to think GCSE targets of 9 is not right in year 7

I decided that they were ridiculous in Year 7 - my son got a decent 11+ score, so was flight pathed as a 7/8 in all subjects - including things like Art (which he is terrible at) and French (which he was even worse at).

But, even things like science, which weren't examined - it made no sense at all.

I wrote to school and told them my thoughts, their response was equally as daft and I made it very clear that I thought it was a load of rubbish!

I think that set 9 is high because my sis said is low only set 2 and 3is high

This blanket approach is idiotic

I don't know how it's done now but when I was working we were sent a grade predictions for Year 7 pupils based on their SATs scores and they covered every subject. I recall showing these to some of my Year 10s, they were sent retrospectively for older pupils, they had hysterics! One was preducted A*s across the board, including Sports Studies, a subject he was as good at as I am a tight-rope walker.
It was a statistical exercise.

Also - the flight path covers the whole curriculum so her bit rubbish subjects like PE come up as 'Below expected level' even when the effort grade is ' Very good' which is very demoralising.

Yes, this drives me bonkers too - I've tried to talk to some places about this, and all I've got so far is how hard it to get data for things like PE or art to make predictions on (or for subjects they've never done before...), but that doesn't make using their English and maths scores or similar academic testing a good idea! Schools seem stuck having to make some sort of prediction for inspectors or trusts when it makes no sense...

DS had targets of 9 for everything in Year 7. It’s seems ridiculous to give him a target for subjects he’s never done before based on how well he did at maths and English in primary school. He was always below target in things like art and drama because they weren’t his thing. He also never got any teacher recognition awards because even when he got a 9 at the end of the year, he was still only on target. There was loads of treats and rewards for exceeding target except for the set 1 kids with 9 targets.

They revised a lot of them down in year 8, obviously good at maths doesn’t translate to good at drama.

We used to have the red colouring on the reports and tbh it was really disheartening. DS1 was given a pathway of 6/7 in yr 11 and even though he was making good progress the report with red all over it was awful.

Thankfully they have now changed it and don't use colours just say whether the child is above, at or below their expected progress.

DS2 has just started secondary and is predicted 9's, however although he was getting 3/4's on his report he was still below target as his targets are so high!

My child is on an excelling 8/9 flight path. I have told her that she can ignore it. As long as she feels she's mostly working hard then that's enough.

It's annoying for her because she lives for praise and she can never get better than 'at expected level' because expected level is excelling. Whereas if she was on a lower flightpath she could exceed expectations.

Also - the flight path covers the whole curriculum so her bit rubbish subjects like PE come up as 'Below expected level' even when the effort grade is ' Very good' which is very demoralising.

DC is Y7 at a grammar. School haven't told us results of the CATS (as yet). End of term report covers their behaviour in class, engagement with learning and organisation/homework. It says that next term there will be information on progress and attainment.

I think having a 4-8+ range or even having 7+ as the top, particularly at Y7, has more benefits and fewer risks & really, I think shows a better understanding of the system on how their end grades will depend somewhat on other people's marks (for better ot for worse).

@Crunchytoastandbutter Depends on the school or trust's policy - this all varies so widely, but the ones I know have a minimum of 4 as their target or expected grade and not to list below that unless there is a very exceptional circumstance (as in, it's listed as a possibility in policy paperwork, but I've not seen it done. IME, it's would be more expected to reduce the number of GCSEs a child does if there is a major concern still closer to KS4).

I'd challenge it. When I was at high school we had a similar system brought in when I was in year 10. We got our predicted grades and a traffic light system. We had to get 80% percent of our grades green and the rest amber. Any reds we had to see our head of year. I was set A as my target for all my subjects apart from maths who gave me an A as a target. Therefore I could never achieve anything above 1 green (and an A in maths wasn't ever going to happen). I was consistently pulled in front of the head of year for not achieving 8 subjects green even though it was actually impossible and when I start getting multiple reds for achieving As I was pulled infront of the head teacher! It totally knocked my confidence and the pressure meant I didn't achieve the grades I actually should have got. In the long term it doesn't matter, I switched school for my A levels went to uni, got my PhD etc but I still remember how completely unfair it was and the pressure to perform well 20 years later!

I am new to all this as have a DC starting school in secondary next year who is behind in all subjects. Does that mean that in Year 7 they will be told that they are likely to only get a 1-3 or whatever the marks might be? Surely not - I can't think of anything more damaging to a child's already self esteem. So you can work as hard as you like but are unlikely to get above a certain mark - how despressing!
And agree - also very stressful for an able child expected to get top marks.

This has been the case for DS2, he's Yr10 now and the way they tend to award merits means as he can't exceed, he gets fewer of them. Which in itself doesn't bother him, but last year the Achievement Director gathered all those with insufficient points into a corridor to tell them to do better(!).

He really struggles with English but is predicted a 9. A 5 might be a stretch.

Oh my I hate these GCSE flight paths. My Y8 DS is aware his school expect him to fail everything (SEN diagnosed late), and as a result he feels everyone thinks he’s useless. So the lower targets don’t help anyone either.

He’s old enough - and intelligent enough by the sounds of it - for you to talk about how the school sets targets, and your concerns.

ljjk I have no problem telling a student that this is what they are capable of if they work hard and have the odd bit of a following wind. But setting a blanket target of 9s is not going to help a student achieve their potential, it's only going to add a level of stress and that isn't useful. In the current situation where there is no SATs data to go on, a school would do far better to tell the parent that they believe a student has [fill in academic potential] but that they have insufficient data and will build target information as time goes on and they get to know the student.

My DDs' school used flight paths because they had to, but at every parents evening we also got information on what their actual teacher thought was possible for them. Needless to say when it came to GCSE results, it was the teachers' predictions that proved the most accurate - 2 to 3 grades above flight path predictions for both of them.

If he's bright you can explain to him surely that a target is just that, and there is no fixed mark for a nine, it's just the top 1.5% so all he can do is enjoy his studies and put the effort in that you've said he already does. Also focus on his interests and life goals, most employers long term will be happier with a well rounded 2:1 graduate than someone who stresses does nothing but study and gets a first. The top grade often isn't important. I'm not sure all children get stressed by knowing there are high expectations of them, I didn't. I got higher scores in my year 6 SATs than most of my classmates did in year 9, it was always assumed I would get top marks. I did, but the things I loved about school were the extra curricular things, sports, drama, choir etc and that's what my family encouraged.

I am on the fence... done right, the target-setting is a vote of confidence in the kid - "You CAN do this". It's aspirational. Also it makes the school accountable if child doesn't achieve their potential. Not kids sole responsibility, but up to everyone around kid to support kid to achieve their potential.

As parents we usually have many ways of mitigating the apparent 'pressure' that might seem to come with a high aspirational target. This is what you could achieve if you want to work for it, not "You're a failure if you don't get there."

Email the school and ask why the bloody hell they are giving kids GCSE targets in Y7 when they are not even studying the GCSE syllabus? Are the targets all 9s, so not taking in individual aptitude for various subjects?

This is an absolutely bollocks, non-evidenced policy and should be strongly challenged. Ask for the evidence of both accuracy and benefit to 11 year olds.

After your last post, I would say sit and talk with him about this. He's intelligent enough to understand that the school is governed by the MAT and their choices, and the MAT is driven by the DfE rhetoric. That he is academically strong, but in order to succeed he needs to work hard too. That you'll be happy as parents as long as he makes an effort in all subjects regardless what it says on his reports about on/above targets etc. He can understand that a piece of paper isn't the sum of his achievements and efforts, and certainly isn't the main aim of education.
Keeping an open mind, always learning, enjoying life- these are what matters.

I got my daughter's baseline test results yesterday . Her school uses a graph, with percentages of likely grades from 1 to 7, so no targets set. She has for example, a 28% chance of a grade 6 for English, but also a 17% chance of an 8, or 9% chance of a 9. This seems to be a better system, as there is no chance of feeling as though she is failing, and shows what she could achieve.