Year 7 targets.

I thought you could only get a level 8 in maths? not in science too?

Yes it is...especially for the poor teachers! We are supposed to try and make them reach this!

It can act as a spur for kids sometimes, to make them try a bit harder, and sometomes they to reach these targets, but what seems to happen is they confuse these with a predicted grade, and then get annoyed when they don't reach it (as would anyone) We are forced to give targets by govt, and I'm sure they don't make any difference...

As a science teacher I have similar feelings about targets. The way it is now, we are asked for so many targets, so often, personally I give them very little thought. After all we are being asked to predict the future and there is no allowance made for home circumstance, different rates of development etc.

Really, level 7 is very unlikely at the end of year 7 as this is supposed to be achieved by the brightest students by the end of year 9.

If year 7 students however bright are achieving level 7 then, someone is manipulating levels for reasons of their own.

Also forgot to say in history DS had to write an essay on Castles. He was given a mark scheme on what was needed to get up to Level 7.

This has reminded me of a thread I started a few months back when ds (yr7) was given a level 7a as a target for science, which turned out to be impossible to get. It was based on his cats and sats scores. He is consistently working at level 6 for science.

level 7 thread

Yes, I agree about your dd, the better ones at my school are working at around that level.

I teach at an 'outstanding' grammar and you dd is in line with my better students. A reasonable target is one level above what dc has achieved, so if her achievement is 5a, then 6c is a reasonable target. You need to ask the teacher how they arrive at their targets. As I said earlier, some schools will have them generated for them, from the CATs (not SATs) they've sat, considered a pretty reliable indicator of future performance. But don't get too caught up in targets, it's the attainment that is all important.

A target isn't the same as what they are expcted to actually achieve. It is uaually a grade higher, but not always.

End of Year 7 target for a very clever child in Year 7 would be probably a 6 of some description, bearing in mind that this is higher than expected grade. Another way to work it out is: On the whole kids are expected to move up 2 sub levels a year (I think!) So if a child scored a 5c at end of KS2, then by end of Year 7 they could perhaps be a 5a.

This target could be based on CATS, which IMO are not really much good at predictiong ability tbh

Doe this help?

The targets your dd has been given are in line with the more able in my year 7 who currently work at 5a/6c. But you might be a bit optimistic on the progression of levels front unless her class teacher has indicated otherwise. If your dd's target is a 6c/6b now at the end of year 7, then it probably means she's working at 5a? It would be entirely realistic of her to attain level 6 in year 8. As a guide it generally takes 18m to move up a whole level. It would then put her on target to be 6a/level 7 at the start of year 9, hopefully consolidating the level 7 by the time of the SATs. In theory level 7 in year 9 equates to a A/A* at GCSE which is where a bright grammar pupil should be...if that makes any sense!

I still find this quite difficult to believe after 13 years of teaching in an outstnding comprehensive, which is practically equivalent to a grammar school.

To be achieveing a level at the end of Year 7 means the child must be almost off the scale. A 7 equals the prediction of A at GCSE when it is awarded at end of Year 9. Therefore when awarded at end of year 7 must mean that at GCSE that child is way beyond A level. Not many children are capable of that. Some*, but not many. This would be classes as Exceptional Performance which is very rare.She must be off the scale for cleverness....

But it is just a target, not attainment. If year 7 have done CATs then the subject target may be generated automatically from that. For grammar those targets are entirely reasonable and likely to be achieved in year 8.

Are you sure it's not an end of key stage target which very often is a level 7?

These kind of targets are totally pointless btw, but for some mysterious reason we have to report them like that. It involves no thought on my part in awarding them.

Actually to compound the idiocy even further, quite a number of schools use the SATs style 'optional tests' to assess year 7 & 8 at the end of year, which often produces a totally inflated level. These are then used as the reported level to parents so subsequently the target level has to be a level higher, so it becomes possible for a year 7 pupil to score a level 6 and have a target of level 7, when in fact they are functioning at top of level 5.

The following term teacher reports their level according to the evidence of their class work which doesn't confirm earlier 'brilliance' and parents start to wonder why little Johnny has slumped in performance, stuff him full of omega 3, blame the teaching and hire a tutor

Thanks Janeite, Level 5 is the expected level at end of Year 9, unless as I said I have been assessing wrongly for years...

Well at least one school mentioned on here has clearly not understood levels, as there is no such thing as L9. The expected level for the end of year 9 is L5, although obviously some children will perform better than this. L5 in English, Maths and Science at the end of KS3 ought to lead on to 5 Grade Cs at the end of KS4, which is the expected average target.

English at KS3 goes up to L7; Maths and Science go up to L8.

I don't understand this. The expepected level for the majority of children at end of KS3 (Year9) is a 5, unless the govt have changed something. This is the standard most children are expected to reach across the country.

I teach in a very academic school(85% a-c)not many of our Y7's have a predicted grade of 7 at end of year 7(unless it means at end of KS3 which would make more sense) A target usually means an aspirational grade which child should aim for not what they will get, but still think it odd. Unless I and colleauges have been assessing kids wrongly for the 13 years I have been teaching. I can access data on any kid in Yr7 from any teacher....., when I last checked (yesterday doing Y7 reports) not overburdened with level 7's at end of year 7

sorry, their, not thier. I used to spend 10 minutes doing that at the beginning of lessons, the difference between their, there and they're!

The problem science teacher is that the levels aren't the continuum they are supposed to be from primary to secondary. We often have the problem that a dc gets a 5 at KS2, and then all the secondary assessments come in at a 3-4, and we have 'our dc is going backwards.' As a rule (and I teach hums and RE), a child with a L5, will get a high 3 / low 4 for an assessment until they have clutched in to what they have to do. For a child to be getting a L6 by the end of year 7 would be exceptional imo for the comp I worked in.

My ds is a bright cookie, but I would be astounded if he was achieving to that level apart from in English. The problem is, I might know a student is capable of those levels from what I see in class as well, but unless I can back it up with written proof (summative assessments etc), then I can't give the grade.

Yes I agree about expectations, but in some cases, if you set the bar too high, the student won't achieve it. I prefer to set SMART targets for the levels, rather than you must move up 2 levels by the end of year 7. That sets the student up to fail imo.

I wouldn't stress about the levels tbh. There is stress enough at GCSE, so I wouldn't go looking for it now. The key point is that the child enjoys education and learning, and that will do more to achieve good GCSE grades than a child who is burnt out by the end of year 9, and weighed down by the expectations of others. Yes, they need to pass thier GCSEs, but schools are not exam factories, but places of enquiry and discovery.

These sound very odd targets to me.
KS3 SATs (at the end of yr9) have the following ceiling (i.e. highest mark achievable):
English - Level 7
Maths & Science - Level 8

If you are getting 7s in yr7, how are you going to feel if you just get 7s/8s in yr9.

I have pupils who often get L7s on their Science tests in Y7. They are not totally consistent, but it would be reasonable to have 7 as an end of year target, if we were to set those kind of targets.

It is common in schools where they don't really know the individual pupils very well to set their targets as one grade above their actual performance. It gives them something to work towards and to not be complacent. Research shows that having high expectations is a key contributer to performance.

I have pupils who often get L7s on their Science tests in Y7. They are not totally consistent, but it would be reasonable to have 7 as an end of year target, if we were to set those kind of targets.

It is common in schools where they don't really know the individual pupils very well to set their targets as one grade above their actual performance. It gives them something to work towards and to not be complacent. Research shows that having high expectations is a key contributer to performance.