NKLP Functional Skills Group.
Minutes from Meeting at Redruth Technology College Monday 20th October 2008: 1.30-3.00pm
Agenda:
Minutes of last meeting
NKLP – Functional Skills website – updates
QCA – Assessment Principles for Pilot Programme
Registration of cohorts
Training days for your diary
AOB
Subject Team time
Minutes:
Minutes of Last meeting: Some discussion about item 4: size of cohorts? Advice from FS Directors is to keep groups small and manageable, but cohorts ultimately at the discretion of schools and leaders. Item 5: Who’s working with which awarding bodies – discussion – many FS Reps ‘looking around’ not strictly considering working with their current awarding bodies – will keep Paul informed of ultimate decisions.
NKLP – Paul gives update of FS website – will work with Sharon Calloway to make the site more user friendly.
QCA – Assessment Principles passed around to subject reps, to read and reflect and pass-on to school departments. May feature as a future group activity with FS Advisors.
Registration of cohorts: Again issue of cohort sizes discussed. Close links / communication with Exam Officers discussed. Concerns from Helen at Camborne about letter from WJEC English ‘capping’ their FS schools registration – but since overcome because =e of our Gateway 2 status.
Training days for your diary: Staff to book the CCED FS days – to organise bookings, cover, expenses with their schools. All invoices to John Mitchell, business manager, Pool B&E College reference – Diploma Lines.
AOB
Subject Team time: Staff met as FS Subject Reps groups to discuss current progress, training, experiences, etc.
Wednesday, 22 October 2008
Thursday, 16 October 2008
FS English Pilot Assessment Principles 2008-09
Final FS assessment principles: second year of the pilot programme (QCA) v1.0 Functional skills
English
Assessment arrangements and principles for pilot
QCA review of assessment materials:
Awarding bodies should develop assessment materials using the principles provided in this document.
The assessment principles stipulate the awarding body design and delivery arrangements for functional skills qualifications in the second year of the pilot programme (September 2008 – September 2009). All assessments delivered from January 2009 must comply with these principles.
The assessment principles are subject to change during the FS pilot phase.
Teaching and learning:
Curriculum teaching and learning must cover the skills standards for English in their entirety at a given level. Awarding body guidance to centres on the delivery of the qualifications should emphasise this coverage requirement.
Section references:
Unless otherwise stated, the bracketed section references within this document relate to ‘The statutory regulation of external qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland 2004’ document (Ref: QCA/04/1293).
Final FS assessment principles: second year of the pilot programme (QCA) v1.0
Design principles for the assessment of functional skills
English
Entry level to level 2
Purpose:
The principles in this document provide the design framework for assessment of pilot qualifications in functional skills. These principles have been produced to define the parameters within which assessment models and materials should be developed for functional skills English pilot qualifications.
Assessment model:
1. The assessment must be designed to measure application of skills for a purpose within a "real life" context. These contexts should not appear contrived for the purposes of assessment.
2. The assessment can be entirely task-based, or a combination of task/s with test-style items. Refer to principle 3 for permissible proportions.
Assessment instrument definitions
Task-based assessment:
Functional skills tasks are assessments that present [a] scenario/s within regular, 'real-life' contexts, which candidates engage with in order to resolve a situation or produce an effective and appropriate response or outcome. These assessment activities must reflect real-life situations and provide opportunities for candidates to apply and transfer their knowledge and skills for a legitimate purpose.
In line with the FS standards' level differentiation factors, task-based assessment requires candidates to identify and solve problems by selecting from, making choices about, and utilising different elements within an assessment scenario.
At L1 and L2, task-based assessment should include multi-step and multiple component activities, drawing upon a range of skills and requiring choice, selection and evaluation in line with the requirements of the FS standards.
Task-based assessment should support the application and demonstration of skills and competencies that are appropriate to their situation.
Test-based assessment:
Functional skills test-based assessments include more specifically focussed objective test questions and assessment items, using fixed responses, multiple choice items, or short answer responses.
This type of assessment may use more disjointed or self-contained items in order to isolate particular skills and their performance, ensure sufficient coverage of the standards, or to corroborate achievement elsewhere, but should be conscious of overarching functional skills design aims to provide engaging and realistic skills-application opportunities.
3. Where test-style items are used they must be valid (i.e. to assess understanding and knowledge rather than problem-solving and practical application of skills).
Final FS assessment principles: second year of the pilot programme (QCA) v1.0
In developing assessments that use both task and test-style items awarding bodies must ensure that:
• the allocation of marks to those standards assessed through test-style items is not disproportionate to the way the standards are specified in full;
• test style items are in appropriate balance to items which assess problem-solving and practical application of skills
As guidance, standards assessed through test-style items should contribute no more than 25% of the total marks available.
4. Assessment of functional skills must support a holistic view of skills proficiency in relation to the functional skills standards at the specific level. It must not be atomistic. All mark schemes should be explicitly referenced to the skill standards but must not place undue weighting on individual standards nor make them individually conclusive.
5. Assessments must include details of how assessment questions and anticipated outcomes relate to the attribution of results for candidate performance; this must be mapped to the requirements of the FS standards.
6. The requirements of the assessment must be specified externally (i.e. by the awarding body).
7. Assessment items may be externally set by an awarding body or requirements may be externally set and provide for internally contextualised task-based assessments. These parameters apply at all levels (entry level – level 2).
8. Where assessment is proposed that is not 100% externally set and marked, awarding bodies must provide proposed arrangements for:
• quality assurance;
• standardisation / moderation within and across centres and examiners;
• external verification.
Where an assessment includes witness statements, or similar internal assessment components, the requirements of the assessment and standard must be explicit. It must include details regarding the assessment context and expectations in terms of candidate performance at a given level. ABs are responsible for providing the documentation that supports these requirements and maintains auditable evidence of performance. ABs will need to make clear how they manage and audit these processes, including details of their qualitative review capability.
9. Drafting of assessment materials should minimise any later need to make reasonable adjustments for disabled candidates (s14) and where this is not the case ensure reasonable adjustments can be made available (s15). In the very last resort, component exemptions should be offered where barriers to disabled candidates remain (DCSF regulations Sept 2007).
10. Reasonable adjustments should reflect the candidate’s usual methods of working but they should not give the candidate an unfair advantage compared to candidates not using reasonable adjustments, or invalidate the assessment objectives set out in the specification (s16).
Final FS assessment principles: second year of the pilot programme (QCA) v1.0
11. Awarding bodies must review all assessment materials to ensure they afford fair and equal access in terms of disability, gender, race, age, sexual orientation and religion/belief.
Levels:
12. The assessment must be designed to assess a particular, single level of the FS standards. All elements of the assessment (e.g. source materials, questions, presentation, language etc) must be appropriate to the stated level.
Where an assessment is able to provide sufficient evidence of achievement at the level below the stated level, an 'exceptional' award may be made at this level. This type of award may be possible due to the nature of the FS standards, structured as progressive levels that subsume one another. However, partial achievement at a level does not attest to achievement at the level below; clear evidence of competence against the skill standards at a given level is required for an award.
Coverage:
13. Assessment must cover the requirements of the English skill standards in speaking and listening; reading; and writing; and must avoid assessment of skills and knowledge outside the scope of these standards.
14. Awarding bodies must not combine assessment of more than one of the three functional skills of English, mathematics and ICT within a single assessment.
15. All language used in assessment material must be simple and direct, unless intentionally and appropriately assessing comprehension at the given level. All materials must be free from covert and overt discrimination, and bias (s38). (These requirements do not proscribe the use of source materials that are incorporated to assess functional skills relating to learner choice, selection and judgement). As a general principle, the level of understanding demanded by the assessment that is not expressly contained within the English standards should be at the level below that which is being assessed. This principle should apply to any content or information included in assessments.
16. The level of reading required must not exceed the level being assessed. The demand placed on the reading aspect of the assessment must take account of both the level and duration of the assessment.
17. Assessment within the qualification must cover each of the skills areas identified by the English standards as well as being referenced to the four elements of level differentiation: complexity; familiarity; technical demand; and independence. Each skill area has equal weighting for assessment purposes. These are:
• Speaking and listening;
• Reading;
• Writing.
18. Awarding bodies can develop separate assessments for each of the three skill areas (i.e. Speaking and listening; Reading; Writing) or produce integrated assessment materials covering two or more skill areas. All
Final FS assessment principles: second year of the pilot programme (QCA) v1.0
assessments must require candidates to achieve each skill area at the level being assessed and compensation across skill areas is not permitted.
19. The assessment should be designed to incorporate the different elements of the FS skill standards (skill standards, coverage and level differentiation factors) in integrated scenarios that reflect 'real life' circumstances.
20. At each level, the assessment must be based on all of the ‘skill standards’ (FS standards English document v0.6: left-hand column) and all underpinning ‘coverage’ items (FS standards English v0.6 document: right-hand column).
The assessment can sample from the ranges within the skill standard statements and ranges in the coverage statements that comprise them. The assessment must focus on functionality and the application of skills as articulated by the skill standards.
N.B. Reading and writing assessments at all of the levels must include texts suitable for the level and relating to real-life contexts.
21. Where the assessment samples from particular ranges within the FS standards, awarding bodies are responsible for making judgements relating to this sampling. These judgements must take account of how the level of difficulty and demand, and therefore the qualification level, are influenced by these ranges (for example, the candidate's proficiency with multiple texts, sources, formats, and media at L2) as well as the assessment’s intended purpose as a measure of a candidate’s overall English competence as specified by the standards at the level being assessed.
22. Assessment requirements and mark schemes must clearly show how the assessment model and each assessment based on this model relate to the requirements of the functional skills English standards.
23. Assessment must acknowledge the requirement to achieve each of the skill areas.
Assessment conditions:
24. All assessment, including that of speaking and listening, must be undertaken in controlled, supervised conditions. For speaking and listening, this means that the candidate must be made aware that their contribution is for the purposes of assessment and that the assessment must be supervised and outcomes recorded.
25. Awarding bodies may provide source materials to be used by candidates during controlled assessments.
26. Pre-release materials are permitted. Awarding bodies must provide clear guidance in relation to pre-release materials and the requirements for the use of these materials prior to the controlled assessment.
Pre-release materials should be distributed to candidates no more than 3-4 weeks of teaching and learning time prior to the summative assessment. In certain learning contexts where the contact time is very limited, ABs may request an extension to allow equivalent time for learner engagement with materials. Pre-release materials can provide candidates with sufficient time to understand the nature of particular assessment contexts or scenarios but are
Final FS assessment principles: second year of the pilot programme (QCA) v1.0
not an assessed component. ABs should ensure that the requirements of the assessment are not apparent to candidates, or others, through their pre-release materials.
27. Access to dictionaries, reference materials, support devices and 'help' functions is not currently stipulated. Access is determined by the awarding body in line with their assessment design and should accord with the assessment objectives (Assessments should acknowledge the degree of accuracy required, and the level of credit, or marks, available in line with this availability as part of their design, and the instrument should assess the effectiveness of their use. Adequate centre and candidate guidance is essential). Awarding bodies will need to give consideration to the implications for management, access, security and reliability.
28. Assessment is of the candidate’s own ability to reach an outcome by independent application of skills. For this reason, candidates must not be given help by others (e.g. centre staff, external invigilators, peers) in order to meet the requirements of the assessment.
29. Awarding bodies must provide a model and requirements to centres for the assessment of speaking and listening. QCA will require details from awarding bodies relating to the quality assurance arrangements for this aspect of assessment. In particular awarding bodies will need to clearly identify how the assessment models meet the requirements for a summative assessment of speaking and listening for functional skills qualifications. (Refer to principle six for further detail)
30. Reasonable adjustments should be made available to candidates with disabilities (s15). For each of these awarding bodies must publish to centres its procedures and share relevant data with QCA on request (s 17, s18, s20)
31. Special considerations should be made available to candidates who suffer temporary illness, injury or indisposition. For each of these awarding bodies must publish to centres its procedures and share relevant data with QCA on request (s 17, s18, s20)
Duration:
32. The duration of the speaking and listening component leading to a qualification is not specified by the regulator for the pilot. Awarding bodies must provide a description and rationale for their assessment approach and its duration. Where this is not time limited, awarding bodies will need to clearly identify the conditions under which the summative assessment of speaking and listening skills takes place.
33. The duration of assessment for the reading and writing components leading to a qualification should be no longer than five hours in its entirety, unless reasonable adjustments are put in place for a disabled candidate. The expectation is that at levels 1 and 2 the assessment of these skills will be approximately 2 hours but that at entry level greater flexibility may be required.
34. Where the assessment model includes pre-release of source material/s, awarding bodies must provide a description and rationale for their assessment approach and procedures relating to assessment materials that are to be considered outside of this duration. Where pre-release materials are
Final FS assessment principles: second year of the pilot programme (QCA) v1.0
used, awarding bodies will need to clearly stipulate for centres how the use of this material relates to the summative assessment.
35. Where the assessment model includes pre-release of source material, the duration of supervised assessment should not assume the degree to which candidates have engaged with the material and should provide adequate reading time. ABs should consider the volume of pre-release materials in relation to the duration of their summative assessment in terms of overall burden.
36. Awarding bodies are required to offer a minimum of two assessment opportunities in the second year of the pilot programme. Awarding bodies should be able to demonstrate progress in their ability to deliver FS assessments more flexibly to meet the needs of candidates and centres. The number of assessment opportunities for speaking and listening is not specified by the regulator for the pilots but awarding bodies will need to consider manageability for centres and clearly specify what is required in the guidance for centres.
English
Assessment arrangements and principles for pilot
QCA review of assessment materials:
Awarding bodies should develop assessment materials using the principles provided in this document.
The assessment principles stipulate the awarding body design and delivery arrangements for functional skills qualifications in the second year of the pilot programme (September 2008 – September 2009). All assessments delivered from January 2009 must comply with these principles.
The assessment principles are subject to change during the FS pilot phase.
Teaching and learning:
Curriculum teaching and learning must cover the skills standards for English in their entirety at a given level. Awarding body guidance to centres on the delivery of the qualifications should emphasise this coverage requirement.
Section references:
Unless otherwise stated, the bracketed section references within this document relate to ‘The statutory regulation of external qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland 2004’ document (Ref: QCA/04/1293).
Final FS assessment principles: second year of the pilot programme (QCA) v1.0
Design principles for the assessment of functional skills
English
Entry level to level 2
Purpose:
The principles in this document provide the design framework for assessment of pilot qualifications in functional skills. These principles have been produced to define the parameters within which assessment models and materials should be developed for functional skills English pilot qualifications.
Assessment model:
1. The assessment must be designed to measure application of skills for a purpose within a "real life" context. These contexts should not appear contrived for the purposes of assessment.
2. The assessment can be entirely task-based, or a combination of task/s with test-style items. Refer to principle 3 for permissible proportions.
Assessment instrument definitions
Task-based assessment:
Functional skills tasks are assessments that present [a] scenario/s within regular, 'real-life' contexts, which candidates engage with in order to resolve a situation or produce an effective and appropriate response or outcome. These assessment activities must reflect real-life situations and provide opportunities for candidates to apply and transfer their knowledge and skills for a legitimate purpose.
In line with the FS standards' level differentiation factors, task-based assessment requires candidates to identify and solve problems by selecting from, making choices about, and utilising different elements within an assessment scenario.
At L1 and L2, task-based assessment should include multi-step and multiple component activities, drawing upon a range of skills and requiring choice, selection and evaluation in line with the requirements of the FS standards.
Task-based assessment should support the application and demonstration of skills and competencies that are appropriate to their situation.
Test-based assessment:
Functional skills test-based assessments include more specifically focussed objective test questions and assessment items, using fixed responses, multiple choice items, or short answer responses.
This type of assessment may use more disjointed or self-contained items in order to isolate particular skills and their performance, ensure sufficient coverage of the standards, or to corroborate achievement elsewhere, but should be conscious of overarching functional skills design aims to provide engaging and realistic skills-application opportunities.
3. Where test-style items are used they must be valid (i.e. to assess understanding and knowledge rather than problem-solving and practical application of skills).
Final FS assessment principles: second year of the pilot programme (QCA) v1.0
In developing assessments that use both task and test-style items awarding bodies must ensure that:
• the allocation of marks to those standards assessed through test-style items is not disproportionate to the way the standards are specified in full;
• test style items are in appropriate balance to items which assess problem-solving and practical application of skills
As guidance, standards assessed through test-style items should contribute no more than 25% of the total marks available.
4. Assessment of functional skills must support a holistic view of skills proficiency in relation to the functional skills standards at the specific level. It must not be atomistic. All mark schemes should be explicitly referenced to the skill standards but must not place undue weighting on individual standards nor make them individually conclusive.
5. Assessments must include details of how assessment questions and anticipated outcomes relate to the attribution of results for candidate performance; this must be mapped to the requirements of the FS standards.
6. The requirements of the assessment must be specified externally (i.e. by the awarding body).
7. Assessment items may be externally set by an awarding body or requirements may be externally set and provide for internally contextualised task-based assessments. These parameters apply at all levels (entry level – level 2).
8. Where assessment is proposed that is not 100% externally set and marked, awarding bodies must provide proposed arrangements for:
• quality assurance;
• standardisation / moderation within and across centres and examiners;
• external verification.
Where an assessment includes witness statements, or similar internal assessment components, the requirements of the assessment and standard must be explicit. It must include details regarding the assessment context and expectations in terms of candidate performance at a given level. ABs are responsible for providing the documentation that supports these requirements and maintains auditable evidence of performance. ABs will need to make clear how they manage and audit these processes, including details of their qualitative review capability.
9. Drafting of assessment materials should minimise any later need to make reasonable adjustments for disabled candidates (s14) and where this is not the case ensure reasonable adjustments can be made available (s15). In the very last resort, component exemptions should be offered where barriers to disabled candidates remain (DCSF regulations Sept 2007).
10. Reasonable adjustments should reflect the candidate’s usual methods of working but they should not give the candidate an unfair advantage compared to candidates not using reasonable adjustments, or invalidate the assessment objectives set out in the specification (s16).
Final FS assessment principles: second year of the pilot programme (QCA) v1.0
11. Awarding bodies must review all assessment materials to ensure they afford fair and equal access in terms of disability, gender, race, age, sexual orientation and religion/belief.
Levels:
12. The assessment must be designed to assess a particular, single level of the FS standards. All elements of the assessment (e.g. source materials, questions, presentation, language etc) must be appropriate to the stated level.
Where an assessment is able to provide sufficient evidence of achievement at the level below the stated level, an 'exceptional' award may be made at this level. This type of award may be possible due to the nature of the FS standards, structured as progressive levels that subsume one another. However, partial achievement at a level does not attest to achievement at the level below; clear evidence of competence against the skill standards at a given level is required for an award.
Coverage:
13. Assessment must cover the requirements of the English skill standards in speaking and listening; reading; and writing; and must avoid assessment of skills and knowledge outside the scope of these standards.
14. Awarding bodies must not combine assessment of more than one of the three functional skills of English, mathematics and ICT within a single assessment.
15. All language used in assessment material must be simple and direct, unless intentionally and appropriately assessing comprehension at the given level. All materials must be free from covert and overt discrimination, and bias (s38). (These requirements do not proscribe the use of source materials that are incorporated to assess functional skills relating to learner choice, selection and judgement). As a general principle, the level of understanding demanded by the assessment that is not expressly contained within the English standards should be at the level below that which is being assessed. This principle should apply to any content or information included in assessments.
16. The level of reading required must not exceed the level being assessed. The demand placed on the reading aspect of the assessment must take account of both the level and duration of the assessment.
17. Assessment within the qualification must cover each of the skills areas identified by the English standards as well as being referenced to the four elements of level differentiation: complexity; familiarity; technical demand; and independence. Each skill area has equal weighting for assessment purposes. These are:
• Speaking and listening;
• Reading;
• Writing.
18. Awarding bodies can develop separate assessments for each of the three skill areas (i.e. Speaking and listening; Reading; Writing) or produce integrated assessment materials covering two or more skill areas. All
Final FS assessment principles: second year of the pilot programme (QCA) v1.0
assessments must require candidates to achieve each skill area at the level being assessed and compensation across skill areas is not permitted.
19. The assessment should be designed to incorporate the different elements of the FS skill standards (skill standards, coverage and level differentiation factors) in integrated scenarios that reflect 'real life' circumstances.
20. At each level, the assessment must be based on all of the ‘skill standards’ (FS standards English document v0.6: left-hand column) and all underpinning ‘coverage’ items (FS standards English v0.6 document: right-hand column).
The assessment can sample from the ranges within the skill standard statements and ranges in the coverage statements that comprise them. The assessment must focus on functionality and the application of skills as articulated by the skill standards.
N.B. Reading and writing assessments at all of the levels must include texts suitable for the level and relating to real-life contexts.
21. Where the assessment samples from particular ranges within the FS standards, awarding bodies are responsible for making judgements relating to this sampling. These judgements must take account of how the level of difficulty and demand, and therefore the qualification level, are influenced by these ranges (for example, the candidate's proficiency with multiple texts, sources, formats, and media at L2) as well as the assessment’s intended purpose as a measure of a candidate’s overall English competence as specified by the standards at the level being assessed.
22. Assessment requirements and mark schemes must clearly show how the assessment model and each assessment based on this model relate to the requirements of the functional skills English standards.
23. Assessment must acknowledge the requirement to achieve each of the skill areas.
Assessment conditions:
24. All assessment, including that of speaking and listening, must be undertaken in controlled, supervised conditions. For speaking and listening, this means that the candidate must be made aware that their contribution is for the purposes of assessment and that the assessment must be supervised and outcomes recorded.
25. Awarding bodies may provide source materials to be used by candidates during controlled assessments.
26. Pre-release materials are permitted. Awarding bodies must provide clear guidance in relation to pre-release materials and the requirements for the use of these materials prior to the controlled assessment.
Pre-release materials should be distributed to candidates no more than 3-4 weeks of teaching and learning time prior to the summative assessment. In certain learning contexts where the contact time is very limited, ABs may request an extension to allow equivalent time for learner engagement with materials. Pre-release materials can provide candidates with sufficient time to understand the nature of particular assessment contexts or scenarios but are
Final FS assessment principles: second year of the pilot programme (QCA) v1.0
not an assessed component. ABs should ensure that the requirements of the assessment are not apparent to candidates, or others, through their pre-release materials.
27. Access to dictionaries, reference materials, support devices and 'help' functions is not currently stipulated. Access is determined by the awarding body in line with their assessment design and should accord with the assessment objectives (Assessments should acknowledge the degree of accuracy required, and the level of credit, or marks, available in line with this availability as part of their design, and the instrument should assess the effectiveness of their use. Adequate centre and candidate guidance is essential). Awarding bodies will need to give consideration to the implications for management, access, security and reliability.
28. Assessment is of the candidate’s own ability to reach an outcome by independent application of skills. For this reason, candidates must not be given help by others (e.g. centre staff, external invigilators, peers) in order to meet the requirements of the assessment.
29. Awarding bodies must provide a model and requirements to centres for the assessment of speaking and listening. QCA will require details from awarding bodies relating to the quality assurance arrangements for this aspect of assessment. In particular awarding bodies will need to clearly identify how the assessment models meet the requirements for a summative assessment of speaking and listening for functional skills qualifications. (Refer to principle six for further detail)
30. Reasonable adjustments should be made available to candidates with disabilities (s15). For each of these awarding bodies must publish to centres its procedures and share relevant data with QCA on request (s 17, s18, s20)
31. Special considerations should be made available to candidates who suffer temporary illness, injury or indisposition. For each of these awarding bodies must publish to centres its procedures and share relevant data with QCA on request (s 17, s18, s20)
Duration:
32. The duration of the speaking and listening component leading to a qualification is not specified by the regulator for the pilot. Awarding bodies must provide a description and rationale for their assessment approach and its duration. Where this is not time limited, awarding bodies will need to clearly identify the conditions under which the summative assessment of speaking and listening skills takes place.
33. The duration of assessment for the reading and writing components leading to a qualification should be no longer than five hours in its entirety, unless reasonable adjustments are put in place for a disabled candidate. The expectation is that at levels 1 and 2 the assessment of these skills will be approximately 2 hours but that at entry level greater flexibility may be required.
34. Where the assessment model includes pre-release of source material/s, awarding bodies must provide a description and rationale for their assessment approach and procedures relating to assessment materials that are to be considered outside of this duration. Where pre-release materials are
Final FS assessment principles: second year of the pilot programme (QCA) v1.0
used, awarding bodies will need to clearly stipulate for centres how the use of this material relates to the summative assessment.
35. Where the assessment model includes pre-release of source material, the duration of supervised assessment should not assume the degree to which candidates have engaged with the material and should provide adequate reading time. ABs should consider the volume of pre-release materials in relation to the duration of their summative assessment in terms of overall burden.
36. Awarding bodies are required to offer a minimum of two assessment opportunities in the second year of the pilot programme. Awarding bodies should be able to demonstrate progress in their ability to deliver FS assessments more flexibly to meet the needs of candidates and centres. The number of assessment opportunities for speaking and listening is not specified by the regulator for the pilots but awarding bodies will need to consider manageability for centres and clearly specify what is required in the guidance for centres.
FS Mathematics - Assessment Principles for Pilot Project 2008-09
Functional skills
mathematics
FS assessment principles for the pilot programme
QCA review of assessment materials:
Awarding bodies should develop assessment materials using the principles provided in this document.
The assessment principles stipulate the awarding body design and delivery arrangements for functional skills qualifications in the second year of the pilot programme (Sept 2008 – Sept 2009). All assessments delivered from January 2009 must comply with these principles.
The assessment principles are subject to change during the FS pilot phase.
Teaching and learning:
Curriculum teaching and learning must cover the skills standards for mathematics in their entirety at a given level. Awarding body guidance to centres on the delivery of the qualifications should emphasise this coverage requirement.
Section references:
Unless otherwise stated, the bracketed section references within this document relate to ‘The statutory regulation of external qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland 2004’ document (Ref: QCA/04/1293).
Final FS assessment principles: second year of the pilot programme (QCA) v1.0
Design principles for the assessment of functional skills
mathematics
Entry level to level 2
Purpose:
The principles in this document provide the design framework for assessment of pilot qualifications in functional skills. These principles have been produced to define the parameters within which assessment models and materials should be developed for functional skills mathematics pilot qualifications.
Assessment model:
1. The assessment must be designed to measure application of skills for a purpose within a ‘real life’ context. These contexts should not appear contrived for the purposes of assessment.
2. The assessment can be entirely task-based, or a combination of task/s with test-style items. Refer to principle 3 for permissible proportions.
Assessment instrument definitions
Task-based assessment:
Functional skills tasks are assessments that present [a] scenario/s within regular, 'real-life' contexts, which candidates engage with in order to resolve a situation or produce an effective and appropriate response or outcome. These assessment activities must reflect real-life situations and provide opportunities for candidates to apply and transfer their knowledge and skills for a legitimate purpose.
In line with the FS standards' level differentiation factors, task-based assessment requires candidates to identify and solve problems by selecting from, making choices about, and utilising different elements within an assessment scenario. At L1 and L2, task-based assessment should include multi-step and multiple component activities, drawing upon a range of skills and requiring choice, selection and evaluation in line with the requirements of the FS standards.
Task-based assessment should support the application and demonstration of skills and competencies that are appropriate to their situation.
Test-based assessment:
Functional skills test-based assessments include more specifically focussed objective test questions and assessment items, using fixed responses, multiple choice items, or short answer responses.
This type of assessment may use more disjointed or self-contained items in order to isolate particular skills and their performance, ensure sufficient coverage of the standards, or to corroborate achievement elsewhere, but should be conscious of overarching functional skills design aims to provide engaging and realistic skills-application opportunities.
3. Where test-style items are used they must be valid (i.e. to assess understanding and knowledge rather than problem-solving and practical application of skills).
In developing assessments that use both task and test-style items awarding bodies must ensure that:
Final FS assessment principles: second year of the pilot programme (QCA) v1.0
• the allocation of marks to those standards assessed through test-style items is not disproportionate to the way the standards are specified in full;
• test style items are in appropriate balance to items which assess problem-solving and practical application of skills
As guidance, standards assessed through test-style items should contribute no more than 25% of the total marks available.
4. Assessment of functional skills must support a holistic view of skills proficiency in relation to the functional skills standards at the specific level. It must not be atomistic. All mark schemes should be explicitly referenced to the skill standards but must not place undue weighting on individual standards nor make them individually conclusive.
5. Assessments must include details of how assessment questions and anticipated outcomes relate to the attribution of results for candidate performance; this must be mapped to the requirements of the FS standards.
6. The requirements of the assessment must be specified externally (i.e. by the awarding body).
7. Assessment items may be externally set by an awarding body or requirements may be externally set and provide for internally contextualised task-based assessments. These parameters apply at all levels (entry level – level 2).
8. Where assessment is proposed that is not 100% externally set and marked, awarding bodies must provide their arrangements for:
• quality assurance;
• standardisation / moderation within and across centres and examiners;
• external verification.
Where an assessment includes witness statements, or similar assessment components, the requirements of the assessment and standard must be explicit. It must include clear details regarding the assessment context and expectations in terms of candidate performance at a given level. ABs are responsible for providing the documentation that supports these requirements and maintains auditable evidence of performance. ABs will need to make clear how they manage and audit these processes, including details of their qualitative review capability.
9. Drafting of assessment materials should minimise any later need to make reasonable adjustments for disabled candidates (s14) and where this is not the case ensure reasonable adjustments can be made available (s15). In the very last resort, component exemptions should be offered where barriers to disabled candidates remain (DCSF regulations Sept 2007).
10. Reasonable adjustments should reflect the candidate’s usual methods of working but they should not give the candidate an unfair advantage compared to candidates not using reasonable adjustments, or invalidate the assessment objectives set out in the specification (s16).
11. Awarding bodies must review all assessment materials to ensure they afford fair and equal access in terms of disability, gender, race, age, sexual orientation and religion/belief.
Final FS assessment principles: second year of the pilot programme (QCA) v1.0
Levels:
12. The assessment must be designed to assess a particular, single level of the FS standards. All elements of the assessment (e.g. source materials, questions, presentation, language etc.) must be appropriate to the stated level.
Where an assessment is able to provide sufficient evidence of achievement at the level below the stated level, an 'exceptional' award may be made at this level. This type of award may be possible due to the nature of the FS standards, structured as progressive levels that subsume one another. However, partial achievement at a level does not attest to achievement at the level below; clear evidence of competence against the standards at a given level is required for an award.
Coverage:
13. Assessment must cover the requirements of the functional skills mathematics standards at a given level, and must avoid assessment of skills and knowledge outside the scope of these standards.
14. Awarding bodies must not combine assessment of more than one of the three functional skills of English, mathematics and ICT within a single assessment.
15. All language used in assessment material must be simple, direct, free from bias (s38) and covert or overt discrimination in either wording or context. Only information relevant to the assessment should be included. (This requirement does not proscribe the use of source materials that are incorporated to assess functional skills relating to learner choice, selection and judgement). As a general principle, the level of understanding demanded by the assessment that is not expressly contained within the mathematics standards should be at the level below that which is being assessed. This principle should apply to any content or information included in assessments.
16. The level of reading required in an assessment should be at the level below that being assessed and must not exceed the level being assessed. The demand placed on the reading aspect of the assessment must take account of both the level and duration of the assessment.
17. Assessment within the qualification must cover each of the process skills (representing, analysing and interpreting) and their key attributes identified within the FS mathematics standards (pages 4-5), as well as being referenced to the four elements of level differentiation: complexity; familiarity; technical demand; and independence (pages 6-7).
N.B. The process skills and their key attributes are included in Annex 1.
18. Process skills pervade functional skills activities. There should be opportunities to demonstrate each of the process skills (Representing; Analysing; and Interpreting) in equal or balanced proportions across a given assessment, although this balance may vary between individual questions or items.
Final FS assessment principles: second year of the pilot programme (QCA) v1.0
19. The assessment should measure the effective application of process skills and performance at the given level in purposeful contexts. The assessments should be designed to incorporate the different elements of the skills standards (process skills, performance and level differentiation factors) in integrated scenarios that reflect ‘real-life’ circumstances.
20. All assessments must require candidates to demonstrate each of the process skills and all of the performance requirements at the level being assessed.
21. At each level, assessment can be based on a sample of the ‘coverage/range’ items (FS standards mathematics v0.6 document: right-hand column) but all assessments must provide candidates with the opportunity to demonstrate a breadth of mathematical skills and include the assessment of number, geometry and statistics.
22. Where the assessment samples from the ‘coverage/range’ at a given level, awarding bodies are responsible for making judgements relating to coverage. These judgements must take account of the assessment’s intended purpose as a measure of a candidate’s functional mathematics competence as specified by the FS mathematics standards at the level being assessed.
23. Assessments should allow candidates to demonstrate their proficiency at the given level by utilising content that is explicit in the FS standards 'coverage and range' or equivalent mathematical skills and techniques as cited in the FS standards document. Where these techniques are sampled, ABs must make clear their approach to coverage and rationale in terms of sufficiency at the level. ABs must ensure that sampling does not undermine the measure of functional mathematics competence at the level or make assessment content predictable.
24. Assessment requirements and mark schemes must clearly show how the assessment model and each assessment based on this model relate to the requirements of the functional skills mathematics standards.
25. Assessment must acknowledge the requirement to achieve a level of proficiency at the level of the standard in accordance with the ‘performance’ standards as well as the overarching process skills (see Annex 1).
Assessment conditions:
26. All assessment must be undertaken in controlled, supervised conditions.
27. Awarding bodies may provide source materials to be used by candidates during controlled assessments.
28. Pre-release materials are permitted. Awarding bodies must provide clear guidance in relation to pre-release materials and the requirements for the use of these materials prior to the controlled assessment.
Pre-release materials should be distributed to candidates no more than 3-4 weeks of teaching and learning time prior to the summative assessment. In certain learning contexts where contact time is very limited, ABs may request an extension to allow equivalent time for learner engagement with materials. Pre-release materials can provide candidates with sufficient time to understand the nature of particular assessment contexts or scenarios but not
Final FS assessment principles: second year of the pilot programme (QCA) v1.0
as an assessed component. ABs should ensure that the requirements of an assessment are not apparent to candidates, or others, through their pre-release materials.
29. Access to calculators, reference materials, support devices and 'help' functions is not currently stipulated. Access is determined by the awarding body in line with their assessment design and should accord with the assessment objectives (for example, if estimation or mental arithmetic is being tested calculators should not be available for use. As part of their design, assessments should acknowledge the level of complication presented, the degree of accuracy required, and the level of credit, or marks, available in line with this availability, and assess the effectiveness of their use. Adequate centre and candidate guidance is essential). Awarding bodies will need to give consideration to the implications for security and reliability.
30. Assessment is of the candidate’s own ability to reach an outcome by independent application of skills. For this reason, candidates must not be given help by others (e.g. centre staff, external invigilators, peers) in order to meet the requirements of the assessment.
31. Reasonable adjustments should be made available to candidates with disabilities (s15). For each of these awarding bodies must publish to centres its procedures and share relevant data with QCA on request (s 17, s18, s20).
32. Special considerations should be made available to candidates who suffer temporary illness, injury or indisposition. For each of these, awarding bodies must publish to centres its procedures and share relevant data with QCA on request (s 17, s18, s20).
Duration:
33. The duration of assessment leading to a qualification should be no longer than three hours in its entirety, unless reasonable adjustments are put in place for a disabled candidate. The expectation is that at levels 1 and 2 the assessment of these skills will be approximately 2 hours but that at entry level greater flexibility may be required.
34. Where the assessment model includes pre-release of source material/s, awarding bodies must provide a description and rationale for their assessment approach and procedures relating to assessment materials that are to be considered outside of this duration. Where pre-release materials are used, awarding bodies will need to clearly stipulate for centres how the use of this material relates to the summative assessment.
35. Awarding bodies are required to offer a minimum of two assessment opportunities in the second year of the pilot programme. Awarding bodies should be able to demonstrate progress in their ability to deliver FS assessments more flexibly to meet the needs of candidates and centres. Awarding bodies will need to consider manageability for centres and clearly specify what is required in the guidance for centres.
Final FS assessment principles: second year of the pilot programme (QCA) v1.0
Annex 1: Process skills and their key attributes
Process skills:
The process skills are the learner’s ability to understand and make sense of mathematical information, to use and process that information, to interpret and analyse the results of their activity and to present this to others.
Process skills’ key attributes:
Representing
Making sense of situations and representing them
Analysing
Processing and using the mathematics
Interpreting
Interpreting and communicating the results of the analysis
A learner can:
• recognise that a situation has aspects that can be represented using mathematics
• make an initial model of a situation using suitable forms of representation
• decide on the methods, operations and tools, including ICT, to use in a situation
• select the mathematical information to use
A learner can:
• use appropriate mathematical procedures
• examine patterns and relationships
• change values and assumptions or adjust relationships to see the effects on answers in the model
• find results and solutions
A learner can:
• interpret results and solutions
• draw conclusions in the light of the situation
• consider the appropriateness and accuracy of the results and conclusions
• choose appropriate language and forms of presentation to communicate results and conclusions
Final FS assessment principles: second year of the pilot programme (QCA) v1.0
mathematics
FS assessment principles for the pilot programme
QCA review of assessment materials:
Awarding bodies should develop assessment materials using the principles provided in this document.
The assessment principles stipulate the awarding body design and delivery arrangements for functional skills qualifications in the second year of the pilot programme (Sept 2008 – Sept 2009). All assessments delivered from January 2009 must comply with these principles.
The assessment principles are subject to change during the FS pilot phase.
Teaching and learning:
Curriculum teaching and learning must cover the skills standards for mathematics in their entirety at a given level. Awarding body guidance to centres on the delivery of the qualifications should emphasise this coverage requirement.
Section references:
Unless otherwise stated, the bracketed section references within this document relate to ‘The statutory regulation of external qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland 2004’ document (Ref: QCA/04/1293).
Final FS assessment principles: second year of the pilot programme (QCA) v1.0
Design principles for the assessment of functional skills
mathematics
Entry level to level 2
Purpose:
The principles in this document provide the design framework for assessment of pilot qualifications in functional skills. These principles have been produced to define the parameters within which assessment models and materials should be developed for functional skills mathematics pilot qualifications.
Assessment model:
1. The assessment must be designed to measure application of skills for a purpose within a ‘real life’ context. These contexts should not appear contrived for the purposes of assessment.
2. The assessment can be entirely task-based, or a combination of task/s with test-style items. Refer to principle 3 for permissible proportions.
Assessment instrument definitions
Task-based assessment:
Functional skills tasks are assessments that present [a] scenario/s within regular, 'real-life' contexts, which candidates engage with in order to resolve a situation or produce an effective and appropriate response or outcome. These assessment activities must reflect real-life situations and provide opportunities for candidates to apply and transfer their knowledge and skills for a legitimate purpose.
In line with the FS standards' level differentiation factors, task-based assessment requires candidates to identify and solve problems by selecting from, making choices about, and utilising different elements within an assessment scenario. At L1 and L2, task-based assessment should include multi-step and multiple component activities, drawing upon a range of skills and requiring choice, selection and evaluation in line with the requirements of the FS standards.
Task-based assessment should support the application and demonstration of skills and competencies that are appropriate to their situation.
Test-based assessment:
Functional skills test-based assessments include more specifically focussed objective test questions and assessment items, using fixed responses, multiple choice items, or short answer responses.
This type of assessment may use more disjointed or self-contained items in order to isolate particular skills and their performance, ensure sufficient coverage of the standards, or to corroborate achievement elsewhere, but should be conscious of overarching functional skills design aims to provide engaging and realistic skills-application opportunities.
3. Where test-style items are used they must be valid (i.e. to assess understanding and knowledge rather than problem-solving and practical application of skills).
In developing assessments that use both task and test-style items awarding bodies must ensure that:
Final FS assessment principles: second year of the pilot programme (QCA) v1.0
• the allocation of marks to those standards assessed through test-style items is not disproportionate to the way the standards are specified in full;
• test style items are in appropriate balance to items which assess problem-solving and practical application of skills
As guidance, standards assessed through test-style items should contribute no more than 25% of the total marks available.
4. Assessment of functional skills must support a holistic view of skills proficiency in relation to the functional skills standards at the specific level. It must not be atomistic. All mark schemes should be explicitly referenced to the skill standards but must not place undue weighting on individual standards nor make them individually conclusive.
5. Assessments must include details of how assessment questions and anticipated outcomes relate to the attribution of results for candidate performance; this must be mapped to the requirements of the FS standards.
6. The requirements of the assessment must be specified externally (i.e. by the awarding body).
7. Assessment items may be externally set by an awarding body or requirements may be externally set and provide for internally contextualised task-based assessments. These parameters apply at all levels (entry level – level 2).
8. Where assessment is proposed that is not 100% externally set and marked, awarding bodies must provide their arrangements for:
• quality assurance;
• standardisation / moderation within and across centres and examiners;
• external verification.
Where an assessment includes witness statements, or similar assessment components, the requirements of the assessment and standard must be explicit. It must include clear details regarding the assessment context and expectations in terms of candidate performance at a given level. ABs are responsible for providing the documentation that supports these requirements and maintains auditable evidence of performance. ABs will need to make clear how they manage and audit these processes, including details of their qualitative review capability.
9. Drafting of assessment materials should minimise any later need to make reasonable adjustments for disabled candidates (s14) and where this is not the case ensure reasonable adjustments can be made available (s15). In the very last resort, component exemptions should be offered where barriers to disabled candidates remain (DCSF regulations Sept 2007).
10. Reasonable adjustments should reflect the candidate’s usual methods of working but they should not give the candidate an unfair advantage compared to candidates not using reasonable adjustments, or invalidate the assessment objectives set out in the specification (s16).
11. Awarding bodies must review all assessment materials to ensure they afford fair and equal access in terms of disability, gender, race, age, sexual orientation and religion/belief.
Final FS assessment principles: second year of the pilot programme (QCA) v1.0
Levels:
12. The assessment must be designed to assess a particular, single level of the FS standards. All elements of the assessment (e.g. source materials, questions, presentation, language etc.) must be appropriate to the stated level.
Where an assessment is able to provide sufficient evidence of achievement at the level below the stated level, an 'exceptional' award may be made at this level. This type of award may be possible due to the nature of the FS standards, structured as progressive levels that subsume one another. However, partial achievement at a level does not attest to achievement at the level below; clear evidence of competence against the standards at a given level is required for an award.
Coverage:
13. Assessment must cover the requirements of the functional skills mathematics standards at a given level, and must avoid assessment of skills and knowledge outside the scope of these standards.
14. Awarding bodies must not combine assessment of more than one of the three functional skills of English, mathematics and ICT within a single assessment.
15. All language used in assessment material must be simple, direct, free from bias (s38) and covert or overt discrimination in either wording or context. Only information relevant to the assessment should be included. (This requirement does not proscribe the use of source materials that are incorporated to assess functional skills relating to learner choice, selection and judgement). As a general principle, the level of understanding demanded by the assessment that is not expressly contained within the mathematics standards should be at the level below that which is being assessed. This principle should apply to any content or information included in assessments.
16. The level of reading required in an assessment should be at the level below that being assessed and must not exceed the level being assessed. The demand placed on the reading aspect of the assessment must take account of both the level and duration of the assessment.
17. Assessment within the qualification must cover each of the process skills (representing, analysing and interpreting) and their key attributes identified within the FS mathematics standards (pages 4-5), as well as being referenced to the four elements of level differentiation: complexity; familiarity; technical demand; and independence (pages 6-7).
N.B. The process skills and their key attributes are included in Annex 1.
18. Process skills pervade functional skills activities. There should be opportunities to demonstrate each of the process skills (Representing; Analysing; and Interpreting) in equal or balanced proportions across a given assessment, although this balance may vary between individual questions or items.
Final FS assessment principles: second year of the pilot programme (QCA) v1.0
19. The assessment should measure the effective application of process skills and performance at the given level in purposeful contexts. The assessments should be designed to incorporate the different elements of the skills standards (process skills, performance and level differentiation factors) in integrated scenarios that reflect ‘real-life’ circumstances.
20. All assessments must require candidates to demonstrate each of the process skills and all of the performance requirements at the level being assessed.
21. At each level, assessment can be based on a sample of the ‘coverage/range’ items (FS standards mathematics v0.6 document: right-hand column) but all assessments must provide candidates with the opportunity to demonstrate a breadth of mathematical skills and include the assessment of number, geometry and statistics.
22. Where the assessment samples from the ‘coverage/range’ at a given level, awarding bodies are responsible for making judgements relating to coverage. These judgements must take account of the assessment’s intended purpose as a measure of a candidate’s functional mathematics competence as specified by the FS mathematics standards at the level being assessed.
23. Assessments should allow candidates to demonstrate their proficiency at the given level by utilising content that is explicit in the FS standards 'coverage and range' or equivalent mathematical skills and techniques as cited in the FS standards document. Where these techniques are sampled, ABs must make clear their approach to coverage and rationale in terms of sufficiency at the level. ABs must ensure that sampling does not undermine the measure of functional mathematics competence at the level or make assessment content predictable.
24. Assessment requirements and mark schemes must clearly show how the assessment model and each assessment based on this model relate to the requirements of the functional skills mathematics standards.
25. Assessment must acknowledge the requirement to achieve a level of proficiency at the level of the standard in accordance with the ‘performance’ standards as well as the overarching process skills (see Annex 1).
Assessment conditions:
26. All assessment must be undertaken in controlled, supervised conditions.
27. Awarding bodies may provide source materials to be used by candidates during controlled assessments.
28. Pre-release materials are permitted. Awarding bodies must provide clear guidance in relation to pre-release materials and the requirements for the use of these materials prior to the controlled assessment.
Pre-release materials should be distributed to candidates no more than 3-4 weeks of teaching and learning time prior to the summative assessment. In certain learning contexts where contact time is very limited, ABs may request an extension to allow equivalent time for learner engagement with materials. Pre-release materials can provide candidates with sufficient time to understand the nature of particular assessment contexts or scenarios but not
Final FS assessment principles: second year of the pilot programme (QCA) v1.0
as an assessed component. ABs should ensure that the requirements of an assessment are not apparent to candidates, or others, through their pre-release materials.
29. Access to calculators, reference materials, support devices and 'help' functions is not currently stipulated. Access is determined by the awarding body in line with their assessment design and should accord with the assessment objectives (for example, if estimation or mental arithmetic is being tested calculators should not be available for use. As part of their design, assessments should acknowledge the level of complication presented, the degree of accuracy required, and the level of credit, or marks, available in line with this availability, and assess the effectiveness of their use. Adequate centre and candidate guidance is essential). Awarding bodies will need to give consideration to the implications for security and reliability.
30. Assessment is of the candidate’s own ability to reach an outcome by independent application of skills. For this reason, candidates must not be given help by others (e.g. centre staff, external invigilators, peers) in order to meet the requirements of the assessment.
31. Reasonable adjustments should be made available to candidates with disabilities (s15). For each of these awarding bodies must publish to centres its procedures and share relevant data with QCA on request (s 17, s18, s20).
32. Special considerations should be made available to candidates who suffer temporary illness, injury or indisposition. For each of these, awarding bodies must publish to centres its procedures and share relevant data with QCA on request (s 17, s18, s20).
Duration:
33. The duration of assessment leading to a qualification should be no longer than three hours in its entirety, unless reasonable adjustments are put in place for a disabled candidate. The expectation is that at levels 1 and 2 the assessment of these skills will be approximately 2 hours but that at entry level greater flexibility may be required.
34. Where the assessment model includes pre-release of source material/s, awarding bodies must provide a description and rationale for their assessment approach and procedures relating to assessment materials that are to be considered outside of this duration. Where pre-release materials are used, awarding bodies will need to clearly stipulate for centres how the use of this material relates to the summative assessment.
35. Awarding bodies are required to offer a minimum of two assessment opportunities in the second year of the pilot programme. Awarding bodies should be able to demonstrate progress in their ability to deliver FS assessments more flexibly to meet the needs of candidates and centres. Awarding bodies will need to consider manageability for centres and clearly specify what is required in the guidance for centres.
Final FS assessment principles: second year of the pilot programme (QCA) v1.0
Annex 1: Process skills and their key attributes
Process skills:
The process skills are the learner’s ability to understand and make sense of mathematical information, to use and process that information, to interpret and analyse the results of their activity and to present this to others.
Process skills’ key attributes:
Representing
Making sense of situations and representing them
Analysing
Processing and using the mathematics
Interpreting
Interpreting and communicating the results of the analysis
A learner can:
• recognise that a situation has aspects that can be represented using mathematics
• make an initial model of a situation using suitable forms of representation
• decide on the methods, operations and tools, including ICT, to use in a situation
• select the mathematical information to use
A learner can:
• use appropriate mathematical procedures
• examine patterns and relationships
• change values and assumptions or adjust relationships to see the effects on answers in the model
• find results and solutions
A learner can:
• interpret results and solutions
• draw conclusions in the light of the situation
• consider the appropriateness and accuracy of the results and conclusions
• choose appropriate language and forms of presentation to communicate results and conclusions
Final FS assessment principles: second year of the pilot programme (QCA) v1.0
FS ICT Assessment Principles 2008-09
Final FS assessment principles: second year of the pilot programme (QCA) v1.0 Functional skills
Information and communication technology (ICT)
Assessment arrangements and principles for pilot
QCA review of assessment materials:
Awarding bodies should develop assessment materials using the principles provided in this document.
The assessment principles stipulate the awarding body design and delivery arrangements for functional skills qualifications in the second year of the pilot programme (September 2008 – September 2009). All assessments delivered from January 2009 must comply with these principles.
The assessment principles are subject to change during the FS pilot phase.
Teaching and learning:
Curriculum teaching and learning must cover the skills standards for ICT in their entirety at a given level. Awarding body guidance to centres on the delivery of the qualifications should emphasise this coverage requirement.
Section references:
Unless otherwise stated, the bracketed section references within this document relate to ‘The statutory regulation of external qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland 2004’ document (Ref: QCA/04/1293).
Final FS assessment principles: second year of the pilot programme (QCA) v1.0
Design principles for the assessment of functional skills information and communication technology (ICT)
Entry level to level 2
Purpose:
The principles in this document provide the design framework for assessment of pilot qualifications in functional skills. These principles have been produced to define the parameters within which assessment models and materials should be developed for functional skills ICT pilot qualifications.
Assessment model:
1. The assessment must be designed to measure application of skills for a purpose within a "real life" context. These contexts should not appear contrived for the purposes of assessment.
2. The assessment can be entirely task-based, or a combination of (a) task/s with test-style items. Refer to principle 3 for permissible proportions.
Assessment instrument definitions
Task-based assessment:
Functional skills tasks are assessments that present [a] scenario/s within regular, 'real-life' contexts, which candidates engage with in order to resolve a situation or produce an effective and appropriate response or outcome. These assessment activities must reflect real-life situations and provide opportunities for candidates to apply and transfer their knowledge and skills for a legitimate purpose.
In line with the FS standards' level differentiation factors, task-based assessment requires candidates to identify and solve problems by selecting from, making choices about, and utilising different elements within an assessment scenario.
At L1 and L2, task-based assessment should include multi-step and multiple component activities, drawing upon a range of skills and requiring choice, selection and evaluation in line with the requirements of the FS standards.
Task-based assessment should support the application and demonstration of skills and competencies that are appropriate to their situation. In ICT, this must be practically assessed through the relevant ICT equipment.
Test-based assessment:
Functional skills test-based assessments include more specifically focussed objective test questions and assessment items, using fixed responses, multiple choice items, or short answer responses.
This type of assessment may use more disjointed or self-contained items in order to isolate particular skills and their performance, ensure sufficient coverage of the standards, or to corroborate achievement elsewhere, but should be conscious of overarching functional skills design aims to provide engaging and realistic skills-application opportunities.
3. Where test-style items are used they must be valid (i.e. to assess understanding and knowledge rather than problem-solving and practical application of skills).
In developing assessments that use both task and test-style items awarding bodies must ensure that:
Final FS assessment principles: second year of the pilot programme (QCA) v1.0
• the allocation of marks to those standards assessed through test-style items is not disproportionate to the way the standards are specified in full;
• test style items are in appropriate balance to items which assess problem-solving and practical application of skills
As guidance, standards assessed through test-style items should contribute no more than 25% of the total marks available.
4. Assessment of functional skills must support a holistic view of skills proficiency in relation to the functional skills standards at the specific level. It must not be atomistic. All mark schemes should be explicitly referenced to the skill standards but must not place undue weighting on individual standards nor make them individually conclusive.
5. Assessments must include details of how assessment questions and anticipated outcomes relate to the attribution of results for candidate performance; this must be mapped to the requirements of the FS standards.
6. The requirements of the assessment must be specified externally (i.e. by the awarding body).
7. Assessment items may be externally set by an awarding body or requirements may be externally set and provide for internally contextualised task-based assessments. These parameters apply at all levels (entry level – level 2).
8. Where assessment is proposed that is not 100% externally set and marked, awarding bodies must provide proposed arrangements for:
• quality assurance;
• standardisation / moderation within and across centres and examiners;
• external verification
Where an assessment includes witness statements, or similar internal assessment components, the requirements of the assessment and standard must be explicit. It must include details regarding the assessment context and expectations in terms of candidate performance at a given level. ABs are responsible for providing the documentation that supports these requirements and maintains auditable evidence of performance. ABs will need to make clear how they manage and audit these processes, including details of their qualitative review capability.
9. Drafting of assessment materials should minimise any later need to make reasonable adjustments for disabled candidates (s14) and where this is not the case ensure reasonable adjustments can be made available (s15). In the very last resort, component exemptions should be offered where barriers to disabled candidates remain (DCSF regulations Sept 2007).
10. Reasonable adjustments should reflect the candidate’s usual methods of working but they should not give the candidate an unfair advantage compared to candidates not using reasonable adjustments, or invalidate the assessment objectives set out in the specification (s16).
11. Awarding bodies must review all assessment materials to ensure they afford fair and equal access in terms of disability, gender, race, age, sexual orientation and religion/belief.
Levels:
Final FS assessment principles: second year of the pilot programme (QCA) v1.0
12. The assessment can be designed to assess a particular, single level of the FS standards. All elements of the assessment (e.g. source materials, questions, presentation, language etc) must be appropriate to the stated level.
Where an assessment is able to provide sufficient evidence of achievement at the level below the stated level, an 'exceptional' award may be made at this level. This type of award may be possible due to the nature of the FS standards, structured as progressive levels that subsume one another. However, partial achievement at a level does not attest to achievement at the level below; clear evidence of competence against the standards at a given level is required for an award.
Coverage:
13. Assessment must cover the requirements of the ICT skill standards and must avoid assessment of skills and knowledge outside the scope of these standards.
14. Awarding bodies must not combine assessment of more than one of the three functional skills of English, mathematics and ICT within a single assessment.
15. All language used in assessment material must be simple, direct, free from bias (s38) and covert or overt discrimination in either wording or context. Only information relevant to the assessment should be included. (This should not proscribe the use of source materials that are incorporated to assess functional skills relating to learner choice, selection and judgement). As a general principle, the level of understanding demanded by the assessment that is not expressly contained in the ICT standards should be at the level below that which is being assessed. This principle should apply to any content or information included in assessments.
16. The level of reading required in an assessment should be at the level below that being assessed and must not exceed the level being assessed. The demand placed on the reading aspect of the assessment must take account of both the level and duration of the assessment.
17. Assessment must cover each of the three skills areas identified by the ICT standards. Assessment mark schemes should accord with the following skills weighting ranges:
• Use ICT systems (15-30%);
• Find and select information (10-25%);
• Develop, present and communicate information (min. of 50%)
N.B. The mark scheme allocation will need to be determined as a percentage of total marks.
18. There should be opportunities to demonstrate each of the skill areas across a given assessment although this may vary between individual questions and items. These skill areas should be integrated where possible in assessments.
19. The assessment should measure the effective application of skills at the given level in purposeful contexts. The assessment must be designed to incorporate the different elements of the FS standards (skill standards,
Final FS assessment principles: second year of the pilot programme (QCA) v1.0
coverage and level differentiation factors) in integrated scenarios that reflect 'real-life' circumstances. The demonstration of the applied skills must be practically assessed through information and communication technology (ICT).
20. At each level, assessment can be based on either:
• all of the ‘skill standards’ (FS standards ICT document v0.6: left-hand column) and a sample of the underpinning ‘coverage’ items (FS standards ICT v0.6 document: middle column), or
• all of the ‘skill standards’ and all of the related ‘coverage’.
21. Where the assessment samples from the coverage and range column, awarding bodies are responsible for making judgements relating to this coverage. These judgements must take account of the assessment’s intended purpose as a measure of a candidate’s overall ICT competence as specified by the standards at the level being assessed.
22. Assessments should allow candidates to demonstrate their proficiency at the given level by utilising content that is explicit within the FS standards coverage and range. Where these techniques are sampled, ABs must make clear their approach to coverage and rationale in terms of sufficiency at the level. ABs must ensure that sampling does not undermine the measure of competence at the level or make sampled assessment content predictable.
23. Assessment requirements and mark schemes must clearly show how the assessment model and each assessment based on this model relate to the requirements of the functional skills ICT standards.
Assessment conditions:
24. All assessment must be undertaken in controlled, supervised conditions.
25. Awarding bodies may provide source materials to be used by candidates during controlled assessments.
26. Pre-release materials are permitted. Awarding bodies must provide clear guidance in relation to pre-release materials and the requirements for the use of these materials prior to the controlled assessment.
Pre-release materials should be distributed to candidates no more than 3-4 weeks of teaching and learning time prior to the summative assessment. In certain learning contexts where contact time is very limited, ABs may request an extension to allow equivalent time for learner engagement with materials. Pre-release materials can provide candidates with sufficient time to understand the nature of particular assessment contexts or scenarios but are not an assessed component. ABs should ensure that the requirements of an assessment are not apparent to candidates, or others, through their pre-release materials.
27. Access to reference materials, support devices and 'help' functions is not currently stipulated. Access is determined by the awarding body in line with their assessment design and should accord with the assessment objectives. (Assessments should acknowledge the degree of accuracy required, and the level of credit, or marks, available in line with this availability. The instrument should also assess the effectiveness of their use).
Final FS assessment principles: second year of the pilot programme (QCA) v1.0
28. Internet and e-mail are mandatory skills that must be assessed in all assessments at entry 3 and above (where necessary, this can be completed within a closed/secure electronic system or by simulation). The approach to this assessment will be determined by individual awarding bodies in line with their assessment design. Awarding bodies will need to give consideration to the implications for management, access, security and reliability (also applies to 26).
29. Awarding bodies should provide their proposals for how electronic access to external sources will be managed and their plans for how this will be monitored and evaluated.
30. Assessment is of the candidate’s own ability to solve a problem or reach an outcome by independent application of skills. For this reason, candidates must not be given help by others (e.g. centre staff, external invigilators, peers) in order to meet the requirements of the assessment.
31. Reasonable adjustments should be made available to candidates with disabilities (s15). For each of these, awarding bodies must publish to centres its procedures and share relevant data with QCA on request (s 17, s18, s20)
32. Special considerations should be made available to candidates who suffer temporary illness, injury or indisposition. For each of these, awarding bodies must publish to centres its procedures and share relevant data with QCA on request (s 17, s18, s20)
Duration:
33. The duration of assessment leading to a qualification should be no longer than five hours in its entirety, unless reasonable adjustments are put in place for a disabled candidate. The expectation is that at levels 1 and 2 the assessment of these skills will be approximately 2 hours but that at entry level greater flexibility may be required.
34. Where the assessment model includes pre-release of source material/s, awarding bodies must provide a description and rationale for their assessment approach and procedures relating to assessment materials that are to be considered outside of this duration. Where pre-release materials are used, awarding bodies will need to clearly stipulate for centres how the use of this material relates to the summative assessment.
35. Where the assessment includes pre-release of source material, the duration of the summative assessment should not assume the degree to which candidates have engaged with the material and should provide adequate reading time. ABs should consider the volume of pre-release materials in relation to the duration of their summative assessment in terms of overall burden.
36. Awarding bodies may provide source materials to be used by candidates during controlled assessments.
37. Awarding bodies are required to offer a minimum of two assessment opportunities in the second year of the pilot programme. Awarding bodies should be able to demonstrate progress in their ability to deliver FS assessments more flexibly to meet the needs of candidates and centres. Awarding bodies will need to consider manageability for centres and clearly specify what is required in the guidance for centres.
Final FS assessment principles: second year of the pilot programme (QCA) v1.0
Information and communication technology (ICT)
Assessment arrangements and principles for pilot
QCA review of assessment materials:
Awarding bodies should develop assessment materials using the principles provided in this document.
The assessment principles stipulate the awarding body design and delivery arrangements for functional skills qualifications in the second year of the pilot programme (September 2008 – September 2009). All assessments delivered from January 2009 must comply with these principles.
The assessment principles are subject to change during the FS pilot phase.
Teaching and learning:
Curriculum teaching and learning must cover the skills standards for ICT in their entirety at a given level. Awarding body guidance to centres on the delivery of the qualifications should emphasise this coverage requirement.
Section references:
Unless otherwise stated, the bracketed section references within this document relate to ‘The statutory regulation of external qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland 2004’ document (Ref: QCA/04/1293).
Final FS assessment principles: second year of the pilot programme (QCA) v1.0
Design principles for the assessment of functional skills information and communication technology (ICT)
Entry level to level 2
Purpose:
The principles in this document provide the design framework for assessment of pilot qualifications in functional skills. These principles have been produced to define the parameters within which assessment models and materials should be developed for functional skills ICT pilot qualifications.
Assessment model:
1. The assessment must be designed to measure application of skills for a purpose within a "real life" context. These contexts should not appear contrived for the purposes of assessment.
2. The assessment can be entirely task-based, or a combination of (a) task/s with test-style items. Refer to principle 3 for permissible proportions.
Assessment instrument definitions
Task-based assessment:
Functional skills tasks are assessments that present [a] scenario/s within regular, 'real-life' contexts, which candidates engage with in order to resolve a situation or produce an effective and appropriate response or outcome. These assessment activities must reflect real-life situations and provide opportunities for candidates to apply and transfer their knowledge and skills for a legitimate purpose.
In line with the FS standards' level differentiation factors, task-based assessment requires candidates to identify and solve problems by selecting from, making choices about, and utilising different elements within an assessment scenario.
At L1 and L2, task-based assessment should include multi-step and multiple component activities, drawing upon a range of skills and requiring choice, selection and evaluation in line with the requirements of the FS standards.
Task-based assessment should support the application and demonstration of skills and competencies that are appropriate to their situation. In ICT, this must be practically assessed through the relevant ICT equipment.
Test-based assessment:
Functional skills test-based assessments include more specifically focussed objective test questions and assessment items, using fixed responses, multiple choice items, or short answer responses.
This type of assessment may use more disjointed or self-contained items in order to isolate particular skills and their performance, ensure sufficient coverage of the standards, or to corroborate achievement elsewhere, but should be conscious of overarching functional skills design aims to provide engaging and realistic skills-application opportunities.
3. Where test-style items are used they must be valid (i.e. to assess understanding and knowledge rather than problem-solving and practical application of skills).
In developing assessments that use both task and test-style items awarding bodies must ensure that:
Final FS assessment principles: second year of the pilot programme (QCA) v1.0
• the allocation of marks to those standards assessed through test-style items is not disproportionate to the way the standards are specified in full;
• test style items are in appropriate balance to items which assess problem-solving and practical application of skills
As guidance, standards assessed through test-style items should contribute no more than 25% of the total marks available.
4. Assessment of functional skills must support a holistic view of skills proficiency in relation to the functional skills standards at the specific level. It must not be atomistic. All mark schemes should be explicitly referenced to the skill standards but must not place undue weighting on individual standards nor make them individually conclusive.
5. Assessments must include details of how assessment questions and anticipated outcomes relate to the attribution of results for candidate performance; this must be mapped to the requirements of the FS standards.
6. The requirements of the assessment must be specified externally (i.e. by the awarding body).
7. Assessment items may be externally set by an awarding body or requirements may be externally set and provide for internally contextualised task-based assessments. These parameters apply at all levels (entry level – level 2).
8. Where assessment is proposed that is not 100% externally set and marked, awarding bodies must provide proposed arrangements for:
• quality assurance;
• standardisation / moderation within and across centres and examiners;
• external verification
Where an assessment includes witness statements, or similar internal assessment components, the requirements of the assessment and standard must be explicit. It must include details regarding the assessment context and expectations in terms of candidate performance at a given level. ABs are responsible for providing the documentation that supports these requirements and maintains auditable evidence of performance. ABs will need to make clear how they manage and audit these processes, including details of their qualitative review capability.
9. Drafting of assessment materials should minimise any later need to make reasonable adjustments for disabled candidates (s14) and where this is not the case ensure reasonable adjustments can be made available (s15). In the very last resort, component exemptions should be offered where barriers to disabled candidates remain (DCSF regulations Sept 2007).
10. Reasonable adjustments should reflect the candidate’s usual methods of working but they should not give the candidate an unfair advantage compared to candidates not using reasonable adjustments, or invalidate the assessment objectives set out in the specification (s16).
11. Awarding bodies must review all assessment materials to ensure they afford fair and equal access in terms of disability, gender, race, age, sexual orientation and religion/belief.
Levels:
Final FS assessment principles: second year of the pilot programme (QCA) v1.0
12. The assessment can be designed to assess a particular, single level of the FS standards. All elements of the assessment (e.g. source materials, questions, presentation, language etc) must be appropriate to the stated level.
Where an assessment is able to provide sufficient evidence of achievement at the level below the stated level, an 'exceptional' award may be made at this level. This type of award may be possible due to the nature of the FS standards, structured as progressive levels that subsume one another. However, partial achievement at a level does not attest to achievement at the level below; clear evidence of competence against the standards at a given level is required for an award.
Coverage:
13. Assessment must cover the requirements of the ICT skill standards and must avoid assessment of skills and knowledge outside the scope of these standards.
14. Awarding bodies must not combine assessment of more than one of the three functional skills of English, mathematics and ICT within a single assessment.
15. All language used in assessment material must be simple, direct, free from bias (s38) and covert or overt discrimination in either wording or context. Only information relevant to the assessment should be included. (This should not proscribe the use of source materials that are incorporated to assess functional skills relating to learner choice, selection and judgement). As a general principle, the level of understanding demanded by the assessment that is not expressly contained in the ICT standards should be at the level below that which is being assessed. This principle should apply to any content or information included in assessments.
16. The level of reading required in an assessment should be at the level below that being assessed and must not exceed the level being assessed. The demand placed on the reading aspect of the assessment must take account of both the level and duration of the assessment.
17. Assessment must cover each of the three skills areas identified by the ICT standards. Assessment mark schemes should accord with the following skills weighting ranges:
• Use ICT systems (15-30%);
• Find and select information (10-25%);
• Develop, present and communicate information (min. of 50%)
N.B. The mark scheme allocation will need to be determined as a percentage of total marks.
18. There should be opportunities to demonstrate each of the skill areas across a given assessment although this may vary between individual questions and items. These skill areas should be integrated where possible in assessments.
19. The assessment should measure the effective application of skills at the given level in purposeful contexts. The assessment must be designed to incorporate the different elements of the FS standards (skill standards,
Final FS assessment principles: second year of the pilot programme (QCA) v1.0
coverage and level differentiation factors) in integrated scenarios that reflect 'real-life' circumstances. The demonstration of the applied skills must be practically assessed through information and communication technology (ICT).
20. At each level, assessment can be based on either:
• all of the ‘skill standards’ (FS standards ICT document v0.6: left-hand column) and a sample of the underpinning ‘coverage’ items (FS standards ICT v0.6 document: middle column), or
• all of the ‘skill standards’ and all of the related ‘coverage’.
21. Where the assessment samples from the coverage and range column, awarding bodies are responsible for making judgements relating to this coverage. These judgements must take account of the assessment’s intended purpose as a measure of a candidate’s overall ICT competence as specified by the standards at the level being assessed.
22. Assessments should allow candidates to demonstrate their proficiency at the given level by utilising content that is explicit within the FS standards coverage and range. Where these techniques are sampled, ABs must make clear their approach to coverage and rationale in terms of sufficiency at the level. ABs must ensure that sampling does not undermine the measure of competence at the level or make sampled assessment content predictable.
23. Assessment requirements and mark schemes must clearly show how the assessment model and each assessment based on this model relate to the requirements of the functional skills ICT standards.
Assessment conditions:
24. All assessment must be undertaken in controlled, supervised conditions.
25. Awarding bodies may provide source materials to be used by candidates during controlled assessments.
26. Pre-release materials are permitted. Awarding bodies must provide clear guidance in relation to pre-release materials and the requirements for the use of these materials prior to the controlled assessment.
Pre-release materials should be distributed to candidates no more than 3-4 weeks of teaching and learning time prior to the summative assessment. In certain learning contexts where contact time is very limited, ABs may request an extension to allow equivalent time for learner engagement with materials. Pre-release materials can provide candidates with sufficient time to understand the nature of particular assessment contexts or scenarios but are not an assessed component. ABs should ensure that the requirements of an assessment are not apparent to candidates, or others, through their pre-release materials.
27. Access to reference materials, support devices and 'help' functions is not currently stipulated. Access is determined by the awarding body in line with their assessment design and should accord with the assessment objectives. (Assessments should acknowledge the degree of accuracy required, and the level of credit, or marks, available in line with this availability. The instrument should also assess the effectiveness of their use).
Final FS assessment principles: second year of the pilot programme (QCA) v1.0
28. Internet and e-mail are mandatory skills that must be assessed in all assessments at entry 3 and above (where necessary, this can be completed within a closed/secure electronic system or by simulation). The approach to this assessment will be determined by individual awarding bodies in line with their assessment design. Awarding bodies will need to give consideration to the implications for management, access, security and reliability (also applies to 26).
29. Awarding bodies should provide their proposals for how electronic access to external sources will be managed and their plans for how this will be monitored and evaluated.
30. Assessment is of the candidate’s own ability to solve a problem or reach an outcome by independent application of skills. For this reason, candidates must not be given help by others (e.g. centre staff, external invigilators, peers) in order to meet the requirements of the assessment.
31. Reasonable adjustments should be made available to candidates with disabilities (s15). For each of these, awarding bodies must publish to centres its procedures and share relevant data with QCA on request (s 17, s18, s20)
32. Special considerations should be made available to candidates who suffer temporary illness, injury or indisposition. For each of these, awarding bodies must publish to centres its procedures and share relevant data with QCA on request (s 17, s18, s20)
Duration:
33. The duration of assessment leading to a qualification should be no longer than five hours in its entirety, unless reasonable adjustments are put in place for a disabled candidate. The expectation is that at levels 1 and 2 the assessment of these skills will be approximately 2 hours but that at entry level greater flexibility may be required.
34. Where the assessment model includes pre-release of source material/s, awarding bodies must provide a description and rationale for their assessment approach and procedures relating to assessment materials that are to be considered outside of this duration. Where pre-release materials are used, awarding bodies will need to clearly stipulate for centres how the use of this material relates to the summative assessment.
35. Where the assessment includes pre-release of source material, the duration of the summative assessment should not assume the degree to which candidates have engaged with the material and should provide adequate reading time. ABs should consider the volume of pre-release materials in relation to the duration of their summative assessment in terms of overall burden.
36. Awarding bodies may provide source materials to be used by candidates during controlled assessments.
37. Awarding bodies are required to offer a minimum of two assessment opportunities in the second year of the pilot programme. Awarding bodies should be able to demonstrate progress in their ability to deliver FS assessments more flexibly to meet the needs of candidates and centres. Awarding bodies will need to consider manageability for centres and clearly specify what is required in the guidance for centres.
Final FS assessment principles: second year of the pilot programme (QCA) v1.0
Tuesday, 30 September 2008
Functional Skills case study school: Penair School, Truro
Functional Skills case study school: Penair School, Truro
This case study focuses on the strategic implementation of Functional Skills in the school.
1. Context of case study
Penair School is a comprehensive school of approximately 1200 pupils in Truro, Cornwall.
The teacher leading the introduction of Functional Skills is Martin Holmes
The learners involved in the Functional Skills pilot were 20 Year 9 pupils who have opted to do the Creative and Media Diploma from next September. The school decided to enter them all for Level 2 Functional Skills in English, maths and ICT in June 2008
The learners were taught by a variety of teachers throughout KS3 and had not been a taught class until the Functional Skills preparation.
The group were entered for the Edexcel ICT Functional Skills qualification at level 2
2. Focus of case study
§ The centre decided to take part in the pilot as the consortium of which they were part was successful in their bid to offer the Creative and Media Diploma from 2009. A Functional Skills entry in 2008 would enable the school to become familiar with the new assessment arrangements and the Year 9 pilot group could complete this requirement in advance of beginning the new Diploma course the following year.
§ This case study could be of interest to schools wishing to try a small group at the end of KS3.
3. Implementation
§ The group sat the Edexcel Functional Skills qualification in June 2008. This assessment was at level 2.
§ The group had experienced the full programme of study for ICT when they were in KS3. To prepare them more specifically for the Functional Skills assessment the school arranged three deep learning days the week before the exam, one for each of English, maths and ICT. All learners attended the days.
§ The teacher also prepared a number of booklets with background information for the students to brush up on IT skills areas they felt they had forgotten and to cover the full syllabus content.
§ The subject leader had attended all four days of the national training for Functional Skills. Since he was the only teacher in this school entering learners for Functional Skills, there were no further training implications for others at this stage.
§ The teacher was willing to allow the LA SNS consultant to visit to gain an insight in to the preparation arrangements (deep learning day) and the view of learners of the nature of the Functional Skills assessment and qualification. (See feedback write-up)
§ The teacher made the resources for the practice assessment available to the learners on the school Moodle, to support the learners in their preparation for the assessment. The exam board practice test was quite similar to the actual test.
4. Challenges and solutions
The main challenge was the fact that the pilot group had not quite finished year 9 and therefore had not completed a module on using databases and were not as prepared as the teacher hoped for the exam. It was quite ambitious to fill all the gaps in the KS3 POS in one Deep Learning Day and the school is aware that this will not be the case in subsequent years as more Functional Skills are covered within normal KS3 time.
The choice of the June window of Year 9 meant that the learners were not already involved in their SATs or their main GCSEs. It also meant that any who were not successful or who were absent would get a further opportunity to sit the test during Year 10.
Although they appreciated that Functional Skills are intended to prepare them for life and work, some students found the context and the content a little unfamiliar, unappealing and adult and the school will address this in future years.
5. Outcomes
20 of the group of 20 learners were present for the exam. They completed it in the time allowed but felt the printing and collating of work was rushed as it had to be completed within the allocated time.
Some aspects of the exam were unfamiliar to the learners (eg an ‘if’ statement in the spreadsheet) as they were not normally covered in KS3 yet the level 2 Functional Skills exam was the appropriate level of entry for the students.
The school will reflect on its programme of study in KS3 and ensure either that it is modified to cover the additional requirements of the Functional Skills assessment or they will take the decision to enter students in year 10 or 11 instead.
6. Key factors to support success
What was the crucial thing that made a difference?
Management team of the school committed to piloting all three Functional Skills with this group of learners.
It was of benefit to the learners as the Functional Skills is a requirement of the Diploma
The school had made learners aware of the ‘big picture’ and they were all very positive about being part of a national pilot and their experience being important in future decision making.
ICT teacher (and department) willing to take and respond to feedback from learners.
This case study focuses on the strategic implementation of Functional Skills in the school.
1. Context of case study
Penair School is a comprehensive school of approximately 1200 pupils in Truro, Cornwall.
The teacher leading the introduction of Functional Skills is Martin Holmes
The learners involved in the Functional Skills pilot were 20 Year 9 pupils who have opted to do the Creative and Media Diploma from next September. The school decided to enter them all for Level 2 Functional Skills in English, maths and ICT in June 2008
The learners were taught by a variety of teachers throughout KS3 and had not been a taught class until the Functional Skills preparation.
The group were entered for the Edexcel ICT Functional Skills qualification at level 2
2. Focus of case study
§ The centre decided to take part in the pilot as the consortium of which they were part was successful in their bid to offer the Creative and Media Diploma from 2009. A Functional Skills entry in 2008 would enable the school to become familiar with the new assessment arrangements and the Year 9 pilot group could complete this requirement in advance of beginning the new Diploma course the following year.
§ This case study could be of interest to schools wishing to try a small group at the end of KS3.
3. Implementation
§ The group sat the Edexcel Functional Skills qualification in June 2008. This assessment was at level 2.
§ The group had experienced the full programme of study for ICT when they were in KS3. To prepare them more specifically for the Functional Skills assessment the school arranged three deep learning days the week before the exam, one for each of English, maths and ICT. All learners attended the days.
§ The teacher also prepared a number of booklets with background information for the students to brush up on IT skills areas they felt they had forgotten and to cover the full syllabus content.
§ The subject leader had attended all four days of the national training for Functional Skills. Since he was the only teacher in this school entering learners for Functional Skills, there were no further training implications for others at this stage.
§ The teacher was willing to allow the LA SNS consultant to visit to gain an insight in to the preparation arrangements (deep learning day) and the view of learners of the nature of the Functional Skills assessment and qualification. (See feedback write-up)
§ The teacher made the resources for the practice assessment available to the learners on the school Moodle, to support the learners in their preparation for the assessment. The exam board practice test was quite similar to the actual test.
4. Challenges and solutions
The main challenge was the fact that the pilot group had not quite finished year 9 and therefore had not completed a module on using databases and were not as prepared as the teacher hoped for the exam. It was quite ambitious to fill all the gaps in the KS3 POS in one Deep Learning Day and the school is aware that this will not be the case in subsequent years as more Functional Skills are covered within normal KS3 time.
The choice of the June window of Year 9 meant that the learners were not already involved in their SATs or their main GCSEs. It also meant that any who were not successful or who were absent would get a further opportunity to sit the test during Year 10.
Although they appreciated that Functional Skills are intended to prepare them for life and work, some students found the context and the content a little unfamiliar, unappealing and adult and the school will address this in future years.
5. Outcomes
20 of the group of 20 learners were present for the exam. They completed it in the time allowed but felt the printing and collating of work was rushed as it had to be completed within the allocated time.
Some aspects of the exam were unfamiliar to the learners (eg an ‘if’ statement in the spreadsheet) as they were not normally covered in KS3 yet the level 2 Functional Skills exam was the appropriate level of entry for the students.
The school will reflect on its programme of study in KS3 and ensure either that it is modified to cover the additional requirements of the Functional Skills assessment or they will take the decision to enter students in year 10 or 11 instead.
6. Key factors to support success
What was the crucial thing that made a difference?
Management team of the school committed to piloting all three Functional Skills with this group of learners.
It was of benefit to the learners as the Functional Skills is a requirement of the Diploma
The school had made learners aware of the ‘big picture’ and they were all very positive about being part of a national pilot and their experience being important in future decision making.
ICT teacher (and department) willing to take and respond to feedback from learners.
Functional Skills case study school: Cape Cornwall School
Functional Skills case study school: Cape Cornwall School
Length and format
A4 format. 1,000 words maximum
Ideal length 750 words
This case study focuses on the strategic implementation of Functional Skills in the school.
1. Context of case study
§ Cape Cornwall School is the furthest west school in Cornwall Local Authority and is therefore the ‘first and last’ secondary school on the mainland. It is a small 11-16 comprehensive with 450 students on roll.
§ The subject leader for ICT is Dave Parry.
§ The learners involved in the Functional Skills pilot were 20 specially selected Year 11s.
§ The learners were all taught by Dave Parry throughout KS4 and, in fact, KS3 as well.
§ The group were entered for the AQA ICT Functional Skills qualification; all entries are at the same level but it was anticipated that the learners entered would succeed at level 2.
2. Focus of case study
§ The centre decided to take part in the pilot as the consortium of which they were part was successful in their bid to offer the Creative and Media Diploma from 2009. A Functional Skills entry in 2008 would enable the school to become familiar with the new assessment arrangements with a pilot group in advance of beginning Functional Skills with a new Diploma group the following year ‘for real’.
§ It was also important to the subject leader that there should be value in doing the Functional Skills assessment for the learners too. The group chosen were all academically able and had been successful in gaining at least a C grade in the formally examined part of the AQA short course GCSE the summer before. However, they had not submitted the required coursework element and had therefore not obtained the short course qualification. It was felt that a level 2 qualification in Functional Skills would recognise their ability in ICT. The pilot was undertaken to provide these learners with a valuable qualification where they had failed before under an assessment regime with which they did not engage.
§ This case study could be of interest to schools wishing to try a small group in KS4. Anyone else??
3. Implementation
§ The group were entered for the AQA Functional Skills qualification in January 2008. This assessment was at a single level, with the awarding of level 1 or 2 determined by the learner’s performance. 70% was needed in the written paper in order to get a level 2. A session on the computer to complete a practical task was the second part of the assessment.
§ The group had experienced the full programme of study for ICT when they were in KS3 and they had followed the AQA GCSE short course syllabus when in Year 10. No further lesson time was available in Year 11 for this group. To prepare them more fully for the Functional Skills assessment their teacher arranged some practice sessions in the weeks immediately before the test and task. XXX sessions were offered over XXX afternoons and 2 lunchtimes. 16 of the 20 learners selected took the opportunity to attend the sessions. The teacher also prepared a number of web pages for the students to brush up on areas they felt they had forgotten.
§ The subject leader had attended all four days of the national training for Functional Skills. Since he was the only teacher in this small school entering learners for Functional Skills, there were no further training implications for others at this stage. The teacher also attended a whole day exam board training for the new assessment. Any further exam board support?
§ The subject leader was willing to allow the LA SNS consultant and the RA for ICT to visit to gain an insight in to the assessment arrangements and the view of learners of the nature of the Functional Skills qualification.
§ The school was prepared to fund entries for this small group to enable students who had missed out on achieving their half GCSE to gain a qualification.
§ Parents agreed to it as it was in the interests of their children to gain a qualification.
§ Key resources produced (attach copies if possible) The subject leader created several web pages to support the learners in their preparation for the assessment. The exam board practice test and task were also essential and quite similar to the actual test and task.
4. Challenges and solutions
§ The main challenge was the fact that the pilot group had no further ICT time and therefore the subject leader had to create time by using lunch time sessions. XXX afternoons were also agreed to by SLT in the interests of making the pilot successful for the school and for the learners.
§ A good number of the learners were prepared to use the support available to them through the web pages.
§ The choice of the January window meant that the learners were not already involved in their main GCSEs. It also meant that any who were not successful or who were absent would get a further opportunity to sit the test or task or both in the June window.
5. Outcomes
§ 19 of the group of 20 learners were present for the exam. They completed the written paper in two thirds of the time allowed and emerged confidently from the exam hall. All of them achieved a level 2 on this part of the assessment. The absentee will do the exam in June.
§ 16 learners achieved level 2 in the practical task and thus level 2 overall. Those who achieved level one had attended fewer than half of the 7 revision and practice sessions.
§ Evidence of impact for example on teaching, on learning, on school organisation and leadership
§ Lessons learnt that will support other centres when implementing and delivering functional skills
6. Key factor to support success
§ What was the crucial thing that made a difference?
§ Dave!
Length and format
A4 format. 1,000 words maximum
Ideal length 750 words
This case study focuses on the strategic implementation of Functional Skills in the school.
1. Context of case study
§ Cape Cornwall School is the furthest west school in Cornwall Local Authority and is therefore the ‘first and last’ secondary school on the mainland. It is a small 11-16 comprehensive with 450 students on roll.
§ The subject leader for ICT is Dave Parry.
§ The learners involved in the Functional Skills pilot were 20 specially selected Year 11s.
§ The learners were all taught by Dave Parry throughout KS4 and, in fact, KS3 as well.
§ The group were entered for the AQA ICT Functional Skills qualification; all entries are at the same level but it was anticipated that the learners entered would succeed at level 2.
2. Focus of case study
§ The centre decided to take part in the pilot as the consortium of which they were part was successful in their bid to offer the Creative and Media Diploma from 2009. A Functional Skills entry in 2008 would enable the school to become familiar with the new assessment arrangements with a pilot group in advance of beginning Functional Skills with a new Diploma group the following year ‘for real’.
§ It was also important to the subject leader that there should be value in doing the Functional Skills assessment for the learners too. The group chosen were all academically able and had been successful in gaining at least a C grade in the formally examined part of the AQA short course GCSE the summer before. However, they had not submitted the required coursework element and had therefore not obtained the short course qualification. It was felt that a level 2 qualification in Functional Skills would recognise their ability in ICT. The pilot was undertaken to provide these learners with a valuable qualification where they had failed before under an assessment regime with which they did not engage.
§ This case study could be of interest to schools wishing to try a small group in KS4. Anyone else??
3. Implementation
§ The group were entered for the AQA Functional Skills qualification in January 2008. This assessment was at a single level, with the awarding of level 1 or 2 determined by the learner’s performance. 70% was needed in the written paper in order to get a level 2. A session on the computer to complete a practical task was the second part of the assessment.
§ The group had experienced the full programme of study for ICT when they were in KS3 and they had followed the AQA GCSE short course syllabus when in Year 10. No further lesson time was available in Year 11 for this group. To prepare them more fully for the Functional Skills assessment their teacher arranged some practice sessions in the weeks immediately before the test and task. XXX sessions were offered over XXX afternoons and 2 lunchtimes. 16 of the 20 learners selected took the opportunity to attend the sessions. The teacher also prepared a number of web pages for the students to brush up on areas they felt they had forgotten.
§ The subject leader had attended all four days of the national training for Functional Skills. Since he was the only teacher in this small school entering learners for Functional Skills, there were no further training implications for others at this stage. The teacher also attended a whole day exam board training for the new assessment. Any further exam board support?
§ The subject leader was willing to allow the LA SNS consultant and the RA for ICT to visit to gain an insight in to the assessment arrangements and the view of learners of the nature of the Functional Skills qualification.
§ The school was prepared to fund entries for this small group to enable students who had missed out on achieving their half GCSE to gain a qualification.
§ Parents agreed to it as it was in the interests of their children to gain a qualification.
§ Key resources produced (attach copies if possible) The subject leader created several web pages to support the learners in their preparation for the assessment. The exam board practice test and task were also essential and quite similar to the actual test and task.
4. Challenges and solutions
§ The main challenge was the fact that the pilot group had no further ICT time and therefore the subject leader had to create time by using lunch time sessions. XXX afternoons were also agreed to by SLT in the interests of making the pilot successful for the school and for the learners.
§ A good number of the learners were prepared to use the support available to them through the web pages.
§ The choice of the January window meant that the learners were not already involved in their main GCSEs. It also meant that any who were not successful or who were absent would get a further opportunity to sit the test or task or both in the June window.
5. Outcomes
§ 19 of the group of 20 learners were present for the exam. They completed the written paper in two thirds of the time allowed and emerged confidently from the exam hall. All of them achieved a level 2 on this part of the assessment. The absentee will do the exam in June.
§ 16 learners achieved level 2 in the practical task and thus level 2 overall. Those who achieved level one had attended fewer than half of the 7 revision and practice sessions.
§ Evidence of impact for example on teaching, on learning, on school organisation and leadership
§ Lessons learnt that will support other centres when implementing and delivering functional skills
6. Key factor to support success
§ What was the crucial thing that made a difference?
§ Dave!
Student Voice 2 Phase 1 Pilot
Student voice discussion
Carried out on 10th July 2008
Martin Holmes ICT teacher Sylvie Trevena SNS Consultant
Focus of discussion: – to gain feedback from Y9 students on their Functional Skills experience
All 20 students who had sat the Edexcel Level 2 ICT examination in June took part.
Discussion took part under the same broad headings as the English feedback. Some students had also fed back to English and some to Maths.
Preparation for exam (The Deep Learning Day (DLD))
Students understood that their KS3 programme had been shaped before ‘Functional Skills’ were conceived and that the DLD was designed to cover areas not normally done in KS3 in order to prepare them for the exam. They felt that they learnt a lot in one day and advocated building the Functional Skills in to the curriculum in future so that students did not have to cram so much unfamiliar ICT in to one day. It had been rushed. Threading it through KS3 would avoid the feeling of panic!
They felt that the FS exam was far easier than the practice they had done on the DLD.
DLDs were very useful and well-timed (a week before the exam) but they needed more time on the unfamiliar aspects of ICT.
It was suggested that three DLDs were a good idea but that English, Maths and ICT should be combined, any weaknesses identified and then time allocated on those weaknesses accordingly. The students also felt that it would be good to see combinations of English, Maths and ICT teachers were seen to be working together and linking the different Functional Skills.
The exam
There was a general feeling that another ten or fifteen minutes for printing would have been ideal. Printing, collating and binding took a surprising amount of time, especially in a school where this is normally avoided in favour of storing evidence electronically and assessment being done on screen.
As this group had no history of ICT tests they expected to find it more difficult than English and Maths where they have experience of testing over several years. In the event they did not find it more difficult than the other two, some felt it was somewhat easier.
The view was expressed that the contexts for the SATs questions were contrived and unrealistic and that the Functional Skills tests were all much more clearly related to real life and the world of work. They ‘made sense’. However this made some students describe them as ‘boring’ and the context unappealing to people their age. A concert would have been a more suitable context. Others pointed out that the whole idea was that it was focused on skills they would need in adult life and that level 2 was intended for 16 year olds.
Several students had been confused because the exam had not told them which software to use; others accepted that this was part of what was being tested.
There wasn’t as much theory as expected on Data Protection or security.
The letter
Students tackled the task with confidence.
They felt there was some duplication with English but that further ICT specific skills were asked for i.e. the addition of a logo and a table in the typed letter. (English had been handwritten.)
The letter required had been rather short and some found this off-putting and wondered if they were expected to pad it out creatively.
The file provided by Edexcel to start the letter from was a .txt file. When students double clicked on this the default programme for opening text files is Notepad and some had tried to construct and format their letter immediately without realising they need to open it in or copy it to Word.
The spreadsheet
Some were not clear which software to use. (Excel or Access)
Although printing with formulas showing had been shown on the DLD, a number of students had not had the chance to become familiar enough with this as it is not normally required in KS3 at the school. They reported that they did not ‘get’ the printing.
Using an ‘if’ statement is not normally required at KS3 and students had therefore struggled with the question requiring this. Y10 students would have been able to do it. This has implications for KS3 coverage or the timing of the Functional Skills exam.
Powerpoint
Students found the task straightforward.
Most struggled to print it as handouts as this is not normally required in school. Some found it on the print menu and guessed.
Database (in sample paper only)
Students met this type of activity for the first time on the DLD as this is normally KS4 work. They felt they got the idea quite quickly and that it would not be a problem with more preparation.
Post exam evaluation
In lessons teachers should connect the skills together so that you know how they are all important. They need to make it explicit.
Students need to see clearly how lessons relate to outside school life.
It was suggested that Functional Skills should be built in to Enterprise Day. This is a business related day and so it would provide a good context and make students and staff organising more aware of Functional Skills and how they were really useful in a work context.
Advice to students
There wasn’t as much theory as expected on Data Protection or security.
All the tasks are in a context and the best advice is to get in to character and really imagine it is your job to do those things. It makes you think how you would actually do them.
Advice to staff
Staff should include role play in ICT lessons too.
Even if there was more database or other Functional Skills stuff in KS3 the DLD would still be useful.
If the students need to be able to work in exam conditions and be independent in choosing software or sorting out problems for themselves then it would be useful to work in this way sometimes in lessons. Too much teacher input means they don’t get a chance to be independent.
The teacher explained to the students that as the exam had taken place in a normal ICT teaching room it was hard not to help when he saw students finding it difficult. It had been interesting to watch the struggle followed by ‘the lights going on’.
Students wanted some lessons to be a struggle followed by a post-mortem about the problems they had encountered.
Final reflections
Printing is a retrograde step compared to school practice but it was accepted that it was still a necessary part of the way ICT is used in some work settings and other aspects of real life.
The three Functional Skills should not be amalgamated in to one. You might be able to merge ICT and English, some thought, but Maths was quite different, except perhaps spreadsheets.
Separate is better than merged because if you were stronger at one thing than another you would not be affected. You could take your stronger ones at a different time to your weaker ones, or retake one you fail if they are separate.
Separate is Ok as students can easily make the links for themselves. You need to get the teachers together so that they get the separate skills linked.
Need to consider whether Y9 is the best time to sit the exam.
Need to modify KS3 scheme of work to make explicit some of the things which the Functional Skills assessment will test.
Carried out on 10th July 2008
Martin Holmes ICT teacher Sylvie Trevena SNS Consultant
Focus of discussion: – to gain feedback from Y9 students on their Functional Skills experience
All 20 students who had sat the Edexcel Level 2 ICT examination in June took part.
Discussion took part under the same broad headings as the English feedback. Some students had also fed back to English and some to Maths.
Preparation for exam (The Deep Learning Day (DLD))
Students understood that their KS3 programme had been shaped before ‘Functional Skills’ were conceived and that the DLD was designed to cover areas not normally done in KS3 in order to prepare them for the exam. They felt that they learnt a lot in one day and advocated building the Functional Skills in to the curriculum in future so that students did not have to cram so much unfamiliar ICT in to one day. It had been rushed. Threading it through KS3 would avoid the feeling of panic!
They felt that the FS exam was far easier than the practice they had done on the DLD.
DLDs were very useful and well-timed (a week before the exam) but they needed more time on the unfamiliar aspects of ICT.
It was suggested that three DLDs were a good idea but that English, Maths and ICT should be combined, any weaknesses identified and then time allocated on those weaknesses accordingly. The students also felt that it would be good to see combinations of English, Maths and ICT teachers were seen to be working together and linking the different Functional Skills.
The exam
There was a general feeling that another ten or fifteen minutes for printing would have been ideal. Printing, collating and binding took a surprising amount of time, especially in a school where this is normally avoided in favour of storing evidence electronically and assessment being done on screen.
As this group had no history of ICT tests they expected to find it more difficult than English and Maths where they have experience of testing over several years. In the event they did not find it more difficult than the other two, some felt it was somewhat easier.
The view was expressed that the contexts for the SATs questions were contrived and unrealistic and that the Functional Skills tests were all much more clearly related to real life and the world of work. They ‘made sense’. However this made some students describe them as ‘boring’ and the context unappealing to people their age. A concert would have been a more suitable context. Others pointed out that the whole idea was that it was focused on skills they would need in adult life and that level 2 was intended for 16 year olds.
Several students had been confused because the exam had not told them which software to use; others accepted that this was part of what was being tested.
There wasn’t as much theory as expected on Data Protection or security.
The letter
Students tackled the task with confidence.
They felt there was some duplication with English but that further ICT specific skills were asked for i.e. the addition of a logo and a table in the typed letter. (English had been handwritten.)
The letter required had been rather short and some found this off-putting and wondered if they were expected to pad it out creatively.
The file provided by Edexcel to start the letter from was a .txt file. When students double clicked on this the default programme for opening text files is Notepad and some had tried to construct and format their letter immediately without realising they need to open it in or copy it to Word.
The spreadsheet
Some were not clear which software to use. (Excel or Access)
Although printing with formulas showing had been shown on the DLD, a number of students had not had the chance to become familiar enough with this as it is not normally required in KS3 at the school. They reported that they did not ‘get’ the printing.
Using an ‘if’ statement is not normally required at KS3 and students had therefore struggled with the question requiring this. Y10 students would have been able to do it. This has implications for KS3 coverage or the timing of the Functional Skills exam.
Powerpoint
Students found the task straightforward.
Most struggled to print it as handouts as this is not normally required in school. Some found it on the print menu and guessed.
Database (in sample paper only)
Students met this type of activity for the first time on the DLD as this is normally KS4 work. They felt they got the idea quite quickly and that it would not be a problem with more preparation.
Post exam evaluation
In lessons teachers should connect the skills together so that you know how they are all important. They need to make it explicit.
Students need to see clearly how lessons relate to outside school life.
It was suggested that Functional Skills should be built in to Enterprise Day. This is a business related day and so it would provide a good context and make students and staff organising more aware of Functional Skills and how they were really useful in a work context.
Advice to students
There wasn’t as much theory as expected on Data Protection or security.
All the tasks are in a context and the best advice is to get in to character and really imagine it is your job to do those things. It makes you think how you would actually do them.
Advice to staff
Staff should include role play in ICT lessons too.
Even if there was more database or other Functional Skills stuff in KS3 the DLD would still be useful.
If the students need to be able to work in exam conditions and be independent in choosing software or sorting out problems for themselves then it would be useful to work in this way sometimes in lessons. Too much teacher input means they don’t get a chance to be independent.
The teacher explained to the students that as the exam had taken place in a normal ICT teaching room it was hard not to help when he saw students finding it difficult. It had been interesting to watch the struggle followed by ‘the lights going on’.
Students wanted some lessons to be a struggle followed by a post-mortem about the problems they had encountered.
Final reflections
Printing is a retrograde step compared to school practice but it was accepted that it was still a necessary part of the way ICT is used in some work settings and other aspects of real life.
The three Functional Skills should not be amalgamated in to one. You might be able to merge ICT and English, some thought, but Maths was quite different, except perhaps spreadsheets.
Separate is better than merged because if you were stronger at one thing than another you would not be affected. You could take your stronger ones at a different time to your weaker ones, or retake one you fail if they are separate.
Separate is Ok as students can easily make the links for themselves. You need to get the teachers together so that they get the separate skills linked.
Need to consider whether Y9 is the best time to sit the exam.
Need to modify KS3 scheme of work to make explicit some of the things which the Functional Skills assessment will test.
Functional Skills Phase 1 Pilot - Student Voice
Student voice discussion
Carried out on 10th June 2008
Wendy Delf, Teaching and Learning consultant
Focus of discussion: – to enable the department to gain feedback from Yr9 students on Functional Skills exam
3 students from a range of abilities were interviewed.
Preparation for exam
Students had some understanding of FS standards.
They felt that their work in Yr7,8,9 enabled them feel prepared for the exam.
Yr9 work was very helpful in preparing them for the FS exam.
They felt that the FS exam was far easier than the SATs
They felt some teachers waited until Yr9 to focus on skills.
DLD were very useful.
Would like to work with M and ICT in future DLD
The exam
Writing exam
Too much time to complete exam
Felt confident about the task (letter writing)
Had seen the mark scheme in previous lessons so knew something about the assessment
Reading exam
Multiple choice ‘poorly worded’ – sometimes could be more than one answer.
Had seen the mark scheme so understood something about assessment.
Some of questions ambiguous (my word).
Discussed the future – electronic on screen test – they thought cheating might occur, typing would be an issue, no opportunity to plan, need for first draft writing
S&L
Done in lessons and as part of regular lessons not just for FS
Post exam evaluation
FS will be useful for GCSE work
‘Can see clearly how lessons relate to outside school life’
‘More useful than SATs’
Advice to students
Get involved in lessons
Build confidence to take part in lessons
Don’t get stressed out
Don’t worry
Listen really hard and speak lots!
Advice to staff
More project work liked My Dream Job
Don’t leave all the skills work until Yr9
Spread DLD over KS3 – join up with maths and ICT
Make sure tutors know what is happening
They felt their teachers had done a ‘really good job’
Final reflections
FS is preparing you for later life
The FS exam was easy, a way of assessing how we are able to use basic skills.
Areas I felt challenging: identifying and retrieving information and then translating into your own words. Using a variety of language skills. Developing writing styles.
Carried out on 10th June 2008
Wendy Delf, Teaching and Learning consultant
Focus of discussion: – to enable the department to gain feedback from Yr9 students on Functional Skills exam
3 students from a range of abilities were interviewed.
Preparation for exam
Students had some understanding of FS standards.
They felt that their work in Yr7,8,9 enabled them feel prepared for the exam.
Yr9 work was very helpful in preparing them for the FS exam.
They felt that the FS exam was far easier than the SATs
They felt some teachers waited until Yr9 to focus on skills.
DLD were very useful.
Would like to work with M and ICT in future DLD
The exam
Writing exam
Too much time to complete exam
Felt confident about the task (letter writing)
Had seen the mark scheme in previous lessons so knew something about the assessment
Reading exam
Multiple choice ‘poorly worded’ – sometimes could be more than one answer.
Had seen the mark scheme so understood something about assessment.
Some of questions ambiguous (my word).
Discussed the future – electronic on screen test – they thought cheating might occur, typing would be an issue, no opportunity to plan, need for first draft writing
S&L
Done in lessons and as part of regular lessons not just for FS
Post exam evaluation
FS will be useful for GCSE work
‘Can see clearly how lessons relate to outside school life’
‘More useful than SATs’
Advice to students
Get involved in lessons
Build confidence to take part in lessons
Don’t get stressed out
Don’t worry
Listen really hard and speak lots!
Advice to staff
More project work liked My Dream Job
Don’t leave all the skills work until Yr9
Spread DLD over KS3 – join up with maths and ICT
Make sure tutors know what is happening
They felt their teachers had done a ‘really good job’
Final reflections
FS is preparing you for later life
The FS exam was easy, a way of assessing how we are able to use basic skills.
Areas I felt challenging: identifying and retrieving information and then translating into your own words. Using a variety of language skills. Developing writing styles.
Feedback & Student Voice from Phase 1 Pilot - by Sylvie Trevena
Functional Skills feedback meeting 21.07.08
Advice offered by the pilot 1 group to new centres
· Research current exam board offerings to see what will suit your circumstances and your learners (but remember they are also piloting their assessments and they will change).
· Joint ventures in centres have been really helpful; ‘joined up thinking’ between English, maths and ICT has resulted.
· Small groups rather than whole cohorts are advisable for the pilot.
· Make the skills learners need explicit (don’t just set practice for homework and hope for the best).
· Make the transferability of those skills explicit, ideally drawing this out of the learners.
· Enable them be introduced to and to practice and use the same skill in different ways in different contexts (including cross curricular) with different resources.
· The pilot is worth getting involved with even if you are not a Gateway 2 centre, you can understand it better and have an informed opinion of how Functional Skills are developing.
· There is a positive advantage to the school and the learner to obtain this qualification. It is worth points!
· There is some commonality with Study Plus: enjoyment, clear progression, real life scenarios.
· QIA website especially useful http://excellence.qia.org.uk/page.aspx?o=159670 and the Excellence Gateway http://excellence.qia.org.uk/page.aspx?o=whyregister&returnURL=%2fpage.aspx%3fo%3dnav-myeg .
· Be brave …. this is the chance to try new ideas, there is no expectation that they will all work or that you will get it right first time.
· Some ideas to try
§ Collaborate using a wiki
§ Reflect using a blog
§ Wii …lots of ideas especially data collection and brain training …hard to reach learners found this engaging (investigate funding this through molenet and Cornwall College)
§ Nintendo DS…braintraining, competition, motivating especially for low attainers, good way of building skills (project in Scottish Primary schools)
§ Inspirational figures… Tim Rylands (English) and his use of MYST http://www.timrylands.com/ , John Davitt and the difference engine etc. http://www.newtools.org/
§ Applemac website has good ideas, especially related to music and media
§ Microsoft have good educational resources too
· Keep an eye on the QCA website and take part in the consultation on the new GCSEs scheduled for first teaching in 2010 for English, maths and ICT http://www.qca.org.uk/qca_18259.aspx. The draft criteria for each include a reference to Functional Skills.
Advice offered by the pilot 1 group to new centres
· Research current exam board offerings to see what will suit your circumstances and your learners (but remember they are also piloting their assessments and they will change).
· Joint ventures in centres have been really helpful; ‘joined up thinking’ between English, maths and ICT has resulted.
· Small groups rather than whole cohorts are advisable for the pilot.
· Make the skills learners need explicit (don’t just set practice for homework and hope for the best).
· Make the transferability of those skills explicit, ideally drawing this out of the learners.
· Enable them be introduced to and to practice and use the same skill in different ways in different contexts (including cross curricular) with different resources.
· The pilot is worth getting involved with even if you are not a Gateway 2 centre, you can understand it better and have an informed opinion of how Functional Skills are developing.
· There is a positive advantage to the school and the learner to obtain this qualification. It is worth points!
· There is some commonality with Study Plus: enjoyment, clear progression, real life scenarios.
· QIA website especially useful http://excellence.qia.org.uk/page.aspx?o=159670 and the Excellence Gateway http://excellence.qia.org.uk/page.aspx?o=whyregister&returnURL=%2fpage.aspx%3fo%3dnav-myeg .
· Be brave …. this is the chance to try new ideas, there is no expectation that they will all work or that you will get it right first time.
· Some ideas to try
§ Collaborate using a wiki
§ Reflect using a blog
§ Wii …lots of ideas especially data collection and brain training …hard to reach learners found this engaging (investigate funding this through molenet and Cornwall College)
§ Nintendo DS…braintraining, competition, motivating especially for low attainers, good way of building skills (project in Scottish Primary schools)
§ Inspirational figures… Tim Rylands (English) and his use of MYST http://www.timrylands.com/ , John Davitt and the difference engine etc. http://www.newtools.org/
§ Applemac website has good ideas, especially related to music and media
§ Microsoft have good educational resources too
· Keep an eye on the QCA website and take part in the consultation on the new GCSEs scheduled for first teaching in 2010 for English, maths and ICT http://www.qca.org.uk/qca_18259.aspx. The draft criteria for each include a reference to Functional Skills.
Tuesday, 22 July 2008
Minutes of NKLP FS Meeting 21.7.08
NKLP - Functional Skills Meeting
Pool Business & Enterprise College
Monday 21st July 2008
Present: Nigel Williams, Owen Jermy, Paul Annear, Dene Williams, Fiona Williams, Helen Pengelly, Hugh Wardle, Sharon Callaway, Chris Jenkin
Meeting began 1.15pm
Item minutes.
1. Introductions: Staff introduced themselves and their school roles.
2. NKLP Functional Skills Website: Staff happy to use / contribute; agreed that communication of issues, resources, general information would be added to assist collaboration. Amendments to Staffing Grid D Williams now Head of Maths, S Calloway now Head of ICT. Reminder of website address to be shared across departments nklp@blogspot.com
3. Feedback from the Plymouth Functional Skills Sessions: Staff felt that introductions were somewhat laboured – but subject meetings more useful. Overall, some aspects of the day were more helpful than others, but worth attending.
4. The nature of the pilot:
- A Pilot Study – therefore ideas to be discovered and explored and trialled. QIA interested in the ‘experiences’ of how functional skills may work.
- Cohorts – ‘Start small’ message – generally up to HODs, but pilot groups at level 1 and 2 could be useful.
- A timeframe for delivery – beyond 2008/9 pilots discussed, full implementation by 2010 essential.
5. Awarding bodies: The big message here was to download specifications and sample papers from their current awarding body, but agreed that it would be wise to consider a range of awarding bodies to consider variations in assessment formats.
6. Collaborative approaches – discussion around all three schools choosing the same awarding body for functional skills in their department; though autonomy must be maintained for each department. Reference to Staffing Grid to check which schools are working with which awarding bodies.
7. How would Schools need / like Paul to co-ordinate / facilitate? Paul to contact all Representatives to confirm which days he is available for individual or department support / training, team-teaching with cohorts / attend meetings, etc, as required. All representatives have Paul’s mobile phone number.
8. Training – 4 half-day lead sessions will be available through LA, probably from January 2009 as resources become available. Functional Skills group propose to meet for 1 half-day session every half-term on rotational basis around all three schools. This would allow 30 minutes information – communication session, followed by 1 hour subject specialist session.
9. AOB? None. Meeting closed 2.50pm.
Minutes by Paul Annear
Pool Business & Enterprise College
Monday 21st July 2008
Present: Nigel Williams, Owen Jermy, Paul Annear, Dene Williams, Fiona Williams, Helen Pengelly, Hugh Wardle, Sharon Callaway, Chris Jenkin
Meeting began 1.15pm
Item minutes.
1. Introductions: Staff introduced themselves and their school roles.
2. NKLP Functional Skills Website: Staff happy to use / contribute; agreed that communication of issues, resources, general information would be added to assist collaboration. Amendments to Staffing Grid D Williams now Head of Maths, S Calloway now Head of ICT. Reminder of website address to be shared across departments nklp@blogspot.com
3. Feedback from the Plymouth Functional Skills Sessions: Staff felt that introductions were somewhat laboured – but subject meetings more useful. Overall, some aspects of the day were more helpful than others, but worth attending.
4. The nature of the pilot:
- A Pilot Study – therefore ideas to be discovered and explored and trialled. QIA interested in the ‘experiences’ of how functional skills may work.
- Cohorts – ‘Start small’ message – generally up to HODs, but pilot groups at level 1 and 2 could be useful.
- A timeframe for delivery – beyond 2008/9 pilots discussed, full implementation by 2010 essential.
5. Awarding bodies: The big message here was to download specifications and sample papers from their current awarding body, but agreed that it would be wise to consider a range of awarding bodies to consider variations in assessment formats.
6. Collaborative approaches – discussion around all three schools choosing the same awarding body for functional skills in their department; though autonomy must be maintained for each department. Reference to Staffing Grid to check which schools are working with which awarding bodies.
7. How would Schools need / like Paul to co-ordinate / facilitate? Paul to contact all Representatives to confirm which days he is available for individual or department support / training, team-teaching with cohorts / attend meetings, etc, as required. All representatives have Paul’s mobile phone number.
8. Training – 4 half-day lead sessions will be available through LA, probably from January 2009 as resources become available. Functional Skills group propose to meet for 1 half-day session every half-term on rotational basis around all three schools. This would allow 30 minutes information – communication session, followed by 1 hour subject specialist session.
9. AOB? None. Meeting closed 2.50pm.
Minutes by Paul Annear
Thursday, 19 June 2008
Wednesday, 11 June 2008
QIA Teaching & Learning Resources for Maths, Enlish & ICT - Important
Hi Colleagues - here are the QIA documents for implementing Functional Skills in your Department - these are a must to download and read.
Teaching Functional Skills English
Teaching Functional Skill Maths
Teaching Functional Skills ICT
Managing The Delivery of Functional Skills
Teaching Functional Skills English
Teaching Functional Skill Maths
Teaching Functional Skills ICT
Managing The Delivery of Functional Skills
NKLP Letter to HODS / Directors introducing Functional Skills
NKLP Letter to HODS / Directors introducing Functional Skills
Dear Head / Director of DepartmentMy name is Paul Annear, I am the Lead Co-ordinator for the implementation of the Functional Skills pilot across the CPR schools.The ‘Gateway 2’ Consortia of Camborne, Pool & Redruth Schools, otherwise known as the North Kerrier Learning Partnership (NKLP) were successful in our bid to host Level 1, 2 & 3 Diplomas in Engineering, Business and ICT to start in the September 2009. As part of the Gateway process the NKLP has to start delivering Functional Skills in September 2008. Don’t panic! We have a year to get things in place. Initially you will need to nominate someone who will lead Functional Skills in your department. This does not necessarily have to be the HOD, but could provide a professional development opportunity for another teacher. It would be a good idea for each school to have working knowledge of ‘who is who’ in terms of Functional Skills Representatives.Having established staff as Representatives in each department for Functional Skills, we need to get staff trained! The South West training events are:24th June 2008 - Bristol4th July 2008 - Gloucester17th July 2008 - PlymouthThe contact number for booking is 0845 071 0800, but you can only book with a representatives name. I would advise you to book this as early as possible. This training day offers the national perspectives and framework for Functional Skills generally. However, most examination awarding bodies are offering specific training events for Functional Skills geared towards their own specifications for assessment. You are advised to send your Functional Skills Representatives to these training days also. There are meetings and further training sessions being planned by myself and the LA, and you will be contacted about these as they are scheduled.We are currently working on a NKLP website which will include the latest information available to HODs and Representatives, but this site will also be aimed at sharing resources, information and good-practice. This will be available by the end of June 2008.At present the model for delivery of Functional Skills is still being formulated and agreed. Also, other training events, LA Advisors roles, meetings, etc, are still being scheduled and planning is ongoing. May I assure you that I will inform you of any latest developments as they unfold. In the meantime please feel free to contact me and I will help sort any issues as best I can.Thanks for your time.
Dear Head / Director of DepartmentMy name is Paul Annear, I am the Lead Co-ordinator for the implementation of the Functional Skills pilot across the CPR schools.The ‘Gateway 2’ Consortia of Camborne, Pool & Redruth Schools, otherwise known as the North Kerrier Learning Partnership (NKLP) were successful in our bid to host Level 1, 2 & 3 Diplomas in Engineering, Business and ICT to start in the September 2009. As part of the Gateway process the NKLP has to start delivering Functional Skills in September 2008. Don’t panic! We have a year to get things in place. Initially you will need to nominate someone who will lead Functional Skills in your department. This does not necessarily have to be the HOD, but could provide a professional development opportunity for another teacher. It would be a good idea for each school to have working knowledge of ‘who is who’ in terms of Functional Skills Representatives.Having established staff as Representatives in each department for Functional Skills, we need to get staff trained! The South West training events are:24th June 2008 - Bristol4th July 2008 - Gloucester17th July 2008 - PlymouthThe contact number for booking is 0845 071 0800, but you can only book with a representatives name. I would advise you to book this as early as possible. This training day offers the national perspectives and framework for Functional Skills generally. However, most examination awarding bodies are offering specific training events for Functional Skills geared towards their own specifications for assessment. You are advised to send your Functional Skills Representatives to these training days also. There are meetings and further training sessions being planned by myself and the LA, and you will be contacted about these as they are scheduled.We are currently working on a NKLP website which will include the latest information available to HODs and Representatives, but this site will also be aimed at sharing resources, information and good-practice. This will be available by the end of June 2008.At present the model for delivery of Functional Skills is still being formulated and agreed. Also, other training events, LA Advisors roles, meetings, etc, are still being scheduled and planning is ongoing. May I assure you that I will inform you of any latest developments as they unfold. In the meantime please feel free to contact me and I will help sort any issues as best I can.Thanks for your time.
Functional Skills Generic Description
Functional Skills - Generic Description
Generic definition of functional skillsOne of QCA's first tasks is to define what functional skills are in more detail, and to establish the content of learning covered for each subject. In October and November, three working days were held to share initial thinking on functional skills and to begin to consider technical aspects relating to qualification development. A consultation on the content of the standards should take place in early 2006.Generic definition of functional skillsFunctional skills are those core elements of English, maths and ICT that provide an individual with the essential knowledge, skills and understanding that will enable them to operate confidently, effectively and independently in life and at work. Individuals of whatever age who possess these skills will be able to participate and progress in education, training and employment as well as develop and secure the broader range of aptitudes, attitudes and behaviours that will enable them to make a positive contribution to the communities in which they live and work.In the case of English this means that: each individual is confident and capable when using the skills of speaking, listening, reading and writing and is able to communicate effectively, adapting to a range of audiences and contexts. This will include being able to explain information clearly and succinctly in speech and writing, expressing a point of view reasonably and persuasively and using ICT to communicate effectively. in life and work each individual will be able to read and understand information and instructions, then use this understanding to act appropriately and to analyse how ideas and information are presented, evaluating their usefulness, for example in solving a problem. They will be able to make an oral presentation or report, contribute to discussions and use speech to work collaboratively in teams to agree actions and conclusions.In the case of maths this means that: each individual has sufficient understanding of a range of mathematical concepts and is able to know how and when to use them. For example, they will have the confidence and capability to use maths to solve problems embedded in increasingly complex settings and to use a range of tools, including ICT as appropriate. In life and work, each individual will develop the analytical and reasoning skills to draw conclusions, justify how they are reached and identify errors or inconsistencies. They will also be able to validate and interpret results, to judge the limits of their validity and use them effectively and efficiently.In the case of ICT this means that: each individual is confident and capable when using ICT systems and tools to meet a variety of needs in a range of contexts. For example they will use ICT to find, select and bring together relevant information and use ICT to develop, interpret and exchange information, for a purpose. In life and work each individual will be able to apply ICT safely to enhance their learning and the quality of their work.(Functional Skills Update 2, QCA, December 2005)
QCA developing functional skillsThe Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has begun work to develop functional skills qualifications, led by Paddy O'Hagan of Skills for Life and Work Team. Functional skills are seen as fundamental skills that need to be developed and built into programmes of learning and development for young people and adults to prepare them for participation in life and work. They will be a set of qualifications in their own right, but will also underpin and support other qualifications such as GCSEs.Two recent White Papers mentioned functional skills; the 14-19 Education and Skills White Paper (March 2005) and the Skills White Paper (March 2005). The three areas of functional skills as defined in the White Papers are functional maths, functional English and functional ICT. The functional skills will build upon the existing key and basic skills and GCSEs and also contribute to ensuring that more young people achieve and progress to level 3 and beyond.QCA's remit asks that the new skills be developed in ways that will ensure that young people and adults can engage purposefully as citizens and in employment. They should be suitable therefore for a wide range of candidates, young people involved in GCSEs at school, and adults involved in learning programmes to prepare them for work. QCA has refocused the work originally planned for the Convergence Project (the convergence of basic and key skills qualifications into one set of qualifications) to progress this work.A first draft of standards will start with levels 1 and 2 in each of the three subjects. Once agreement has been reached about the standards at entry level and levels 1 and 2, further work will be done on levels 3 and 4.(Functional Skills Update 1, QCA, Autumn 2005)
Generic definition of functional skillsOne of QCA's first tasks is to define what functional skills are in more detail, and to establish the content of learning covered for each subject. In October and November, three working days were held to share initial thinking on functional skills and to begin to consider technical aspects relating to qualification development. A consultation on the content of the standards should take place in early 2006.Generic definition of functional skillsFunctional skills are those core elements of English, maths and ICT that provide an individual with the essential knowledge, skills and understanding that will enable them to operate confidently, effectively and independently in life and at work. Individuals of whatever age who possess these skills will be able to participate and progress in education, training and employment as well as develop and secure the broader range of aptitudes, attitudes and behaviours that will enable them to make a positive contribution to the communities in which they live and work.In the case of English this means that: each individual is confident and capable when using the skills of speaking, listening, reading and writing and is able to communicate effectively, adapting to a range of audiences and contexts. This will include being able to explain information clearly and succinctly in speech and writing, expressing a point of view reasonably and persuasively and using ICT to communicate effectively. in life and work each individual will be able to read and understand information and instructions, then use this understanding to act appropriately and to analyse how ideas and information are presented, evaluating their usefulness, for example in solving a problem. They will be able to make an oral presentation or report, contribute to discussions and use speech to work collaboratively in teams to agree actions and conclusions.In the case of maths this means that: each individual has sufficient understanding of a range of mathematical concepts and is able to know how and when to use them. For example, they will have the confidence and capability to use maths to solve problems embedded in increasingly complex settings and to use a range of tools, including ICT as appropriate. In life and work, each individual will develop the analytical and reasoning skills to draw conclusions, justify how they are reached and identify errors or inconsistencies. They will also be able to validate and interpret results, to judge the limits of their validity and use them effectively and efficiently.In the case of ICT this means that: each individual is confident and capable when using ICT systems and tools to meet a variety of needs in a range of contexts. For example they will use ICT to find, select and bring together relevant information and use ICT to develop, interpret and exchange information, for a purpose. In life and work each individual will be able to apply ICT safely to enhance their learning and the quality of their work.(Functional Skills Update 2, QCA, December 2005)
QCA developing functional skillsThe Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has begun work to develop functional skills qualifications, led by Paddy O'Hagan of Skills for Life and Work Team. Functional skills are seen as fundamental skills that need to be developed and built into programmes of learning and development for young people and adults to prepare them for participation in life and work. They will be a set of qualifications in their own right, but will also underpin and support other qualifications such as GCSEs.Two recent White Papers mentioned functional skills; the 14-19 Education and Skills White Paper (March 2005) and the Skills White Paper (March 2005). The three areas of functional skills as defined in the White Papers are functional maths, functional English and functional ICT. The functional skills will build upon the existing key and basic skills and GCSEs and also contribute to ensuring that more young people achieve and progress to level 3 and beyond.QCA's remit asks that the new skills be developed in ways that will ensure that young people and adults can engage purposefully as citizens and in employment. They should be suitable therefore for a wide range of candidates, young people involved in GCSEs at school, and adults involved in learning programmes to prepare them for work. QCA has refocused the work originally planned for the Convergence Project (the convergence of basic and key skills qualifications into one set of qualifications) to progress this work.A first draft of standards will start with levels 1 and 2 in each of the three subjects. Once agreement has been reached about the standards at entry level and levels 1 and 2, further work will be done on levels 3 and 4.(Functional Skills Update 1, QCA, Autumn 2005)
NKLP Functional Skills E-site
Hi and welcome to the NKLP Functional Skills E-Site. My name is Paul Annear and I am an Advanced Skills Teacher and Assistant Headteacher at Pool Business & Enterprise College. In May 2008 I was appointed Lead Co-ordinator for Functional Skills across the Camborne Pool Redruth (CPR) secondary schools.This site is designed to communicate information to all colleagues and students of the North Kerrier Learning Partnership (NKLP), which consists of all the primary and secondary schools in the CPR area and Cornwall College. Clearly this e-site is intended for use by the secondary schools because it features information about Functional Skills. I will make any links, documents, downloads, etc, available as they become available, so please check this site fequently. A real feature of the site is the opportunity for collaboration between all schools and Cornwall College, and in particluar sharing our experiences, ideas, success, concerns and issues in a forum context. Idelaly, materials, resources and blog comments will made by the students themselves once the site is more established.In the meantime, please add comments to help and support the delivery of Functional Skills across our schools.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)