KS3/4 Creative Arts - Art Assessment - Awarding Levels

Formative and Summative assessment done creatively and invloving the students gives them the tools thay need to progress in Art, in many ways, not just skills based. f you do not ensure students have the skills and ability to explore creative outlests for their emotions, thoughts and to explore issues related to their lives then youa re doing them a disservice. Using assessment to ensure students know where they are at, NOT just in terms of the levels but in a wider contect, supports them in their creative journeys. I had NO assessment at school, I did not know why I was good at art, or address any of the areas where I was not so good, I floundered in my artistsic practice beacsue of this for years and it was only when I became a teacher that i began to understand the processes involved and began to understand what it was I wanted to do and why. It is essential we help students understand and explore the creative process in a structured way and never return to the classroom where students have no real idea what they are doing or why!!

At KS4 and 5, it is fair to assume that all students are eager to learn about Art in a more structured way, understanding about the context of their work and others, but at KS3 it is a different matter as we primarily aim to encourage creativity and risk-taking from an early age.

The curriculum at KS3 for Art is very flexible and should be a platform for allowing students a wide range of experiences rather than dictating a specific canon of Fine Art western history, which is the case in so many schools; often seen as a time to prepare students for GCSE Fine Art.

Talking about artists and discussing the context of work does not need to be exempt from the KS3 Art curriculum - however, the necessity to apply a grade to students' understanding each term only leads to a limited curriculum designed around being able to apply levels consistently. It is the constant top-down insistence on monitoring and assessment that encourages Art teachers to create schemes of work that are homogeneous and simple to mark. It becomes an exercise in limiting discussion about taste and opinion in order to help apply levels based on 'objective judgements' or, as is often ironically the case, the opinion of the teacher.

There are few opportunities in the curriculum for students to explore processes and ideas in an unstructured manner encouraging individuals to take self-initiated risks with the simple motivational starting point of 'what if?'. Most subjects are structured by a curriculum that is dictated by summative assessment/exams and school leaders should look holistically at the whole curriculum and ask why we have a 'one-size-suits-all' assessment system. Subjects like Art are far better assessed through exhibitions that create incentives for students to work hard and share their efforts.

I can appreciate Zhoeben's concerns about marking and how this could possibly stiffle the creative freedom of the individual. Schools seem to find it necessary to give grades in art. Possibly to give parents an idea of how 'good' their children are at it compared to other subjects. Possibly to make art akin to other school subjects and thereby protect its legitimacy within the curriculum. I'm not sure.
Imagine how absurd it would be to go into a gallery and give the artworks grades. This would contradict the fact that there is no given criteria to grade art on. This leads me to the conclusion that schools may be 'teaching' art as something at which one can pass or fail, rather than fostering the personal creativity and artistic freedom of pupils to explore their own interests in their own way with their own personal goals.

Assessment using level descriptors at Key Stage 3 in Art reduces art practice to passing a series of objective targets in order to satisfy external demands for accountability and standardization across the curriculum.

Are we suggesting that, through this system of level assessments, students should continuously measure themselves against set criteria determined by QCA and in order to satisfy a panel of teachers' personal tastes? I cannot see how this fits in with the government's personalising learning agenda? Nor can I understand why we would want to make the focus of art, a competitive series of level hoop jumping?

Whereas applying levels might work well for Maths and other logical subjects with a clear sense of progression, art needs to be valued for its subjective nature and not categorized or standardized. It is true that certain skills and techniques can be measured in this way, but there is not enough time in the curriculum to insert continuous self-assessment through plenaries and peer marking in art; the result is that it replaces tactile learning and creative risk taking - key aims of an art education.

Formative assessment in the form of teacher comments, occasional plenaries and exhibition of work give the child ample opportunities to assess their own progress amongst their peers. Attributing them with a level, which they can then use to compare their progress with other subjects does not fundamentally help them progress in art. However, it might be useful for a technocrat at QCA to pump out statistics and then set more targets.

In the video, one black girl revealingly comments: "We would like to spend more time making, but I suppose talking about it is good as I will get a good level." I feel sadden by such comments as we are robbing students of the precious little time they already have in school to enjoy practical learning.

There is a certain irony surrounding the current assessment madness that has consumed schools, as QCA has acknowledged that levels are being abused and only need to really be given at the end of the year. My recommendation is to avoid using levels except for statutory requirements and spend most of your time allowing them to experiment, make mistakes, take risks and showcase their work throughout the school and in public.

This was just what I was looking for a very useful teacher discussion linked to attainment levels.