Curriculum Reform in 4 UK Nations A Home International Policy Symposium

Policy, Politics and

Curriculum and Assessment Change

in Northern Ireland

Will the assessment tail

continue to wag the curriculum dog?

Carmel Gallagher

Ruth Leitch

Queen’s University Belfast

Structure

Theoretical frameworks

Curriculum Reform Processes

Assessment Reform Process

Main Messages

Recommendations

Theoretical Framework re:

Curriculum Reform Processes Evidence informed policy making

Harold Lasswell ‘Founding father of public policy as a field of study’ Purpose of policy analysis

‘not to produce 'evidence' to drive policy. Rather a process of public learning in which decision making is opened up

and made more democratic

Donald Schon (1972) in an increasing unstable and uncertain world, there needs to be

less centralised government control more opportunity to innovate people and institutions need to be flexible and agile not bogged down in protocols and bureaucracy that are slow to change. governments should be concerned less with controlling and managing more with acting as a facilitator of society’s learning ‘designing policy processes and institutions capable of bringing about their own continuing transformation’

(Schon 1973: 28 cited in Parsons 2002: 6).

Theoretical Framework re:

Curriculum Reform Processes Evidence-based policy making (EBPM)

David Blunkett speech to ESRC Feb 2000 asking for a more rigorous approach to inform government ‘what works and why what types of policy initiatives are likely to be most effective’ favours ‘overwhelmingly quantitative approaches’ that ‘can be ‘managed’ to inform ‘overall strategies’ to exercise strategic control’

Approach characterised as a form of governmental 'control freakery‘ to secure objectives

and policy 'targets' (Stacey, 2002: 50)

Processes informing the development of the Revised NI Curriculum

Pupil Cohort Study (3,000 pupils over 7 years)

Teacher Monitoring (face to face critical feedback)

Curriculum 21 Conferences

Commissioned research Literature reviews

Independent advice to government

Phased development involving stakeholders Proposals Widespread consultation Research-informed implementation strategy Support materials Pilot projects Phasing in of requirements

Constraints on Assessment Policy Development

Performance culture

Assessment data (age 8, 11, 14, 16, 18)

Selective education system

Contentious abolition of 11+

Search for replacement mechanism to assist transfer to post-primary e.g. pupil profile

Failure to achieve consensus

The development of unregulated tests

Literacy and Numeracy Strategies Audit

Prominence given to Literacy and Numeracy Strategies

VFM audit of £40 million expenditure on Strategies

Hearing before House of Commons Public Accounts Committee (PAC)

Conduct of PAC hearing ‘politicians talking nonsense about educational outcomes’ Audit report ‘qualifications’ ignored Invalid comparisons made and demanded (Glasgow, Liverpool, Belfast) Statistics misinterpreted Lack of awareness of impact of selective systems Lack of understanding of target setting and adjustments No awareness of comparable (worse) performance in England Suspected manipulation of English National Statistics Reprimand by Statistics Office

Impact of PAC and NI Policy

Continued narrow pre-occupation with Literacy, Numeracy and Assessment

Retention of old levels to assess new curriculum

Retention of voluntary tests at Key Stage 3

Delay in approving new cross-curricular levels

Reluctance to absorb thinking skills levels

Main points

Incongruence in policies

Backwash effect of narrow assessment pressures on curriculum

Mixed messages to schools

Tensions / pressures on teachers and schools

Limitations and fallibility of narrow assessment statistics & standards

Lack of understanding / misinterpretation of statistics and over-simplistic reporting by media

The effect on parental and public perceptions ‘Society sees results as the major goal of schooling

rather than a useful but fallible indicator of achievement’ (Gipp 1990: 27).

Recommendations

Effort and expense expended in ‘policing’ poor quality assessment

Focus resources on professional development for quality curriculum planning quality assessment development of higher order thinking