What should I expect from maths teacher

[Labro]

Ds is yr 6, last year he finished yr 5 on 4b for maths, this year he was a 4c at Christmas and seems to be sliding backwards (scoring 33% in a test on factors and 40% recently on a general 11+ 'style' assessment) where he was regularly scoring 80%+ in yr 5.
His teacher doesn't seem concerned, should I be asking for extra help for him?

Dear all & Feenie:

Apologies for length - but wanted to fully discuss data underlying my theory & observation of behaviour in our LEA.

My theory is from close tracking at our school is roll back works like this:

Y3 - start at 2b (KS1 SATs score achieved Y2) working to 2a - achieve 2a and 3c (2 NC sub-levels progress achieved by teacher - as required by management)

Y4 - start working to 3c (from beginning - all APP scores 3 observations of performance collected anew) - achieve 3b/ 3a (somewhere over these 4 school years there is 3 sub-levels progress (but presuming first sub-level (in this case 3c) is largely repeated - and so first NC sub-level isn't a lot of work to achieve) - I'm placing this at Y4 but could happen anywhere)

Year 5 - start over again working to 3a - achieve 3a and 4c

Year 6 start at 4c - achieve 4c and 4b - possibly 4a.

2 full NC sub-levels achieved in KS2 (start points may vary).

As the link to KS2 - KS3 progress (www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/DFE-RR096.pdf) suggests in Table 3.1 there is a tracked record across 70,000 English students in 10 LEAs of plateau at the start of each school year (flat line every Autumn term). Now for that to work out as a mathematical average (average meaning performance of all 70,000 students/ 70,000 - i.e. mathematical mean - that means a significant portion must fall back or plateau at start of each year). You've also agreed that negative progress occurs (but would be tracked - you haven't explained who is penalised for negative progress - so one presumes there is no penalty to previous teacher - it's seen as possible - loss of learning over summer perhaps?). If we presume plateau - so working to same level you were working to in previous school year all over again from start (all APP criteria rescored from very beginning not continued from previous teachers observations) this is scored as '0 gain' or plateau & thus my view that if this is the case, then there is indeed room for fiddle.

So - just looking at it mathematically (and see later tables in Annexe 5 in this report tracking data on 70,000 pupils across 10 local authorities) the only explanation is negative or stalled progress frequently occurring at start of year for that to work mathematically.

Now the new teacher isn't blamed for this. The old teacher isn't affected either. But there is a roll back [by which I mean child works to same NC sub-level again - which in this report would score 0 gain] (unfortuantely the data for that Autumn term roll back was not reported just plotted). I have no means of assessing whether it is real (necessary) or not (unnecessary). What I am saying is that this rolling back (0 NC sub-level gain or -1 NC sub-level) in Autumn term does happen & data supports that. {What I don't know Feenie is how this kind of thing is reported centrally to LEA/ DfE as a parent - I'm presuming 0 sum gain - so working to 4a (4b achieved) at end school year/ start of next school year still working to 4a still (in our area though parents are clear that all criteria are collected from the start all over again - which I've termed 'roll back')}

My theory (which may well be highly cynical) is that this roll back means there is an opening for fiddling the system for teachers of showing 2+ NC sub-levels progress across a year. My assumption is that having a child work again from start to the same NC sub-level achieved the previous year does happen (all APP criteria remarked from 0 starting point - at our school 3 ticks against each criteria as observed by teacher/ accept this could be different elsewhere). In theory if you have achieved a NC sub-level - you shouldn't lose that achievement. So I see this as odd and my explanation is that this is about 'teacher performance - showing 2+ NC sub-levels (x many APP points)' rather than 'pupil achievement'.

I refer you to figure 1.2 in the report (linked above) for just reading. Now for reasons not clearly explained the data is tracked from Summer term to Autumn (so over boundary end of previous year to end of first term following year).

Year 3/4 transition: nearly 70% no progress (so working to 4c at end of Y3 and still working to 4c at start of Y4) or -1 NC sub-level progress (working to 4c at end of Year 3/ now working to 3a at start of Y4). (-1 reported sub-level is ca. 5% of data - approx. equivalent to 3,500 children out of 70,000).

Year 4/5 transition: nearly 70% no progress or -1 NC sub-level progress. (-1 reported sub-level is ca. 5%).

Year 5/6 trasition: nearly 70% no progress or -1 NC sub-level progress (-1 reported sub-level is ca. 10%).

Year 6/7 transition: 70% no progress or -1 NC sub-level progress (and hey check out -1 reported sub-level is ca. 40%). So at start of senior school a large proportion of pupils (19,600 or 28% of all 70,000 pupils) have the reported KS2 SATs score/ teacher reported NC sub-level rolled back at least one sub-level.

Because we all understand children do not progress in a linear progression and because we all realise that some things can get rusty over summer holidays - this end summer term to autumn plateau is seen as acceptable - but the fact it is so persistant (no rise in slope at all) suggests that this transition between school years is where there is wiggle room. Whether it's classed a readjusting previous teachers score/ loss of learning over summer/ school policy that all APP points observations start afresh for level child was working to at end of previous school year is by the by - plateau or fall back at start of next school year is regularly occurring.

I can only speak for our school & what I hear from friends at other schools in this LEA of course & a few friends in other LEAs. But there seems definite wiggle room in this system. Again data real but theory may well reflect my cynical nature.

I've only read the first half of your post - but in Y3 to Y6, in the example you describe, there is none of this thing you term rollback.

Y3 2b to 3c - no rollback - the child has progressed 2 sublevels - good progress.

Y4 3c to 3a - no rollback, 2 sublevels. This child has again made good progress.

Y5 3a to 4c - this child has moved one sublevel. Management need to look and see why. It could be because progress was so good in previous years - progress is not always linear. Or there may be another reason, is anything else going on, is the child 'stuck', is intervention needed perhaps?

Y6 4c to 4a - no roll back, progress of 2 sublevels, good progress, and child has moved 2 full levels since Y2.

There is no problem with this scenario, PastBy! Whether these teachers have started APP afresh or not (which I would agree rather defeats the purpose, but you can't argue with the teaching - the results are there to see in three years), the child has made good progress in three years, however you dress it up. I don't know why you don't get that.

You seem genuinely confused - a teacher has one year to ensure a child makes those two levels of progress. If a child made the progress in neat linear jumps, then you could expect the first sublevel to be achieved halfway through the year - so round about February half term. A school's next full assessment period might be at the end of the term, so that progress may not be recorded until Easter.

It sounds as though you would be jumping up and down about that, going on about rollback, cheating the system, etc, etc. But that would be perfectly normal, and when the child improved by another sublevel at the end of the year, that teacher would have done a good job, if the scenario was repeated for all children.

It seems you see a normal situation of children making mostly good progress as some kind of national subterfuge, PastBy.

Whether it's classed a readjusting previous teachers score/ loss of learning over summer/ school policy that all APP points observations start afresh for level child was working to at end of previous school year is by the by - plateau or fall back at start of next school year is regularly occurring.

Nothing you have described here backs up this suspicion, PastBy. In the scenario you gave, nothing like that happened. You seem extraordinarily paranoid about something which isn't happening/or is completely normal.

Whether it's classed a readjusting previous teachers score/ loss of learning over summer/ school policy that all APP points observations start afresh for level child was working to at end of previous school year is by the by - plateau or fall back at start of next school year is regularly occurring.

I really don't know of any schools that do such a thing and as people have said countless times if this is really happening in your child's school (and you can prove it) you should either move schools or contact the governors, LEA and Ofsted.

70% of 70,000 pupils studied regularly plateau or move backwardsd in KS2 between the point where they are working at end of summer Term and what they are working at end of Autumn Term. Indeed the study opted to record this as Summer to Autumn transition (i.e. end summer term score to end Autumn term score - so across school year boundary). They don't plateau Autumn to Spring or Spring to Summer terms - but progress on average (1 - 2 NC sub-level). (see Annexe 5 data in report link below for full data)

Surely if children do not progress predictably as you both suggest (mrz & Feenie) please explain why it is absolutely normal at precisely this point every year (and I fear I do class 70% of the time 0 progress or -1 progress in NC sub-levels Y3/Y4, Y4/ Y5 and Y5/ Y6 transition as 'frequent'). It appears that the score at the end of summer term is repeated in Autumn term for 49,000 children out of the 70,000 children followed in total in this study from 10 LEAs.

Report link here: www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/DFE-RR096.pdf

Reports key findings:

5 Learning Pathways: Individual Progress Patterns over Time

Key Findings

? For many pupils, progress during Key Stages 2 and 3 is not linear and
continuous; episodes of regression to an earlier level of attainment, or
remaining at the same level for a period, are part of the norm.

? Patterns of progress are highly individual; there is low concentration of
pupils into one pathway or another, especially in reading and writing.

? The more progress a pupil made in the previous term, the less likely they
are to make progress the following term, and vice versa. A recurrent theme through chapters 1-4 has been that progress during Key Stages 2 and 3, for many pupils is not linear and continuous, and that episodes of regression to an earlier level of attainment, or remaining at the same level for a period, are not uncommon; the latter are in fact part of the norm.

5.1 Progress by Prior Progress

Figures 5.1 and 5.2 show that the more progress a pupil made in the previous term, the less likely they are to make any progress in the next term, and the more likely they are to drop backwards. The reverse is also true; over 80% of pupils who dropped backwards the previous term made progress the next term, and over 70% of them made more than one sub-level of progress. The pattern is consistent across subjects and years, with similar distributions occurring for the alternate subject/year group combinations, and also for comparisons of progress in years 4-5 and 7-8 (for additional charts, please see annex 5).

--------

By all means please see this pattern as typical and nothing unusual. But please also allow me to be very suspicious of the periodic nature of this data - whereby plateaus normallly occur at the summer/ autumn transition. Coupled with our school telling children previously working to NC sub-level Xa, Xb or Xc that they will continue to work at that sub-level but all APP points will be gathered again anew - you can see why I might believe there is room to fiddle in the system at this summer to autumn term transition.

If you are obliged to honour achievement (presumably APP points recorded) from previous year and work from there at your schools - wonderful! But the pattern in this study & observation in this LEA (personal & from freinds experiences) suggests that there could well be room for manoeuvre. The fact this plateau doesn't occur Autumn to Spring or Spring - Autumn and given that we all accept children don't progress linearly - means that the pattern is picking up this 'stall' in progress between end of previous school year and start of current school year.

All I said is this 'stall' in NC Levels or reversal normally happens (data from report cited above supports that view I think).

OFSTED had absolutely no issue with our school on how they record progress - so one presumes how they are handling it is acceptable. I haven't bothered to report my school because my view is this is the system and this Summer Term/ Autumn term transition is the point where this fiddle can most easily take place. It makes perfect sense - it makes a teacher's life that bit easier (i.e. not having to do a lot of work to attain first NC sub-level, if repeated or moved down 1 sub-level) and I don't think the precise level of APP points is that closely tracked between years but I admit I don't know.

My suspicion is that this means there is scope to fiddle the system. In principle starting progress afresh at NC sub-level (no APP points criteria ticked at start of new school year regardless of whether previous teacher observed them or not) could be happening - and my evidence is that it is happening at our school (where parents are told at Autumn parent/ teache rmeetings that all APP criteria start fresh again at start of school year) and friends have suggested similar occurs at their schools in this LEA. Many have posted at MN their surprise to find their DC is working to the same sub-level again - so I'm fairly clear this isn't just me.

Now if you (Feenie, mrz or other teachers) are some how obliged to honour the APP points/ NC sub-level reported at end of previous year by the previous teacher and work from there (so either DC has attained 4c (for example) or DC has attained 15 out of x many APP points toward 4c) then let me know. If this is a legal requirement again let me know. But I suspect this is a rather grey area.

70% of 70,000 pupils studied regularly plateau or move backwardsd in KS2 between the point where they are working at end of summer Term and what they are working at end of Autumn Term. Well considering that the expected progress over a term in Y3 is a massive sixth of a NC level it isn't going to change the level they left KS1.

If you are obliged to honour achievement (presumably APP points recorded) from previous year and work from there at your schools - wonderful!

But in the examples you gave, that's exactly what happened - the child started at the sublevel attained the previous year and progressed by 2 sublevels to make good progress.

OFSTED had absolutely no issue with our school on how they record progress - so one presumes how they are handling it is acceptable.

I am not surprised, because the example you laid out includes no stalling and good progress made in 3 out of 4 years. Of course they would have no issue - no one is clear why you have one!

My school doesn't use APP Pastsellbtdate (it is non statutory) but as Feenie says levels are moderated by all staff in my school to try to ensure accuracy.

There is a thread atm criticising teachers for moving on regardless of whether basic skills are learnt or not - I can't see the problem with ensuring a 2A child is a 2A and moving on two sublevels from there.

Hello!
Looks like my thread has been highjacked (suspect because I mention NC levels!)
Past - would you start your own thread please, many thanks

Sorry, Labro

I apologise too

Thats ok :-) was just taking a spare few hours to wonder how on earth Part types so much and thought she might like to start her own special thread.