What is the Rochford Review?
In 2015 a report was commissioned, chaired by Diane Rochford to review the statutory assessment frameworks for pupils working below the national curriculum standards.
The review was released in October 2016 with the following key recommendations:
- The removal of p-scales
- Interim pre-key stage standards to be used to assess pupils working below the National Curriculum standards but whom are engaged in subject specific learning
- Schools should assess pupils in 4 areas of need as outlined by EHCPs
- Schools should have a statutory duty to assess pupils not engaged in subject specific learning in the area of cognition and learning using the 7 aspects of the engagement scale. However there should be no requirement to submit data
- Schools should be free to decide their own approach to assessment in line with their chosen curriculum
- The changes in assessment for pupils with SEND should be included in initial teacher training
- Schools should work to share their good practice and seek support from one another
What are the main points that have been outlined?
Pupils who are engaged in subject specific learning but are working below national curriculum standards will be assessed using the interim pre-key stage standards as of the year 2018/19.
Pupils not engaged in subject specific learning and working below the level of the interim pre-key stage standards will be assessed in the area of cognition and learning using the 7 areas of the engagement scale: In recognising the complexity of need of these pupils and the inadequacy of a linear assessment framework, the government expects pupils to be assessed tailored to their personal needs and unique profile using the 7 areas of engagement however the school feel best fits their curriculum model.
The Rochford Review recommended that schools will not submit the data they collect for pupils not engaged in subject-specific learning when assessing them against the 7 areas of engagement. This is because the Rochford review placed a high value on schools having the freedom to assess pupils in a way that meets the needs of their pupils and in line with their curriculum model. Standardising an assessment model to submit results would not achieve this.
‘One of the Rochford Review’s guiding principles was that equality is not always about inclusion. Sometimes equality is about altering the approach according to the needs of the pupils. While an inclusive approach to assessment is desirable where it is both feasible and valuable, it is equally true that the fairest and most positive way to provide for some children is to use a different approach.’ I believe this statement reflects what professionals working in the SEND sector have been waiting a long time to read.
What is wrong with the p-scales?
Having used PIVATS to assess pupils with SLD and PMLD I have found limitations. Firstly, p-scales are a linear progression framework which outline what the children should be demonstrating and the next steps. A barrier of PIVATS is that the individual lozenges (targets or achievements) should be attained across one level before progressing to the next and at many levels there are lots of lozenges to achieve. I recognise that PIVATS has helped many teachers break down the often perceived as ambiguous statement jumps of the p-scales, however aren’t we just fitting our children into linear stacked boxes? Some children may also reach a peak with such an assessment system, they may be making progress in other areas however they don’t fit in any more of the boxes, or even worse teachers are seeking to find a very tenuous link to prove progress. Much research has been carried out that demonstrates that pupils with a range of severe, complex and profound needs have spiky profiles of attainment which doesn’t reflect accurately using a linear assessment framework.
Another problem I found with PIVATS was the need to show progress on a tracker. My pupils often made progress in areas related to their social, physical, sensory processing or independence skills as these were important areas of development personalised to the pupil, however they are not reflected on a tracker. With the pressure to make progress teachers often find themselves teaching to PIVATS targets. By doing this we are not teaching in a creative or innovative way and teaching around the needs of the child.
In an article written by TES they quoted Diane Rochford’s concerns that the p-scales are often used incorrectly to shape a curriculum which restricts schools in delivering a creative and innovative and pupil centred approach.
It is important to recognise the changing face of SEND. Our profile of children is becoming more and more complex with the advances in the medical profession in relation to premature birth, an increase in drug and alcohol use throughout pregnancy and the increase in undiagnosed neurological disorders. In our setting the lower end of the school has an increasing ratio of pupils with PMLD and complex medical needs. To meet their needs we should be aiming towards a personalised curriculum approach that meets the needs of these pupils. Following a lot of personal research, school visits and trailing in practice we feel an informal/ semi-formal approach is successful. However after p4 the p-scales are divided by subject based learning. This can often present schools with a dilemma and the questions, what curriculum are we expected to follow? Do you pupils have an entitlement to the national curriculum? What will Ofsted expect to see?
The fountain dale school highlights that pupils working at p5 are typically working at age 24 months, would you expect a 24 month old to be learning subjects. It’s even worse for KS2 and 3 pupils who are at this developmental level but expected to be learning complex subject topic. And this is not even the place for the argument ‘but you can make that topic sensory’ because I would have too much to say!
The p-scales were also designed as a pre-national curriculum assessment tool and were not updated when the new national curriculum was put in place in 2014. The p-scales do not follow on to the National Curriculum leaving a big jump between p8 and NC levels.
Alternative assessment approaches
There are a range of other assessment frameworks used to assess the progress of pupils with PMLD/ CLDD/ SLD. Our survey results highlighted this in our previous blog post.
An assessment system we have found to be successful is MAPP. MAPP is a system that allows you to input personal targets and look beyond subject areas. Targets can be mapped around any development area that would positively impact on the child. MAPP recognised that is it not accurate to simply tick a target as achieved or met, as is the case with many assessment tools based on p-scales. They break down the acquisition of a target into four stages of which each stage has a progression. The stages are prompting, fluency, maintenance and generalisation. It is recognised that maintaining a skill and generalising it is just as important to record as them demonstrating it. It is a system that slows the pace of learning down to meet the child, not expecting them to continuously move forward in their development path to meet their expected outcomes.
Earlier in the year, we visited Chailey Heritage School. Simon Yates, the head teacher, accompanied by two members of his staff presented on their curriculum and assessment model at the Best of British Special Education Forum earlier this year. They left listeners with jaws on the floor at the concept of getting rid of data. Chailey strongly believe in their pupil case study assessment system. Their target setting, my next steps are designed around the needs of the children, similar to MAPP. They evidence progress using observation notes in a very thorough and effective system. There is no data to track, no pupils are compared but the journey of learning is still clear to see.
What are the engagement scales?
The engagement profile and scale was devised by professor Barry Carpenter as part of his work on the Complex Learning Difficulties and Disabilities Project.
The project outlined the importance of engagement. They explain that engagement is not just being on task but being immersed in the learning activity in relation to the activity itself, their learning environment and those around them. Many children with PMLD/ CLDD/ SLD have difficulties engaging in their learning due to a range of barriers. The project outlined that a child must be engaged before any learning can take place.
The project highlights the 7 stages of engagement: awareness, curiosity, investigation, discovery, anticipation, persistence and initiation. The engagement scale is a tool to measure the progress towards engagement. It is a score based system that marks each area out of 4 and can measure progress over time.
Engagement is clear to observe and assess when working wit pupils with PMLD however, I have previously questioned the impact of measuring engagement with some of our SLD. I have looked through the PowerPoint below and found useful examples to aid my understanding of its application to pupils with SLD. However, I have worked with a number of pupils with SLD who are well engaged with activities, eager to learn and fully immersed in an activity. We may not be able to track much progress with these pupils.
Powerpoint found on Barry Carpenters website: https://barrycarpentereducation.com/tag/engagement/
Click on the link in the post: Interpreting Engagement ; pathways for children with Complex Needs
How we have implemented them at school?
Hannah implemented the engagement scales last year with her PMLD class and used them alongside PIVATS and MAPP. Hannah found them effective to use to measure engagement within a session. Hannah’s class uses a lot of repetition to support the needs of her pupils, therefore the engagement scales provided a tool to assess the progress of the pupils engagement with an activity over time. This may prove more difficult for pupils with SLD who have a more diverse timetable.
I have recently introduced them with my CLDD class. My team have been enthusiastic and committed to learning more about the engagement scales and are enjoying being able to observe the progress a child is making. By encouraging the whole team to use them, the team enjoy the responsibility and being included and can recognise the impact of the session and the support they are providing.
I would not like to use the engagement scales as a stand-alone form of assessment. I recognise the value in assessing the development in engagement, however they do not record the specific achievements of the child. In practice, I think using MAPP and the engagement scales complement each other.
We will attach two examples of the engagement scale progress sheets we have devised and have been using to our TES page: Sensory_dispensary or click here.
Things we like about the Government response to Rochford review:
- Supports that for pupils working below the interim pre-key stage standards a non-subject specific curriculum is supported
- Recognises the limitations of the p-scales
- Is not expecting engagement scale data to be submitted
- There is still a freedom for schools to adopt an assessment framework that works for their children and their curriculum
Things we are concerned about:
- The use of the engagement scales were never designed to be a primary assessment tool. They do not measure overall progress, only progress in engagement
- We feel the SLD pupils have not been recognised; engagement scales work well for PMLD pupils. The interim pre-key stage standards are still recognised as above p8 but below NC which leaves out pupils working between p4 and p8. We need to be able to measure progress not just engagement. We recognise engagement is the pre-factor to learning however once a child is engaged how do we measure the progress then? Are we lowering aspirations by only measuring against engagement? Should the engagement scales be an option instead of statutory?
- It is a very long process. Pupils working below interim pre-key stage standards will continue to be using the p-scales for another two years. There is confusion around this as some schools such as Chailey Heritage have already moved away from the p-scales.
- The initial report highlighted the importance of assessing pupils with SEND in all 4 areas of need as outlined by the EHCP. The government report only touches on cognition as an area for assessment by use of the engagement scales but does not directly promote assessment in the 4 areas.
- This only outlines primary assessment, can we assume it reflects secondary pupils too as many special schools are 2-19.
Carpenter, B.,
Egerton, J., Cockbill, B., Bloom, T., Fotheringham, J., Rawson, H., et al.
(2015). Engaging Learners with Complex Learning Difficulties and
Disabilities . Abingdon: Routledge .
Department for
Education. (2017). Primary school pupil assessment: Rochford Review
recommendations . London : Department for Education.
Phillips, S.
(2016). Reflections on the Rochford Review & implications for our
semi-formal learners with severe and complex needs - One school’s perspective.
Retrieved September 17, 2017, from Fountaindale School:
http://www.fountaindale.notts.sch.uk/library/documents/Reflections_on_Rochford_SF_%281%29.pdf
Rochford, D.
(2016). The Rochford Review: Final Report. London : Standards and
testing agency.
The Dales School.
(n.d.). Assessment & Progression (MAPP). Retrieved September 17,
2017, from The Dales School:
http://www.thedalesschool.org/attachments/MAPP%20case%20study%20e-mail%20PDF.pdf
Ward, H. (2016,
October 20). Rochford Review: changes to SEND assessment could lower
expectations, warns charity. Retrieved September 17, 2017, from TES:
https://www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-news/rochford-review-changes-send-assessment-could-lower-expectations
Thanks for this. Gives a lot of food for thought!
ReplyDelete