So now levels have been scrapped how will we know what progress our dc are making?

[MotleyCroup]

Ds has done really well in his KS1 end of year report. He's coped with a change of school as well as the SATs (his school didn't keep it discrete) and he's making new friends.

Question is, at the end of Y3 what then? If things stayed as they were I would know, by his next parents evening, what (if any) progress he was making. Now how will I know? What will be put in the current systems place?

Why have they scrapped the current system (when I'd just got my head around the meaning of the levels)?

Iam,

For all the reasons mentioned above: comparability / portability between schools; robustness to scrutiny from ofsted; level of detail and clarity to parents; objectivity in a measure of progress / attainment; trust between schiools at different phases.

School A ciould, in the system proposed, say all its children are progressing brilliantly because they have progresssed from point 15 to point 20. School B could say 'pah, we would just call that an E to E+ move, at is trivial. Parent C could say 'has my above average child made all the progress that they are capable of. A middle school - transfer at year 5 - could ask 'what cann all my newe pupils, from 7 different first schools, actually do'.

All of these were, to a fairly decent extent, managed fairly well through levels...

On the scaled score - this will only be used for SATs - so at the end of Y2 and Y6. It's not a scale that children will progress along. The 100 mark isn't 100%, but rather the mark children will be expected to achieve (a bit like the way Level 4 is currently used). Some children may achieve a score of 80, others of 120 (or however far the score will go in each direction). So, at those two points, parents will get a pretty clear sense of their child's attainment compared to their classmates, other children in the local area, and other children nationally.

Of course parents want more frequent info than that, though, and the idea is that schools will choose how to report how children are progressing between the SATs years. As I said above, I think the clearest way is to have a list of what children are expected to be able to do in each subject in each year (based on the National Curriculum), and share with parents how their child is doing against that 'map'. So at the end of Year 4, for example, Child A may have achieved all the Y4 objectives and some of the Y5 objectives in maths, but still not quite have grasped all the Y4 objectives in English. Child B might be working significantly below expectations, and still be struggling with some Y3 objectives in all subjects. Child C may be a gifted scientist, and be starting to tackle some if the Y6 objectives in that subject already.

Personally I'd find that much more helpful than just being told my child is a 'Level x'. I'd understand how they were doing against expectations, and what specific things they might still be struggling with, so I could support them in those areas.

Excuse typing. DfE has said 'we don't care and can't afford to set up a new system, but Ofsted must be able to see that every child has made good progress or you'll be in SM and academised before you can blink'

I would have thought it's quite straight forward- the new curriculum lays out what must be taught in each year group so if my Y1 pupils meet all the objectives for Y1 they are working at the expected level for their age. If they are working within the Y1 programme of studey they are working above expected levels and if they are only achieving some or none of the Y1 expectations they are below.

My school has produced "standards" for each year group based on the curriculum content and will assess progress against those.

I still fail to understand why levels are required to ascertain whether a child is learning. The majority of Private schools don't subscribe to SATs and levels but the parents can still see whether their child is learning, the teachers still discuss whether a child is progressing well or not progressing well.
What would have happened if we had never had this level system?
I think schools can monitor and report progress without the need for levels. The whole level thing is not fail safe anyway. When my youngest took his year 2 SATs I was told his achieved levels but what he achieved on that day didn't necessarily reflect his actual levels as there are too many factors that a test on a single day doesn't account for. If we are relying on teacher assessments for the levels then something similar can be implemented without the current a,b, c system.

But those are too much like blanket statements and are no better than levels as regards actual info if the info shy schools choose not to give it.

We already get age expected,exceeding or below.My DS has had A1s for everything since rec including the year his progress was poor.My other 2 get very similar and are in diff groups within their classes and differ as learners.Two of mine are twins and one is G&T,they get the same.That is all we get and it's utterly crap.It tells me absolutely zilch- until I ask for levels and get some finer detail.

When you ask for levels you get the finer detail and smaller steps.You can see exactly what and how much progress they've made.The expected progress points really helped with this too.

Getting rid of all this is shit and tbf as parents we deserve a lot more info from schools and Gove as to why levels are going,what they're being replaced with and above all else how we as parents are going to be informed.

I just don't get his thinking(informed parents are a massive plus) unless it's due to as Fram says him not wanting informed parents.Very interesting(and worrying)point.

Some private schools do because their parents want to know.I have friends teaching in the private sector.

I am slave it's because of the phrase 'national standardisation' in the letter sent out by ofsted a few days ago.... How on earth can a school manage that if every school uses their OWN system?

This is stealth businessisation (made up word) of education and it scares me :(

I'm ks3 and 4 and I'm going to keep every assessment throughout their school career - go evidence based for ofsted!

Yep like the free school meals and childcare.

Private companies making cash- right up the Tory street.

Well we all know what we need to do come the next election!

I hate NC levels. Have always found them unwieldy to mark by (I'm a Secondary teacher). I worked in a private school for years. They didn't use levels and managed perfectly well without them. KS3 work was generally marked out of 10 with a comment. Termly progress reports gave parents information about how their child was doing, flagging up any concerns. KS4 work was marked using GCSE criteria. It worked very well.

So I'm still confused about what information parents will be given. If it's just a question of expected/exceeding/below, then that really tells me nothing at all. I'm sure most interested parents already know if their dc is ahead or behind, but they might not know how much. The levels might not have been perfect, but at least they gave us some insights into this.

It,s bloody scary isn't. They are taking away a national standardised level of assessment and asking you to replace it with a national standardised level of assessment. Of you're own devising.

A few people have commented that private schools don't usually report levels. I think this may suit some schools very well, as they don't have to report against any external standards. However, I know of at least two families who have moved children from the private sector into state schools, who have been surprised to find that their dc were not quite as "advanced" as the private schools had led them to believe. Perhaps if they had been given the NC levels, they would have had a more realistic picture of how their children were doing.

Maybe a dumb question but perhaps some teachers can answer: how can we be sure that levels are accurately assessed and reported under the current system? I'm not asking about SATs test results because I don't believe those to be fully accurate in all cases. How do we know that every teacher is capable of correctly assessing levels?

If it's just a question of expected/exceeding/below, then that really tells me nothing at all. I'm sure most interested parents already know if their dc is ahead or behind, but they might not know how much. The levels might not have been perfect, but at least they gave us some insights into this.

But wouldn't the system I described above give you that insight, Jinsei? If you can see that your Y3 child is consistently achieving Y4 objectives, you'll know that they're working ahead of expectations. If they're starting to achieve some Y5 objectives, they're significantly ahead. If they're still working through Y2 objectives, they're clearly struggling.

Doesn't that give you more insight that just being told 'they're a Level 3b'?

Amber the cat: one of my children's schools (private) uses a similar system to what you suggest. I find it very helpful. In year 5 they told me he was working at year 7 for certain subjects and year 5 standard for the other subjects. I knew perfectly what that meant.
I think reporting of levels can lead to parental complacency as we assume it to be fully accurate and don't look into capability ourselves.

This is all fairly straightforward if you ask me. Unless I have misunderstood.

In the past a child was expected to do certain things which would be classed as grade C. If they got A or B they were above average and if they got D or below they were below average.

Currently a child is expected to do certain things by age x which would be classed as say level 2. If they get level 1 they are below average and if they get level 3 they are above average.

In future they will be expected to do certain things which would be classed as 100. If they get 80 they are below average and if they get 120 they are above average.

So if your child is above average in Y1 and Y2 and then average in Y3 you might worry. If they are below average for a year and then average you would be pleased.

I guess I probably need to wait and see what DC's school does.

I suppose having read this thread I am thinking

• DN at private school regularly gets 100% in her maths assesments. School says she is doing excellently - her parents are thrilled. I am thinking that this just tells me that the assessment was too easy and actually gives no idea of her actual ability

• My DD is currently working at Level 4c/4b in everything. She is in Y3. I know this is ahead of national expectations. However she could sit and do nothing for the next 2 years and still be ahead of national expectations. I'm not really interested in national expectations but that DD is progressing versus where DD started from

Exactly, red sky. It's the progress being made which I'm interested in. Just telling me 'exceeding expectations' doesn't really tell me much. With the NC levels you could gauge how many levels your child had reached. You could then, as a parent, find out what that meant, whether the pace was slowing etc

I'm afraid, being deeply cynical, I think this is entirely about not wanting informed parents on several levels.

Politically it's rather inconvenient to have informed parents pointing out the new academy isn't doing better than local LEA schools.

Politically it's rather inconvenient pointing out that socio-economic background of schools is linked to performance - that might well be why the new performance tables quintile system has school performance related to 'similar schools' - I rather suspect performance in Richmond if directly compared to Selly Oak would see St. Mediocre in bottom quintile instead of middle.

Locally - I think this is about taking the pressure off teachers. If parents aren't seeing school work (which has been widely introduced in Birmingham - literally nothing comes home and only a small selection is available at parent/ teacher meetings)/ no books are coming home/ little or no homework coming home and the evaluation of pupil performance is radically different (maybe oranges to apples/ hedgehogs to antelopes) between Birmingham schools - why there's no local pressure on a failing school to 'buck up'.

Like many things - I suspect the political necessities behind this move to decentralise schools and 'marking' - is entirely about putting parents in a position where there is nowhere to complain. LEA's are without power and gradually being undermined with the establishment of non-LEA controlled free and academy schools. Schools only have to establish a system - they aren't required to convey that system's meaning particularly clearly.

It will go badly wrong somewhere. There will be an enquiry. There will be embarrassing headlines/ reports on tv & the usual wailing and gnashing of teeth. There will be the statement in parliament about how more rigorous standards need to be in place - but can we just spare the expense and go for a one size fits all system (oh like the NC Levels we're just abandoning - which lets face it are so broad that parents don't really twig 4c is not ideal and 4a is solid but not outstanding).

Teachers are increasingly afraid of parents. And I suspect that's because parents are increasingly frustrated with obfuscation/ games being played in relation to our children's education - which in fact we care about a lot.

Teachers/ Teaching unions have agreed these changes as well - and that's because it also suits them not to be terribly clear with us PITA parents who have the temerity to actually want to understand where a good pupil should be by this or that point in school.

For all of Gove's belly aching wanting higher standards - I don't see him insisting that NC L5 is the new benchmark of primary progress at end of KS2 - yet 45% or more pupils achieve this (see data end of guardian report on KS2 2013 attainment: www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/sep/19/sats-results-key-stage-two - where in 2013 48% of English pupils achieved NC L5+ in English (including SPAG)/ 41% achieved NC L5+ in Maths).

If we were to think of this as ye olde fashioned bell curve - why a high NC L4 (high 4a)/ low NC L5 (so low 5c) would be on the 50th percentile and would translate (using old school system) into A BIG FAT C (which used to stand for 'middling performance'). The reality is the government/ teachers are quite simply deeply unprepared to be that blunt about it.

- DN at private school regularly gets 100% in her maths assesments. School says she is doing excellently - her parents are thrilled. I am thinking that this just tells me that the assessment was too easy and actually gives no idea of her actual ability

The school might be using NFER tests which although too easy for your DN are a nationally recognised test. I would be concerned if she was getting 100% and having no other recognition of ability but if the test is just what the whole class does at the end of the year so that some nationally recognised comparison can be done then it isn't really a problem. My son does the NFER tests and gets 100% but I don't use it as an indicator of anything. It's clear that he is working at a level above the age appropriate test. What I pay attention to is the work that he does in school and for homework on a daily basis. His textbooks are for year 7/8 children and he manages them with just enough challenge to ensure that he is progressing. Last year he was working on the year 6 textbooks and was progressing through them at an appropriate pace. So I am reassured without the need for a prescribed level that he is progressing at a reasonable rate.
My other son has severe learning difficulties and wouldn't be able to progress even one sub level per year no matter how good his teaching or how much effort he makes. I can see what progress he is making and I can gauge whether it is appropriate for him. Levels would not help him.
I find this idea that every child should progress by two sub levels a year too generalised. Some children can progress by more and some children less.
Who do we hold accountable if children haven't progressed by two sub levels? It isn't always the schools fault.
I don't disagree that we need a measurable progress system but I don't think the current system is helpful enough to warrant keeping it.

I wouldn't go by published text books.

Going by the 11+ and other year group books which I've seen alongside my professional opinion(admittedly rusty) they vary hugely for each age group.

Sorry I want a standardised gov system not differing standards according to what each publishing house brings out in order to sell copies.

Surely this is going to go the way of the old exam syllabuses when schools were going with the easier ones as it made them look better.

Retropear

Gove is frankly mad. - Completely!

And it's shameful that someone like him is allowed to use education as a political football.