Reception Teachers - any truth to "marking pupil premium children less generously so there is room to show improvement"?

[TheBrilloPad]

The above, basically.

We attend a veeeeeerryyy well off (religious) school, where the last school census showed just six PP children across the whole school (less than 0.4% of children are shown as FSM on the last school census).

End of year reports have come out for reception, and I was really pleased with DDs. She's the youngest in her class - still 4 - and it said all the things you want to hear as a parent; exceptionally kind, praises other children for good work, polite etc. She got "meeting expectations" in all of the 17 areas. I was really pleased.

BUT, I have seen on social media TWO parents in her class post their actual child's report up - they have got "exceeding expectations" in ALL 17 areas. I know these children well and spend a lot of time with them, and the kids are always writing each other letters etc, so I have a rough idea of what they can do, and I'm really really surprised they have got exceeding in all areas (one of them still spells 'mummy' as 'mumy' consistently), and I would say generally they work at a fairly similar level to DD. I think they have been marked really generously, whereas DD has been marked realistically.

A TA friend who works at the school said to me "your DD is pupil premium though, isn't she? That's why. You wouldn't give a PP child an 'exceeding' mark in reception, regardless of their actual ability, as you need to be able to show improvement in PP children, so they'll mark her as meeting expectations for now, so they can show what an impressive school they are when she achieves well in junior school".

Is this correct? Is there truth to this?

Overall I'm still thrilled with DDs report. What matters to me right now is the kind of person she is, because the maths and english is stuff that can be worked on when she's older. But I do want to know if this is something I'm likely to encounter with the school grading her more harshly than others as I want to make sure they aren't damaging her confidence by not acknowledging areas where she is excelling.

If there's no truth to it and it's a load of nonsense, fine! I celebrate her report regardless because I'm so proud of how far she's came this year.

[LoveWine123]

Following this thread as I have similar suspicions. My child has English as a second language and has made an absolutely amazing progress this year (confirmed by several teachers) and is working with the most able children in his class and often doing work in the year above in reading and maths in particular, but you wouldn't be able to tell this from his school report. I don't particularly care what the report says as long as the school is helping him reach his potential in practice. They have been extremely inclusive and supportive this year and he enjoys the school so overall very happy, but definitely the same thoughts as yours have crossed my mind.

[Helix1244]

Im not sure it is PP.
I think some parents

• are more pushy
  
• work them loads at home
  
• understand what needs to be done to tick the boxes
  

Kids

• age difference
  

-personality ie a child who is calm and outgoing will run over and show a teacher something

• come from different setting and some will already have evidenceand be maybe marked as exceeding already. Few of the youngest would have reading, writing, maths evidence of exceeding straight away.
  

Teachers cant really know a 4-5yo they behave differently for different people and make huge leaps.
They don't necessarily read with the kids it can be TA and parents.
DS got met for everything in yr r. In fact imo was low for the PSED but should definitely have exceeded reading (reading grey/brown bands), and probably not passed the writing.

I think the system encourages them to go low until yr 6 because they need to show progress. dS wouldnt have made and for the whole of yr 1 in reading.

I would think with teading above blue / green band might be exceeding

[brilliotic]

We have the opposite suspicion!

Been asking, over the last few weeks, how the school spends PP+ on our child (also YR). Finally received a letter claiming that there is no need as DC meets expectations in all areas and even exceeds in some - in fact we've been asked to basically provide evidence that there is an attainment gap between DC and peers, as precondition for PP being spent on DC in the future.

Same day got report with 10 'meets' and no fewer than 7 'exceeds'. The 'exceeds' in reading & writing are rather ludicrous. I looked at the descriptors and DC just about meets those for 'expected', but is a long way away from those needed for 'exceeds'.

So we suspect they've inflated DC's grades in order to make us stop asking about PP. And to be able to legitimise not spending any PP money on DC. Only they don't realise that PP (and especially PP+) is to be spent on a) raising attainment, even if a child is achieving well already, and b) closing the attainment gap. They seem to think that just b) applies.

[LoveWine123]

This is all rather disappointing to read. It seems to be all games and politics rather than an actual reflection on children's abilities. I am making a mental point not to pay too much attention to these things in the future.

[JoJoSM2]

I’ve never come across such politics/conspiracy theories in practice. I think teachers mark to the best of their ability.

[sirfredfredgeorge]

I’ve never come across such politics/conspiracy theories in practice. I think teachers mark to the best of their ability

However every bit of research has shown that marking is heavily related to biases, so whilst it is unlikely I would agree that it's a deliberate conspiracy, there is a likely difference in marking based on the background of the child. And of course it's actually pretty difficult to make any sort of accurate judgement - the evidence based schemes are what attempt to address this but as noted by Helix kids willingness to perform and provide evidence differs unrelated to actual ability.

brillotic's description does sound more suspicious of course.

[TeenTimesTwo]

brilliotic Your school sounds hopeless when it comes to PP+.
Can you contact the head of virtual schools for your area and get them involved?

[brilliotic]

I don't blame the teachers at all, if anything I think that sometimes in rare cases, teachers are put under pressure by SLT.
A fairly common instruction I imagine may be 'we grade conservatively, we'd rather have positively surprised parents later on than loads of parents demanding to know why their child's progress has stalled. So unless you are very confident of a child's abilities, and that they will be able to keep it up, go for the lower grade.' And then the bias may come into play, as the teacher is just less confident in some children so despite same 'evidence' will give them different grades.

I also believe it is 'known' that infant-only schools tend to have slightly higher KS1 SATS than through primaries, which would indicate that some measure of 'politics' regarding assessing generously or conservatively is indeed at play.

But LoveWine you are right not to pay too much attention to early primary school 'grades'. There is so much that makes them unreliable (apart from unlikely conspiracies and politics) that I would focus on the narrative, not on the grade, especially if it is about a distinction between 'expected'/'meeting' and anything higher.

[BackforGood]

100% what brilliotic said.
I personally have never come across it in relation to PP, but it is commonly known that - due to massive Gvmnt interference and politics, every school, every teacher has to "show progress" against whatever criteria is in fashion that year. Conservative marking when the child first starts at the school certainly makes that easier. Every time a child moves from one school to a separate school you will find the receiving school claims over inflation by the school / Nursery the child is leaving (perfectly possible, as they need to jump through their hoops). Also perfectly possible the receiving school needs to be 'harsh' or 'conservative' in their marking to be able to later prove unrealistic 'progress targets'. Almost certainly a combination of both.

However, OP, comparison is the thief of joy. You said you were very happy with your dc's report. Leave it at that. Personally, I think I'd be unfriending anyone who thinks posting their child's school reprt on Facebook is a normal thing to do.

[noblegiraffe]

Ofsted won’t be looking at internal data for PP students any more so if they are undermarking for Ofsted they’re behind the times.

[BubblesBuddy]

I think the new Ofsted Framework has given the school that Brilliotic’s DC go to the perfect excuse to do nothing for her DC. The school are arguing there is no gap and that’s fine because Ofsted are not going to look at it or how money is spent. Just general strategy. However most DC have some aspect of their education that could be improved and every child should receive something from the school to boost this. I’m not sure anyone will enforce this though. I do know schools where pp money has been spent on DC who are doing well but it’s been used to pay for school trips, external activities etc. but not every £ of the allocation for that child. Clearly setting up initiatives or funding a TA can benefit lots of DCs. This should be evidence based as to effectiveness but I don’t think every £ of pp money should be directed away from a pp child whether Ofsted inspect it or not.

[Charmatt]

You've got such small numbers of PP children at the school that it is not considered valid data. Anyway Ofsted no longer look at internal progress data.

[sizeup]

Progress from one area of school to the next for specifically PP children isn't measured in any great detail, not externally anyway. Maybe the school measure it internally but like someone else said this isn't what OFSTED look at anymore. It could be that your child was maybe borderline so they have erred on caution.

[sizeup]

PP money can be spent on subsidising things like trips or other extra curricular things that PP children will benefit from. It doesn't have to be all related to academic stuff or specific and personal to each child.

[Nix32]

This doesn't happen in any of the schools I've taught in. Playing those games doesn't benefit anyone. We assess fairly and realistically.

[ourkidmolly]

I can't get over people posting reports on Facebook. How bloody weird. I couldn't be friends with people who indulge in that type of showboating.
On another note, your school census data doesn't make sense to me. Less than 0.4% being equivalent to 6 pupils would mean the school has in excess of 1500 pupils. Is that true? There's only a few schools in UK with that number, none of which are religious.
I'd also say your TA friend is extremely unprofessional in disclosing that type of information to you. If she's loose lipped like that with you, she'll be speaking about your child with others too.

[Herocomplex]

Doesn’t moderation make this improbable? That’s why it’s in place. Everyone would have to be in on it.

[BubblesBuddy]

I think it’s 4% with 150 children so 6 in the school. That makes more sense.

I agree that Facebook posting is just awful. What have parents become?

[Helix1244]

What could be happening is they set the kids so the top sets get exceeded. Top sets being largely the eldest.

[JoyceDivision]

Depends on the head / SLT: if they want to see certain results it can be manipulated.

A culture of bullying, fear, nqts put under pressure to produce what a head or sit want to see. .. t happens in a lot of schools.

Moderation usually overseen by SLT so if they want to see results they will be able to steer events.