<Tutor>
<Department>
Introduction
Government Policy on Assessment for Learning
According to the Assessment for Learning Strategy practice resource published by the Department for Children, School, and Families, AFL should be implemented in the school level following the methodologies prescribed by the Assessing Pupil’s Progress policy. The objective is to ensure that the students know what they are doing and for the teachers to be equipped with well-found judgment about the student’s attainment (DCSF, 2008). In addition, schools would be able to structure an assessment system to make regular, accurate, and manageable assessments (DCSF, 2008). As defined by the DCSF policy brief, AFL should be differentiated from Learning Assessment, as the former is more on the formative approach while the latter purports summative assessment.
Under the government prescribed policy, teachers are required to conduct robust assessment and monitoring of the pupil’s progress in reading, writing, and mathematics throughout the year using the APP criteria. The purpose of the assessment is for the teachers to accurately determine at which level the student is doing well. The basic approach to AFL was outlined in the APP policy brief encompassing a straightforward approach to the assessment process (DCSF, 2008). Step one is to consider evidence obtained from the day-to-day periodic, and transitional exercises followed by step two in which the evidence will be reviewed to enable a sound judgment. Judging from the evidence obtained from the sub-assessment should be the consideration for the fine-tuning of the overall subject whether adjusts the scheme of schoolwork to high, secure, or low (DCSF, 2008).
Despite the requirements indicated in the prescribed policies of DCSF, it is still apparent that it lacks the necessary guidelines in terms of practical application. For instance, the DCSF policy brief indicates that the AFL assessments should be administered daily and periodically. However, the manner of how these assessments should be administered and what form of assessment should be given was not clearly specified. In the APP policy brief, it was mentioned that the AFL assessment should follow the three-step model, but the problem is that the guideline does not indicate any recommended approach in acquiring data for review. In this regard, the government policy on AFL assessment lacks the overview about good practices in terms of administering assessments.
For the English and Math assessment, determining the weak points and areas of strength of the pupils will require specific assessment method and activities. For example, lessons about the Pythagorean theorem will have the pupils to know what the right-triangle means. In this scenario, assessment criteria may come in a form of activity where the students will be asked to draw a square with equal length on each side. Then, to know if the pupils are familiar with what the right triangle means, they would be able to find it within the square by drawing a diagonal line from either side of the top corner of the square down to the opposite corner. In terms of English corner, vocabulary enrichment exercises can be easily used as an assessment of the pupils’ vocabulary. For example, grouping the pupils into two can be a classroom game with a series of flashcards shown to the pupils and they will have to provide the meaning of each word in the flashcard, the pupils will have to identify as many word definitions as possible. Implementing the same assessment exercises across the curriculum can be done if the teacher has identified the right criteria for assessment. In the case of the school policy on assessment, the same methods were recommended, however, the government policy on the assessment criteria have not indicated particular recommendations that would guide the teachers on how to carry out the assessment in the classroom level.
In order to determine the difference in the implemented policies, the Ricards Lodge high school policy handbook was examined to identify oppositions or similarities. According to the school’s handbook, AFL should be undertaken by the teachers on a day-to-day basis in order to successfully identify the areas in which the students will need more attention in terms leaning. In the outlined policy, the students should be made aware of the work to be assessed in advance including the criteria in which the students are being assessed. In addition, the teachers are advised to provide oral and written feedback in order for the student to know his strengths and what the students can do to build on them. In terms of weaknesses, the same approach was recommended for feedback in order for the students to overcome them. As for the evaluation itself, the students will be given both formal and informal tests.
The important aspect of the assessment policy described in the Ricards handbook is the manner in which the assessments should be given, which the government policy has not clearly evaluated. According to the school policy, the three areas to be assessed are reading, writing, and mathematics. In order to carry out an effective assessment, the teacher will provide the students with a series of materials that they can work on, and the work can be done in small manageable steps. In addition, each assessment will be based on success criteria, which will be shared with the students through a feedback to be given before and after the completion of the assessment. Most importantly, the school policy has clearly indicated how the assessments can be administered. It could be through a series of homework, end of module assessment, and target setting or controlled assessment. At the end of the assessment, the teachers are required to submit a tracking report indicating the TA level of progress achieved by the student with TR analysis indicating the planned intervention approach for the problematic areas of learning.
Oppositions
Oppositions about the government implemented AFL practices indicate that the approach to assessment should constitute a minimized workload and bureaucratic processes that teachers will have to undertake on a day-to-day basis. In addition, the focus on the overall attainment would fail because the approach is rather generalized (Jones, 2005). The results of the AFL obtained using the government’s recommended approach should also take into full account that some students have additional and special needs (NASUWT, 2010). For instance, the APP approach recommends that the teacher should conduct AFLs not only on a daily basis, but also periodically. The periodical assessment constitutes additional responsibility for the teachers, which is unnecessary because the evidence needed to make sound judgment is already present in the daily assessment routines (Jones, 2005).
As compared to the exampled school policy, it is rather more simplified and encompasses less pressure on the part of the student and teacher (NASUWT, 2010). On the contrary, the school policy is broad and lacks the specific criteria that will help the assessment process to systematically determine the weak and the strong areas of learning. Furthermore, the school policy did not show relevant correlation to the principles indicated in the policy brief provided by the DCSF. Apparently, the objectives of the two policies share some similarities except on the part where the approach to assessment requires additional timeline windows. As compared to the simplified version of the school policy, the objectives of the AFL are much easier to understand.
Conclusion
References
DCSF, (2008). Getting to Grips with Assessing Pupils’ Progress. Nottingham: Department for Children, Schools and Families, pp.1-10.
DCSF, (2008). The Assessment for Learning Strategy. Nottingham: DCSF Publications, pp.1-20.
Jones, C. (2005). Assessment for learning. London: Learning and Skills Development Agency.
NASUWT, (2010). Testing and assessment in schools. Position statement. [online] Birmingham: Hillscourt Education Centre. Available at: http://www.nasuwt.org.uk/consum/groups/public/@education/documents/nas_download/nasuwt_009249.pdf [Accessed 19 Feb. 2016].
