Is a level 8 unusual at the end of year 8?

It's good but not exceptionally brilliant.

Dd1's (year 8) very good at maths, and there are three others in her set (standard comprehensive, but only set across half the year) who are similar. They are working above level 8 (just), but there are a good number (I'd guess 1/3-1/2 the set or more) are working at level 8 now.
But they do have a very good teacher, who has let dd's group set their own pace, and they're very good at working together, which has helped.

and ^ what RaisinBoys says too

It's not that unusual. We have a lot of children at high level 7 and even 8b in Maths in our school.

Lots of talk about "plodding" on this thread. So if one is not achieving L7-8 by end of y7/y8, that is a sign of plodding or low ability or laziness or bad teaching???

How poor education has become when parents are buying in to these ridiculously narrow measurements of 'success'.

I am so sad for my about to be y7, bright DS, who loves to learn, and is saddled with this crap obsession with levels. Children discussing their relative levels at age 10? Madness.

No wonder we have the unhappiest teens in Europe...

noblegiraffe my youngest DD went to a school exactly like school B, but without the 'fun sessions'.

There will always be good mathematicians who can answer harder questions than they've been taught, because maths is based on pure logic. They probably won't manage a Pythagoras question if they haven't been taught Pythagoras but they could certainly have a stab at some data handling, e.g. figure out what a scatter graph is about, or maybe some trickier algebra.

I said on the previous page why I thought school B was made up.

Y6 DD's scenario is school B.

The maths highers had one additional/fun maths lesson in place of one normal single-form-entry mixed-ability class numeracy lesson per week, (except in Y5 when it was every other half term because of school resource juggling issues).

Early in Y6 autumn 2013 term they did their first past SATS L6 paper and not-trained-at-home DD scraped over the latest pass threshold: 34/50

In Y6 spring 2014 term they were taught L6 curriculum content.

The SATS L6 paper does of course test some harder L5 content rather than being pure L6, but that's not a sufficient explanation for that initial score surely? However when DD came home after that test her headline news was that some of the questions were new territory but she had managed to correctly infer what they were about [in 10yo-speak]. It didn't work for all of the highers and it worked best for her, but I think that is one of @teacherwith2kids' accidents.

I'm not saying that a level 6 isn't a genuine level 6, and that someone getting level 6 at primary is a hothoused fake, I'm saying that achieving a level 6 doesn't actually mean you are a better mathematician than a kid who hasn't been pushed to pass SATs papers and 'only' gets a level 5, but has spent a lot of time on enrichment activities rather than simply plodding onto the next topic.

If you have learned Pythagoras (level 7) and have some spare teaching time then you could do a load of problem solving around Pythagoras, work through some proofs, or you could push on and do a bit of trigonometry (level 8). The kids who do the proofs and problem-solving are doing valuable stuff, but because it's not a level 8 topic to tick off, won't come out as a level 8. Which is better? Superficial knowledge of both topics or an in-depth understanding of one?

(I find it a little sad that you don't believe in school B, and assume that was the one I invented. Says a lot, really. I invented school A based on the 'wilder world' of Mumsnet.

DS left school B as a genuine L6 - as his progress since then has indicated - and DD is very likely to as well. Both have had mixed ability teaching throughout primary.)

It was very unusual when I was in secondary school (I was in Y8 in 2006-2007) - I managed a Level 8 (they didn't do the a, b, c thing at my school) in English, and a point was made of how unusual it is. I have always been a very high achiever in English... unfortunately I more than make up for it by crashing and burning at Maths and Science

I think they must vary by teacher though, because there doesn't seem to be any continuity across the board.

My children have both attended school B. I made up school A.

I've always been resolute in not asking about levels for my DC other than for my youngest when she was approaching the end of Y5, in relation to where she was vis a vis the 11+. I haven't a clue what level they're supposed to be when and it doesn't seem to have done them or me any harm. It also doesn't denote lack of interest in their progress, just a vague sense that it's better to leave this micro stuff to the teachers, because anything else could well end in tears.

I was told that level 8 was exceptional for less than end of year 9.
however, if her dc is G&T I can see why she might be disapointed in terms of improvement and value added.
It would still be a bit loony though, poor child.

But you've just made up school B, teacher, and from what I've read on here, there are very few if any schools teaching genuine mixed ability in primary.

Yes if there was genuinely excellent maths teaching throughout primary, it would be possible to reach a genuinely higher level of achievement. But that is probably pretty rare in a country dominated by league tables and progress measures, and with a severe shortage of maths-trained teachers at primary.

I guess ACME did some research before publishing their report.

"does not mean that he or she has developed a clear grasp of the subject matter or could apply the fundamental principles more broadly"

That's a two-way street i.e. it might mean that. However being binary-mode education I bet high-level = narrow + procedural is the rule for some folk now.

Tangentially, I have to wonder what went on given that the preceding paragraph from that abstract apparently written in 2012 erroneously said: "At primary, schools are assessed on the results of Level 6 tests".

That is very true teacher.

Noble, I think it is more nuanced than that. Some schools will push for level 8s through procedural maths. Others will have students at level 8 level almost 'by accident' through a broad-based matsh education.

It is a little similar to the level 6 thing in primary.

In school A, the top maths group is coached through level 6 questions, including at lunchtimes and in after school sessions. They are taught almosty solely through 'this is what you need in order to answer these questions' methods.

In school B, maths is taught throughout the school in mixed ability classes. There are no booster groups in Y6, and in total 3 practice papers are covered for SATs in the coure of the year. There is a strong empahsis on a balanced maths education, with a teaching of the curriculum not to the test. However, once a fortnight an maths teacher from a linked secondary school comes to run 'fun maths problem solving' lessons for a largely self-selected group of more able mathematicians.

School B happens to have a far higher percentage of Level 6 mathematicians, and I would argue that they are much more likely to be genuinely at that level than those from school A.

lotty it's not me saying that it's ACME (as my link says), the Advisory Committee on Mathematics Education.

"Chair of ACME, Professor Steve Sparks FRS said: "Just because a pupil can charge through the curriculum at top speed through procedural learning, does not mean that he or she has developed a clear grasp of the subject matter or could apply the fundamental principles more broadly. The 'acceleration' approach is driven by league tables, and puts us at odds with many of the world's highest performers in terms of mathematics education. It is inconsistent with the Government's stated aim to encourage more students to study maths to 19.""

You should be very proud- it's a great achievement. But- without wishing to burst anyone's bubble- I teach KS3 and manage others that do too. The levels vary wildly between teachers quite often and certainly between schools. I've sat in moderation meetings where people have really over/under marked. With this in mind I would always take these levels with a pinch of salt. If you're really bothered you can have a look at the National Curriculum levels online have a bit of a critique of DCs work yourself. It's not rocket science at all.

(They seem to have a 'have a go at this challenge, it cropped up in Y10/11/12 / in a Maths challenge / in a discussion earlier, see what you think' type of mentality - a 'think as a mathematician' approach rather than a 'how much of the syllabus have you covered' idea.)

DS needs to get an 8C at end Y8 to be guaranteed a place in top set in y9 (local comp, in a superselective grammar area). A 7a will probably give him a place but not guarantee it - which would imply that over 30 children in a Y8 of c 200 will be 7a or above at this point. He is working consistently at L8 within class, but the final decision on sets is influenced by the test results.

His end Y9 target is an 8A, probably because he got L6 at the end of Y6.

He's bright, good at Maths, but not 'exceptional' - Silver not Gold in maths challenge, for example.

My DS is also being taught to push himself, not plod, as are all his top set classmates.

Most of the top kids in the top set in Yr 8 are on level 7c-a as far as I can see - all the ones that got Silver in maths challenge, anyway.

7 or 8 of them got Gold, and the one who is in Maths Olympiad has been working at L8 since Yr 7 , and she is definitely, noticeably of that ilk and has been since early in primary. Way beyond ordinarily academic and bright.

I think what noble giraffe is saying is that the curriculum is so restrictive if you follow it in a linear path. It doesn't give a deep understanding and therefore produces far fewer mathematicians than it should do.

Disagree noblegiraffe - my daughter was a 5A when she left primary 12 months ago ...so not hot housed at all (I would say the opposite lacked motivation to achieve her potential)....she is now in a school who believes that children can work to their own ability ..so they are taught the syllabus of that Yr (in her case yr 7) but when they have done that work they can then spent time working on the GCSE workbooks so that they are challenged ....they are not pushed - they just find work they can do rather than being restricted and bored - you cannot hold kids back ....

Most of the class did the Maths Challenge - they are one of the leading schools on Magna High ....these are children who are being coached that it is cool to learn ...not plod....

There is little difference between levels but if consistent testing is carried out then levels reported should be accurate ...my daughter was 6b to 6a to 7b throughout Year 7...having started at 5A....

The difference between a 7a and an 8c could be one mark out of 150 on a test. Meaningless.

A school that is pushing lots of kids to get level 8s early is not doing the best by them in terms of a rounded maths education. So you might want to mention that to your mate

www.acme-uk.org/news/news-items-repository/2012/12/acme-launches-raising-the-bar-developing-able-young-mathematicians