 |  |
| www.dg.dial.pipex.com | 1303 readers since 1 Nov 2001 |
| |
| www.dg.dial.pipex.com | 1303 readers since 1 Nov 2001 |
Rewriting Oxfordshire's agreed syllabus post 1988 Introduction
|
Rewriting Oxfordshire's agreed syllabus post 1988
Derek Gillard June1992 © copyright Derek Gillard 2001
Citations
Chapter 4 Working on the draft After a year of meetings, consideration of much documentation and seemingly endless deliberations, the working groups had produced a first draft of part one of the new syllabus. But there was still much to be done: the attainment targets would need revising, statements of attainment would need to be written, as would the programmes of study which would form part two of the syllabus. During the summer of 1991 Isobel Vale had discussions with other local education authority advisors about using the Westhill format and met Barbara Wintersgill of the National Curriculum Council who agreed to come and speak to the working groups. The draft of the new Westhill document 'Assessing, Recording and Reporting RE' was published, as was the National Curriculum Council's booklet 'Religious Education - a local curriculum framework'. The working groups were to have six days in which to complete the syllabus so that consultation evenings could be held around the county during November and the syllabus could be presented to the Statutory Conference in January 1992. The working groups met on 23 September 1991 and considered new agreed syllabuses from Sussex, Croydon and Gloucestershire, which were all based on Westhill. They agreed that the first four key stages should deal with:
They then considered a memorandum from Westhill, designed to be read alongside 'Attainment in RE' and the new publication 'Assessing, Recording and Reporting RE'. This memorandum included a critique of 'Attainment in RE' which suggested that its structure was "over elaborate". In line with other National Curriculum subjects, it proposed reducing the number of attainment targets (from ten to three). It also suggested that the attainment targets had been too content-based and that, as in the history document, the attainment targets should be process-based. It was important to appreciate the inter-relationship of the attainment targets - this had not been clear from the layout in 'Attainment in RE'. Two questions about statements of attainment were asked: "Should statements of attainment for RE be broad and general or should they be specific 'can do's'; does it matter if they are a mixture of the two?" (Westhill Memorandum 1991) [1] Finally, should programmes of study be associated with an attainment target at a key stage, or should they be independent, so that attainment targets set out processes and programmes of study the content? The memorandum suggested that the three-fold structure of 'Attainment in RE' was worth retaining. The three broad areas were identified as helping pupils to develop:
The Westhill memorandum was particularly interesting in relation to its concept of curriculum design: it demonstrated a clear shift towards a process model of the curriculum and away from the aims and objectives model of other National Curriculum subjects. This can be seen in, for example, its stress on "the primacy of programmes of study". (The Hampshire report had taken a similar line). The memorandum was rightly critical of some National Curriculum documents which "make the real focus of the curriculum the objectives which are to be assessed ... rather than the learning opportunities which pupils should have." (Westhill Memorandum 1991) [3] The original science order, for example, "in terms of presentation, appears to place its emphasis on matters for assessment and relegates the learning experiences to a secondary role." (Westhill Memorandum 1991) [4] The memorandum discussed styles of programmes of study, ranging from those found in the science curriculum which suggested that "pupils should investigate ... pupils should experience ..." to those found in the geography curriculum which demanded that "pupils shall be taught ..." The former were seen as open-ended, inviting teachers "to consider lively, interesting and pupil-focussed activities to stimulate learning" whereas the latter were seen as a more closed approach. Westhill had therefore, in this respect, chosen the approach of the science curriculum as being "the most helpful way of setting out the learning curriculum." (Westhill Memorandum 1991) [5] With regard to statements of attainment, the memorandum suggested that the ten-level model proposed by the Task Group on Assessment and Testing "is so flawed in conception ... that the broader, end of key stage statement model represents a more viable alternative for religious education." (Westhill Memorandum 1991) [6] The three profile components of 'Attainment in RE' were to become three attainment targets and a model was suggested which emphasised their equal value and inter-dependence: "Whatever the content, all three processes represented in the attainment targets are taking place in any learning experience." (Westhill memorandum 1991) [7] Finally, the memorandum suggested that, in relation to assessment procedures, the following points might be made:
The working groups were in agreement with almost everything in the Westhill memorandum and especially pleased that it had made a number of points which they themselves had already agreed (such as the comments about assessment and the abandonment of profile components). There was less agreement about the form the syllabus was beginning to take: arguments about the number and nature of aims and attainment targets led to a certain amount of frustration. This was hardly surprising given the complexity of the task and the limited amount of time available for it. It was eventually agreed that, in the light of the advice from Westhill and others, the attainment targets should be reduced in number from four to three. The working groups for key stages 1 - 4 then discussed attainment statements for each target at each key stage. The first attempt at this task is shown below. As we were to realise later, it was full of vague and confused ideas and lacking in any sort of philosophical or educational rigour. However, we were rather pleased with it at the time! There was no attempt at this stage to try to produce programmes of study, though some examples were put together to see how these might look and how they might be set out. There was also discussion as to how the programmes of study should relate to the attainment targets. It was felt that the programmes of study should relate at each key stage to a list of themes - worship, meditation, celebration, beliefs, behaviour, community, the natural world, sacredness, authority, traditions and ultimate questions - rather than directly to the attainment targets.
Barbara Wintersgill The working groups met again on 8 October. On this occasion they had the benefit of Barbara Wintersgill's advice. Barbara, a member of the National Curriculum Council, was working with a number of local authorities as they reviewed and revised their syllabuses. She certainly brought a breath of fresh air to our deliberations: she was forthright about the need for clear thinking, especially in relation to the attainment targets and statements. While complimenting us on the work we had done so far, she expressed concern about the muddled thinking of some of our proposals. She pointed out that if statements of attainment were to be of any use they must be both technically accurate - having an internal logic - and comprehensible. It was essential to avoid jargon and codes. They must be in good plain English and as brief as possible: the issue of accessibility of language was an important one. Furthermore, the attainment statements for any key stage must be comparable in terms of pupils' conceptual levels and understanding and there must be clear continuity and progression between key stages. Secondly, it was important that expectations in religious education should be comparable with those of other National Curriculum subjects: we should not expect less of our pupils than was expected in other areas of the curriculum. She suggested that the programmes of study were equally as important as the attainment targets: they had to be interlinked. There was an interesting comparison here with the Westhill advice that the programmes of study were paramount. Some of us agreed with Westhill - that it was the process rather than the objective which was more important. This issue of curriculum design theory raised interesting discussions between primary and secondary teachers. The programmes of study should indicate both content ('pupils should learn about ...') and methodology ('pupils should have opportunities to ... pupils should be encouraged to ...'). Matters of structure were discussed: did we want to have the same topics at each key stage? Barbara suggested that religious beliefs, ethics and religious expression (ritual and non-ritual) all needed to be included or the curriculum would not be broad and balanced. But should the balance be the same at each key stage? She suggested a possible model for consideration:  Finally, she advised us to check that our programmes of study covered all three attainment targets at each key stage. She then led an in-depth analysis of the aims, attainment targets and statements of attainment which we had drafted. Aims of Religious Education First, the wording of two of our three aims was changed. The first aim: "To be aware of and respond to life experiences and the questions they raise" became: "To recognise and respond to the questions raised by life's experiences." The second, "To know about and understand religious beliefs and practices" became: "To know about and understand religious beliefs and practices and how they influence individuals and societies." The third aim was left unchanged: "To evaluate the significance of religious concepts, beliefs and practices by being able to express personal opinions based on the use of appropriate evidence and argument." I am not sure that these changes clarified the "aims". To be an "Aim for Religious Education", it seems to me that the first would have to be "To assist/encourage/teach pupils to be aware of ..." As they stand, they may be aims for the pupils themselves but not for religious education. Attainment Targets The three attainment targets were felt to be appropriate in supporting the "aims", so they were left unchanged:
Statements of Attainment Key Stage One
The second statement for Key Stage One was just as imprecise as the first. After some discussion we arrived at: "Explain why religious activities are important to believers." Similarly with the third statement - rather than "Be aware that ... " we agreed on: "To know that there are many puzzling questions about life and to share some possible explanations." Key Stage Two
The second statement was felt to be sound but the wording was simplified: "To be able to give examples of codes of conduct and lifestyles which result from religious belief." In the third statement, "Identify that there are questions ... ", we were again challenged to say what we were expecting pupils to do. Barbara suggested that we wanted them to use evidence and argument and apply them to issues. The resulting statement read: "Compare the answers different people give to religious questions and relate these to their own views." Key Stage Three
The second statement: "Develop an understanding of ... " was rewritten more straightforwardly: "Explain how personal commitments have effects on the individual and on others." The third statement, "Formulate and express their own ideas ... " was also simplified and a final phrase added relating personal beliefs to the views of others: "Express their own ideas through the use of evidence and argument, recognising why other people have different views." Key Stage Four
Similarly, the second statement was simplified to read: "To explain the nature of religious commitment and the varied extent to which it influences individuals, communities and nations." The final statement was changed completely. It now read: "Evaluate the extent to which judgements might change in different circumstances of time and place." Key Stage Five
1: To know and understand some implications of the place of religion in society and to be introduced to the debates concerning religious beliefs.
The day with Barbara Wintersgill had been enormously thought-provoking and productive. We now felt we were beginning to see an outline syllabus which had some internal logic, which had progression and continuity and, even more importantly, which said what we meant. Some fine tuning of the wording of the attainment statements was agreed: the final version is shown below. The next step would be to produce programmes of study, and there were few days left for this task if we were to be ready with the syllabus for the Statutory Conference in January 1992. A further document was presented to us as we moved into this phase: the National Curriculum Council's "Religious Education - a local curriculum framework".
Religious Education - a local curriculum framework (NCC) This booklet from the National Curriculum Council, prepared with help from Patrick Hannibal and Michael Grimmitt, set out to offer "advice to SACREs, agreed syllabus conferences and LEAs who wish to consider the desirability of drawing up attainment targets and programmes of study for religious education in their authority, and to offer advice on their construction." (NCC 1991) [9] Having described the structure of other National Curriculum subjects, the booklet offered the following principles for constructing attainment targets:
Principles for constructing statements of attainment were presented: "the language used should be clear and simple... each should require a comparable standard to those at the same level in other attainment targets and in other subjects ... each should contribute to an improvement in learning standards by setting a realistic but challenging goal" etc. (NCC 1991) [11] The groups decided that, thanks largely to the advice of Barbara Wintersgill, our attainment statements already fulfilled these criteria. The booklet reiterated the importance of appreciating the interdependence of attainment targets and programmes of study - "neither has meaning without the other" - and stated that "in the case of an agreed syllabus for RE which is based on a similar framework, it is important that both parts of the curriculum are set out." (NCC 1991) [12] Further important advice to those constructing a religious education syllabus was that "HMI has in the past been concerned at an over-emphasis on factual knowledge and a neglect of pupils' own spiritual development. They have, moreover, observed that a distinctive subject content is often lacking when RE is combined with humanities or personal and social education." (NCC 1991) [13] Again, the groups felt that we had already acknowledged these issues. In an important paragraph, the NCC advised that "content-based attainment targets in RE may give a distorted view of the learning objectives of the subject." (NCC 1991) [14] Topics such as celebration are "matters to be studied which therefore belong in the programmes of study." (NCC 1991) [15] With regard to assessment, the booklet suggested that "the subject is often seen as contributing to pupils' development in many ways which cannot easily be measured." (NCC 1991) [16]
References 1 Westhill Memorandum (1991) Attainment in RE: some considerations for LEAs/SACREs p2
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
