We maken momenteel een opleving mee van de ontscholingsideologie. Ik stel dat niet enkel vast bij de koepel van het GO! met zijn smiley-rapporten, afschaffen van examens, enkel globale beoordeling op het einde van een tweejarige cyclus zoals in Atheneum-Bree en elders ...

Ik stel dit evenzeer vast in het nieuwe leerplanconcept van de katholieke koepel onder de naam 'Zin in leren' - 'Zin in leven'. Via de nieuwe ontscholende eindtermen en leerplannen, via smiley-rapporten .... zouden de leerlingen eindelijk 'zin in leren' en zelfs 'zin in het leven' moeten krijgen.

Ook in Crevits’ consultatiecampagne Van Lerensbelang en van Levensbelang, komt de ontscholingsideologie duidelijk tot uiting - ook in de voorstellen van de scholieren, van de door de Koning-Boudewijn-Stichting gepatroneerde ouders ... En eveneens in de wijze waarop al die voorstellen geprezen werden door minister Crevits, leden van de commissie onderwijs, de pers (Tegenbos en CO) ...

We vrezen dan ook dat de nieuwe eindtemen en leerplannen eens te meer zullen bijdragen tot de verdere ontscholing en niveaudaling van het onderwijs.

Engeland neemt afstand van beoordeling van leerlingen op basis van vage levels of vage eindtermen ( als b.v. een reeks gevarieerde boeken met plezier kunnen lezen, cf. onze vage eindtermen Nederlands waarmee je weinig kan aanvangen).

Following the interest generated by Tim Oates' video for the Department of Education earlier in the year, Cambridge Assessment has commissioned a new 45 minute version, allowing for more explanation as to how the removal of levels in Primary education will open the door to a deeper understanding. Click here to watch Tim's extended talk and join the conversation by leaving a comment below.

The removal of levels in primary education should allow schools to move to a model based on focused assessment of the specifics of the National Curriculum, says Tim Oates, Group Director of Assessment Research and Development at Cambridge Assessment As chair of the expert panel that reviewed the National Curriculum between 2010 and 2013, Mr Oates studied many high performing jurisdictions across the world and found a common theme among them was that primary school age children studied fewer things in greater depth.

“They secured deep learning in central concepts and ideas,” he says. “Assessment should focus on whether children have understood these key concepts rather than achieved a particular level.” There is a number of compelling reasons for levels being dropped, he adds in a video for the Department for Education’s YouTube channel. While the original idea of levels was that children worked their way up the levels, they have become overly influenced by other factors, he says. Children are labelling themselves and comparing themselves to others in an adverse way, and they are encouraged to move at an undue pace through the levels.

“We need to switch to a different conception of children’s ability. Every child needs to be capable of doing anything dependent on the effort they put in and how it’s presented to them. Levels get in the way of this.” Reaching a certain level does not necessarily mean a child has grasped a key idea, as levels are derived in different ways, explains Mr Oates.

Three different conceptions of ‘level’ have built up in the system. We have one model based on national tests, where the same level can be awarded to different children despite very different profiles of marks across the different parts of the test. The composition of their attainment – what they know and can do – is very different, but they get the same level. We have another based on ‘best fit’ – where teachers choose the level which looks most appropriate to what a pupil can do – they are ‘level 3’ even if they have significant gaps in their learning. And we have ‘threshold’ – a pupil is level 4 if they are ‘just in’ that level – an issue which is of grave concern to secondary schools who receive ‘level 4’ children who are secure in only a small portion of the level 4 material. “Here we have three different ideas of ‘levels’ coexisting and it’s not healthy,” says Mr Oates.

In high performing jurisdictions when a teacher is asked why a child doesn’t understand something the teacher will say: ‘…because I’ve not presented it in the right way,’ yet in England the answer will tend to be ‘…because they are a level three.’” Mr Oates believes things are now moving in the right direction: “

The new national curriculum really does focus on fewer things in greater depth,” he says. “It emphasises key concepts, key ideas and is full of skills. It includes wide reading, practical work in science and application of maths.” He urges teachers not to focus only on specific content changes in subjects because they will miss the key ideas that drove the revision. “The shift in ideas about ability and in assessment practice means that teachers will have to become experts in assessment in a way they have not had to before. They need to think hard about questions they put to children both through question and answer and on paper. They need to really probe pupils’ understanding.” He also urges them to become ‘assessment kleptomaniacs’ – building banks of questions from the internet and other sources - to support learning and to see if a child has understood the key ideas. He says GCSE questions can be used with younger children to probe understanding.

From September 2014 national curriculum levels will be removed as a legal requirement and not replaced. The new national curriculum sets out what pupils should be taught by the end of each key stage with schools able to introduce their own approaches to formative assessment. Statutory national curriculum tests at key stages 1 and 2 will continue. The first tests based on the new curriculum will take place in summer 2016. Tim Oates talks about assessment without levels Tim Oates, Chair of the Expert Panel on assessment, talks about the removal of levels and how this is an opportunity for schools to come up with new and inno... youtube.com

M-decreet : cijfers zijn vaak misleidend en verdoezelen de grote gevolgen van het M-decreet. Ook de aantasting van kwaliteit van b.o. wordt verzwegen.

1.Bericht daarnet op radio 1 en zwakke commentaar van Lieven Boeve: "10% minder leerlingen in buitengewoon lager onderwijs als gevolg van M-decreet."

Maar het aantal leerlingen dat dit jaar start in b.o. ligt meer dan 10% lager dan vóór het M-decreet. Wegens de toename van het effect jaar na jaar zal binnen 4 jaar het effect op het totale aantal leerlingen ook veel groter zijn dan 10%.

Het feit dat er een type-9 voor autistische leerlingen is bijgekomen, vertekent ook het kwantitatieve plaatje van de gevolgen van het M-decreet.

2.Het M-decreet tast ook de kwaliteit van het b.o. aan! En daar  repte ook Lieven Boeve met geen woord over.

In het gecombineerde type basisaanbod tref je nu leerlingen aan van type 1 en type 8, en zelfs van type 2 aangezien het IQ voor toelating tot type 2 nu verlaagd is tot 60.

En aangezien de toegang tot type 3 ook moeilijker werd, belanden leerlingen met grote gedragsproblemen nu ook vaak in basisaanbod.

Die al te grote diversiteit tast in sterke mate de kwaliteit van het b.o aan. Reactie van minister Crevits: geen probleem die grote diversiteit. In het b.o. werkt men toch individueel!

Noot: ook in een aantal types buso is verlies van leerlingen vrij groot!