Talk

Advanced search

Writing exemplifications

(53 Posts)
Pud2 Mon 08-Feb-16 22:14:52

Have you seen them, published today? Utter madness. The examples of expected writing for Y6 are high level 4 and for Y2, level 3. There is no way that most of our children will achieve expected standards despite being well taught. Why on earth does your average 11 year old need to know the difference between a coordinating and a subordinating conjunction, and who really needs to be able to identify a modal verb or a determiner at that age? The powers that be have clearly only ever met articulate, middle class children and not your average inner city child. Awful. It's setting both children, and teachers, up to fail.

elephantoverthehill Mon 08-Feb-16 22:41:57

I don't think I know it as an adult or have ever needed to.

bumbleclat Mon 08-Feb-16 23:17:09

Yes, I can not believe it sad

bigTillyMint Tue 09-Feb-16 07:07:19

Could you put a link up please?

It is utter madnesssad

Feenie Tue 09-Feb-16 07:16:02

www.gov.uk/government/publications/2016-teacher-assessment-exemplification-ks2-english-writing

www.gov.uk/government/publications/2016-teacher-assessment-exemplification-ks1-english-writing

So nice of them to bother showing us what 'expected' looks like - five months after we've all been teaching it. hmm

TeaT1me Tue 09-Feb-16 07:23:09

I think this is mad.

Pud2 Tue 09-Feb-16 18:35:36

Completely mad. The below expected writing samples are level 4. We reckon that our more able children (about 8 of them) will get expected and the rest will be below, and we are a fairly bog standard London, inner city school.

partystress Tue 09-Feb-16 19:37:57

Is it just me, or is the working towards sample actually crisper, clearer and more meaningful than the working within?

Pud2 Tue 09-Feb-16 20:26:19

I know what you mean Partystress. There's not much in it.

jarofcalm Tue 09-Feb-16 20:48:23

Bloody hell. I was year 2 last year and moderated. I think I'd have had a good chance of getting a level three for the "expected" exemplifications if I had enough examples.

melonribena Tue 09-Feb-16 21:04:34

I've taught year 2 for a long time. They all seem like a step up!

bumbleclat Tue 09-Feb-16 21:06:54

Does the tick chart that comes with the exemplification mean that the child has to be hitting all of the criteria for each given band in every piece of writing that they produce?

DraenorQueen Tue 09-Feb-16 21:10:12

I agree about the working towards being better.
Everyone who teaches EAL kids now will be devastated. My poor year sixes. 80% Czech Roma kids, working their bloody arses off with smiles on their faces.... and none of them stand the slightest chance of "being good enough."
I have never, ever been more sickened with education than I am now.

DraenorQueen Tue 09-Feb-16 21:11:28

I've been to an assessment update course tonight. We were told a child at ARE should have substantial evidence of EVERY statement. Just one not being sufficiently backed up means they can't achieve that grading. No more best fit.

bumbleclat Tue 09-Feb-16 21:18:04

I saw that yes, all statements have to be ticked which is strange.. What if a child has all of the expected bar one does that mean they're below expected even if they have all working towards ticked off?

bumbleclat Tue 09-Feb-16 21:20:08

They want to make us all look we are failing the children, force us into academies and then bring in a new scale to measure progress that will make them look wonderful.
<searches for a new career>

DraenorQueen Tue 09-Feb-16 21:22:26

Outrageous isnt it, bumbleclat? I read the Working Towards one and thought how DARE you label a child writing at this level a failure? How DARE you?

Thoroughly sick, as you can probably tell....

bumbleclat Tue 09-Feb-16 21:25:50

Yes, none of us teachers got into teaching armed with such a horrid, blunt tool to label our pupils with... There are more of us than there are of them- why aren't we all being more French about it?!

MrsKCastle Tue 09-Feb-16 21:40:27

I just spent a day assessing all my Y2 pupils against the writing criteria, which was pretty depressing. Now I've seen these exemplifications.... Well, I'll be struggling to get more than a handful of 'working at' let alone 'greater depth'. I know these children have made good progress in my class, I can see it in their books. And yet it looks as though my school and I are failing them.

melonribena Tue 09-Feb-16 21:46:20

Totally agree draenor, it's so demoralising

TeaT1me Tue 09-Feb-16 21:50:18

I understand it a bit but in my low economic whatever area so many parents came home llast summer thinking their child wasn't good enough and asking me what workbooks they should get their kids over the summer. It was heartbreaking. Ok kids just plodding along but no real concerns and parents seeing "below" and thinking they're failures. I hate the terminology.

More and more I feel like homeschooling (can't afford private) but that ties me know not working!!

bumbleclat Tue 09-Feb-16 21:50:43

I'm also now really confused about how I go about tracking progress from one term to the next without using the interim TA? Anyone?

Feenie Tue 09-Feb-16 22:03:13

I've been to an assessment update course tonight. We were told a child at ARE should have substantial evidence of EVERY statement.

I was told the same, but have tonight read different things re the handwriting statements, it's in the interim framework notes, the exemplification and the STA briefing notes from Friday. Will go and find a quote, hang on...

Feenie Tue 09-Feb-16 22:11:30

Handwriting

To clarify – children do not have to secure the handwriting elements of ‘expected’ in the interim assessment framework in order to be working at ‘expected’ but they do need them for ‘greater depth’ (for KS1, that is the last 3 bullet points and for KS2, the last bullet point). A child could be working at ‘greater depth’ in everything, but if he/she hasn’t secured the handwriting elements needed for ‘expected’, he must still be assessed as working within ‘expected. Handwriting must be consistent across the whole body of evidence.

PicInAttic Tue 09-Feb-16 22:56:12

Just back from a LA/STA assessment briefing where we were told all of the 'Expected' standards plus all of the expectations from 'Working towards' must be met (secure rather than best fit) except for handwriting. Told if a child has a physical incapability, you just disallow/ignore the statement; if capable of writing but not of joining legibly, even without any official SEN diagnosis, the child can achieve 'Expected' but not 'Working at greater depth'.
The demands of spelling (despite the existence of a specific and separate spelling test) and the implications for achieving 'Expected' in writing also caused controversy, disgruntlement and quite an intense discussion.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now