but what i'm saying is that the levels don't match. a 5 in primary is nowhere near a 5 in secondary. if that were the case then the kids could sit gcse and get a c in year 8 (basing that on the fact that if they get a 5 in year 9 we expect them to get a c in two years time iyswim). they should have a wider range of levels imo- 1 -10 or something. kids that get a 5 at ks3 go into our b sets for gcse and are pushed and treated fairly similarly to an a set. there's no way that a child could come up from primary and do this (whish if they were a secondary level 5 they should be able to) iyswim.
the whole system is pants. unfortunately we have to work within it. have you heard of paul ginnis and his kinisthetic approach to learning. lots of role play etc (yup in science as well) hard with a low ability set if their behavious is pants though.
teacher in role, kids ask you quewstions.
chop the paper into tiny chunks. questions on cards at front, kids in teams answer one q, check answer with you. another kid has to get2nd q, etc etc, race to finish.
traffic lights- red, yellow green cards 4 all pupils, have to hold appropriate coloured card up to show understanding.
2 packs playingt cards, 1 pack 4 you, the other given to pupils, you deal, whoever has that card has to answer q- kjeeps them all on their toes-
that's the sort of thing paul ginnis does- v good