Why don't some teachers like to tell parents how their Dc is doing compared to classmates?

[forgottenpassword]

Just wondered really. Is there a difference between practices in private and state on this? Ps not asking from position where answer is likely to be "top of the class".

Ah, those targets. We have them in secondary too. And yes, we're allowed to write those ourselves

Your DC will have a target level as well though. The written targets are how to get there.

Oh, sorry, that sort of target! I'm so sorry, I didn't understqnd.

He will have NC ones as well. Ask at the next parents evening.

Why is it so important to you that your children are doing well in relation to other children? Not placing children in order of achievement within the class is not done largely because of this competitive nonsense.
Encourage your child to be the best he can be, not just as good as Billy on the same table, who may have other talents.
That said, fully agree that the kids themselves can work it out in seconds. It's the parents who get over competitive.

At my last school, in KS2, we gave a written indication of whether a child was below, in line with, or above national expectations for their age (which was different from their actual target within the school, as we targeted them to progress faster than the national average because the huge majority arrived below national expectations so EVERY child was targeted within school to make significantly more than expected progress), and a verbal indication of whether they were lowe, middle or upper ability within the class. We regarded the first as the more important information, parents regarded the second as the more important...

Of course, my attitudes to this presupposes that parents know to ask about NC levels, remembers what their child got last time, and the teacher is actually recording them properly........

And in my dd's 6th form, they tell them whenever they write an essay who produced the best one- which they then photocopy and dish out for discussion.

Oh the guilty pride I felt when my dd's was picked....

DD2's MS infant school reported 'meeting expectations' 'above expectations' 'below expectations'. However, it's all so subjective.

In year R I was told 'she's a bit above really, but I've placed her in 'meeting expectations' to be on the safe side. She was given 100/117 on the EYFS profile.

In Year 1 after 1 half teem, her teacher said 'I've marked her 'meeting expectations' because she can do it when I manage to get her to sit down and concentrate'

So neither assessment marked her current performance, just what the teacher thought was a good idea to say.

My DD1 goes to special school and we had her annual review last week. We were given CASPA graphs, showing her p-levels plotted against the the national progress curves of children with her classification of learning disability (MLD).We were also given the warning that while she is a 1c in maths currently, she may drop to a p8 next year because the curriculum standard is raising by approximately one whole level in each year group next year and they don't want me to she's plateauing.

That information was really useful.

Ever since my DC began sitting exams/tests we were told the year average and the set average to compare against. Its incredibly useful info for all concerned without ranking pupils.

My DS sits exams twice a year in most subjects he's told in the lesson and we're told on his report/parent teacher meeting either where he came in the class, or the class average. We're also sometimes told his average for prep etc and the class average. As they are also streamed for subjects I suppose it all has to be measured against this as well.
Does it help/matter? It makes you/him feel good when they're doing really so its nice to know and you can go around looking all smug but ultimately I don't think its essential.
The school doesn't do NC levels.

I think it is important that parents know how their child is doing compared with their classmates as, like it or not, not every teacher knows what is right for every child and, further, like it or not, not every teacher's style of teaching suits every child. Teachers are human beings with individual personalities, not blimming all-knowing demi-gods!

My DD2 was struggling badly with Maths in years 7 and 8 (private prep school) she was in the top set for every subject and was in the top quarter of the class in each subject except maths, where she was struggling badly and trailing the rest of the class (barring one other child) by quite a long way. She was often in tears at home over it and claimed to not understand most of the lessons that the teacher was, "going too fast".

I went into school and discussed it with the Maths teacher (30 + years experience) who basically told me that she was just plain lazy and needed to, "get her finger out"

Cut to the chase, I made enough of a fuss to get her moved down to set 2 for maths, despite arrogant sod of a teacher claiming that if he couldn't teach her, nobody could! Result? She blossomed under the kind and careful guidance of the set 2 teacher, who was actually a middle-aged ex industrial chemist who had arrived at the school only a couple of terms previously having just got her teaching qualification, and was really the school chemistry teacher, just taking lower sets for maths to fill in her timetable. DD's confidence was also bolstered by being one of the more able in her set rather than one of the stragglers.

When it came to the CE exam, DD got 98%, the third highest mark in the whole school, only two children from set one beat her!

Ds (Yr 5) gets his results, class average, class position and national average. Dd (Yr 4) gets her results and the national average. I have a much clearer idea about how ds is doing at school and worry more about dd.

I have wondered a lot about whether class positions etc are a good thing. For the children at or near the top, I think it is quite motivating but for the children at or near the bottom, I imagine it is demoralising. No competition is not good but too much is not good either. There is a balance to be struck.

I think children and parents do need an idea of where they are and whether any extra work needs to be done but there is a limit to how much is required.

I have to say I'd find it infuriating if a teacher refused to tell me even roughly where my child was in relation to the others. Lets face it - the teacher knows, the other kids know, so why withhold that information from the parent?
I hate the idea of keeping secrets from patents.

I think teachers just telling you how the child is doing as against their targets or their expectations for that child is really rubbish. It assumes that the teacher is totally right in their judgement of every child, and also that the school is doing everything required to teach that child. If the child is in fact doing badly (in relation to their age and also in relation to their class mates) the parents may well want to step in to address the situation, eg by teaching the child extra at home, getting a tutor, or if they have concerns about the school, changing schools.
Even if there is nothing to be done to help that child (unlikely) the parents need to know how that child is doing, to make plans for their future education or after school prospects.

I do find this baffling.
What good is knowing your child is top of the class? That could be a fantastic achievement for your child. Or it could mean that your child is naturally the cleverest in the class, has done sod all and made no progress at all for the past 2 years.

Knowing that your child is currently working at a particular level, which is X number of sub levels higher than he was working at this time last year, and has a target for the end of the year of Y, which is Z number of sub levels higher than where he is now is actually useful.

I can see how top third, middle third and bottom third might be reassuring. But not actually useful.

Dromedary I totally agree.

It's not all about just knowing whether your child is working hard, and meeting the expectations (for that child) of their teacher.
Knowing what they are achieving in comparison with others, and what the school or teacher is achieving in comparison with others, is very useful information.
If the child is 1) not working hard, 2) nonetheless top half of the class, that tells me that they have untapped potential and if they are pushed to work harder, could eg get into grammar school.
If the child is 1) working hard, 2) middle of the class, that tells me that they will probably be going to the local comp.
I've given reasons above for why it is useful to have comparisons with the class rather than just national achievement levels. Eg if your child is well ahead of the class, you may wish to move them to a school where there will be a similar level peer group for them to work with. If your child is doing badly nationally but is doing well in their class, there may be a problem with the teaching in that class.

I don't necessarily want to know. It's the fact that the teacher may refuse to tell me that I object to. It should not be up to them to deside what information about my child's learning is useful to me. I should be given all the information I want, and without going out of my way to ask for it. Keeping secrets alienates parents and creates an unhealthy atmosphere.

But surely my example with the XYand Z levels would tell you more than where the child is in the class? A child destined for grammar school, or the top sets of a comprehensive would need to be aiming at solid level 5s or even possibly 6 in year 6. And if that is the target set, and progress is being properly monitored, the. It doesn't matter what anyone else is achieving.

Seeker- if you know how your child is doing in context, you're able to judge if they're working hard enough, if they need help etc you can also tell if they're in the right sets. Being told year and set averages also helps contextualise achievemenyt. 70 percent in a test means bugger all if you don't know how everyone else did.

Isn't that assuming that all the children are on a level playing field, wordfactory? All children have different levels of ability, so doing better than Johnny but less well than Billy has to be put in some sort of context.
Some kids don't have the innate ability to be top of any class no matter how much effort they make, while some clever children may well pass out their peers but could probably do even better if encouraged, bearing in mind their peers may be considerably less bright. One size definitely does not fit all.

Firstly, I would say that I think the move away from a specific section of a school report which says 'position in class' is quite logical and a good thing. Average mark of class though might be useful.

But the thing is it really doesn't matter what schools do - I bet we all recognize the 'I got 53 in Physics, but it was a really hard one and nobody got higher than 55' or 'I got full marks in German but so did loads of other people'? It's going to happen anyway!

and I'm going to carry on reading upside down at parents' evening

Flogging - that's why you need both year and set average. My DD for example finds maths her hardest subject. Telling me she got x percent is hopeless. Telling me how she did in comparision to her set average is much more instructive and allows me (well DD herself now she's older) to moniter her progress.

This is all still so confusing - targets, national average.

I did not go to school in the UK and in my native country children are given grades for every single piece of work they produce, starting from Year 2 (aged 8 - we start school at 7). Children can't know each others' marks for written work - because the their work books are handed out individually - but teachers sometimes say the grades aloud when distributing them. And if a pupil is called to talk on a topic in history, etc. then the whole class will obviously hear and see how s/he performed and what grade he got.

Nobody made a great deal of that and generally we knew who is a strong student, who is in the middle and who is among the weaker ones.

I don't ever remember it being an issue in terms of affecting self-esteem - if anything, it would make bright kids proud and weaker ones - strive to do better.

5 was the top mark, 2 was basically 'fail', each subject was graded separately on a daily basis. So it was pefectly clear for everyone - parents, children, teachers - how well the child is doing. Is s/he is getting 5s - well done, if 3s - here are the areas that need work.

State school, one teacher (no TAs as a rule), 25-30 kids.

I think in private schools which don't use NC levels, you may have a point- there's no benchmark to work from. And the robustness of being told you're bottom of the class is what some people pay for!(joke)

But in a state school where there are benchmarks then I genuinely can't see why it would help you to know class positions.

Seeker - why don't you address the points I've made a couple of times then?

1. where your child is doing badly (based on NC level). The parent is told they are doing badly on that basis, but not that half the children in the class are doing similarly badly. If the parent were told that, they might realise that there was a problem with the teaching of that individual teacher, rather than that their child is struggling due to innate lack of ability for instance. They could make use of that information, for instance by changing schools or hiring a tutor for the year.
2. where you are told that your child is doing well (based on NC level). But you are not told that they are in fact miles ahead of the rest of the class. If you were given that information, you might decide to move them to a school where they would be able to work with children at a similar ability level, which would probably be better for them both academically and socially.

What is your answer?