These targets are L5 for what subject?(21 Posts)
* States 2 valid hypothese [sic] of different types (ie 1 correlate and 1 compare)
* Completes correct grouped frequency tables and uses it to compare 2 groups e.g. via modal class or graphs
* Compares 2 groups by interpreting the results for mean, mode or median e.g.... So on average boys are slower
* Draws clear well labelled scatter graph
* States correlation of scatter graph correctly
* Draw simple conclusions and justifies them from the evidence produced
In maths that's a mix of level 5, 6 and 7 work.
Oh hang on, level 5? No, they are not all level 5 maths targets!
Sociology, psychology? But not level 5 surely?
It was maths.
DS in yr8.
He flubbed it, says he got the worst mark in the class, told he barely scraped a L2a, but few did well (one person got 7b, apparently, I can list those criteria like, if anyone wants).
I thought it looked like it should be science, most of it is about scientific method, no? I couldn't understand why this was under "math". DS a bit of a slacker, so I'm not complaining about poor mark, just confused that this is "math".
DS gets good marks in his science classes .
Intrigued that NGiraffe says that they are a mix of L5-7, though! They are explicitly stated as the L5 indicators on DS guidance sheet. Can't believe DS teacher just made them up, must have had them off some official source.
Oh well, glad that others didn't see a good fit, either.
It sounds made up to me, scatter graphs for instance are definitely level 6. Modal class from grouped data is level 7.
Here are the official level descriptors (data handling is on page 2, on the right.)
Oh, it definitely comes under maths though, statistics is a branch of maths.
I'm wondering now if there has been confusion about the mark scheme. I think that 5 on the guidance isn't actually level 5, but 5 marks out of 8, which is how the old GCSE data handling coursework used to be marked, in 3 sections. (I think, it's been a while). That would make much more sense, in terms of the teacher having got the guidance from somewhere. Did the teacher tell them it was a level 5? Are they a new teacher who might not have done GCSE coursework and misunderstood the mark scheme?
I think your DS has been marked against a GCSE coursework mark scheme thinking it is KS3 levels.
I've misplaced the sheet which is frustrating.
Don't know answers to those questions. There were 7 sections on the guidance sheet, each labeled Level 2 (or 3 or 4 etc., up to 8) with a list of criteria below each. So it seemed like usual NC levels I vaguely understand. Tickbox assessment and all.
it's different to how I was taught simple probability & stats, maybe better, not sure.
Here's an example of a GCSE data handling mark scheme. The 5 mark section seems very similar to what you posted in your OP. Instead of being a level 5, that would actually be more like a GCSE grade D (level 6).
Is your DS going to be taking GCSE Statistics? If he is he'll have to do a piece of coursework very similar to the task it sounds like he was set.
Thanks for your help, It is going to take me years & I'm sure I'll still fail to get my head around UK GCSEs. I can but strive.
He's in y8, doesn't start GCSEs for 15 months, no interest whatsoever in stats! He thinks he's going to slip down a math group in new timetable due to those poor marks, though.
He was a victim of failed mugging on Tues so off school yesterday & we had some nice chats about his future, he's already decided on Sandhurst (??). I am pushing him towards chemistry in meantime but really, I'll be pleased if he gets any Uni degree (ex-poly included).
In 10 months I will be starting a thread asking for "best GCSE options for the bright but Can't-Be-Arsed".
I could start my own thread, but as I also have a bright but can't be arsed son who I thought was ok at maths, can I hijack a mo?
For months he's told me that he's near the bottom of the class and 'loads' of the others are working at L7. He got a solid 5B at the end of Y6 and has the same now in Y7 (I know they often don't officially make progress in Y7 thanks to inflated SATs so that doesn't worry me) .
I confidently told him that L7 was fairly unusual in Y7. Then on parents evening I did the upside down reading thing and bloody hell, about 2/3 of the class are indeed L7s! They're not set - setting doesn't happen till Y8. This is a pretty normal comprehensive, too.
So, does he have an exceptionally high number of clever schoolmates? Or is ds lagging behind?
It sounds like your son is in a bright group. DD ended year 7 on a 7C, but hasn't really moved on since then. She is in the top set for maths though. I know the lower sets in year 8 are still on level 5, so please don't worry.
Hijack away .
Jenai, are the GCSE results generally well above avg? DS school is pretty medium attaining, well below avg results in 2012 GCSE results. I honestly don't know which sets he's in, either (top or medium or what).
2/3 on a level 7?! That is an extraordinarily high proportion!
If you think about it, if they are a level 7 at this stage of Y7 then they would be definitely expecting an A* at GCSE. But nationally only about 5% of pupils get an A* in maths.
I'd be wondering how that level 7 was assessed, tbh. Normally, the only reliable way of assessing a level in maths is to do a full SATs paper, but this usually only happens as an end of year exam.
My school has a good maths department (over 80% A*-C in maths), we'd probably expect 15-20% to get an A*.
Bugger, realise I highjacked this thread and then disappeared sorry
Had to do some digging to get the maths (as opposed to the maths and English) A*-C - 64%. 21% got an A* or an A. The overall 5 A*-C including maths and English is 48% I think.
I have a feeling it might have been more like 1/3 L7s though and I had slightly exaggerated it in my own mind (had to close my eyes and try to remember very carefully).
It's a fairly large school - 8 form entry. I wonder if a particularly bright little gang from the same maths-focussed primary ended up together - they do try to keep friends together when they organise tutor groups.
One of the themes throughout parents evening was that ds seemed a bit intimidated by some of his louder, "cleverer" (NOT the term they used) classmates. I'm not too worried about this for now because the very fact that they brought this to our attention suggests to me that his teachers are pretty on the ball.
Join the discussion
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.