What's the highest of those stupid grade things that you can get in Y3?

[dinglydell]

I don't know if dd is at school with total geniuses but is it possible to get a 5c at the end of Y3 and would it be common for many kids to get a 4a in everything? Or do I know some mums who are slightly stretching the truth or maybe, like me, confused by it all?

Yes, quite weird actually. One mum told me that her dd had got 4a for all three areas but she actually got 3c for everything. I feel weird that I saw the scores but they were right there on the computer so I guess all the mums coming in to talk to the teacher would have seen them as well. Maybe they were more ethical than me and didn't peek!

I get M&S or BHS in the sale, supermarket dresses, and branded cardigan and pe shirt.

Oops. wrong thread :)

Woah ... that went weird ...

Yes, quite weird actually. One mum told me that her dd had got 4a for all three areas but she actually got 3c for everything. I feel weird that I saw the scores but they were right there on the computer so I guess all the mums coming in to talk to the teacher would have seen them as well. Maybe they were more ethical than me and didn't peek!

I don't think I'd be able to resist telling her what I'd seen-just to see the expression on her face!

I did promise myself that I would never post on one of these threads again.

But going back to the question of whether our SIP was wrong, I don't think so. The SIP is very experienced and was completely categorical in her answer. When we sit down and go over the data, the SIP doesn't say "And where are your Level 6s?" In fact, I can't believe our SIP (and the previous one) wouldn't be asking us about assessments higher than Level 5 if the LA expected them - since in a school like ours, with over 60% Level 5s in all subjects and children regularly gaining places at superselective grammars and highly selective independent schools, it's something you'd expect.

However, teachers also do not appear to be 'up in arms' about it.

By the way, the ARA that you quote from only says that optional tests are available to assist in assessing children working above or below the level of the tests, not that they're obliged to use them.

I go back to my A* GCSE analogy. That's the highest a pupil can get at GCSE even if they're already working at PhD level. "Level 5 +" is the same sort of thing.

Going against the grain here but I actually find it quite useful to have a grading of the teachers assessment. Ds is year 2 and scored average results (ranging from 2a-2c), I find it useful to see which areas he is underperforming on so I can help him at home and it gives a good base so we can monitor his progress for next year.

I agree with you thestringpeople.

I find it every useful to be able to quantify what teachers actually mean when they say your child is making good/bad progress. It doesn't mean anything much without a score to show exactly how good or bad the progress it. It is just words.

DS1's teacher in Yr 3 was a bit rubbish tbh and said he was doing OK in everything. Turns out, a couple of years down the line when we are allowed to see the gradings that he actually went backwards 2 sublevels in maths and made no progress in the other subjects. She couldn't have covered up if we had had the scores but we were none the wiser until much later.

dinglydell - I wonder if the mothers who have been exaggerating got confused between 2 sublevels progress and 2 levels. Some parents don't understand the levels at all - it is easily done if you just hear on the grapevine and it is not explained. Or maybe I am just charitable.

I wonder also if the teacher had heard about parents inflating the grades of the their DC and left the computer open for all to see on purpose. A bit naughty but tempting I would have thought!

These silly SATs levels and targets cause more trouble than good IMO.

And exaggerating mummies, yes, we've all met a few of those!

Niecie, well we were all given our kids' results in a print out, pretty basic really I don't think you could get confused. I was remembering last year that the same mum also told me her dd had got quite high results and I remember thinking "Wow."

By the way, the ARA that you quote from only says that optional tests are available to assist in assessing children working above or below the level of the tests, not that they're obliged to use them.

I think that's a bit of a daft thing to say, singersgirl - it clearly states that level 6 materials are available to help teachers assess children, and the 'optional' bit would be whether you actually use them or not, not whether you should assess children working as a level 6 as below that if you feel like it!

Your SIP wouldn't necessarily ask about level 6 children - they are very able children indeed. But he should have asked about any teacher assessed children at a 5b/5a on entry to Y6, and how your school intends to show progress for those children.

Yes, it is possible to assess children above level 3 at KS1 and above level 5 at KS2, but the reality is that these levels will be recorded by the LA and Raiseonline (schools results database) as 3 or 5 respectively. Therefore, to show acceptable progress a child scoring level 3 (or above), then scoring level 5 (or above) will be deemed to have made acceptable progress. Assessing to level 6 is a useful tool and can be helpful for internal monitoring, but has absolutely no influence on LA statistics. I think this causes some of the confusion eg. I know that my year 5 son has already scored 5As in all areas (teachers have confirmed this), I have also seen his papers, but he is entered into statistics as having reached 5C in all areas, this allows the school to show progression over Y6. Yes, maybe disingenuous, but a reality - and I suspect a reality in every school.

I suspect some will choose to argue with me, but I spend hours going through these statistics, both school based and LA wide, and I know this to be fact.

Several teachers on MN alone have assessed children in their schools at level 6, so it thankfully is not a reality in every school. I'm appalled at your description of your ds's assessment.

Therefore, to show acceptable progress a child scoring level 3 (or above), then scoring level 5 (or above) will be deemed to have made acceptable progress.
I don't know what you're suggesting here. Schools have to aim for better than acceptable progress - are you saying they shoot themselves in the foot by only recording a 5c?

I would not be happy sending my ds to a school who lied about his teacher assessment, nor would I teach in one. I have never seen this discussed as an issue on TES, and absolutely every single other minutiae of the assessment process is, in massive detail!

Internal tracking and teacher assessment in monitored very closely by SIPs and OFSTED - I wonder how your school 'hides' their dodgy statistics?

What statistics do you spend 'hours' going through, Emsoboe? And what exactly do you know to be 'fact' - your post is unclear.

The stats I am referring to are mainly Raiseonline. I'm sorry, but whilst level 6 is a perfectly acceptable and normal teacher assessment, it would feed into these statistics as a 5A (not a 5c as you suggest). If a child is reported as being at a 5A level at the end of year 5, then so far as the external data is concerned (but not internal), that child is still a 5A. At KS1, as you will know, level 3 is just reported to the LA as Level 3 (not as a sublevel) and is interpreted at KS2 as a 3b (with reference to progress/value added).

Our schools statistics are not dodgy just realistic, and if you are truly up-to-date with tracking then you will recognise this.

The 5c suggestion was something you said about your ds, Emsoboe, and I was talking about the school's internal tracking ssytem.

Obviously Raise Online and external data only measure levels 3 to 5, just like the tests they represent. However, teacher assessment at the end of KS2 has equal weighting with the test results, and is equally as important (to some high schools, more importance). Teacher assessments are also reported to the LA/QCDA and would be recorded as a clear level 6, not a 5a. External data is set up to accept teacher assessments of up to 6 in Y6 and 4 in Y3.

Your school's statistics are as far from 'realistic' as is possible if a 5a child in Y5 is recorded as a 5c, just to show progress in Y6. That's disgusting, actually.

if you are truly up-to-date with tracking then you will recognise this.

That's just bloody rude. I've been a Literacy and Assessment coordinator for 15 years. I recognise the following:
Your ds's teacher assessment will have to have been doctored carefully from Y2 to Y6 in order not to show too much progress and therefore not shed light on his true ability. All to make sure progress is shown in Y6? What's so special about the Y6 teacher, and why can't she/he show progress naturally? What is wrong with their teaching?

It stinks. And I really resent you announcing on a public forum that it happens in every school. You are talking garbage.

No, Feenie, I'm not talking garbage.

You have, in other posts, accused SIPs of not knowing what they are talking about - a little arrogant, no? Even with your wealth of experience! It's very nice to report your Teacher Assessment levels, but surely you know that, sadly, they are not the primary statistic at key stage 2 levels.

In your role then you will know that showing 2 levels progress in the published statistics, ie Raiseonline, league tables, is pretty important. Would you like to enlighten me to a published statistic that includes level 6? I would be genuinely interested.

By law, schools must report their test and teacher assessment statistics to parents along with a national comparison. Here are the templated/materials provided for this purpose this year - note that the test tables do not contain a column to record level 6, because level 6 is not measured. Note that the teacher assessment tables do - to allow the school to record their level 6 data. Nationally, that data is recorded as 0%, because it refers to exceptionally able children and the statistics would be less than 0.5%. But it exists.

Sounds like your ds should be part of this data. An obligation which his school seem to have side-stepped neatly.

It isn't arrogance to know that this is factually correct, or where to find evidence to back it up. How can level 6 not exist, according to one SIP, if:
a) The ARA refers to tasks teachers may use to back up their assessment, with a separate website provided for this.
b) Several teachers on MN have children assessed as level 6 at their school, either now or in the past (Spanieleyes, Mrz, etc).
c)A table provided by QCDA has a column specifically for that purpose in teacher assessment, but not in test results.

I know that 2 levels is of prime importance. But if you were to work in a school, and see what else you are judged on, besides this (there are many, many more sticks to beat us with, even if the two levels progress is at the top) you would see that so is teacher assessment, as acknowledged and inspected, and commented extensively on, by OFSTED and SIPS. I'm going to assume that you can't possibly know this, since your role is simple test dat, rather than accuse you of arrogance or ignorance, since I am a little more polite than you are, it would seem.

Bless you Feenie! I can assure you my role involves a lot more than perusing individual school data! I can assure you that both the current and future OFSTED frameworks are imprinted on my brain and I could quote certainly the former word for word. Not sure you'd find anyone that confident on the new framework yet! Of course teacher assessment forms a part of this, but certainly at present, the all important data is the published statistics, of which, wrongly in my opinion, level 6 plays no part (neither does level 4 or above at KS1 - in relevance to the thread).

I actually think, if we dug down beneath the defences, that we have some agreement. 1. That level 6 (or level 4 in KS1) is achievable and can be teacher assessed.

1. That it is sad that current published statistics (other than reports to parents) make no allowance for this.

I'm not going to inform you of my role, but you will just have to trust that I really do know what I'm talking about!

Whatever. Your most important point seems to be that a) test data is the most important thing a school is judged on and b) you are a Very Important Person in Statistics.

Neither of which is particularly relevant to the discussion about teacher assessment.

all important data is the published statistics, of which, wrongly in my opinion, level 6 plays no part

Again, by law, the published teacher assessment data, both at national and school level, has to be reported to parents. Both refer to level 6 - so it's wrong to suggest it plays no part at all.

a) sadly true (well one of, after Safeguarding and other limiting judgements)
b) incorrect, but never mind.

Point is, disparity of scores discussed often comes down to the argument we've just had - ie. real levels of achievement vs. statistical management.

Good night!

Of course teacher assessment forms a part of this, but certainly at present, the all important data is the published statistics, of which, wrongly in my opinion, level 6 plays no part (neither does level 4 or above at KS1 - in relevance to the thread).

I missed this - Emsoboe, KS1 assessment is teacher assesment only, can be recorded as a 4 and would make up the entirety of a child's assessment, since it would be the only data recorded for that child at KS1. No test result would be reported or used for Raise Online for those children, nor any children in KS1. It's really strange that you don't know that....

Yes, quite weird actually. One mum told me that her dd had got 4a for all three areas but she actually got 3c for everything.

Bloody hell...she lied about her kid's grades?! Nobody on here would ever do a thing like that

I think you'll find that KS1 data is recorded, Feenie, and yes, can be found through Raiseonline. If you access your own school profile through Raiseonline, you'll find this.

You are correct that KS1 is teacher assessment only, but wrong in that Level 4 can be recorded, other than in internal tracking. It is wrong to give parents the impression that Level 4 at KS1 is valid outside of the immediate school environment. The LA will record this as a 3 - surely you know this? This doesn't undermine the fact that maybe a level 4 is justified and can be correctly teacher assessed, just that it makes no difference to the school statistics.

In my ideal world, as probably in yours, teacher assessment would be the only measure and would not have real (or purely statistical) upper limits.

Please do not assume that you are the only authority on this topic, because there are some glaring omissions in your own knowledge.

On that point, I really must accede, and go to bed. Good night (again!).

Of course our SIP would ask about Level 6 if the LA was receiving or accepting data tracking it - when Level 6 papers were provided routinely, our school (and others in our LA) recorded at least half a dozen children at that level every year. We have lots of very able children at our school, including, as I've said, children who get into some of the most selective schools in the country (private and state). Do you think if a school is getting over 50% Level 5s every year that it isn't highly likely that at least one of those children could be assessed at a Level 6?

Please don't accuse other schools - and indeed entire Local Authorities - of dishonesty because their 'statistical management' as Emsoboe puts it, differs from yours. Do you think OFSTED and our LA would not have noticed if they believed this to be a problem or indeed not the norm in many schools? Like you, we undergo external moderation and OFSTED awarded us the highest grade for our assessment and recording procedures in our last inspection. We're not sweeping 'dodgy statistics' under the carpet.

I'm sorry you'd be unhappy sending a child of yours to our school. But it's OK as we're hugely oversubscribed. Fortunately, too, our parents have a different opinion, with 99% of respondents telling us in our last survey that they were happy or very happy with the school and would recommend it to others.