Age-related expectations: who decides?

The Expected Standard

The Ofsted guidance on assessment contains multiple references such as

pupils achieve the expected standards by the end of year

Unfortunately, there isn't any such thing as 'the expected standard' any more, except for Years 2 and 6. The 2014 National Curriculum has no attainment targets in it, and no levels. 
The DfE only says:

The curriculum must include an assessment system which enables schools to check what pupils have learned and whether they are on track to meet expectations at the end of the key stage.

So who decides what the 'expected standard' is for each year group?

The National Curriculum

It should be easy for Maths. After all the new National Curriculum sets out the suggested teaching objectives for each year group. Surely these make up 'the expected standard'!

But do we expect a child to be able to demonstrate every statement? What about 50%? Or 90%? Maybe some of those teaching objectives are more important than others?

We don't really know what 'the expected standard' is for Year 6 yet either. The abandoned 'Performance Descriptors' talked about 'the majority' of the elements, so that implies 50% of the objectives.  The new tests will cover the teaching from Years 3-6 and have an 'expected score' (which will be scaled to 100); we don't know what this will be yet (it used to change year on year anyway).

Assessment Systems

There seem to be two schools of thought on assessment systems. Some take all the statements and turn the yearly programmes of study into a checklist. Rising Stars has a system like this, exemplifying each statement at three levels for 20 pages. Some stick a set of key statements, often based around the work done by the NAHT.
We still have to decide whether children need all the 'Key Performance Indicators', or a given percentage of the whole lot.

What's the point of Assessment?

We've spent a lot of this year talking about assessment without levels in school. Some of that discussion revolves around why we are assessing children and who the assessments are for.

Ofsted have some helpful ideas (how often do you get to write that?) in their note on the use of assessment information. In the covering letter to schools, Michael Wilshaw writes about 3 purposes for assessment:

1. Raise achievement

The primary reason teachers assess is to make their teaching better. They need to know which children are achieving learning intentions, which children are on the way, and which children need support. With the expectation in maths that most children access the same curriculum at the same pace, it becomes really important that we  know what impact our teaching is having.
There's no point assessing the children's attainment in our classrooms if that information just goes 'up' to leaders, parents and governors. It has to go down too, and be shared with children and impact on planning. The quicker that happens, the more impact the assessment process has.
Good day to day assessment involves having clear objectives, making judgements about how secure the children are and acting on it rapidly to raise the attainment of all, but particularly the children who struggle the most.

2. Identify pupils who are falling behind

As a maths leader, I need to know which children are falling behind the expected standard, and to do something about it. This might be working with the teacher to improve provision in the classroom. It might be working with the intervention leader to plan a focused support. It might be working with the parents or carers to support learning at home.
For me, this involves having a core set of expectations in maths for each year group that are essential by the end of the year. Teachers can then talk about pupils who are missing key skills (often from the previous year), that prevent them making progress.

3. Report to parents

Schools need to let parents know how their children are doing. Ofsted talks about pupils who 'achieve the expected standard', and pupils who 'need to catch up'. That's very black and white: the sheep and the goats.
To be fair, we've been reporting to parents in this way for a while - 'Jane is working at 3b, and that's the expected standard for a year 4'. But it means schools defining 'the expected standard', and how much of it you have to be working at (50%? 90%?)

What does it look like?

I think this gives a sensible model of assessment practice:

Day to day assessment

Teachers plan well-defined objectives for their blocks of lessons, linked to the curriculum, and make judgements about which children are meeting them. They allow enough time for all children in the class to meet the objectives, and intervene to support those who don't.
 This doesn't involve any evidence, tests or external involvement, other than TAs.

Progress meetings

Once or twice a term, teachers make judgements about progress on a set of core objectives (the really important ones) and come to a pupil progress meeting with the subject leader, where they discuss which children need further support. Ideally, the good day to day assessment practice should provide enough support to make these judgements.

Reporting

Lastly, there is an 'end of year' standard which pupils are judged on. Again, if this is based on the 'core objectives', it should not involved any extra testing. It does involve standardisation and moderation, because (like a level judgement) there will be plenty of children on the 'border' between judgements. This standard can be used to judge progress (of children and cohorts) and to report to parents.