So I have spent quite a lot of time over the last 6 months planning for the new curriculum. As a department we have begun to suggest the key units we might like to cover and have begun debating which key questions we want to answer (see attachment below). This process is far from complete, but at least we have a rough outline to begin with.

Now the outlines are almost complete, the next big issue will be creating the schemes of work and assessments which form the core of our new curriculum. This is the bit where I tend to feel a bit unwell. Images of thick, inpenetrable schemes of work starting running through my head and I get tired thinking about churning out lessons after lesson for a plan that no-one will end up using.

So here is the big issue. We have very limited time to write our new schemes of work and we want to make this the best curriculum we have ever taught. So how do we best use our time? Building on Michael Fordham and Jamie Byrom's recent articles in Teaching History (Curriculum Evolution Supplement, 2013), I think there are 3 areas which will need the most attention:

1) Agreeing on a "gold standard" for History - this has largely been done through previous work here
2) Setting meaningful enquiries - a work in process but nearly there
3) Creating meaningful assessments which enable students to address the enquiry and demosntrate the gold standards of History. I am particularly keen on divorcing such assessments from any generic mark schemes - making the marking specific to each assessment.

With this in mind, I am trying to devise an appropriate planning format, which prioritises the above. I have attached a sample SoW for the Norman Conquest Y7 unit and would be interested to know what people think. The main differences between this and previous SoW I have written are:

* I have been much more rigid in defining substantive concepts to cover - I am hoping to incorporate a mixed approach to assessment which also includes regular checks of knowledge and chronology
* I have spent the majority of the time planning the assessment and mark scheme so that it is specific to the task.
* I have not stipulated indiviudal lessons, leaving this down to teachers.

I would be very interested to get any feedback on this approach. Do you think it works? Is there enough detail? Is it too open/restrictive? Are you doing something similar or do you have a different approach? Again I think this is a great time for debate and discussion. I look forward to any responses.

Alex

“As part of our reforms to the national curriculum , the current system of ‘levels’ used to report children’s attainment and progress will be removed.  It will not be replaced.” (DfE, 2013)

This blog aims to be a follow-up to the Northern History Forum meeting from November 2013. You will find links on the blog to all aspects of planning for progress and progression in the new KS3. I hope we are able to spark some healthy professional dialogue about the concepts we want to use to assess History; how we make progression models meaningful; and how we can create a mastery model of History education. All comments are much appreciated and help us to begin the process of moving History forwards. I hope we can be in the vanguard of educational reform as a subject as we move into 2014.

As ever, I am indebted to the huge amount of work which has already been done on these themes over the last 20 years, by a range of incredibly talented people. I have provided a full bibliography for all the models in the introductory file below. I would however like to mention the amazing articles from Peter Lee and Denis Shemilt in Teaching History, as well as Peter Seixas' and Tom Morton's "The Big Six" which first got me excited about the prospect of rethinking history assessment.

For each of these concepts it would be good to have a discussion about how far you agree with the signposts set out and the aims of the concepts. Student friendly versions are available in the student resources section. 

Exposition

Surely I cannot be the only one whose heart leapt when I read this statement in the DfE’s recent statement on assessment without National Curriculum Levels. In two short paragraphs, the document went on to describe everything that was wrong with the current system of assessment in Key Stages 1 to 3.

“We believe this system is complicated and difficult to understand, especially for parents. It also encourages teachers to focus on a pupil’s current level, rather than consider more broadly what the pupil can actually do. Prescribing a single detailed approach to assessment does not fit with the curriculum freedoms we are giving schools.” (DfE, 2013)

I seldom sing the praises of the Secretary of State for Education, but this surely has to be one of the most sensible reforms we have seen for many years.

In the wake of the demise of the levels system, it seems the ideal time to begin to thinking about what should come next. How should we think about progress and progression in History in a post-Levels world?

It has long been accepted that the system of NC Levels is woefully inadequate when it comes to describing, assessing or planning for progression in History. Levels have become, in the worst cases, the end point of teaching itself. This has been accompanied by an increasing fetishisation of NC Levels as a means of establishing accountability in schools. Worryingly, the idea of NC Levels seems to have become so ingrained that many are unsure how we assess now these ‘ladders’ have been removed. I would suggest however that this is a moment where we need to seize the opportunity to build meaningful models of progression with both hands.

Please find here a range of student friendly and departmental support materials for the progression models outlined in other blog posts. I have also attached a bibliography for further reading. You can find more files by following the link on the top right in the sidebar.

Comments and thoughts very welcome on this concept

This model is based on Morton, T. & Seixas’ The Big Six Historical Thinking Concepts (2012); Scott’s Understanding Cause and Effect (1990); and my own modifications and interpretation.

Understanding ‘causation’ in history is crucial for students to make sense of the past. At a basic level, causation appears to be the bread and butter of history. The causation model outlined here attempts to get student to understand a number of key strands:



1.      Change happens because of MULTIPLE CAUSES and leads to many different results or consequences. These create a WEB of related causes and consequences.

2.      Different causes have different LEVELS OF INFLUENCE. Some causes are more important than other causes.

3.      Historical changes happen because of two main factors: The actions of HISTORICAL ACTORS and the CONDITIONS (social, economic etc.) which have influenced those actors.

4.      HISTORICAL ACTORS cannot always predict the effects of their own actions leading to UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.  These unintended consequences can also lead to changes.