Re-designing Key Stage 3: Breaking the Glass Ceiling

Whilst league tables are definitely not a perfect science, and it is very clear that such a crude instrument of performance does not really compare like with like, it was with some satisfaction this week that my school was placed in the top 13 non-grammar schools in the country for the number of pupils leaving with 5 or more GCSE passes or equivalent at A*-C, including English and Maths, and in the top 7 schools for the number of pupils attaining 5 or more GCSE passes at A* - C.

The story behind these league tables is one of an iterative improvement journey. In the past 4 years, the number of pupils leaving with 5 or more passes at A*-C including English and Maths has risen from 41% to almost 70%. The performance of boys is catching up dramatically on that of girls - in 2017 92% of boys attained 5 or more passes at A*-C, compared with 98% of girls. When English and Maths are added into the equation, the gap is less than 8% - 4 years ago it would have been more than 20%.

For years - perhaps even decades - my school had been attaining pass rates for 5 or more passes at A*-C at around 77%. Now, it looks like we will hit 3 years in a row of pass rates in the mid-90s.

What do we think has brought about this improvement?

• a Key Stage 4 curriculum which is much more aligned to the needs, interests and aspirations of our pupils;
• increased English and Maths curriculum time for a cohort of our pupils;
• a strong and experienced teaching workforce which not only knows its respective subject domain rigorously, but which also has a clear grasp on specification and mark scheme requirements. Many of my staff, for example, mark or moderate for the local exam board;
• a clear focus on pedagogy, which has led to a new, research-based learning and teaching policy comprising of 6 Principles;
• a move away from PRSD to more collaborative professional development structures, including Research Lesson Study.

As Principal of a very fine school, it is hard now not to get the impression that we are heading towards a glass ceiling. The curriculum is broad and balanced, meeting well the needs, aspirations and ambitions of our pupils, the teaching and learning are very strong (in our last Sustaining Improvement Inspection every single lesson observed was deemed 'highly effective'), and the evidence-based Learning and Teaching Policy and associated Assessment and Feedback Policy reflect very appropriately the localised context for robust, solid and aspirational classroom experiences. 

I have no doubt, should we now continue to consolidate the above as we have done already over the past 3 years, that we would start to maintain a pass rate of 5 or more GCSEs or equivalent at A*-C at well over 90% and - when English and Maths are added in - we will continue to see a pass rate in the mid 70%s. The Glass Ceiling. 

However, as educationalists and as a teaching workforce, our main aim and ambition must be to strive for the best for all our children. There is no point therefore, surely, in striving for anything less than a 100% pass rate for our children. If anything, our experiences over the past 3 years have proven that this is possible. We have seen an increase of 18% in our statistic for the number of pupils attaining 5 or more GCSEs at A*-C, and we are now firmly knocking the door of that 100% pass rate. Three years ago, we may not have dared believe that, but it has happened. 

And as my school consults on a new 3-year School Development Plan, the visionary inside all stakeholders must surely seek to turn attention to how we raise further the percentage of pupils leaving with 5 or more passes at GCSE, including English and Maths. Just how do we break that glass ceiling?

I am firmly convinced that the answer lies in the narrowing and / or eradication of what we call the 'Matthew Effect' at Key Stage 3 - the notion that those children coming in with a 'privileged' educational background and strong knowledge embedded in long-term memory will make strong advances forward in their learning, and those who don't have that background will not, as they do not have the automaticity which knowledge in long-term memory provides in order to harness working memory in the classroom. Times Tables is a classic example. In short - the 'rich' become 'richer' and the 'poor' become 'poorer' - the 'Matthew' Effect. 

And I am gravely concerned that our current curriculum in Northern Ireland actually makes this 'Matthew Effect' more acute.

The Revised Curriculum emphasises skills. However, the notion that we should promote so-called 21st Century skills over knowledge because we are trying to prepare pupils for life and work in a rapidly changing world, for jobs that perhaps don't exist yet, is now (and perhaps always was) fundamentally flawed. Indeed, the notion that 'thinking creatively', working with others' and 'problem-solving' are somehow 'new' skills for the 21st Century which didn't exist before is somewhat bemusing. Did Marcus Aurelius not think creatively in his musings about philosophy 2000 years ago? Did Seneca not converse with other philosophers and stoics when deliberating upon his writings?

Surely the purpose of our education system is to teach children domain-specific background knowledge and understanding which - through deliberate practice and the accrual of experience - can allow them to make the journey to expert as they acquire domain-specific skills. For a scientist, this will involve the advanced skill of scientific method - generating hypotheses, interpreting anomalies, deep analytical thinking, comparing and contrasting, etc. But let's not deceive ourselves that this skill will be transferable. It will be the skill of an expert - but an expert within a particular domain.

So factual knowledge must precede skill because:

1: A stronger knowledge base is needed for new GCSE and ‘A’ Level examinations, which include increased theory testing and less testing of supposed ‘generic, transferable skills’;

2: Cognitive science, as we have seen, indicates that background knowledge pre-empts strong domain-specific skills (Daniel Willingham ‘Why don’t students like school? P25);

3: The transmission of high-quality knowledge is one of the most effective and expedient ways of closing the ‘learning gap’ between children who come from different cultural backgrounds - the 'Matthew Effect';

4: Knowledge comprehension lays the foundation for the journey from surface learning to deep learning, from novice to expert.

A number of studies have shown that disadvantaged students benefit most from a knowledge-based curriculum, because they have not been exposed to the range of vocabularies and high-level cultural knowledge outside school as some of their more fortunate peers. If you grow up in an ‘academic’ family, with a house full of books that your parents discuss with you, if you are taken on trips to museums, etc, you will absorb a lot of facts. If you do not and are not intrinsically motivated to learn, you will not have the same opportunity. That is why school needs to impart knowledge systematically. Teaching knowledge explicitly and effectively is our best chance of ensuring equality for all our pupils.

This is why we must, quite simply, emphasise knowledge - coupled with explicit instruction - in the early years of a child's secondary school career. Because explicit instruction - in the early stages of Key Stage 3 - is the most effective and expedient manner of closing the knowledge gap. Children at this stage of their educational pathway are not 'experts' - they are 'novices' who need their teachers to be 'sages on the stage', not 'guides on the side'. Indeed, the reduction of the 'Matthew Effect' demands it.

In September 2015, OFSTED published a report into Key Stage 3 in England, in which they concluded that leadership did not, in many instances, give Key Stage 3 the priority it merited and that academic transitional processes between primary and post-primary were not rigorous enough, meaning that pupils' prior learning was not built upon sufficiently well and that there was a lack of challenge, particularly with most able pupils.

So, in September 2018 my school embarks upon its pilot journey to 'break the glass ceiling'. This will include building upon the strong links with partner primary schools in order to have a shared understanding of the expectations for what our children could and should know in long-term memory as they enter secondary education, the introduction of knowledge organisers for Year 8 pupils, further embedding of low-stakes retrieval practice, including spacing and interleaving to assist the process of transferring knowledge into long-term memory, and the enhancement of self-quizzing opportunities.

We have already had much useful, interesting and engaging debate, firmly rooted in pedagogy. What does 'knowledge' at Key Stage 3 look like? What is 'core knowledge'? How do we introduce 'cultural capital'? How do we ensure our pupils are taught the 'best of what has been thought and said'? How do we ensure cumulative build-up of knowledge? How should teaching reflect this approach? What is our understanding of 'explicit instruction'?

If we get this right, not only will it have the potential to actually reduce teacher workload (no more cover work, a more realistic approach to marking and feedback etc), but also I firmly believe that it will have the potential to 'break the glass ceiling' and afford our pupils the opportunity to aspire and succeed at the highest level.

And, surely, that is what it is all about. Belief, Aspiration. Achievement.