Stop Schools Cheating Please

[twiggles]

Whatever your child is like, some primary schools and nurseries are pretending children start off at the low end, so they can pretend to inspectors of private and state schools that the child has developed only because of their teaching. If your child's advanced , some schools in rich areas take it out on the child. They won't bother giving the child attention, because the child's advanced, so they let the child coast downwards. But they give reports in writing about the child that pretend the child has started off at a low point in development and then got much better because of the teaching at the school....when the fact is the child was able to read or write when the child started at the school and as the school is giving the child little attention, the child has coasted downwards. Tha's what many schools do so they can pretend they've developed everything in the child, they want all children to be the same standard, like a photocopier. Poor children. Some teachers admit they're cheating and don't take the reports seriously and write them to impress inspectors. This is happending all over the show and I can't understand why inspectors are allowing them to get away with it. If parents start grading teachers in the school every three months the teachers won't be able to hide what's going on to the inspectors and teachers who are pretending might stop. Teachers that aren't giving inspectors the facts need to be stopped...they're not giving children an honest education.

You don't need independent tests to prove what level a child is. The system currently in place is sufficiently robust.

Because a test can only ever provide a very narrow snapshot, that's why, richmal.

You should never, ever be told, however, that 'we only test up to this level'. There is no ceiling on levels at KS1 or KS2.

You do realise levels are already externally moderate at the end of each Key Stage (reception, Y2 & Y6) don't you richmal?

Anyone judging teachers' judgements (Ofsted, senior management, colleagues moderating, the LEA, etc) requires a great deal of secure evidence to 'prove' judgements - one narrow test is not evidence, and would be frowned upon.

Our LEA moderates EYFS judgements in Reception too.

But while schools are judged on value added, it is also open to accusations of more able children not being marked as high as they should.

MRZ, it's four years between years 2 and 6. Also, I thought teacher assessment was part of the grades.

If a parent insists their child is at one level and the school thinks they are another, why in such cases could it not go to an independent moderator? Such a system would stop any accusations of lower level grades being given. Knowing such a test were there would also deter any parents making unrealistic claims and would add to the confidence of the system.

richmal if I were a parent in disagreement with the teacher I would not want to 'prove my point' by making my child sit a test. Any moderation (and I am pretty about the idea in the first place, given successive SAT marking fiascos) should only look at the child's work, not make them sit another (snapshot) test.

And many schools already carry out benchmarking, where a child's work is levelled by a teacher who does not know the child.

National curriculum levels are only reported in Y2 and Y6 in other years groups assessment is internal and doesn't contribute to value added.

If I insisted to the doctor I had mumps and he said it was measles who is best qualified to know?

If a child is only taught KS2 at school, what evidence would the teacher have that they can do KS3?

Doctors get diagnoses wrong all the time. Luckily most of the time it's not serious. But cancer in the UK is frequently appallingly diagnosed (as was the case with my father. He was eventually diagnosed in France!)

Levels are reported to the DfE and LEA and each child has a unique admissions number so all information about levels at the end of each KS is available. (KS3 is age 14)

and patients often misdiagnose themselves believing they know more than the professionals who have undergone many years of training

richmal the levels overlap. It's perfectly possible for a child to get L6 at the end of KS2. In fact most children of MNers do . L6 is broadly the expected level at the end of KS3. So clearly the KS3 curriculum is being taught to able children even though they are still in KS2 age-wise. Some children may go higher, though national tests aren't geared to measure this - but teachers are able to assess this and teach accordingly.

On the whole teachers in good schools will tell parents where their children are in terms of progress through the NC on a regular basis.

Are we still going with this?
Twiggles, any evidence yet?
Richmal, children are continually assessed, and a lot of time and training goes into making sure those assessments are accurate. Apart from the mythical teachers the batty OP seems to think exist, teachers need and value accurate assessment data in order to do their job.

Well I'm piling in here because although perhaps the OP hasn't said this in the best way, I do believe this sort of thing goes on in my dc's school. The sort of thing richmal is talking about with children assessed only up to a certain level and especially in maths, not being given a chance to show what they really can do. Or if they are tested higher the head asks the teachers to cap levels. So in year 1 it was maybe to 2c and then 3c in year 2. Then of course magically the cap disappears in year 6 although I don't think they do level 6.

Why does this matter? Because year after year the brightest children's starting point is underestimated and then what they are taught is limited so although it looks like they make progress from say 3c to 3a, in reality they were a 3b or 3a at the start of that year!

Then, TSBC, take it up with your individual school. As earlier advice to the OP said - this is a weakness in her children's school, not a nationwide conspiracy. Solve the small local problem effectively, rather than creating unwieldy national conspiracy theories.

So in year 1 it was maybe to 2c and then 3c in year 2.

But the Y2 one would be moderated by the LEA. ANd your 3c example doesn't stack up at all - a 3 would have to convert to a 5 in Y6 to show just adequate progress, and you said your school hasn't entered any children for level 6 to date.

So said Headteacher would have shot himself in the foot by capping a 3c. It woudn't happen.

I do agree with you teacherwith2kids. I think the OP made sweeping generalisations based on one school and it is unfair on the majority of teachers/ schools.

I did however want to show that it does seem to go on.

Feenie, what if they hadn't covered more than that in class in numeracy though? I can see the moderators would be able to see if levels had been over-cooked but what about a hypothetical child who is working at level4 (note mine wasn't but just say...) at the end of year 2 at home but their teacher never touches on that material at school so there is no evidence of it?
I can also see that scenario couldn't happen with writing being moderated.

I don't understand your L5/6 point - please can you clarify it? I imagine our school does not do L6 because it hasn't got the resources/ inclination to teach that far. It does not seem to value challenging the top few children in a class. Level 5 would be seen as enough even if some were capable of more. That last bit is based on conjecture and general experience not firm evidence/ experience of year 6 as not got that far yet.

I can see what some schools might gain by underestimating a child's level but they have nothing to gain by restricting learning if they want to show good progress.

Every year I've had a word with teachers ask for harder work for dd, to be told she was already being given work to her level. I knew what my dd was capable of. I'm not alone in this experience. If she were allowed to sit an independent test we would all have had a clear indication of her abilities. I can't see why tests are so unreliable. Either a 10 year old can solve simulaneuos equations or they can't. That and all the rest of KS3 cannot be a sudden fluke guess on the day of the test. If tests are so unreliable why do GCSEs involve exams? Especially on maths, tests are very reliable.

A test doesn't show a child's capabilities it only shows what a child can do at a given time answering about sections of the curriculum. It would be impossible to include everything a child needs to know in a single test. Maths tests in particular select a number of concepts to test.

tsbc - schools have to ensure children make two levels progress between Y2 and Y6; this is judged as satisfactory progress.

A child achieving 3c in your example would have to reach level 5 in Y6.

To make good progress, the child would have to achieve level 6 - which doesn't happen in your school.

So what would a Head have to gain from capping at 3c?

MRZ, tests pick out a random cross section of the curriculum. It would be highly improbalble that a child would have learnt only the concepts which happened to be selected on the test.

As mrz says, schools have nothing to gain by stopping a child from achieving anything - if a child really is level 4 in Y2, that would make them absolutely exceptional and most teachers and schools would be delighted.

Schools are judged by Ofsted on how well they stretch more able children.

That happens more than you would think - Y6 pupils who scrape a level in a test, for example, only to arrive at secondary not performing anywhere near that level.

Teacher assessment is more thorough, reliable, and requires much more evidence, and sources of evdience.