The Role of the School Curriculum and the Assessment of Childrens Learning - Essay Example

Critically evaluating the role of the school curriculum and the assessment of children’s learning in maximising the potential of every child By Student Name Course University Date Introduction The school curriculum which is guided by learning objectives, assessments and so on, contains and dictates lessons, materials, contents and generally what teachers and their students are expected to do on a daily basis (Ball and Cohen, 1996). Ideally, schools develop a creative curriculum which also establishes standards for ‘high quality teaching and learning’ which helps students realize their full potential (Great Britain, Parliament, House of Commons, Education and Skills Committee, 2007: 25). Assessments which involve the consistent evaluation of the child’s academic progress as a means of supporting and enhancing their learning, should also help the child reach its full potential (van Oers, 2012). Evidence of an achievement gap reveals however, that the curriculum and assessment goals geared toward children achieving their full potential falls short. For example, as early as 22 months, children from wealthy backgrounds outperform children living in poverty and the gap grows as children move forward in school. Children from low income homes are ‘half as likely to get five good GCSEs’ than children from higher income families and are less likely to move on to a post-secondary education (Sharples, Slavin and Chambers, 2011:6). White males from working class families perform worse than other children in school (Sharples, et al., 2011). This essay will critically analyse the role of the curriculum and assessment of children’s learning in helping children achieve their full potential. This essay will therefore analyse the achievement goals of the curriculum and assessment and identify their strengths and weaknesses. This essay is divided into two main parts. The first part of this essay analyses the curriculum and the second part of this essay analyses the assessment of children’s learning. The Curriculum The school curriculum essentially answers two questions: what should be taught in schools and how it should be taught (Beauchamp, 1978). Curriculum planners will typically establish a standard for teaching and learning and will determine expected outcomes and what should be taught and who teaching should be conducted in order to achieve expected outcomes (Kelly, 2009). However, teachers are responsible for the implementation and development of the curriculum (Kelly, 2009). All too often however, teachers have demonstrated a tendency to ignore the curriculum or make only a half-hearted attempt to fully implement the curriculum (Beauchamp, 1978). England’s school curriculum policy directs that all publically funded schools are required to develop a curriculum that is ‘balanced and broadly based’ and ‘promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school and of society’ (Department for Education, 2013: 5). The school curriculum must also ‘prepare pupils at the school for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of later life’ (Department for Education, 2013:5). The national curriculum, which is a compulsory part of the school curriculum, ‘introduces’ student to the ‘best that has been thought and said; and helps engender an appreciation of human creativity and achievement’ (Department for Education, 2013:6). In this regard, the national curriculum outlines main areas of education that students are at liberty to enhance and incorporate in lessons for helping children learn and develop skills and knowledge in compliance with the school’s curriculum. Essentially, the Secretary of State for Education publishes study programmes for the subjects in the national curriculum and sets out ‘matters, skills and processes’ that should be taught at each phase of the education system (Department for Education, 2013: 6). Schools however, are at liberty to select the organization of the school day provided ‘the content of the national curriculum programmes of study is taught to all pupils’ (Department for Education, 2013:6). According to Oates (2010), the national curriculum has made progress in safeguarding against duplicity in subject content and has succeeded in improving academic outcomes for pupils. There has also been a balancing of subjects in primary school with improvements in science. Female students have also performed better in science and mathematics. The structuring of contents together with assessment, has resulted in the determination of important learning and teaching needs. As a result of the national curriculum, students now have ‘greater expectations’ (Oates, 2012:6). Oates, (2012) identified three main weaknesses with the national curriculum and its transference to the school curriculum. First, under pressure to comply with the national curriculum, teachers generally ‘move with undue pace’ and have taken a ‘tick list approach to teaching’ (Oates, 2012: 7). Secondly, it is not altogether clear what can or cannot be included in the contents of a subject. Thirdly, due to assessments, teachers are prone to focus narrowly on national assessments (Oates, 2012). It is therefore obvious that teachers are not always teaching creatively and are failing to stimulate the learning that can help all students reach their maximum potential. Therefore, while there have been improvements in student outcomes, there is room for improvement which indicates that the school curriculum is not maximising the potential for each student. According to Johnson, Ellis, Gotch, Ryan, Foster, Gillespe and Lowe (2007), the main problem with the national curriculum is that politicians sought to simplify it. In simplifying the curriculum, politicians have urged curriculum planners to limit the curriculum to subject contents. As a result, all too often students leave school early, or graduate and do not go on to higher education. The challenge is therefore to construct a curriculum that motivates and engages students to learn and to remain in school (Johnson, et al., 2007). In a presentation to the Department for Education (DfE), Alexander (2012) identified a key weakness in the national curriculum and its impact on a school’s curriculum. According to Alexander (2012), the national curriculum encourages a practice that emphasizes testing children as opposed to engaging them. With a main focus on testing and testing outcomes, talk in the classroom tends to be one way with a teacher reciting what should be retained rather than encouraging two-way communication (Alexander, 2012). Thus, Alexander (2012: 2) recommended curriculum reforms that encouraged and emphasised more ‘speaking and listening’ communication skills in England’s classrooms and this meant changes to teachers’ training and ‘professional standards’. Shilling’s (2013:20) qualitative study on congruency between the school curriculum and actual teaching in the classroom revealed a ‘mismatch’. According to Shilling (2013), teachers have less autonomy now with an emphasis on transparency and accountability together with national assessments. Complicating matters, the curriculum is often structured and planned by external parties and teachers often have experiences and training that are incompatible with the curriculum. Moreover, teachers may find that their classroom needs require a different approach than that required by the curriculum (Shilling, 2013). In other words, the curriculum denies teachers the kind of flexibility needed to maximise each child’s potential. Instead teachers, mindful of accountability and national assessment standards, tend to teach toward assessment outcomes rather than focusing on each child’s potential. The goal of fostering creativity is therefore difficult to obtain when teachers are constrained by national assessments and have no real input into the planning and preparation of the national curriculum. Creativity is further compromised because students are forced to receive information and are not sufficiently involved in classroom. Assessment of Children’s Learning There are two types of assessments in England’s education system: formative and summative assessments (Harlen, 2007). Formative assessment is defined as: …the process of seeking and interpreting evidence for use by learners and their teachers to decide where the learners are in their learning, where they need to go and how best to get there (Harlen, 2007: 5). Summative assessment of learning is carried out for the same reasons as formative assessment but is carried out at a fixed time and at fixed intervals (Harlen, 2007). Therefore summative assessments are usually carried out through tests or exams at specific times and reflects on the child’s progress over a prescribed period (Harlen, 2007). Assessment of children’s learning is important because it not only provides feedback for children relative to their own gains, but informs teachers of a child’s strengths and weaknesses and helps to determine if or where intervention or support may be needed (Black and William, 1998). From a boarder perspective, assessments of children’s learning can be used to inform educators, administrators and policy-makers of the deficits and success of learning in schools and how best to shape the curriculum, teachers’ training, and the classroom culture in general (Hamre and Pianta, 2007). According to constructivism theory of learning, in order for assessment of children’s learning to maximise the child’s potential, assessment should be an ongoing process geared toward the individual child’s learning and collaborative learning (Strommen and Lincoln, 1992). In this regard, assessment should not merely be a test of what the child has learned, but a method by which the child is able to test his or her own ideas and the ideas of other children. In today’s world, children are raised in a technologically driven world and are able to discover knowledge on their own. The classroom should be an environment in which children are able to share, explore and test their own knowledge individually and collaboratively. Therefore, assessment can help a child maximise his or her potential provided it empowers the child by encouraging self-assessment of one’s own knowledge as well as experimenting and exploring that knowledge and the knowledge of his or her peers (Strommen and Lincoln, 1992). Assessment which takes the form of a teacher’s feedback to the child is very important for maximising a child’s potential (Tunstall and Gipps, 1996). This form of teacher assessment is a: …process of appraising, judging or evaluating students’ work or performance and using this to shape and improve competence (Tunstall and Gipps, 1996: 389). In order for this form of assessment to make a difference in the child’s learning and for maximising the child’s potential, the assessment should also be an ongoing practice. Throughout the school day, the teacher should assess the child’s learning and understanding through feedback and make a determination as to whether the lesson or idea should be restated or repeated or whether or not it is time to move on to the next challenge (Tunstall and Gipps, 1996). Thus assessments are not merely determining where the child needs help, or a change in teaching style, but rather, also determining whether the child needs more challenges. Formative assessment is used to maximise potential by addressing core issues that contribute to ‘failure’ and attrition rates (Santos and Pinto, 2009: 1). Formative assessments are meant to accomplish these goals by engendering teaching practices and styles that are ‘closer to the student’s difficulties’ and capabilities (Santos and Pinto, 2009:1). According to Santos and Pinto (2009), although teachers appear to be amenable to formative assessments, the academic outcomes demonstrate that assessments are not being used as effectively as they can be. Effective assessment is an assessment that takes place throughout and ‘in the moment’ of a lesson and where a conclusion is drawn and responded to immediately and in the long-term (Santos and Pinto, 2009: 2). Formative assessments have significant value for maximising each child’s potential since it focuses on the child’s needs and interest and informs teaching and learning directions. However, as Mansell, James and the Assessment Reform Group (2009) inform, summative assessments tend to draw the public’s attention and therefore directs greater attention and emphasis by politicians, teachers, and parents. Summative assessments such as GCSEs, curriculum assessments and all national examinations tend to have higher value for policy-makers and therefore teachers (Mansell, et al., 2009). Summative assessment results are usually regarded as an assessment of the quality of education and teaching in schools (Mansell, et al., 2009). With pressure from policy-makers and the public, summative assessments tend to dominate teaching and learning goals in schools. Although a valuable tool for improving grades and the institution of learning, summative assessments do not ‘generate reliable enough’ information to ‘serve as a measure of the overall quality of that institution’ and summative assessments do not accurately measure how students can improve (Mansell, et al., 2009: 5). Put another way, summative assessments are helpful for reflecting on the quality of the institution. However, formative assessments are helpful for focusing on the child’s potential and how best to approach teaching and learning directions for maximising the child’s potential. Summative assessments are regarded as high stakes assessments as national tests results are the subject of public judgment of the quality of the schools. When test results drop below national averages teachers take the blame for those results and generally fear losing their jobs or a demotion should their pupils fail national tests or do not score as well as other pupils (William, 2000). It is therefore hardly surprising that teachers tend to focus their energy and resources on summative assessments and therefore teach toward maximising national testing outcomes rather than turning attention to individual student potential (William, 2000). The obvious solution is the integration of summative and formative assessments (William, 2000). Standardized testing is important for ensuring that national standards area established and met by all schools. However, individual student outcomes and progress through formative assessment are equally important for ensuring that students are learning and achieving the goals of the national curriculum (Irish National Teachers Organization, 2008). A study conducted by Harlen and Crick (2002) on behalf of the Assessment and Learning Research Synthesis Group revealed the challenges posed by summative assessments in light of increased emphasis on standardized and national testing. Teachers tend to direct formal and informal assessments on the basis of the student’s potential outcomes on national and standardised testing. Students who have not performed well on standardized or national tests tend to become less motivated to learn and others who do well develop a single minded learning purpose (Harlen and Crick, 2002). Summative assessments therefore influence teaching and learning styles that are rigid and fixed with one outcome in mind: passing national and standardized tests. Formative assessments are also conducted with these outcomes in mind and as a result, the student’s potential is measured in an unrealistic way. This negatively influencing teaching and learning styles which are inconsistent with the child’s learning style and interests. Conclusion The schools’ curriculum and assessment of children’s learning both have the ability and intention to maximise each child’s potential. However, a common obstacle prevents teachers using the curriculum and assessment processes effectively for maximising each child’s potential. The common obstacle is national and standardized testing. National and standardised testing alters the way that teachers can teach to the curriculum and assess children’s learning. Rather than teaching to achieve the goals of the curriculum or assessing to direct the learning needs and interests of children, teaching and assessments are carried out to maximise outcomes on national and standardized testing. The curriculum poses another obstacle to realising its goal of maximising each child’s potential. This obstacle relates to the subject oriented feature of the curriculum. On its face, the school’s curriculum is intended to maximise the child’s potential by directing what a child should learn and how it should be taught. The curriculum is structured so that a child is creative and motivated to learn and develop in a healthy and successful way. However, in practice, teachers are constrained by a curriculum that focuses too narrowly on subject and subject content and therefore constrains teachers so that adjustments to the realities of their classrooms are nearly impossible. Teachers, locked in by the subject oriented curriculum are unable to be creative for the most part as they are also under scrutiny to ensure that students do well on national and standardized tests. In my opinion, the solution is to change the teaching culture so that high stakes test are second to individual student potential. If a student’s potential is maximised, the student will be motivated to learn and will likely perform better on standardized and national testing. Findings in the literature and reported above indicate that with assessments and teaching focused on standardized testing and national testing, students are less motivated to learn and this can only have negative outcomes for students and schools on national and standardized testing. Further, I think the curriculum should also be reformed to allow teachers greater flexibility and creativity for improving the classroom culture to conform to constructivist learning theory which cultivates the creativity contemplated by curriculum planners. I also think, constructivist learning theory can guide more effective formative assessments as it is directs assessments focused on individual input and collaborative learning. Formative assessments that incorporates constructivist learning theory, empowers students so that students become engaged and instrumental in the learning process. Bibliography Alexander, R. (20 February 2012). ‘Improving oracy and classroom talk in English schools: Achievements and challenges.’ Extended and referenced version of a presentation given at the DfE seminar on Oracy, the National Curriculum and Educational Standards, 1-15. Ball, D. L. and Cohen, D.K. (December 1996). ‘Reform by the book: What is – or might be – the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform?’ Educational Researcher, Vol. 25(9): 6-8. Beauchamp, G.A. (February 1978). ‘A hard look at curriculum.’ Educational Leadership, 404-409. Black, P. and William, D. (1998). ‘Assessment and classroom learning.’ Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, Vol. 5(1): 7-74. Department for Education. (September 2013). ‘The national curriculum in England: Key Stages 1 and 2 framework document.’ https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/335133/PRIMARY_national_curriculum_220714.pdf [10 March 2015]. Great Britain, Parliament, House of Commons, Education and Skills Committee. (2007). Creative partnerships and the curriculum: Eleventh report of Session 2006-2007. London: The Stationary Office. Hamre, B.K. and Pianta, R.C. (2007). ‘Learning opportunities in preschool and early elementary classrooms.’ In Pianta, R.C.; Cox, M.J. and Snow, K.L. (Eds.) School readiness and the transition to kindergarten in the era of accountability. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing, 49-83. Harlen, W. (October 2007). ‘The quality of learning: Assessment alternatives for primary education.’ The Primary Review, Research Survey 3/4 Interim Reports, University of Cambridge Faculty of Education, 1-42. Harlen, W. and Crick, R.D. (June 2002). ‘A systematic review of the impact of summative assessment and test on students’ motivation for learning.’ Review conducted by the Assessment and Learning Research Synthesis Group, Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre, 1-151. http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=Pbyl1CdsDJU%3D&tabid=104&mid=1965 [10th March 2015]. Irish National Teachers’ Organisation. (2008). ‘Assessment in the primary school.’ Discussion Document and Proceedings of the Consultative Conference on Education, 1-120. http://www.into.ie/ROI/Publications/AssessmentInThePrimarySchool2010.pdf [10th March 2015]/ Johnson, M.; Ellis, N.; Gotch, A.; Ryan, A.; Foster, C.; Gillespie, J. and Lowe, M. (2007). Subject to change: New thinking on the curriculum. London: The Association of Teachers and Lecturers. Kelly, A.V. (2009). The curriculum: Theory and practice. London: SAGE Publications, Limited. Mansell, W.; James, M. and Assessment Reform Group on Behalf of TLRP. (July 2009). ‘Assessment in schools. Fit for purpose? A commentary by the teaching and learning research programme.’ London: Economic and Social Research Council, Teaching and Learning Research Programme, 1-32. Oates, T. (18 November 2010). ‘Could do better: Using international comparisons to refine the national curriculum in England.’ Cambridge Assessment, 1-29. Santos, L. and Pinto, J. (2009). ‘Lights and shadows of feedback in mathematics learning.’ In Tzekaki, M.; Kaldrimidou, M. and Sakonidis, C. (Eds.) Proceedings of the 33rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 1. Thessaloniki, Greece: PME, 1-8. Sharples, J.; Slavin, R. and Chambers, B. (2011). Effective classroom strategies for closing the gap in educational achievement for children and young persons living in poverty, including white working-class boys.’ Centre for Excellence and Outcomes in Children and Young Person’s Services (C4EO): 1-72. Shilling, T. (November 2013). ‘Opportunities and challenges of curriculum mapping implementation in one school setting: Considerations for school leaders.’ Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, Vol. 7(2): 20-37. Strommen, E.F. and Lincoln, B. (August 1992). ‘Constructivism, technology, and the future of classroom learning.’ Education and Urban Society, Vol. 24(4): 466-476. Tunstall, P. and Gipps, C. (September 1996). ‘Teacher feedback to young children in formative assessment: A Typology.’ British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 22(4): 389-404. van Oers, B. (2012). Developmental education for young children: Concept, practice and implementation. London: Springer. William, D. (August 2000). ‘Integrating formative and summative functions of assessment.’ Paper presented to Working Group 10 of the International Congress on Mathematics Education, Makuhari, Tokyo, 1-13. Read More