Progress levels(17 Posts)
Further to another post about my y4 dd's parents evening, I have checked her reports and it seems that the school is targeting her to make two sub levels of progress this year ((from 4c to 4a). Two sub levels is very much the "standard" level of progress expected by Ofsted.
My question is whether a G&T child should be capable of more progress than that per year? I totally understand that some will and some won't due to other factors and other children catching up but surely the fact that that they have identified (& continue to praise her) as G&T shuld mean that they should be prepared to support her I developing further and more rapidly if she is capable of it?
I have an appt at 4 to discuss further, any of your experience in this area would be gratefully received. Thank you.
I think a child who is G&T MAY make more progress than average. Or they may make average progress, keeping them the same distance 'ahead' of other children. Or they may make less than average progress, with other children catching up.
So on average, 'expecting' average progress seems reasonable - some parents of G&T kids struggle because once the children have reached certain levels, NO further progress is expected of them, which is of course absurd. But simply because a child is G&T, to expect MORE than average progress, would be just as wrong.
Expecting more than average progress MAY put your child under undue pressure. But if you have reason to feel that they actually could and should be making more progress than their peers, that the distance between them and their peers should be increasing, then you could discuss this with the teachers.
I suspect they won't change their 'expected progress' levels though. But that shouldn't stop your child from making more than expected progress! It's just a benchmark, really, to identify if a child is starting to lag. It shouldn't mean that the teaching is then adjusted to ensure your child does not make more progress than expected, that would be awfully bad teaching; purposefully holding a child back.
I think it depends on what kind of G&T... a technical best 3 in each class (i.e 10%) wouldn't be expected to make huge progress every year IMO but a child who really is exceptional and has a huge aptitude for the subject would pick things up faster, as long as it was maths or science.
Reading seems to require some life experience its hard to see how a child can keep racing ahead unless their life experiences and emotional intelligence are off the scale for some reason that I can't imagine.
Writing - is this just learning to punctuate and express things better? Or does it involve composition - as in a page of A4 not a paragraph. I have a child in year 7 who did well at primary but even now I am not sure of the answer!
2 sub-levels is standard at secondary because it is expected that a DC would progress 2 full levels at over a KS. The same expectation - 2 full levels over a KS is slightly different at primary simply because there are more years in KS2 than in KS3. So 2 full levels over KS3 = 6 sub-levels over 3 years = 2 sub-levels per year, and KS2 = 6 sub-levels over 4 years. Arguably, 4c-4a IS greater than expected progress at that age.
I'm speculating, but my tuppence is...
Ofsted expects a minimum 2 sub levels progress. So that's what they work to on paper.
Just because that's the target doesn't mean they won't aim any higher given a chance. It just gives them a baseline to compare to when auditing.
If they take pride in their work then they provide a supportive environment that should bring out everyone's natural ambition & ability, whatever that is.
Neither you or they really know what anyone's potential is. So their job is to provide opportunities and see what happens.
@HolidayCriminal it would be nice if what you write was true, but the problem comes when there are some children in the class who will struggle to achieve 1 sub level of progress and most fo the children will need a lot of help to get to the 2. If you were teacher where would you put your time and energy? If it were me, I'd
1. Get all the low hanging fruit on target for the 2 sublevels
2. Work on the outcomes for those not likely to make 2 sublevels of progress
and then if there if I have any time or energy left (i.e. if I see teaching as a vocation and I don't have a home to go) do the extra stuff that I receive little or no kudos for viz-
3. teach the most able who've already exceeded their government-set targets.
I think its this situation that the level 6 sats reporting is supposed to address.
I suspect you're speculating as much as I am, Dalziel.
DD's y6 teacher had no expectation of entering DD for L6 tests but she passed them anyway, so she must have been taught the material because it was right material for her rather than because they wanted her to pass a test.
So I guess we can only speak to our own experience.
L6 is very murky.
For instance one day Y6 DD came home announced she'd passed a KS2 SATs L6 maths past paper on the basis of the most recent threshold: the threshold for the paper she took was 25 and for last year's paper it was 33 out of 50. I doubt They[tm] are that poor at maintaining equivalent difficulty from one year to the next, so I think they they simply raised the bar.
L6 SATs maths is a mix of more difficult L5 and L6. I don't know where they draw the line between them, but DD's above pass was before she had been taught any specific L6 content by anyone i.e. she was very good at L5, but hadn't done any basic algebra etc.
Am I speculating? yes, completely! But its based on experience of putting 2 g&T children through primary school and seeing what they, and their more able peers achieved.
When Ds did L6 maths last year, he only worked towards it for 2 hours per week and even that only started after Christmas. He knew his stuff by the time of the exam in May though.
So, I thought surely this isn't the full level 6? It must only be a cut down version that's deemed suitable for primary school. However, two terms into secondary school and he's been assessed as a level 7 (along with several others in the top set), so maybe it is a proper measure after all??
I've looked through a "coursebook" that claims to cover KS3 maths and has colour-coded levels. A few parts are coded as specific levels, but most are ranges e.g. 4-5, 5-7, 6-8. Given one of the 6-8 topics I couldn't pick out which bit is 6 and which bit is 8, or figure out how you might teach one part without the other.
DD's school started the L6 after Christmas and she doesn't get taught maths outside school. I think she could do ~90% of what's in that coursebook now and a significant part of the remainder would be learning new context and terminology, as opposed to the underlying maths.
When dd got to secondary school several of the kids who passed L6 maths dropped down to L5 when teachers were asked how come they said it was because primary school simply don't have time to cover all of L6 so it's a cut down version and as far as the secondary teachers were concerned a complete waste of time.
Dd didn't do the L6 in primary school but is now in y7 at the same level as those who did.
"as far as the secondary teachers were concerned a complete waste of time."
I've heard much the same on primary side, except around here they tend to say it's because the secondary teachers will make them do it all over again regardless of their actual L6 competency.
I suggest OP just relaxes a bit. It easy to get hung up on the levels but in the greater scheme of things whether 4a or pushed a bit more and 5c if pretty irrelevant. An extra sub grade here or there is nothing. It can be lost or caught up very quickly in years 7 and 8 and indeed vary each time they are tested by a one or two sub levels. Worry more about whether she is enjoying maths and feels moderately challenged. This G&T tagging can be quite unhelpful at times.
I agree herts I don't especially like the G&T label.
Ofsted's definition of "expected progress" for KS2 is 2 levels over the 4 years, which equates to 1.5 sublevels progress per year. So actually a target of 2 sublevels in a year is more than expected progress.
G&T best left for summer evening drinks and left out of education.
Expected progress is at least two levels and even then it's a bit simplistic and dated now.
The pragmatic reality is more complex and the expected progress behind the scenes is based on starting points in terms of KS1 outcomes. It's supposed to be a little more nuanced than this, but it looks like schools need to be getting 14-15 average points KS2 progress (2 points per sub-level) to impress Ofsted with their Goodness[tm]. Get less than 13 now and you might have trouble.
That makes the simple two sub-levels per year rule not that far from genuine expected progress i.e. if you aim for that then you have ~1 sub-level as a buffer.
G&T is a rubbish label, but of course the system is systematically rubbish when it comes to children at the top end of the curve, so in a way it fits.
Join the discussion
Please login first.