All levelled out.

[morethanpotatoprints]

Ok, levels don't mean a thing to me. I have no idea what level my dd is currently working at, in any subject.

With so many posts and threads on here, I wondered why so many parents are bothered. I'm not being judgemental as I used to like to know what level my dc were, but I don't know why.

Head is a master of spin.He refuses to include them in the report so the hoards of parents rushing down the road clutching their A1 reports to their breast proclaiming their child is a genius think wow what an amazing school when in actual fact I suspect given our catchment an awful lot of children would have started as A1 students.

Morethan- how are you going to know whether your dd is ready for her GCSEs when the time comes?

Mr Buttercat I think your ht and ours are related ! Reports came out for our yr6 this week but the ht has subtly changed the layout and only the teacher assessments were shown. End of ks2 sats results were pinned in the accompanying blurb of exit questionnaires etc. The majority of parents were so pleased to see such great results and glowing reports about their dc that they didn't initially look further to see the grim truth

If Gove takes them away I hope to goodness he puts some other benchmark for parents in it's place otherwise we're going to be totally in the dark

He has nothing to replace them - he's said so. He's asked HTs to come up with something. Schools will be free to use their own systems to track - which will probably mean just - sublevels!

I was never that interested in levels because I always felt I knew enough about what my dc could do as regards reading and writing anyway. But no doubt that was because I spent a lot of time reading and talking to them and had a large extended family so I felt I always had an idea of what was normal for a child to be able to do at certain ages. Doesn't mean somebody else might not need the levels to provide that same information.

I felt knew that their teachers were doing a good job anyway, because I could see their minds expanding, I could see that they were coming home with new ideas, that they were being challenged and stimulated. But if I had had any doubts, then levels would probably have been a useful starting point.

I was more interested in what the teacher had to say about how they fitted in socially and how they behaved in a classroom situation, because that was harder for me to gauge just by observing them at home.

I really like levels. They reassure me that my child is progressing (in an objective way, unlike the class teacher telling me that everything is 'fine') and help me to understand how my child compares with others nationally (so that I can fill any gaps if necessary).

My children tell me that they like levels because they are given the descriptors at school and can see exactly what they need to do to progress.

So do people think that levels are necessary for children to progress?

curlew
I don't know what you mean about ready for GCSE.
How does anybody know when they are ready? I suppose you can do past papers, read the marking and grading criteria etc. I don't think a teacher needs to give you a level or projected grade or target.

"I suppose you can do past papers, read the marking and grading criteria etc. "

And this is different from establishing a "level" exactly how?

People think that levels are necessary to know whether or not a child HAS progressed since, as many have explained, they don't have the in depth knowledge you have because you are teaching your child.

curlew

It is different from establishing a level because you aren't exactly given a level necessarily. What I mean is if I was to check work I wouldn't be looking for a level, there may well be one, I don't know. I suppose at GCSE you would know from the correct answers or standard of English etc if it was acceptable.

Feenie
I don't have any in depth knowledge of teaching my dd, I don't do anything that any other parent wouldn't do, I certainly don't teach her.
I know where she is struggling from looking at her work and don't need a level.
This was my point all along, that you can see if a person is progressing, you could hear in their reading for example if they were better than 2 months ago. I'm not saying people shouldn't use levels, just that they aren't necessary.
If you want to compare your child to others, gaining a level of course would enable you to do this. But you don't need to compare, it isn't necessary.

OK, morethan- I really have no idea what you last post means!

But I suspect that "level" means something very different and more significant to you than it does to me.

I don't think that levels are necessary for my child to progress, but I think that they make my understanding of his progression much easier.

I also think that everything you are saying - about how you observe the progression in your children - is just levelling by another name. Levels are a shorthand way of saying what you are saying about your child, but nationally recognised and standardised.

I think they are a useful way of knowing whether your child is on track or ready for recognised qualifications like GCSEs.

DS1 is starting his GCSE year on L7 for most subjects so I know he is already about a C grade and should be aiming to achieve As. But he is L6 for maths which suggests he needs to do more in that subject, despite his teacher telling me all year that he was 'fine'. Most of his class achieved L7 so I will do some tuition at home in those concepts he hasn't firmly grasped.

Morethan- what does "level" mean to you?

Curlew

I believe a level/Grade is a measurement of a particular standard which in academic institutions is used as a marker of progress made since the last level.

OK.

What's so very bad/terrifying about that?

curlew

Nothing bad or terrifying at all. I just don't think they are necessary and think that they can hinder an education sometimes.
I haven't said they are particularly bad, but have realised they aren't important for me.
I am quite really because during this thread have realised that Gove is considering losing them. I think the man is ridiculous. I just hope our reasons for not wanting/needing levels are different, or I'm worried.
What does he say then?
I must say, I haven't said they don't serve a purpose as to some they clearly do.
My argument/question has been that they aren't necessary in order for progress to be made.
If somebody can prove my philosophy wrong, I will gladly cover all work associated with a particular school year and take my neighbours offer of her marking an end of year optional SATs paper.
I am very interested in everything people have said, even if my philosophy is different.

Nobody will ever be able to prove your philosophy wrong. Even if your DD1 is not able to earn a living from music (and for most musicians teaching is a part of a portfolio career and for many teachers academic qualifications are relevant as well as being able to play - but not all, obviously, so she might be lucky) you can still claim that what you did was 'right for her' and nobody will be able to gainsay that.

It remains that case though that all the professional musicians I know, and I know a lot, some very famous, one who got an OBE for services to music not that long ago, all of them took their academic educations seriously. Many of them did exceptionally well in their A levels. I don't know any professional musician who wasn't strongish to very strong academically, actually. I think that academic work, while you are at school, trains the mind in a way which can be very useful in a musical career.

As a teacher I don't think NC levels and academic strength are in any way related RussiansOnTheSpree

Mrz no of course they aren't but Morethan's philosophy is a bit morethan ;) just ignoring levels. They don't give NC levels at Dd1s SSGS. They are however incredibly academically rigorous. I was taing about Morethan's laissez faire head in the sand attitude in general not just her refusal to adhere to the labeling system currently in favour with the soulless minions of orthodoxy. I agree with her about the labeling system because I have seen how arbitrary and political it really is and how it can be manipulated by individual teachers, schools, and even external assessors if they have a motivation so to do. I could not disagree with her more about her approach to education though.

Russians

I was going to you until your last line.

The reason I am ignoring levels is because I find them unnecessary. My dd is learning constantly, but not necessarily the nc per se.
The majority could be found at a certain level but she doesn't follow any particular year.
So an example could be that she tackles something from y6 before something from y5, or any other year of KS2 or KS3.

My point is if levels are necessary or so important either I am totally wrong, out of order and doing my dd a disservice or they aren't necessary or important and she will fair well.

Where is my head in the sand Russians, I am merely asking for opinions?

I think it is more than possible to see progress without attaching levels to it ... I sometimes wonder how I learnt anything in primary school in the days before targets and levels No one ever told me the learning objective, Walt, Wilf and Tib were strangers yet we progressed.

Mrz.

Thank you, I really value your opinion. I wouldn't want to have to justify a bad decision when she is older, just by saying "well I did what I thought was right"
I let her wander through what she wants to learn rather than getting bogged down by something she clearly isn't ready for yet.
I don't purposely avoid the nc, it is a good base to start from and then wander off from.
Obviously, I will make sure she covers the essential things eventually, but now I have clarification she doesn't need to learn in school years, so I can give her a level.

Russians
Strangely enough the last level she received at school was for music, at the end of y3. A specialist came in to assess her for G&T, before they knew we were leaving. Maths and english were levels from Y2 SATS.

morethan I'd be grateful if you could clarify if you are are home educating your DD. I interpreted an earlier post from you to suggest that was the case but I see you say in your post to Feenie that you are not teaching her? I think clarification would help others understand the perspective you are bringing into this debate.

Morethan you can't follow that approach with maths or science. You can look at different historical eras, for sure, but you can't be analysiing sources until you have been taught how to do that. Similarly with reading comprehension - you can't analyze more complex texts unless you have practiced on less complex ones. We have DDs the same age, and like you I have two older children - unlike you they are much closer in age - only 5 years between DD1 and DD2 and DS slots in the middle - so I can see the cumulative nature of their learning. There are sme subjects such as MFl which are not mandated till later in the NC which could easily be accessed by a 9 YO, for sure - but other than that, I'm not sure what else from KS3 you think you could be doing with your DD at this point unless you had already covered the KS2 ground. And please don't say music, we both know that for kids like ours KS2 and KS3 aren't particularly relevant.