This is a Premium feature
Y7 reports - GCSE numbers?(40 Posts)
We’ve received a first report for y7. They have been given a score along the lines of GCSE 1-9 for each subject. Any idea what would be “age-related expectation” for this point in Y7?
Trying not to be a nutter, but have a meeting with school about other issues next week and want to be prepared.
There are no age related expectations for Y7 and definitely none that would assign GCSE grades to Y7 work.
The whole thing is a pile of made-up bollocks. Don’t expect any consistency between subjects either.
We get GCSE predictions/chances from our baseline testing (MidYIS), but only report on CWA Pearson Steps.
In my subject (MFL) we had to give targets based on GCSE numbers. Typically these would range from below a 1 for a weaker student to a low 3 for a very able student.
Agree with Noble tho, it's a load of bull. At this stage in any new subject a child would be nowhere near a 1.
Thanks. Unfortunately “bull” seems to be the school’s theme so far 🙁
At what point is it reasonable to actually find out how a child is getting on academically? School is not going well in other respects and we’re wondering whether it’s worth continuing if he’s not getting anything positive out of it.
As PP have said, it’s all a load of made up rubbish. Every school in the country have made up their own little system since national curriculum levels were abolished.
Does your report give you something like under/on/above target or expectations? Beware, though, that your child could work at the same level as another child, but because of different targets their under/on/above score might look very different.
Do you have a parents evening coming up? You could ask for clarification then.
We’ve just got a list of subjects and grades. No indication of above/below target or where DC should be or progress etc. We’ve got a meeting next week anyway, but I was hoping to find some info on how DC was doing beforehand so I can prepare. If he’s doing less well than expected, it would be useful to know as school is not going well. If he’s achieving well regardless, that is also useful information for us. I’m feeling that school will tell me any old thing that makes them look good and gets me out of the meeting, so I was hoping I could pin some meaning onto this report!
My child (who is in set 1) had targets of a level 3 or 4 in year 7
@FoxyDog1234 That’s useful. So target for 3 or 4 by the end of the year or at this point? Assume set 1 is the top ability set - grammar or comp? Sorry!
Having just marked Y11 MFL mocks I would say an aspirational Y7 target in MFL could be 3. A 2 is probably realistic.
Sorry, my post wasn't clear, I was talking about Yr 7 there.
OP be aware that schools have different systems so it's risky to compare.
It also depends on the subject. Maths eg would be a higher target. I would focus at this stage on his effort and behaviour in class and whether he is making progress.
Yet for maths assuming a grade per year you’d expect a top set kid to be a grade 4/5. Not that that is at all meaningful!
Hard to tell if he is making progress. He is in top sets for subjects they set, but says the work seems rather easy. School says he behaves and report says he makes excellent effort in most subjects (apart pe and art and design, which don’t come naturally to him due to disability - these are effort “good”). But he is a target in school and on the journey there and back, miserable, says they are not learning much because it’s easy and/or disruption in class.
So I’m wondering if the work is ok, is he actually struggling or coasting, are school expectations low (academically and behaviourly). Is he miserable because of academics or because the mob is focussed on him. Is there any point in being there.
So was hoping the report would give me some indication - but apparently it doesn’t!
In maths test results might give you a benchmark? If it’s easy, is he getting close to 100% on tests and how do his scores compare to others in his set?
I will ask that - good idea. They apparently did CATS tests -is it reasonable to ask for the results and whether he has peers? I wouldn’t like him to be an outlier. Doubt he’s a genius though, just a bit worried we have made a bad school choice re cohort.
He’s only been there a matter of weeks, and most of these teachers only seem him once a week or so -how accurate can they be on a report this early on?
Most teachers will have seen him twice a week (MFL, history, geography) or more eg maths, english, so that's at least 20+ lessons, unless he is very quiet and under the radar they will have some idea IME. I left my old school in December but I could have told you lots about the year 7s I had only seen since Sept.
Dd was year 7 last year and top sets for all. Her end of yr7 targets were 4d for all subjects except new ones like German which she'd never done before - her target for that was a 1s and that was top set.
Ours are very clearly tracked. At start of year 7, They were given target gcse grade based on year 6 sats. This was shown on a 5 year graph
The end of year 7 expected target grade was based on what she'd need if she progressed linear. She was also given a challenge target. She's assessed every 6 weeks and her results are plotted on the chart for us to see.
Each test at 6 weeks they're given a grade
Sorry not finished - when their test is marked, it will be returned with DD score along with detsils of the lowest,average and highest score in class
Our school gave us 'these are the scores we would expect from a really high achieving student' list. It was all over the place as maths and English they were around a 4-5 whereas MFL they were only around a 1-2. It might be worth asking them what a high achieving child might get. If your child is top set and not struggling then you can probably assume that they are close to that high achieving theoretical child.
I guess the question is whether they would be achieving more in a different school. For maths I think that you need to discount much of the repetition, it seems fairly standard to spend the first term revising prior topics from junior school because if they have missed any bits then it can be hard to build on that shakey foundation. In history if you didn't fully understand the causes of the second world war in yr6 it won't affect your understanding of the rise of the Roman empire in yr7. In maths if you don't understand Algebra then you will not get quadratic equations.
This was shown on a 5 year graph
Buttercup, I’m afraid you’re being fed a pile of crap masquerading as science.
I'm a teacher - though not secondary and there's always methods to predict grades and of course progress is never linear but based on assumptions and predictions - in same way year 2-6 sats are predicted
In some ways it's pretty important in terms of teacher expectations eg my DD is in year 6. She aced her year 2 sats but made little progress in year 3/4/5 (crap Ofsted report picked this up). Anyway teacher was happy to see her coast in year 6 until I reminded her of her year 2 sats. Suddenly she's had all sorts extra support - even though she's in top 30 out of 60 and above expected. She's just not progressed enough compared to year 2. This is why I think the graphs good - because teachers seems to go by it
Ds2's school uses this system. I think their average for Y7 is a 2. They put in a Y9 prediction as well. By the end of Y8, DS2 was hitting some of his Y9 predictions so I suspect those will be tweaked in the next report! Sometimes the grades are explained so a particular grade equates to what you can do in MFL, which is helpful, but the rest of the time it's not clear at all.
My dss' school has a grade 1-9 system for KS3 and then a different grade 1-9 system for KS4. The former supposedly relates to how well staff think they are doing within the ks3 syllabus and the latter relates to their expected GCSE result, so a child could get, say, an 8 at the end of ks3, but won't be an 8 still at the start of ks4, as the syllabus and exams they are being measured against has changed. It is not therefore a good idea to assume that a 2 or 3 in one school means the same thing as a 2 or 3 in another, given that some schools clearly use one continuous numbering system from y7 all the way through to year 11 and others separate out ks3 and ks4. Either way, in all honesty, I don't set much store by the numbers, unless they are miles apart from what the school said it was expecting, in which case it must mean something!
there's always methods to predict grades
Oh I agree there are statistical methods of setting GCSE targets in Y7 from KS2 data, but you do realise that those computer-generated targets change every year your child goes up the school? Each time there is a fresh set of Y11 data, that gets plugged into the system and the computer churns out a new set of numbers for each pupil, that may be different to the old set of numbers. What does that do to the graph? In addition, these computer generated targets are averages and should only be applied to a cohort of children, not to an individual child. It’s nonsense what schools are doing, saying a kid is failing if they’re not meeting a target, or doing well if they’re exceeding, when that will always happen because they’re average targets for a cohort.
And how on earth do you think that a test of the sort taken every 6 weeks (so not very comprehensive at all) could possibly be plotted with any sort of accuracy on a graph which is based on GCSE grades?
It’s all made up.
Please login first.