This is the third in a series of
posts that looks at the generic grade descriptors published by Ofsted, and
shows you exactly how someone could manipulate them to meet their own ends. So
far, the main problems that have been unearthed are:
- the requirement for teachers to
do something that is out of their control in order to meet a certain grade
- logical impossibilities
relating to the requirement to reach at least a ‘good’ and regarding average
student ability and expectations
- vagueness and lack of
explicitness that is inconsistent across different grades, in general the
criteria for outstanding being much more explicit than that of inadequate
3. Grade Descriptors: the curriculum
Outstanding: The curriculum in the subject provides
highly positive, memorable experiences and rich opportunities for high quality
learning, has a very positive impact on pupils’ behaviour and, where
appropriate, their safety, and contributes very well to pupils’ achievement
and, where appropriate, to their spiritual, moral, social and cultural
development.
Good: The curriculum in the subject provides
well organised, imaginative and effective opportunities for learning for all
groups of pupils including disabled pupils and those who have special
educational needs, promotes positive behaviour and, where appropriate, their
safety, and provides a broad range of experiences that contribute well to the
pupils’ achievement and, where appropriate, to their spiritual, moral, social and
cultural development.
Satisfactory: The curriculum in the subject is
generally matched to pupils’ needs, interests and aspirations and provides
adequate preparation for the next stage of their lives, whatever their starting
points.
Inadequate: The curriculum in the subject fails to
meet the needs of pupils or particular groups of pupils.
Firstly, the inconsistency
between the different grade descriptors is very profound here. The most
striking is that the only mention of SEN students is within the good criteria
(although ‘particular groups’ are mentioned in inadequate), and you can see
very clearly that as the grade gets lower, there are noticeably less words used
to describe that grade. This means less evidence is required to give someone an
inadequate, and more is required to give an outstanding. Surely the amount of
evidence generated from a lesson of any level of quality should be the same?
Within the outstanding and
good categories itstates, 'curriculum needs to be designed to impact on student’s
behaviour': I’m not entirely sure why the two are linked – surely the only thing
that can possibly impact behaviour is good behaviour management? Certainly
activities can be pitched at students who are known to behave better or worse,
for example, better behaved students can cope better with group tasks. But is
this not contradictory to high expectations? Also, in order to impact on
behaviour, does that not require a restriction in available curriculum
opportunities?
Also with regards to this
particular requirement, in good you are simply required to ‘promote’ good
behaviour, while in outstanding you are required to have an ‘impact’ on it. Did
you know that you only need to promote good behaviour to achieve a good, not
actually get the students to do the good behaviour? That doesn’t sound right at
all, and certainly is not how it is interpreted ‘on the ground’.
If
you want to read the full Ofsted grade descriptors they can be found at this
link.
Can you explain how to make
sense of these particular descriptors? Are you satisfied with how your
curriculum is being assessed? Please comment below.
Similar post: How Ofsted Grading Criteria Can Be Manipulated 2
0 comments:
Post a Comment