a bit sad re parents evening and "levels"

[severnofnine]

a bit of an AIBU but I'm not brave enough to post there.

So DS1 I think is bright ( but so is everyone dc i guess). WE saw the teacher and he is " gaining levels as expected" and isnt it great that he achieving " what he should be" and "average".

I found the whole thing so sad. Lots of positives- always enthusiastic and works well independently. and lots of emphasis of - "isnt it great that he is gaining levels as expected".

He says school is "ok"- lots of spelling tests which he hates. he is quite quiet and very "well behaved" ( unlike his brothers), which is I think his teachers are finding him enthusiastic as he wouldnt dream of actually showing he was bored at school.

I'm not a pushy parent at all and am quite relaxed.
But even so I found the whole emphasis on average and gaining levels as we would hope etc kind of depressing.

and dont suggest private school as we really cant afford it :(

My son got a level 2A at the end of KS1 - I've been told that they are not going to aim for the heady heights of level 3B for him by the end of Y3 - they'll keep him in his comfort zone at level 3C. He's helping the less able in his set at the moment, isn't it marvelous. He's consolidating his skills you see. Again, wonderful, it's reinforcement you see.

My friend's children who reached 3C and 3B at the end of KS1 well you can imagine their trajectory is rather different. In the hallowed top set they 'have' to gain a good level 5 in years to come, that much has already been decided. They have the innate 'talent' and the skill. For my son a good rate of progression is a 'good' level 4.

Those receiving a 3C and 3B at the end of KS1 will end Y3 at least level 3A.

Perhaps none of this means anything and it all evens out, levels are just for the school after all?

As I see it my mistake in all of this was not getting my son to a level 3C at the end of KS1. He's very young in his year and already his destiny is mediocrity in maths? Unless of course I take things into my own hands.

Unless of course I take things into my own hands? Things would have been in my hands, feet and hair years before now. They only get one primary education. It has to be a good one. Make it so, (as they say on Star Trek.)

Feenie - I've seen it happen. I've seen children being given flash cards when they are practically born. I've seen phonics enrichment happening every night after school for hours. I've seen children reading Road Dahl around 5.8 with expression and yes, even understanding - which so many seem to dispute. I've worked in China. Is any of this - when 'encouraged' to such an extent desirable? Possibly not. Are perfectly ordinary children capable of the level of understanding you'd need to get a level 3C in reading by the age of 6 - absolutely, yes, IMO.

Back in the UK I know parents who spend hours reading to children. Who play story CDs, who help with phonics. Are their level 3C aged 6 children really superior in intellect to many others? Do they have more innate intelligence? Not necessarily. Really you can achieve so much with practice I believe.

It takes a lot more than a level of understanding and drilling in flash cards to achieve a 3c.

Cortina, we've talked before - many times - about your dcs' school's low expectations. Most schools aren't like that. Most schools would set a target of 3b for the end of the year, and there would be no artificial ceiling on that either.

For my son a good rate of progression is a 'good' level 4.

It isn't, actually - that's only 'satisfactory' if he got 2A in KS1. Not Good Enough.

I don't think Cortina is talking about showing the five year old flash cards, she's saying parents who showed their baby flash cards and then taught them to read and then continually read with them and had them reading, would end up with five year olds who can read really well. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I know a three year old who's starting to read pretty well. It'll be a while until she's five or six.

I don't necessarily think the early help makes them any more intelligent but it gives them the confidence to think they they can do well. This is turn, motivates a child to try and hence they develop as resilient, independent learners who have the skills to learn. In addition, the higher expectations from teachers, parents and their peers all leads to them becoming high achievers.

On the flip side, children who start badly get it in their heads that they are thick and very sadly, that label sticks. I think its the child's self perception that is most important.

Yes, learnandsay, that's exactly what I meant.

Hi Feenie. Yes, of course it takes more than flash card drilling to achieve 3C but Leanandsay makes my point perfectly.

I'm told the school has high expectations and it all 'levels out' (pardon the pun) in time. We shall see.It might be that all this early level business makes no odds in the end anyway? We've yet to go through secondary education.

Early confidence and belief all helps though and I think what comes across to me once again from this thread is how involved we all need to be in our DC's education.

I think we're tripping ourselves up with these references to intelligence because in our society we refer to intelligence both as a measure of natural problem solving ability and also as the ability to apply knowledge.

Clearly early tuition may have no effect on the former (in practice it will depend on the problem. If it's a written problem then reading will have an impact.) But on the latter early tuition will definitely have a significant impact. So in practice early tuition does make children more intelligent -- to an extent.

I'm confused by 'levels'. At DS's parent's evening last week, the teachers told me that DS went into year 3 at a level 3b but he'd dropped to a 3c by Christmas and now he's back up to a 3b but they're going to push him to achieve a 3a because he can't be seen to leave the class at the same level he entered it.

Very interesting discussion all - esp. Feenie, learnandsay & Cortina

I still think it's a triangle - parent - school - child.

At present I suppose our triangle is rather scalene - I seem to be putting a lot of effort into supporting learning, practice & consolidation of maths skills and working on basic grammar (non-existent at school - DD1 in Y4). DD1 enjoys the work, sometimes says no which I respect (especially when she's obviously tired), but most importantly can see the extra work (roughly 30 minutes a night) is paying off.

I'm past caring about whether my helping at home approach is right or wrong - mainly because it clearly is starting to work. Whether that's down to me, my child being that bit older or for the first time, regular school homework & reading books sent home (Thank you OFSTED inspection year!) - I can't say and don't dwell on. My priority has always been to have a child leave primary roughly able to read at her chronological age level and able to add, subtract, multiply and divide. In effect to have all those good old fashioned building blocks firmly in place in order to be ready to engage with secondary education (hopefully fairly independently).

I don't necessarily think the early help makes them any more intelligent but it gives them the confidence to think they they can do well. This is turn, motivates a child to try and hence they develop as resilient, independent learners who have the skills to learn. In addition, the higher expectations from teachers, parents and their peers all leads to them becoming high achievers.

Whathaveifforgottentoday - I agree.

Whether it makes them more intelligent is an interesting one. Some might say it did - laying down/reinforcing neural pathways in the brain etc. Cognitive science is still in its infancy & a controversial subject.

What can't be disputed, IMO, is everything else you so eloquently say.

dropped MrsArchie? What do they mean? Is this a separate junior school?

MrsArchieTheInventor - there was a thread recently where teachers admitted they made the levels up anyway which the majority applauded but I found faintly alarming. Not least for much of which we are touching on in this thread.

Feenie - yes, the infants and juniors are separate schools. It was sort of implied that he shouldn't have been assessed as a level 3b when he went there.

I know it's sometimes not seen as the right thing to accept mediocrity with education, especially children's, but I'm just happy that he can read, write, articulate, has creative flair and a good, sensible, caring all-round head on his shoulders than whether he's a b or a c. He's happy and normal for his age and that's ok for me.

Aren't the levels guides, anyway? There are not scientific, are they?

Can I point out that it was secondary teachers who said that. Primary schools have external moderators and several systems in place to ensure accurate levelling for teacher assessment.

It can be hard with separate schools, MrsArchie - the infant schools are sometimes under pressure to produce higher levels but don't seek to moderate with other schools where they should. In a primary school there would be whole school moderation to ensure total consistency in levelling.

Cortina - i guess its how we judge intelligence .... but that's a whole different debate.

Have you seen some of the recent threads on TES in the Primary Forum re: KS1 and KS2 leveling, Feenie? They also made rather alarming reading. Let's just say there seem to be some disparity in opinions.

I appreciate there are safeguards in KS1 but the system seems far from foolproof. I appreciate you will know more than me.

Also, I am hoping that it really won't make a huge amount of difference in the longer term. That's what I am told. I have to say I don't always feel confident.

Yes, I won't get drawn into that one again whathaveiforgottentoday :).

thanks all for the interesting debate - off swimming now

Awww, that's just writing - that's always a bit subjective. And very few opinions differed more than a sublevel, which is neither here nor there, really.

It's all so personal OP...my DD is aged 7..youngest in year three and when we arrived from a prvate prep in September at this new school, DD was RIGHT behind her peers. Now she's 2b in all things and teacher is very happy with progress...she's "progressing" and that's enough for us. She is expected to get to 3 by the end of the year. Good. Imo that's a massive achivement and her peers are a year older.

AT 7 there is still time for your DS to suddenly find his feet/talent/confidence.

WHen I was ten I was known for lacking in confidence and then overnight it changed...I literally became a sporting wonder ...and shot ahead in all subjects but maths. DS will get there with your support.

The criteria for each level is very clear learnandsay and as Feenie says strictly moderated both internally and externally to ensure accuracy and to prevent teachers making up a child's results.

Feenie - I agree, though that's why it's confusing. 3b or not 3b...

Playing devil's advocate, DS has a friend in his year whose mum is a teacher at the infant school they both went to and she made it very clear to several other mums (speaking as a mum, not a teacher) that she wanted to send her DS to a different school because she didn't think the level of teaching at the junior school was up to scratch. In the end I think that was the only school he was accepted in, though I don't like to probe too deeply into other parents' business and so can only assume that is why he's going to the same school as DS. Maybe that and all of his other friends were going to the same school.

I feel like a bit of an ingnorant parent and bad mum in saying that I didn't really judge the school on a great deal other than locality (both DH and his brother went to the same school, plus their mum used to teach there, though she retired a long while ago) and general intuition. For what it's worth, the other mum/teacher is doing something pro-active about her concerns as she's now a parent governor.