Can anyone explain where ‘GCSE Target Grades come from?

Never heard of this before! It sounds an extremely stressful way to do things for pupil, parent and teacher!
My children were in (different) independent schools and we were only advised of their ‘potential’ to achieve certain grades in their GCSEs at the mid/end of yr10. They were in sets for core subjects from yr7 so, I suppose, you could/might think top set = 6/7+ etc.
In yr9 when choosing options you were, of course, told if they had potential to do well in that particular subject, but no one tried to predict grades.
We’ve always been wary of ‘predicted’ grades as it can lead to children coasting, or thinking they’re not capable of achieving better results.
Also agree with @lanthanum that schools shouldn’t predict 8/9s.

@iamtopazmortmain and @spanieleyes I sympathise.

I teach Music and target grades based on KS2 SATs are ridiculous in my subject. Thankfully my school does things differently and there is some teacher discretion allowed. We are also not hauled over the coals if a student doesn't meet their target because they recognise that they require particular skills not tested in KS2 SATs.

The one that pisses me off is having to write a predicted grade for GCSE on KS3 reports. This year, until June, I had done zero practical work with any of them. How am I meant to predict something? Last year I had a parent confront me about why their precious darling was only predicted a 6 when they were predicted 8/9 in everything else. I simply asked them what piece they would perform for the 30% performance component (they didn't play anything or sing) and the parents huffed off.

DD's school give "minimum target grades", calculated from SATs results, and keep emphasising that these are only a minimum. That's probably better than aspirational grades which are unrealistic.
However some of DD's are 9s. Half the staff will not predict 9s earlier than year 11. Hence she appears to be heading for below her "minimum target grades" in some subjects.
I have suggested that they should simply not give 9 as a "minimum target".

@TableFlowerss
Even worse! He also has ASD- Aspergers. His music target was also an A, but the result was based on a group production and " how he worked as part of a team" Clearly he didn't! He was given an end of year grade of C- which was probably generous despite the fact that he was a church choral singer! But that was two grades below his target and therefore part of my "discussion" with the head of year 7- who was visibly embarrassed having to explain that everything was based on results in year 6 in reading, writing and maths😁

You remember that big wheel thing on 'Wheel of Fortune'?
Well, they've got something like that - I think.

This confuses me too. Mine has predicted grades 7-9 for each and every subject. She did exceptionally well in English, ok at Maths in her SATs. So I don't understand how that translates to a 7-9 target in o computing, which she is essentially crap at?!! And the targets aren't more specific than 7-9. Do they get more specific in y9-11?

Thanks @User5827372728 & @TableFlowerss
Think I need to take a course just to understand it all, I take my hat off to you secondary teachers!

It was the same for my subject. It is not one that was tested at KS2 but students were given a target grade based on their KS2 grade in other subjects - many not at all similar to mine. It's such a crude tool but I told management that until I was blue in the face. It sometimes worked in my favour. I had some truely brilliant students who just loved my subject and had a flair for it, but had a low target due to their grades in the core subjects. I got lots of 'value added' points for them as they did far better than their target grade.

Although there were no SATS this year, our primary school were still asked to supply a teacher predicted grade for Maths and Reading, and to provide a piece of writing for each year 6 leaver.

This followed them to secondary with their transition notes.

Had dyspraxia not was dyspraxia!

My son was very bright at KS2- straight level 5s when that was the maximum you could achieve. I was dragged into his secondary school at the end of year 7 to be berated because he wasn't achieving his targets in some subjects. He had been set targets of A for everything, based on the 5s he had from primary. But these targets had been set for EVERY subject based on his results in reading, writing, maths and science. So he had targets of A for art and PE. I had to explain that he was dyspraxia and there was no way on God's green earth that he would every achieve an A in those subjects! But the targets followed him all the way to GCSE- he didn't sit Art or PE, not surprising!

@Kerplunkk

9 is meant to be higher than the old A* trade
Then 7-8 around the old A
5-6 the old B
4 is around the Old C

We predict them from SATS and then add a grade on. So if KS2 SATS suggest you should be aiming for a grade 6, we will give you a target of grade 7.

The government track progress between Year 6 and Year 11 so schools definitely would never set low targets. That would be ridiculous.

They are set higher than is realistic for many students to make them 'aspirational'. The theory is that some students - especially the more able - might sit back and do nothing if they think they are on for an ok grade. It is also supposed to keep teachers on their toes and working hard to push all students hard so that the school will do well in the league tables.

I have never agreed with this. Most students want to do as well as they possible can. Very few able students are content to 'coast'. Setting unrealistically high targets for the less able is just soul destroying. Some schools operate a traffic light system. It is thoroughly miserable for those students who get a red in every subject after every assessment cycle. The time that is wasted constantly testing, recording and analysing this data.........

We use FFT when I taught in the UK.

Students were given a predicted grade (50% of pupils with this test profile historically get this grade), an aspirational grade (25% of similar students get this or higher), & teachers were privately told an 'acceptable' grade (25% of students who test like this get this or lower).

So if you wanted to pass threshold or be considered for promotion, you were expected to get your class an average comfortably above the predicted - say your class of 30 got 15 aspirational, 10 predicted & 5 acceptable, that would be OK. Provided all the 'acceptables' had been sufficiently documented & supported & you could prove it, of course.

Get anything worse than 10 of each, & you'd be advised to start jobhunting.

Oh, & if you were a Head of Department, you were expected to get better grades in each successive year or fall on your sword.

Obviously, this is all a bit dodgy if the data going in is dubious in the first place. It also wasn't a wonderfully happy atmosphere to learn or work in.

We have a "default" predicted grade of 5, for students with no Sats test results, or any similar work, such as children with learning difficulties, who are still pre-verbal, and can't yet hold a pencil......

Ooooh good question OP!
How do you figure out what the numbers mean? Like how do you know a 7/8 is good?

Different schools base them on different things - but a lot of schools use CATS results to get targets. Our old school used something called FFT (Fischer Family Trust) we calculates them for you. They do different levels - so they school can set how ambitious it is. The school we were at had FFT5 targets which meant that if students all got targets we would be in the top 5% nationally for progress. Before that we used to use FFT + 1, which took the progress an average student would make in an average school and added on 1 grade extra.
But essentially there is no unified method with targets given out.

why are target grades higher than predicted? Predicted grades are not the child's full potential, they are the average grade expected of a child with that particular previous achievement. Some children will drop out of school, some will be absent a lot, some won't care or try, some will be ill or die. And some will work hard and get a lot of home support. So some will fall below the predicted grade, and some above. Any individual parent should be supporting their child in being one of those who achieve ABOVE the predicted grade.

I mean, they have no meaning for individuals. Overall, a cohort can expect their AVERAGE grades to be the same as the predicted grades, meaning some children will score up to 5-6 grades higher than predicted, and some 5-6 grades lower