculum that their students can succeed under. This is important in developing more efficient and effective measures for education. The government study here demonstrates the need for flexibility through the use of the idea of variance. This can allow educators to challenge their held perspectives. While much of the language used in both reports can be understood in a general sense, the more technical terms seem to indicate that they were undertaken for those who are specialized as teachers.
Works Cited
McIntosh, John. Final Report of the Commission on Assessment Without Levels. 2015.
Government response: Commission on Assessment without Levels. Standards & Testing Agency. 2015.
