National Curriculum levels removed and not replaced(56 Posts)
"As part of our reforms to the national curriculum , the current system of levels used to report childrens attainment and progress will be removed. It will not be replaced."
Maybe they could all boast about how much Latin their children can recite, or how much Chaucer they understand.
When's the next cabinet reshuffle?
Now, now, mrz, don't get carried away, how would mumsnetters boast about how clever/gifted/able their child is if they don't have book bands and levels to boast about!
and with the new curriculum focusing on phonics we could scrap book banding
My Deputy Head is really keen on this idea. I am being
teacher's pet helpful and trialling it with my Yr 8 & 9 classes. It works really well. I have put together progress grids for the projects we're doing (in the case of yr8, based in part on the success criteria they have created) and each student is able to see where they are, in terms of skills, and what they need to do next. It's kind of logical, and feels very free. The kids, after one or two "but what level is it?" questions have embraced it. My line manager informed me on Friday that the Deputy wants to see it in action and that if it works, she may well "wet her pants".
What I mean is, I don't trust the Government. But if my head teacher told me to just go ahead and teach, and ignore levels, I would snog her.
I want to hate this but I'm quite excited at the (admittedly small) prospect of being freed from assigning numbers to children.
Without national curriculum levels, how will mumsnetters be able to boast about their toddlers being level 6? They'll have to just rely on reading colours.
Personally I dislike the whole level business and chasing after progression, my experience is narrow, 2 kids and 1 village state primary, but it all seems stressful for teachers and pupils, and sometimes contrived. Yr 5 son's idea of writing an essay is based on getting lots of different tricks into 1 side of A4, ie simile, short punchy sentence, clauses, ill iteration, etc. it makes for very stilted reading. As a Child I was taught English well, but was not so surrounded by the very evident need to improve with written aims and achievements for every bit of work. Yr 2 kid is just stressed by the idea of levels and worries about not being good enough. Perhaps it's the school, perhaps it's the kids, I don't pressure them and don't bring up the subject of levels, but both of them do, frequently. From yr r they have both known the reading levels of their classmates and made comparisons. Too competitive for my liking for 4 yr olds.
Won't academies be able to choose whether they follow National curriculum anyway? With the new History Curriculum a lot of teachers would be keen for this option (from what I have read).
If they 'opt out' NC levels will be meaningless. Maybe there will be more academies.
There seems to be no room for understanding that if children are intensely pressured to get high grades in Y6 they might not cope so well with the same pressure when they are in the more difficult time of adolescence. Progress can never always be linear in real life human beings, as good as the teachers are the children aren't and shouldn't be robots.
I think the selective school discussion is sidetracking main issue, however in our areas the selectives get 99-100 % A*-C each year, the majority at A*-A. They are super-selectives though, and the number trying for each place is ridiculous!
I am shocked at the removal of NC levels, and it really worries me how they will expect school to demonstrate progress, however I had a 'vision' of this coming when gove continued to force forward the free school/academy programme- if schools can be exempt from the NC, then they wouldn't be reporting outcomes in the same way, whcih effectively makes it impossible to compare 2 schools, which is what he wants, to eliminate the farce 'parental choice' has created in the admissions system.
When all schools in England are equally poor, parents will finally go back to just sending their children to the nearest one!
Um...(in Kent, as entrance is on VR, nVR, and maths) Dc at highly selective grammar may enter at 5 or 6 for maths, but 3 or 4 for English, and therefore a B may be on track.
Announcement to follow: Free schools may be selective.
Same in Bucks, L&S. I wondered why Wilshaw targeted the non-selectives with his comments about L5 children not reaching 'potential'.
I haven't been able to check all Kent grammar school for all results from last year, but of the 32 grammar schools (that I've seen listed) only two report 100% A-C last year.
100% A-C is normal for a grammar, L&S.
But this is what is expected of a Level 5 child:
'Ofsted's definition of "most able" is children who achieve level 5 or above for both reading and maths in Sats tests at age 11. To fulfil "potential", they should get an A* or A in both English and maths at GCSE five years later.'
Therefore, selective schools are failing bigtime (according to Ofsted).
Surely there's a difference between saying something and having any hope of delivering it. Kent clearly has the ability to deliver 100% A-C in two of its schools, by selecting pupils and teaching well.
Has any system delivered 100% A/A*, and if so, what system was it?
Not according to Wilshaw. He said that children were failing if they got L5 in Y6, schools had 'failed them' if they didn't get A/A* at GCSE.
Success at GCSE is rated from A-C, so if a huge proportion (say 100% as happened with two Kent grammars last year) achieve A-C, then that is viewed as a sign of great success, no matter if all pupils received B grades for English.
I think the statement that 'many schools are failing clever children' is ridiculous, looking at my local area.
Wilshaw said that many non-selective schools fail clever children - i.e. those who attain L5 in Y6 don't always go on to get A/A* at GCSE.
I live in a selective area. It is a fact that most children enter grammar school at L5. In my nearest Grammar, nearly 50% of pupils are only getting a B at GCSE in English.
Selective education is so successful.
It's a bit like trying to compare the SAS, which is highly selective, with the infantry, which isn't.
Private schools can select their pupils in ways that most state schools cannot. They also have more discretion over what they teach. I don't think the two can be compared really, they're so different.
Very similar to new early years criteria in England, euphemia.
(Gove goes back to Scottish roots?)
I am a senior member of staff in a very large state primary school and I have a 2.5yo.
My DS will be going to an independent prep. I want them to stretch him to the extent of his ability and trust that they will. I don't expect any formal consideration of his ability until Y6 when he may or may not enter for the pre-tests of selective senior schools.
If formative assessment does not suggest he is super-selective school material he will not undergo any summative assessment until CE in Y8.
In my state school (which 'requires improvement') we summatively assess every pupil every term and still our pupil tracking is questioned.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now »
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.