Make Key Stage 3 Matter in English

Liz Hillier

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781315458915
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

The KS3 curriculum plays a critical part in giving students the best possible start to their secondary education and preventing the need for intervention later on. This timely book provides detailed guidance on how to develop a robust, multifaceted, inclusive and challenging KS3 curriculum in English that provides a secure and progressive link between KS2 and KS4.

Featuring examples of curriculum models and audits of current practice, chapters cover key topics such as:

• developing the planning cycle;

• 
  
  

• transitioning between primary and secondary English;

• 
  
  

• assessment in KS3 English;

• 
  
  

• creating a model that supports and challenges students of all levels;

• 
  
  

• LAC and SPAG: divisive or cohesive abbreviations;

• 
  
  

• speaking and listening in the KS3 English curriculum;

• 
  
  

• using multimodal texts;

• 
  
  

• examples of how meaningful homework can successfully embed itself in a KS3 English curriculum model.

• 
  
  

Make Key Stage 3 Matter in English will be an invaluable resource for KS3 English coordinators, teachers and all those involved in the planning and delivery of the KS3 English curriculum.

CHAPTER 1

The importance of Key Stage 3 English

Since its statutory inception in 1988, the National Curriculum has evolved, changed and been slimmed down on many occasions by different governments. In the fourteen years since I started my career as an English teacher, I have experienced three of these ‘new’ National Curriculum models; each of which has claimed to be better than its predecessor in preparing our young people for the rigours of real life outside school.

The significance of these two parallel timelines is this: at no point has the importance of KS3, in particular KS3 English, been at the heart of a publication that can advise teachers and departments how to: (1) Make KS3 English matter in their school and (2) Design a robust KS3 English curriculum model that can evolve and withstand change according to the dictates on a national level.

From my fledgling years as a trainee teacher and an NQT it was clear that the lack of KS3 English was not because teachers weren’t enthused about developing an interesting and evolving curriculum. Ultimately, the problem lay in its place in the order of the National Curriculum. Nestled comfortably between KS2 and KS4, KS3 English often feels more like a buffer zone between those pupils who have completed their statutory primary curriculum and those at the end of their compulsory secondary school journey.

Furthermore, my KS3 English training focused largely on the two key scenes from the Shakespeare Year 9 SATs, as these statutory tests were used as a standardised measure of how successful the buffer zone curriculum had been for Year 9 pupils. This intensive SATs preparation, alongside the starter-middle-plenary format as advocated and pressed by the National Literacy Strategy, meant that my formative training and early years of teaching KS3 English was marred by a national political agenda that wanted to drive standards upwards regardless of its detriment to imagination and enjoyment.

As the years have marched on and the pressure on KS2 SATs results and pupil progress at GCSE has become more intense, it is more imperative than ever that schools design a robust KS3 English curriculum model – a model which successfully builds on the skills taught and learned in KS2, whilst also preparing the pupils over the three years for the assessments that they will sit for at the end of KS4, whatever these assessments may or may not look like in the future. In terms of the latter Key Stage, a robust and rigorous KS3 English curriculum will ensure that departments across the country can avoid the annual firefighting at KS4 where teachers, pupils and resources are stretched to such an extent that there is the inevitable burn-out in the middle of June.

Ofsted’s inflammatory report and claim that KS3 is the ‘poor relation’ to KS4

On 10 September 2015, Ofsted finally verbalised and laid down written authority to the idea that KS3 mattered by refuting this perceived metaphorical buffer zone status and by giving credence to the idea that it is the pivotal Key Stage in a pupil’s statutory education. Ultimately, Ofsted suggests that for a student to succeed at KS4, they have to experience an engaging three years at KS3. On the day of its release, the report Key Stage 3: The wasted years¹ caused a crucible of educational debate to bubble over, with all sides who had a vested interest in the report’s findings commenting on its content and, specifically, its damning title. Apart from the title, more scathing and incendiary comments are made in the opening stages of the report, as KS3 is described metaphorically as ‘the poor relation’ to KS4 in the report’s executive summary (Ofsted: 2015).

Whatever side of the debate a teacher, pupil or parent may find themselves on, the fact that for a brief moment in September 2015 a lively, impassioned discussion ensued about whether KS3 in general mattered and was prioritised in schools across England was certainly well received by me, not only as an English teacher in Ipswich, Suffolk who has always been passionate about the importance of KS3 English in a pupil’s educational life, but also as the mother of two young children, one of whom has specific learning difficulties (SPLD), who are embarking on their statutory educational journey. Hopefully this refreshing educational debate about KS3, and in particular KS3 English, will continue to be at the forefront of educational discussion and not lost amongst other political education agendas that are often thrust into the national media limelight.

On that day in early September 2015 Key Stage 3: The wasted years? was certainly a burning educational topic, provoking lots of different responses to the survey and its subsequent report which had been commissioned by Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector at the time, Sir Michael Wilshaw. Previously, in his Annual Report 2013–2014 Sir Michael noted that ‘Eighty-two per cent of primary schools are now good or outstanding’ compared to ‘71%’ in secondary schools. He continued that this figure of 71% was ‘no better’² than the figure quoted regarding the percentage of good or outstanding secondary schools in his previous Annual Report 2012–2013.³ The need to examine the reasons behind this plateau in terms of secondary school performances in England helped spearhead the 2014–2015 Her Majesty’s Inspectorate (HMI) survey, so that Ofsted could:

get an accurate picture of whether Key Stage 3 is providing pupils with sufficient breadth and challenge, and helping them to make the best possible start to their secondary education.

(Ofsted: 2015)

How does this book address the issues raised in Ofsted’s 2015 report?

In terms of the finer details of the Key Stage 3: The wasted years? report and its Executive Summary, specifically those of concern to KS3 English and how these aspects have an impact on the building of a robust KS3 English curriculum model – the aspects of which are examined throughout this book – the findings are as follows:

•‘In one in five of the routine inspections analysed’, inspectors raised ‘concerns … particularly in relation to the slow progress made in English … and the lack of challenge for the most able pupils’. These are issues that will be addressed in Chapter 4 of this book: ‘Inclusion and Challenging the Most Able in KS3 English.’

•School leaders ‘staffed Key Stages 4 and 5 before Key Stage 3’ and ‘As a result, some Key Stage 3 classes were split between more than one teacher or were taught by non-specialists.’ In the final report, ‘non-specialists’ are defined by Ofsted as ‘a teacher who does not have that subject as part of their undergraduate or teaching qualification.’ The implications of which will be looked at in further detail in Chapter 2: ‘Developing the Planning Cycle for Key Stage 3 English.’

•‘Too many secondary schools did not work effectively with partner primary schools to understand pupils’ prior learning and ensure that they built on this during Key Stage 3.’ This will be the focus of Chapter 5: ‘Planning for English Transition Across the Primary and Secondary Phase.’

In addition to the report’s executive summary, the specific elements pertaining to KS3 English in the report’s ‘Key Findings’ section are that:

•‘Many secondary schools do not build sufficiently on pupils’ prior learning’, with pupil responses to inspectors indicating ‘that repeating work is more of an issue in mathematics and English than in the foundation subjects’. Within Chapter 2, ‘Developing the Planning Cycle for Key Stage 3 English’, there will be examples of models of long-, medium- and short-term planning that suggest ways in which all pupils have the opportunity to build on prior learning.

•‘Developing pupils’ literacy skills in Key Stage 3 is a high priority in many schools.’ The fact that ‘literacy’, ‘high priority’ and ‘many schools’ are mentioned in the same sentence is extremely positive and all English teachers should take some comfort from the fact that colleagues in other subject areas are helping us transfer those crucial reading and writing skills. In Chapter 6, ‘LAC and SPAG: Divisive or Cohesive Abbreviations in the KS3 English Curriculum?’, I will look at the two acronyms independently of each other and then together, and the implications that both have in terms of continuing to build positive relationships between English and other areas of the curriculum.

•‘Homework is not consistently providing the opportunities for pupils to consolidate or extend their learning in Key Stage 3. Approximately half of the pupils who responded to the online questionnaire said that their homework never, or only some of the time, helps them to make progress.’ KS3 English teachers across England frequently blog and are active in Internet forums discussing the pros and cons of the different types of homework that should be set, especially at KS3. In Chapter 9, ‘Key Stage 3 English Homework’, I will demonstrate examples of the ways in which meaningful homework can be embedded in terms of the wider KS3 English curriculum.

Although a number of these key findings have been quantified and qualified within the survey conducted by Ofsted through interviews, lesson observations and an appendix dedicated to successful case studies, there are parts of a rigorous KS3 English curriculum for the twenty-first century that have been overlooked: namely the fact that the importance of media in the KS3 English Curriculum and specifically the importance of media texts in helping improve a pupil’s speaking and listening, reading and writing is notably absent from the report’s executive summary and key findings. This may be attributed to the fact that within the English programmes of study: Key Stage 3⁴ there is no explicit reference to how media texts can be used successfully to support the transferability of speaking and listening, reading and writing skills.

There has been no controlled assessment or explicit component on media studies in the English language GCSE since 2010. Furthermore, many schools are dropping GCSE media studies as it is regarded as a ‘soft’ subject and won’t contribute to the academic English Baccalaureate (EBacc) which schools are to be judged on in the future. I find this extremely concerning and have raised the issue in Chapter 8: ‘Using Multimodal Texts in Key Stage 3 English’. This chapter will clearly demonstrate how media texts need to be taught explicitly and implicitly in any KS3 English curriculum model, regardless of KS4 measurements. There will be examples of how to put multimodal texts into KS3 English long- and medium-term plans over the three years. In particular, I will show how multimodal texts can be used with reluctant readers so that they can build their confidence when transferring the skills of reading to any text-type that they are given.

The unions’ response to Ofsted’s 2015 report, Key Stage 3: The wasted years?

As well as omissions from key areas within the curriculum, such as media studies, the report also received criticism from the major teaching unions. The General Secretary of the Association of Schools and Colleges (ASCL), Brian Lightman, asserted on the day of the report’s release that the title Key Stage 3: The wasted years? was ‘negative’, especially as he and his union believed that the report ‘actually contains much evidence of good practice’,⁵ which is true, especially as there is an appendix of good practice that supplements the survey’s findings and constructively contributes to the final report. According to Ofsted, the eight case studies that are featured in the report’s appendix show ‘examples of practice that schools indicated were having a positive impact on their pupils’⁶ and seems to validate Mr Lightman’s view that not all Key Stage Three teaching is ‘wasted’ (Ofsted: 2015).

Furthermore, whilst unions such as the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) seem to appreciate the report’s belief that more needs to be done to improve transition between Year 6 and Year 7, Dr Mary Boulsted, the Union’s General Secretary, raises the practical concerns that seem to be omitted from the final report – namely, ‘the context within which secondary school leaders and teachers are working’.⁷ This sentiment is echoed across many of the main teaching unions in terms of their responses to the survey and report; the ‘context’ and the concerns which arise every day can be summarised in a simple list: teacher retention, recruitment shortage, staff shortages, excessive workload, performance-related pay and the rapid introduction of a new National Curriculum and statutory testing in the primary sector, as well as the introduction of new GCSEs at Key Stage 4.

With regards to the latter, the new GCSEs for English language and English literature have been the toughest in a generation and provide most concern and stress for the secondary school English teacher on a daily basis. The rapidity with which these curriculum and assessment changes have been made and implemented over the past five years seems to add substance to the overall collective view from the unions that KS3 will naturally slide down the ladder in terms of priority for secondary schools because so much of their judgement is based on GCSE results and the performance of their pupils when they have a Section 5 inspection.

In terms of prioritising one Key Stage over the other in English there seems to be a ‘which came first?’ scenario: the chicken or the egg? Because, aside from the politics and KS3 English policies that are being discussed and implemented at a national level, there is an appetite amongst those of us at the chalk face to discuss why KS3 seems to be regarded as the ‘poor relation’ (Ofsted: 2015) by those of us in the profession and more importantly what can we do to raise its status and make it equally as important as KS4, especially as a robust, engaging and evolving curriculum at KS3 English can help cement the foundations that young people will need as they begin their exam specifications in Year 10.

Moreover, whether any GCSEs in English Language and English literature take this current, 100% closed-book ...