…by the organisation “Music Mark”, so, on the spur of the moment, I say this:
…by the organisation “Music Mark”, so, on the spur of the moment, I say this:
I’ve been thinking about the purposes of KS3 music education, and the results of this are to be found on the teachtalk music website, over at this address.
Thanks to David Ashworth for this!
I’ve been a bit on the busy side recently, which is, in many ways, an understatement! Anyway, last week I was up in Glasgow for the International Society of Music Education (ISME) conference. Whilst there I gave four spoken presentations, and a poster. Now, if you haven’t been to an international conference, a poster might seem a bit KS3, but let me assure you it’s hard work, as you get a thorough 1-to-1 grilling from the people attending!
I produced a poster on KS3 assessment in music education, and to make it comprehensible to an international audience, gave it a title which wasn’t quite true, but is close enough to get the gist. Here is an image of the poster as presented:
(I hope the visuals work?)
It is a bit tongue-in-cheek, and a bit over-the-top too, both of which were clear from my spoken dialogue! I thought I’d put it here on my blog site just so it doesn’t now simply vanish into the obscurity of my office wall never to be seen again, but also in case anyone wishes to hark back to some of the NC madness we used to have!
I do hope that with new assessment regimes some of the daftness of times past disappear, but I at the same time I have a fear that we are in danger of replacing them with new madnesses!
N.B. This is a post that may get deleted or have amendments later, if it proves that I am being daft, and haven’t read all the relevant small print! Which, as it’s about the new GCSE grading, means there is a lot of small print to read. It’s arisen from a conversation I had with Dr Alison Daubney on twitter, so thanks AllyDaubney for setting this troubling train of thought off!
On the 15th July 2016, the DfE published revised Grade descriptors for GCSEs graded 9 to 1. (Find them at bit.ly/29EKR0W) Well, they didn’t, actually, for music. They published them for Grades 8, 5, and 2. (Remember that these grades 9-1 work the same way as music practical exam grades, ie start at 1.) Here they are:
To achieve Grade 8 candidates will be able to:
To achieve Grade 5 candidates will be able to:
To achieve Grade 2 candidates will be able to:
Now, this is what many teachers have been asking me for in emails and in discussion forums for quite a while. But, hold on, I think there’s a problem. Well, lots of problems actually! The first issue is that there seems to be some confusion between criterion-referencing – which is what these grade statements are (well, sort of, but stay with me), and norm-referencing, which is where, in essence, a curve of normal frequency distribution (NFD) is used to allocate the grades within set percentages. If your assessment literacy is a bit ropey on this, detailed explanations are found elsewhere on the net. Here’s a graph of NFD from the NFER (available here)
This means, in this example, that only 2% of entrants can ever get the top grade. If there is an amazingly bright group one year, and an astonishingly dim one the next year, these % figures will remain constant (again, that’s a huge over-simplification, sorry). If, therefore, you have an exam system which is norm-referenced, like the new GCSE will be, then you cannot superimpose criterion-referencing statements on it at the same time; in a similar fashion my petrol car cannot run on diesel. The DfE themselves state here that:
“The descriptors are not designed to be used for awarding purposes, unlike the ‘grade descriptions’ that apply to current GCSEs graded A* to G.”
So, again, what are they for? The DfE again:
“We have developed grade descriptors for the reformed GCSEs graded 9 to 1. These aim to assist teachers by providing an indication of the likely level of performance at grades 2, 5 and 8.
The purpose of these grade descriptors is to give an idea of average performance at the mid-points of grades 2, 5 and 8.”
However, I suspect they will be used in KS3, for assessment, monitoring, and tracking purposes. But I’ll return to that theme later.
What will this look like in practice? We don’t have the breakdown for music, but we do for some subjects, so here are drama and PE:
Now, I’m a tad busy at the moment, but if I get an odd five minutes I’ll try and do one for music. But, TBH, it won’t be much help for anyone in an individual school! Why? Because however big your GCSE cohort is, music is such a small subject it still won’t approximate to the national figures. And if you want to feel really depressed, just remember that the kids at Eton, Chets, and Menuhin are also in there, so they will be (I guess, but I’ll probably get into trouble for saying so) up in the top x%, knocking the kids from bogstandard comp out of the way in the process. (You can’t do footnotes, I don’t think, in this blog app, so – if I’m wrong on this, please shout, and I’m not having a go at specialist music schools, just trying to show how the stats might pan out.)
I’ve written about different assessment types before here. I’m wondering how it would go down with SLT if new grading requirements involve a modified form of comparative assessment, modelled onto a graph of NFD for the pupils in each school. If we can work out the statistical modifiers, after a few years we ought to be able to map the general progress 8 stats onto this for each school, and come up with a reasonable attempt at a progress map. But what this might tell us is a tale for another blog!
Which takes me back to the point that I’m not sure what the point of the published grade descriptors is! But, if I were a hard pressed head of music whose SLT have told them to produce grade descriptors for KS3, I’d be on these like a shot!
But here’s where my next worry lies. Let’s take the Grade 2 words, and do something you never, ever should. Let’s compare it to the National Curriculum. For GCSE (ie by age 16) Grade 2 pupils have to:
At Key Stage 2 (ie by the age of 11) children are required to be taught to:
Some overlap there, methinks? And what about GCSE Grade 2:
And so on!
Which means that with some cunning wording, it could mean that we see schools producing NC levels redux, but dressed up as new GCSE-related criteria statements. Another worry now emerges: will we see invented sub-divisions of the GCSE grades being used in KS3 to “chart” (in deliberate inverted commas) progress? If so, what do these mean?
All of this blog is very, very speculative, and, as I said, I may be totally wrong, and if so, quite happy to have this pointed out. But this entry has been me thinking out loud, as it were, about the effects of what I have been reading and thinking about recently. As things crystallise I’ll revisit, and issue corrections and clarifications as needed.
In academic discussions of assessment in the literature, we distinguish between uses and purposes of assessment (indeed, in my assessment book (Fautley, 2010) I devote a section to this). To put it probably over-simply, for the sake of this blog, purposes of assessment date back the TGAT report of 1988 (TGAT, 1988), where they defined four purposes for assessment:
Summative: For the recording of the overall achievement of the student in a systematic way.
Formative: So that the positive achievements of a pupil may be recognised and discussed and the appropriate next steps may be planned.
Evaluative: By means of which some aspects of the work of a school, an LEA or other discrete part of the education service can be assessed and/or reported upon.
Diagnostic: Through which learning difficulties may be scrutinised and classified so that appropriate remedial help and guidance can be provided. (From TGAT 1988, para 23)
But the term uses and purposes has fallen into disrepair somewhat recently, for reasons Newton observes:
1) the term ‘assessment purpose’ can be interpreted in a variety of different ways
2) the uses to which assessment results are put are often categorized misleadingly. (Newton, 2007, p. 149)
My concern in this blog is to discuss what I am hearing increasingly when talking with teachers, and this is a jump straight from discussing assessment to talking about two other things in the same breath:
And, often, a third creeps in not long after:
The reason that I am concerned about this is that I feel that what is often (but, to be fair, not always) missing from these discussions is thinking about marking and grading. Let me try and unpick this.
What I think is happening is that school assessment systems are based on marking, the school assessment policy tells teachers how to mark (or grade). What the music teachers (and other subjects too, I guess, but I have no evidence for this) then have to do is to work out how to mark pupil work in music according to this system. What I think (and happy to be corrected) is that the ‘missing link’ is getting from pupil work to marked grade. This seems obvious, but is, I think very hard. It involved scaled marking schemes, grades, and the implementation of professional judgements. There are a number of ways of doing this, and I’ll doubtless write about these in the future, but just to whet your appetite, here are a few that are commonly used:
There’s more, but this will do for the moment. Now, the bit I am concerned with, as I said above, is how do we get from the music to the grade/mark? And in order to address this question, we need to return to where we began, what use will this information be put to? To put it very simply, if our salaries depend on grades, we will assess somewhat differently to if we want to know how to help the kids play the B7 chord better on the guitar.
As I said, more on this to follow anon!
John Kelleher rightly draws my attention to the differences between marking and grading as separate activities, and he is quite correct so to do. He discusses this issue here.
Amabile, T. (1983). The Social Psychology of Creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Amabile, T. (1996). Creativity in Context. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
Fautley, M. (2010) Assessment in Music Education, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Harper, J., & O’Brien, K. (2012). Student-Driven Learning: Small. Medium, and Big Steps to Engage and Empower Students, Markham, Ontario: Pembroke Publishers.
Newton, P. E. (2007). Clarifying the purposes of educational assessment. Assessment in Education, 14(2), 149-170.
TGAT. (1988). Task group on Assessment and Testing: A report: London: DES.
Those nice people over at MusicMark have made available a piece I wrote for secondary school music teachers wherein I reflect on one of the common issues with assessment I am asked about, that of progression. In it I respond by inviting teachers to think on these three questions:
I’m guessing that someone had the job of being in charge of deckchairs on the Titanic. I presume that they spent their days and nights dreaming up ever more complex ways of arranging the deckchairs in patterns, and then occupied themselves for hours doing that. And maybe, even as the ship was sinking, they were concerned that their deckchair arrangements were being spoiled. Maybe they were just too busy rearranging them to notice the bloody great iceberg bearing down on them.
This long metaphor is how I view some parts of music education at the moment. Many music services (MSs) don’t seem to have realised that when Multi Academy Trusts (MATs) are normal for all secondary schools, they (MSs) may not be required. At the moment we have a situation where MSs don’t aggressively encroach into each other’s territory too often. Can you see MATs doing that? We have local continuation routes for music education predicated on the school>local schools>area band (or whatever)>regional band>County band (again, or whatever) model. Can you see aggressive MATs doing that? There will be a <<Insert Name of Trust>>model, where music making is kept within that MAT. Now, this may not a bad model per se, the MATs may genuinely put a lot of effort into their music offer, and, having done so, will want to reap the reward of so doing, but it strikes me as extremely unlikely that they will want to play nicely with other MATs. After all, Tesco don’t cooperate with Asda on how to make their baked beans better, I don’t think?
And this is the iceberg that is looming. (Well, one of them anyway, I actually think there is a whole flotilla of icebergs on the horizon, but that’s another blog!)
So, what’s in it for MATs, MSs, schools, and kids? Well, this is what we don’t know. This isn’t an anti-MAT blog entry, far from it. We do know that some current MATs take a lot of care with their music education offer, and genuinely want to do well by and for their kids, and for these MATs, good music education and high quality music making go hand in hand. We also know some MATs don’t care so much, and are more concerned with other aspects of schooling. Music services could well feel the pinch, with bad MATs forcing a race to the bottom in terms of fees and services, and working regardless of MS and hub boundaries. For schools this will mean being tied into the MAT music offer. Again, this may be no bad thing, but if, say, a MAT music offer is predicated on performing, then a teacher wedded to a composing pedagogy may wish to look elsewhere. And finally kids. Continuation routes contained within a MAT may well be no different to those of a music service or hub, but it is unlikely that both will flourish, with the MS offer likely to suffer most. This might not be an issue in urban contexts, but out in the remote wilds of the Shires, this could entail a lot of travelling.
So where is the deckchair re-arranger? Well, I talk to a number of hubs and MSs, and I hope that they are out there on the bows of the ship looking anxiously ahead with their binoculars. But some aren’t. They are soon going to be spending a lot of time on the poop-deck wondering what it’s like to be struck by an iceberg, leaving them well and truly up a well known creek!
As for music education? Well, I feel that we are entering uncharted waters for many reasons, and we will need all our wits about us. There are icebergs, sure, but bad weather, predators, and Pirates too.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I need to go and arrange “Abide with me” for deckchairs and noseflute. And don’t bother me, I’m far too busy to ever find myself without a …..
I’ve written about my personal reflections on the recent (March 2016) Mayor’s summit on music education in London. The blog can be found at the BCU CSPACE (where I work) site, over at: http://bit.ly/1qTUotb
It was an interesting day, but one which left me with some concerns, as I outline in the entry.
From Douglas Adams “The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy”:
“People of Earth, your attention please,” a voice said, and it was wonderful. Wonderful perfect quadrophonic sound with distortion levels so low as to make a brave man weep.
“This is Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz of the Galactic Hyperspace Planning Council,” the voice continued. “As you will no doubt be aware, the plans for development of the outlying regions of the Galaxy require the building of a hyperspatial express route through your star system, and regrettably your planet is one of those scheduled for demolition. The process will take slightly less that two of your Earth minutes. Thank you.”
The PA died away.
Uncomprehending terror settled on the watching people of Earth. The terror moved slowly through the gathered crowds as if they were iron fillings on a sheet of board and a magnet was moving beneath them. Panic sprouted again, desperate fleeing panic, but there was nowhere to flee to.
Observing this, the Vogons turned on their PA again. It said:
“There’s no point in acting all surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display in your local planning department on Alpha Centauri for fifty of your Earth years, so you’ve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it’s far too late to start making a fuss about it now.”
I have been wondering recently whether we are seeing the beginning of the end of music education as we know it. Have we all been far too busy worrying about assessment, KS3, new GCSEs, new A levels, break duty, learning walks, book trawls, ‘verbal feedback given’ stamps, to notice that music education is being demolished for the hyperspatial express route which is the EBacc and STEM?
“But it can’t” we say, “we’re far too busy to be got rid of”. And there’s our problem. We are far too busy, and we all have the best interests of the kids at heart. This means that a government who seem to have lately arrived from Philistia (or Vogon!) will have no qualms about demolishing music education.
It’s in the way.
After all, we don’t want subjects that can’t be taught from a script, might involve children and young people thinking for themselves, and may have the potential for making the teensiest bit of noise that might disturb the silence.
I suggest we should be on the lookout for Vogons. They might be nearer than we think.
Inspired by reading @heymisssmith’s A-Z listing, I thought I’d have a go at writing one for music education, it being New Year’s Eve and all. So, here it is, very personal, partial, humorous at times (maybe?), and very England-based, so apols to all my international chums, as well as apols to all other music ed chums I haven’t had space to mention!
A: Is for assessment, obviously! I expect to be researching and writing more about this during 2016. I think the assessment problem is getting worse, actually!
C: Is for creativity, and composing. More of both in music lessons, please!
D: Is for dinner time, which in some schools is now so short that rehearsal opportunities have vanished. Shame. Also for Doctoral Students – we need more of these in music ed!
E: Is for Examinations. We know about these in music ed, including how to examine for both skills AND knowledge. ABRSM and Trinity being prime examples. So, rest of edu, ask us, we know (and understand!)
F: Is for John Finney, whose blogs are always worth reading. Also for formative assessment, which in music ed we really understand, whereas loads of others don’t! And also for funding (see also ‘R’), more of this, please!
G: Is for Garageband. Comes with Mac computers, and does an awful lot more that just drag ‘n’ drop composing!
H: Is for Harmony, which we need some of in music education circles at the moment! (As well as those Bach chorale exercises.) Is also for Hubs, which are part of the integrated picture of music ed in England.
I: Is for instruments. More of these, and a wider variety, would be on the wish list of every classroom teacher. Also for the Incorporated Society of Musicians, who have got their finger on the music ed pulse!
J: Is for jamming. More of this too in schools, please.
K: Is for Kodaly, whose music education system is still going strong.
L: Is for London, who have had a great gig with “Teach Through Music”. Now the rest of the country wants a go too!
M: Is for Music – what our subject is all about! Also things starting with ‘Music’, Music Mark, Music Education Council, Music Teacher mag, Music Education Research Journal, and loads of others…M is also for Manchester Metropolitan University, where Jonathan Savage works-his blogs are well worth reading. And also for the late Janet Mills, whose work is still influential.
N: Is for new music, so check out Birmingham Contemporary Music Group’s (BCMG) learning pages.
O: Is for Ofsted. In music, they are now our friends, as they currently ‘get’ music ed assessment problems, whereas many SLTs seem to cause them!
P: Is for Chris Philpott, whose thinking and writing are always worth reading. Also for the late John Paynter, who really made us think about music education back in the 70s. ‘P’ is also for ‘Presto Classical‘, the local music shop, where you can still browse printed music and CDs. (Crikey!)
Q: Is for the old spelling of quires (choirs). We don’t have enough of these, or of singing in schools, I think. Often because A and D above have prevented them happening!
R: Is for recording, audio and video. I still don’t think we do enough of this in classroom music lessons, especially when we share it with the kids. And also for research in music ed, which we need a lot more of!
S: Is for Gary Spruce, If Gary’s written it, you should read it! Ditto for Keith Swanwick, whose books still make me think, and often feels like he got to the heart of the issue a while ago.
T: Is for teaching. We need more classroom music teachers. Also for training to teach, especially in HEIs, which is under serious threat at the moment.
U: Is for Universities (see also T), which have seen a number of music teacher ed courses close recently. Also for UCL-IOE, where a lot of thinking about music ed has taken, and still takes place. (Other universities are also available!)
V: Is for volume. Music lessons involve making some of this, often quite a lot. Those designing new schools should be aware of this!
W: Is for ‘we’. Music making is a corporate endeavour, and this too sometimes needs recognising in some schools.
X: “X is for Xylophone. Obviously” As @heymisssmith said, which entry got me started on this whole A-Z thingy! Sadly a good quality xylophone can cost more than an electronic keyboard, and so a class set of them is often beyond the reach of classroom music budgets. Shame, as I think a range of resources is vital.
Y: Is for “why” (sorry!). I often wonder why music education seems to be in the mess it currently is, in some places. Why oh why?
Z: Is for zzzzzzz, if you haven’t fallen asleep yet….but also for the sleep-deprivation that classroom music teachers go through on a daily basis, as the job is always too big for the hours in a day!
I’ll probably think of loads more in the coming hours/days, but this is my stream-of-consciousness version, post Christmas Pud, etc, so, there you go, and a Happy New Year to everyone!