Forgive me MN, for I have commited a cardinal sin - I allowed myself to get involved in a park-time chat about reports/NC levels

[FirstLeg]

...am now I am (a) slightly concerned and (b) slightly suspicious.

Friend A (who brought up the subject) said her DD had got a 4, and two 3A's in her report (can't remember what in), while friend B said her DD had all 3A's. Now, this at the end of year 3 - our DD's are 8 (although theirs are nearly 9 and mine just 8).

I thought DD was doing well with her 3C's, and her teacher has always been full of praise for her, said how bright and capable she is etc, but now am worried that actually, she is not actually doing that well, and the teacher is overstating her ability for some reason.

It did cross my mind that my friends were exaggerating, but I have no idea why them might (they are lovely people and not showy-offy types imo). Friend B did counter her DD's (slightly!) lower scores compared to Friend A, by saying her DS got 5C's at the end of year 5, which would seem ever more 'inflated'.

I know I shouldn't have got involved, and shouldn't worry, but you know how it is. I even said I couldn't remember what DD got . Stupid me for trying to be pro-active and arranging a catch up in the park before school starts... Boo!

[mrz]

the changes for Cortina

[IndigoBell]

Thing is Cortina, you are just not right at all.

Each year each child makes whatever progress they make. Hopefully 2 sub levels.

The next year they have to make more progress.

So if they end Y2 on a L1. Then next year they make 3 sub levels, then the next year they make 3 sub levels, they'll be a L3 by end of Y4 - which was what they had to make by Y6. But the child will still be expected to make 2 sub levels in Y5 and Y6. Nobody looks at the stats and says 'OK, you can stop teaching her now' - No, they say 'Has she made 2 sub levels progress this year?'

So the Y6 teacher will be under just as much pressure for that kid to make 2 sub levels - and get a L5, as another kid who was a L3 back in Y2 and is now still working towards a L5.

[pointythings]

I do think people get fixated and expect progress to be linear, i.e. two sublevels every year. DD1 has done this pretty predictably, DD2 is a bit different - in maths, 3 sublevels from Yr 1 to 2, only 1 sublevel last year - still puts her at 3A so doing well, and we have had very clear feedback on which bits she needs support with - very helpful.

I've always make a point of going to parents evenings and meeting the teachers, and so far I have always felt they knew their stuff so was happy to trust them. This has been because I have always had very concrete information on their strengths and weaknesses instead of 'she is doing very well'.

As long as I keep my finger on the pulse and the school keeps doing its job, I'm happy - the DDs will have years when they fly and years when they struggle a bit, but they will get there because they have the right support in place.

[Cortina]

Indigo reading your description back it sounds prescriptive to me and I still think there are potential dangers in it, not least as PP said people generally expect progress to be linear. I realise that no system is perfect. PP makes a good point that you need to trust the school and teachers, they need to see your child as an individual who has the capacity to potentially surprise them. Thanks MRZ.

[Feenie]

But Cortina, two levels is set as good progress (not satisfactory, so challenging), intended to highlight children who don't make good progress (again, not intended to highlight children who don't make satisfactory progress - that's good news, surely?).

Most teachers are in it for the blossoming . It's great when children make good progress (again, not alright progress), but most love the rush of the child who exceeds expectations, and breaks down all the barriers that you imagine are set.

Pity the teacher (and yes, there are some, I know, and we need to watch for those) who are just content with steady, expected 'I've done what is is expected of me, what more do you want'? progress. Because where is the job satisfaction in that? The national expected levels are set to push those complacent teachers,and the good progress levels which most schools set are there to further that aim. The system is set up to highlight bad teaching and to find out why children are not progressing, not to put children in boxes with ceilings.

If schools set targets of 1 and a half sublevels progress per year (because that's expected, then I might agree with you. That might set children up to be ordinary, but most schools set targets of 2 sublevels to exceed that, and most teachers are thrilled and proud if the progress is more than that, and becomes excellent and exceptional.

[IndigoBell]

Cortina - the system is not at all prescriptive .

If a child makes less than 2 sub levels progress questions are asked to check that the teacher is teaching well.

If a child makes 2 sub levels progress no questions are asked.

In a good school, if a child makes more than 2 sub levels progress, questions are asked to find out why the child made exceptional progress, and can anything be learnt from that.

Why on earth is that prescriptive?

Now this is done for each teacher, for each child (30) for reading, writing, maths and sometimes science. That's an awful lot of analysis.

AFAIK most schools have 'pupil progress' meetings every term where all of those stats are gone through with each teacher, with each pupil, with each subject.

So every term every teacher has to convince the HT and other members of the SLT (senior leadership teacher) that they are getting the full potential out of every child.

If you want to change your school - become a school governor. Then you'll find out if all of this is happening - and if it isn't you'll be able to ask why.

But in most schools teachers are set with impossibly challenging targets - which they work bloody hard to achieve.

[Cortina]

I do think there are potentially flaws in the system Indigo for the reasons I've mentioned and Feenie and others have identified. I do appreciate that it can work well, why it's there and that no system is perfect. I also appreciate most teachers do an amazing job in difficult circumstances and I love the idea of teachers 'being in it for the blossoming' as Feenie describes.

I think that a tracking system can mean that it's difficult for some children to go beyond expectations set. I think it can lead to children being seen as low, middle and high ability (fairly early on) in general terms, which I don't like. I personally dislike target level predictions based on a standard system where early assessment information is used to calculate something far into the future. High achievers at eleven being 'failed' f they don't achieve top grades at GCSE and heads being held 'accountable' if they don't for example and as I mentioned earlier.

[IndigoBell]

I don't see at all how a tracking system can mean it's difficult for children to go beyond expectations set.

Child makes expected progress (for the whole year) in term 1. Everyone is happy.
Child makes no progress in term 2. Everyone is quiet.
Child makes no progress in term 3. Questions are asked. Teacher needs to justify why the child has made no progress in 2 terms.

The parents won't know any of this is happening. This is a management issue between the HT and the teacher.

It is progress being measured - not ability. So the same system of measuring progress is used for children of all ability. A child who is on the low ability table is expected to make the same progress as a child who is on the high ability table. And if a teacher is question why a child didn't make progress, they can't, can't say 'because they're low ability'.

And I still really, really don't get your problem with GCSE targets. It's not about kids failing. It's about trying to ensure that all kids receive quality teaching. That teachers can't let bright kids coast and nor can they ignore kids who struggle....... So it's about asking questions when bright kids don't do well. Not to label them failures - but to make sure bad teaching wasn't the reason they didn't do better.

The alternative of having no targets makes it very hard to notice bad teaching. If a whole class makes less than expected progress wouldn't you want serious questions to be asked? And viceaversa. If a whole class does well, wouldn't you want to know why?

[Cortina]

Hi Indigo. Ok, will try to take points as you raise them & give my perspective.

First off, often parents will know it's happening as levels are reported every term. Not sure how widespread this reporting is? Be interesting to know.

I understand that progress is being measured and understand why the system is there to act as a safeguard etc, but spurts and dips in school performance are the exception rather than the rule. IMO you can't look at a child who has made 2 sub level jumps one year and expect exactly the same the next year for example or assume that something has gone wrong. Do you believe the child on the 'low ability' table as you put it in Y4 or Y5 has the same chance of achieving a level 5 or 6 at the end of KS2 as the child on the high ability table at this point in time? Do others? There should be every chance for this to happen and more than many imagine will be cognitively capable IMO.

I believe what one child can achieve most can achieve and I am not sure the system always supports that. As I said before I don't think a level 5 at KS2 is beyond the cognitive ability of as many 11 year olds as we may imagine. I believe it's perfectly possible the child on that 'low ability' table (especially early on) will be as cognitively capable as the child on the 'high ability' table. If he/she isn't I believe they can often become so through good teaching, help at home, reinforcement, being interested/stimulated in the subject matter etc. I believe it's possible to get smarter & smash expectations but recognise that the system we have CAN mean it's difficult for some children to go beyond expectations set. I don't like talking about ability early on, it's really current attainment and I believe this can change. That's the issue, I fear the system can lead to some believing that things can't change enormously. Read some threads here and on TES to see evidence of exactly what I mean.

Again I can see what you mean re: GCSEs in that having a safeguard to ensure bad teaching wasn't the reason some children didn't do better etc makes sense and of course everyone should achieve as highly as they possibly can. What gets to me is the assumption about ability being made here, early assessment information is being used to determine what should happen far into the future or others held accountable. It's perfectly possible by 15 or 16 other students will have overtaken these 'bright eleven year olds' as identified in KS2 and they deserve the same opportunities and open mindedness about their potential. In 2006 it was decided by the DfES that universities should be encouraged to established links with these pre-teen students who did particularly well in year six tests. I am not sure the path is always clear for a late developer to fulfill their potential.

I agree that having no targets can make it difficult to spot bad teaching. Of course I would be interested to see why a class didn't make expected progress or made amazing progress etc. I think there are potential dangers if a target driven system is applied without flexibility and too rigidly/as a blunt instrument.

[mrz]

Cortina I am the product of a different system (being extremely elderly ) but I cruised through school and no one bothered because I was always in the top 5% at my grammar school. I did well, exceeded expectations and put absolutely no effort into the process ... at least with the current system teachers are aware of where children are at each stage and regularly monitor progress.

[Cortina]

:) Mrz. I too am fairly elderly and am interested in how the system worked before. How was progress assessed in primary school? I imagine assessments and any 'levels' (whatever the equivalent was etc) were not routinely shared with parents? I have a feeling beliefs and ideas about potential and ability were probably more entrenched? Did parents question less?

[Cortina]

Sorry, meant to write earlier that spurts and dips in school performance are the rule not the exception not the other way around.

[Feenie]

No levels existed pre-NC, it was possible to teach dinosaurs every year, have kids make no progress and keep a hipflask in your desk! That's how it was in my primary school anyway

[2BoysTooLoud]

I am 'getting on' in years and I really don't think my parents questioned what went on at primary school and nor would it have been welcomed or expected.
Now one thing I think has improved over the years are 'interventions' for example in reading, maths etc if a kid is struggling.
I got lost with maths from the word go - utterly confused- and that stayed with me throughout school and beyond. These days [certainly at the primary my ds attends] I would have been identified as struggling and given extra help. [Every child counts etc].
This is a good thing that happens today. [Perhaps fewer children are found crying in the toilets over their numbers nowadays.. memories!]

[mrz]

Cortina there was no system to monitor progress and no levels until you reached 11+

[Cortina]

What happened at 11? Think they administered some sort of test?

[IndigoBell]

There was the 11+ which decided whether you went to grammar schools or secondary moderns.

If you failed the 11+ you couldn't go to university, because only grammar school kids could do that.

If you went to a secondary modern you were prepared for a practical career like hairdressing or brick laying....

[2BoysTooLoud]

I remember a test that probably influenced what stream I was put in at secondary. [Buggered up the maths of course!].
Nothing reported to parents and we got very 'light weight' reports eg, 'satisfactory' used a lot.

[mrz]

State secondary education was arranged into a structure containing three types of school, grammar school, secondary technical school and secondary modern school. Pupils were allocated to their respective types of school according to their performance in the Eleven Plus examination. Only the top 5-10% of children went to grammar school and only grammar school pupils could go onto sit GCE O level exams

[2BoysTooLoud]

I'm of comprehensive era [1970s]. Test simply for streaming I think, done at end of primary. No warning about it - just happened one day. No explanation either.

[cornsilksi]

11 plus was controversial due to debate over whether intelligence was fixed at 11.

[2BoysTooLoud]

Interesting article cornsilksi.
Think 11plus certainly had flaws. [No good for late developers and possible class/cultural bias].

[Cortina]

Thanks for posting that Cornsilksi - agree with this:

Most scientists studying the way human minds work now agree that intelligence and human thought processes are multi-faceted and complex phenomena. It has been demonstrated that there is no automatic connection between ability in one area and another. And undermining the IQ testers' claims to measure general intelligence, recent research shows that children can easily be trained in the skills needed to score high marks.

Recent developments in cognitive science have shown that it's possible to 'get smarter' too. I think though (rather sadly) that the majority believe 'intelligence' is essentially unchangeable and follows you around like your eye or hair colour. They also think it can be gauged fairly young. Those who are thought a bit dim/unintelligent who do more than is expected of them come to be seen as plodders or over achievers and those thought bright who don't live up to their early billing excuses are generally made for them, they've got in with a bad crowd etc.

I've always thought that tenacity and the ability to work hard/concentrate should also be taken into account or tested in some sense when 11 year olds take the exams for grammars and selective schools today. They are being given an opportunity that's often superior to the education others will receive in the comp or secondary modern down the road. If they are disruptive or don't do what's asked they are not going to be asked to leave. Also those who work hard often excel in time and can often 'beat' those who have always been considered much brighter when it comes to GCSEs etc IMO.

Interesting that in the Grammar school days it was impossible to do O'levels if you failed the 11 plus.

[mrz]

and there was no opportunity to move from secondary modern to grammar if you were a late bloomer

[Cortina]

If intelligence was fixed mrz then late bloomers were sadly a myth, plodders over extending themselves and getting uppity. I 'moved up' at a late stage which was unheard of, only because certain teachers campaigned on my behalf - Thank you Mr Turner. I used 'loquacious' and 'undulating' in an essay and at first it was thought it wasn't my own work. This sent them into a spin, 'dim' children didn't know and regularly use those sort of words apparently :). Just the tip of the iceberg in a long drawn out process of 'changing streams' back when I were a lass.