Is anyone with a year 9 prepared to post a few of the NC levels they got this year? I need some points of comparison!

ok, as someone who ran ks3 english in 2 schools (but haven't taught for 2 years so a bit out of date)

SATs results at the end of ks2, whilst meant to be a continuous flow from primary to secondary, have almost no relation to the levels awarded at ks3. in fact, most pupils drop about half to a full level, just by changing schools - because the marking is different. so the same piece of work by the same pupil could get a level 5 in primary, but barely scrape a 4 in secondary. i have done many training events at county level where this has been shown. in addition, i worked closely with our primary feeder schools, and an ofsted 'outstanding' head teacher which showed this.

...

actually, i just started writing a really long, far too detailed account of how levels & progress work. but i think it can be summed up using the educational phrase 'it's all a load of bollocks'

i once heard a quote 'measuring a person's intelligence by their A level results is like measuring what they've eaten by how much they shit.'

having run ks3, AND taught A level for many years, i'd say that A Levels were a far better indicator of intelligence than any levels at ks3.

Oh my goodness! This thread makes very interesting reading, because it demonstrates how the general public has been hoodwinked by SATs levels. Firstly, before SATs were abolished, it was impossible for a child to be a Level 8 in English or Science, as the tests only went up to Level 7. If a school judged a child to be Level 8, it was because they were using their own system and was absolutely nothing to do with national criteria.

Secondly, levels in KS3 have never been officially subdivided into three categories. If a school claims a child is Level 5a rather than 5c, the teachers have made up their own descriptors. There is absolutely nothing scientific or official about it. What a 5a generally means is that the teacher's gut feeling is that a pupil is easily within the band for Level 5 and possibly achieving at Level 6 on occasions. To be honest, the way level descriptors are written, there's no concensus about what they mean anyway.

Thirdly, termly progress levels are often, at best, a "guesstimate". Individual pupils just don't progress through levels at an even rate and teachers rarely have the time to assess every single pupil against every single descriptor. What seems to happen is that targets are based on performance at KS2 (and some other factors). The reality is that teachers look at the targets and performance in the last progress check. To avoid worrying parents, a wise teacher makes sure that there is an indication of progress (ie. the level is at least as high as the last one) and fits in with the eventual target. Again this is based on gut feeling and experience. Levels were never intended to report progress to parents, except at the end of key stages.

An additional problem with targets based on KS2 levels, using what is known as FFT data, is that if a child is already underachieving at KS2, the target will be lower than the level a child could potentially achieve and could hide underperformance. There are also pupils who work conscientiously at KS2 and cope well with the demands of the basics, but do not have the ability for more abstract and conceptual thinking. It simply is not true to assume that every pupil will make even progress at approximately 2/3 of a level every year throughout his/her school life.

There's an awful lot more to education than levels!

What subject(s) were the kids getting levels 5s in??? I know some subjects like MFL will always get lower levels (nationally - they start lower in secondary than for other subjects, not a cop out!) Maths, English and Science should be level 6 and above. Ask the school for their value added data - they will be more than happy to provide it. I'm sure they're very proud of it really . It should be discussed in the Ofsted report, available from the school's website????

Quite so, JGB. Bright children tend to do well wherever they go. The 11plus turns quite sane parents into stressed out basket cases.

Sue, it's also really pleasing to note that that many people in grammar schools did just as well as those in the top streams at comps in their GCSEs. Makes me wonder if all that not doing the 11+ , and total lack of stress, was worth it.

I do. The only school near me that could be considered properly comprehensive is a Catholic school. It's pupils on the whole get very good results.

It's really pleasing to note that many pupils in comps did just as well as those in grammar schools. Makes me wonder if all that 11plus stress was worth it. Well done to all the year nines.

I think it's a fair question, Seeker.
In a mixed ability cohort you expect a mixed result.
But where the cohort has been selected, if you're not seeing good results across the board, perhaps the teaching needs looking at.

Does your son not have end of year individual levels set by the school for each subject?

That way you can see whether Egbert is achieving the best he can for his ability level.

We have the end of year target and a termly result on our reports so you can see how you DC is progressing over the year.

I think Seeker is entirely justified in asking question. Ds has just had his report (Yr 7) and there are all these levels, but you just don't know quite what they all mean.

It's all very well his getting, say, level X for maths, but what if everyone else of his ability got level Y? There was no comment along the lines of "Egbert achieved level 6 but he should be level 10" etc etc.

Most of the teachers' comments were very bland, apart from the science teacher's cryptic remark "Egbert should do much better now he has been moved seat" !!?!!

My dd entered with 3 L5s

She's now at L7 for most things - some top L7, some L6a/b (including MFL) if that helps. At good comp.

local comp.
end of year nine levels given-
English 7C
Maths 8B
Science 8B

Son is in top sets and most of the kids are similar.

I suspect 3% of DS comp got level 8 for history, from what DS says about his class. DS got a level 8.5 (we don't get As or Bs) for maths, level 7s for science & humanities, he has dyslexic problems, so writing a problem, english was a 5.83 and MFL.

DD went to the same school a few years earlier, but she's a different human.
She was hitting L7a/8 almost across the board with 2 exceptions where she got 7b. GCSEs were all A* and A.
That's the way she's wired, I'm just as proud of my son. He's worked as hard as she has.

Sorry for sounding off earlier.

We are fortunate in not living in a grammar school area so our children are spared the pressure of having to pass or fail an exam to determine their secondary education while they are still 10 (or just 11).

However, it does become rather wearing when (some) parents with children at selective schools seem to delight in congratulating themselves that their child does not go to the comp. And then making a huge fuss on how high up the league tables their school is, before their child has even taken any public exams.

Mumblechum - re " more of a feeling of achievement for doing well" at a comprehensive. TBH, the students are encouraged to excel in every area so the academic success is treated no differently to sporting, drama, or music success. In fact, they are all beaten by any charitable work done by the students.

Seeker - I think you phrased your reply to my post extremely well - thank you.

Hmm, interesting. DD is at the local comp, allbeit in the grammar stream because she just missed out on selective.

Most of the grades talked about on this thread are brilliant. Like Roisins DS, DD is reaching and surpassing her end of year 9 targets. None of which are L8!!

However, she has done her options and a very good, sound set she has and is already working at C's, some B's for all of them. She will be taking 14 GCSE's, the same as the students at the grammar school and is expected (if she works hard, of course) to get all A*-C grades.

Not really sure where I was going with that, but it bigged DD up for a moment!

Girls grammar

English - 8
Maths - 8
science - 7
MFL - 7
DT - 7
Geography - 7
History - 8 (only 3% managed to achieve a level 8 in history)
Art and Design - 7

results for all students at her school range from level 6 to level 8, with most subjects having a majority of level 7.

Well I don't like to boast, but two of the yr 5's I teach have just achieved a 6B on the KS3 maths paper

Considering the degree to which grammars select I've also thought some of their results aren't all that special. I reckon it's due to the 11+ not being a very accurate discriminator of raw ability (whether that's due to tutoring or not I'm not sure), but another possible explanation is that at this stage good results are achieved as much by diligence on the part of the children as by ability, so the lazy so-and-sos are going to fall behind those that are making an effort. Maybe the 11+ needs to select on willingness to work hard as well as ability?

As for the year 9 levels, thankfully mine doesn't have any and if she did they'd probably range from really good to really mediocre according to her mood at the time of the assesment as well as the subject. I'm happy she's learning and progressing though.

ds1 is in yr8 (non-selective comp), but his targets are for end-of-year-9. He is on target or above target for all subjects (because he has achieved his yr9 target already in some subjects.)

He has targets of L8 for quite a lot of subjects: English, Maths, Science, History, Geography ... etc.

Quite a few of his (top) set Maths have achieving L8 this year and some got L8 last year.

MFL is definitely a lower target - 6 or 7 I think.

Well to add to you ponderings, DS scored level 7s in English, History and Geography, and level 8s in Maths and science - at the local comp

I still maintain its about how your child progresses that's the issue - what does it matter how the rest of the year group do?

Or what type of school they attend???

Grammars have no monopoly on bright kids - only the most tutored!