I have been exploring an issue with a friend recently. It is to do with how we respond to the demands by Ofsted and schools for 4 levels of progress through KS3 and beyond. The problem for me is not setting challenging targets but the intellectual dishonesty and laziness of simply transferring En/Ma targets and expectations into targets for other subjects in KS3. It doesn’t really make sense because there are no national art starting points from which to measure progress in levels through KS3 and it is lazy to simply use En & Ma levels instead. (this is not about FFT and GCSE targets which is a different issue. see below)
Perhaps we just have to learn to live with ambiguity and choose with care which brick walls we want to bang our heads against. Perhaps we should just:
Perhaps it’s pointless trying to use ‘1’ (intellectual pragmatism) to disprove ‘2’ (motivational energy). Perhaps we should be realistic and accept the way of the world although I feel targets loose their value for both teachers and students if they are not rooted in the reality of the student’s performance. But my inclination is to argue for ‘3’ which is to:
3. recognise that art teachers are best placed to identify their student’s potential in art in Yr 7 (rather than En SATs in Yr 6). and use ‘2’ to mediate ‘3’.
PS This is not about FFT which does have some integrity in presenting probabilities of students achieving GCSE grades based national data of children from similar starting points. But I have written extensively about this elsewhere see ‘assessment‘.