Some schools do not ensure all pupils learn the foundational knowledge they need by the end of key stage 1, Ofsted has said.
The “vulnerable minority” of students are most likely to suffer from flaws in curriculum, teaching and assessment, the watchdog said in a report published today.
It also found that curriculums for English, beyond the teaching of phonics, were often below par.
The report is based on previous Ofsted subject reports and research reviews and visits to 20 schools.
It looked at how schools can provide foundational knowledge and skills such as the ability to communicate, read, write and calculate as well as strong physical, emotional and social development.
Sir Martyn Oliver, Ofsted’s chief inspector, said: “It is those children who are most vulnerable who benefit most from a strong start to their education.
“I hope this report helps teachers and school leaders in developing a curriculum that provides all children with the knowledge and skills that they need.”
In light of its findings, Ofsted intends to review and update its guidance for inspectors to help them focus more on how well curriculum, teaching and assessment leads to foundational knowledge.
Here’s your trusty Schools Week speed read…
1. Curriculum clarity needed
Some schools do not identify clearly enough the knowledge that students need to learn during reception and key stage 1, Ofsted said.
As a result, teachers do not know what to prioritise in their teaching and assessment.
Ofsted also found curriculums were often “overloaded” with activities that don’t focus on helping students build fluency in foundational knowledge and skills.
Where schools identify weaknesses in pupils’ knowledge, skills and behaviour, they don’t always “consider carefully enough how the curriculum or teaching approaches might need to be adapted to compensate”, the inspectorate said.
Ofsted schools should make sure their curriculum identified the foundational knowledge and skills, as outlined in the early years foundation stage statutory framework and national curriculum, that children will need for later learning.
2. Concerns for the ‘vulnerable minority’
Children who begin school with the lowest starting points and those who start to fall behind are the most affected by weaknesses in curriculum, teaching and assessment, Ofsted said.
“This vulnerable minority of children are more likely to suffer when opportunities to learn are not equitable,” it added.
It said adults tended to interact with these children less, and they often got the least teaching and opportunities for practice, causing the gap between them and their peers to widen.
3. Focus more on starting points
Effective support for disadvantaged pupils and those with SEND is even more important post-Covid because those who “fall behind early on struggle to catch up”, Ofsted said.
It said schools “talk confidently about children’s difficulties on entry” but adjustments to the curriculum to take account of these issues are not always considered.
“Children are likely to progress at different rates and, therefore, may need different quantities and kinds of teaching to succeed,” it added.
Ofsted recommended that schools choose teaching methods that are suited to what is being taught and what students already know.
4. Phonics aside, English curriculums ‘weak’
Ofsted said there was evidence the teaching of early reading was improving, but weaknesses remained in English curriculums.
Inspectors said schools often introduced complex reading and writing tasks too early.
This meant some children don’t get enough teaching and practice to become fluent in key skills such as handwriting and composing simple sentences, Ofsted said.
It recommended that schools give students “sufficient high-quality opportunities” to practise using foundational knowledge and skills so they become fluent.
5. KS1 tests have ‘unhelpful’ influence
Ofsted said end of key stage 1 SATs, which are no longer statutory, “unhelpfully influence the schools’ decisions about the English curriculum”.
Many schools still provide students with activities that replicate these tests well before they’ve taught them what they need to know to complete them successfully, the report added.
The inspectorate urged schools to make sure end of key stage 1 assessments did not “disproportionately influence” decisions about curriculum and teaching methods
6. Subject training helped staff pick up issues
Staff who had received subject-specific training were quick to spot when children had misunderstood something during a lesson, Ofsted noted.
Schools should therefore make sure assessment picks up children’s misunderstandings quickly and gives teachers early opportunities to help children who need extra teaching and practice.
7. Curriculum to support behaviour and emotional development
Leaders sometimes described their concerns about behaviour, but had not considered sufficiently how making changes to the curriculum might alleviate the problems, Ofsted said.
“They sometimes see children struggling to behave well as being purely a problem with the child rather than a possible reflection of weakness in curriculum or teaching,” it added.
It is concerned some schools were not providing an effective enough curriculum to support children’s personal, social and emotional development.
8. Ineffective use of play-based learning
Ofsted also raised concerns about ineffective use of play-based learning.
In reception classes, it said this sometimes did “no more than occupy children’s time”.
“If it does not challenge their thinking, problem-solving, persistence and collaboration, it is ineffective in developing their executive functioning. Such poorly planned play keeps children busy but does not support their development.”
But union warns against placing extra accountability burden on schools
Tom Middlehurst, curriculum, assessment and inspection specialist at the ASCL school leaders’ union. said Ofsted’s findings may be helpful for some schools to consider.
But he said it’s important these recommendations don’t “place additional accountability burdens on schools that go beyond the published handbook”.
“We are concerned about the increasing role Ofsted appears to be playing in influencing, as opposed to merely inspecting, what schools are doing,” he added.
Schools need teachers that have support and well trained TAs not an endless round of supply staff. Once more money is in the system, then and only then will we have the time and space to implement of purposeful play activivties.
We’re on our knees doing more and more with less and less!!
Yet more Ofsted waffle! Who set the overly-complex writing targets as Age-related Expectations, then inspects based upon them, and then cries when they are not only unachievable for most children of that age, but are often counter-productive to learning? This then creates ossified cultures within schools where the criteria on a curriculum document become the be all and end all, never to be challenged. Just try to identify a weakness in a management-mandated objective, and see how far you get trying to address it, before you are told you are not being “consistent,” no matter how effective your idea is.
The same goes for this idea of ‘clarity on the knowledge’ to be attained at different ages. What can begin as a focus upon developing valuable skills can either become an arms race in setting increasingly unreasonable standards at an ever younger age, or fuels the current mania for ‘knowledge organisers.’ It’s easy enough to produce such ‘Top 10 facts’, and the appeal is the ability to test and quantify that data. It also allows wrote learning to masquerade as ‘metacognitive’ development. But when it come to the humanities, for example, it tells you next to nothing about what the child truly has learnt, which is all in the links between. Still, so long as yet another document can go in the folder, education is served!