Confused by the replacement of Levels

[keepsmiling101]

What are different schools doing in the absence of levels? Ours marks each learning objective with expected, exceeded or emerging. Do I now know how my kids are doing? Not really... in fact can feel slightly pale looking at the sheer number of emerging ticks one child got... so figure perhaps not on track... but not sure how badly ... last year's levels had seemed fine. Obv. will go & talk to the no doubt exhausted class teacher but suspect will be given all sorts of reassurances -- they always seem loathe to point out that actually your child really isn't doing that well. Anyway mebs am just being uncharacteristically gloomy... how do other folk feel?

That's what I see as the problem rabbit for dd and 2 more I definitely know about, others I'm reasonably sure of, and privately suspect the majority of the class, the one class teacher they had that really wasn't up to much, would look as entitled to a decent pay rise as the teachers that really did do a cracking job, and certainly in the case of the class teacher the following year who had to deal with the fallout. Because the numbers looked as good as for the other classes.

Dds school report has come back with a very basic system, 1 above average, 2 average, 3 below average.
Dd has struggled with school since day 1, with the old system I could see where progress was / wasn't being made, now I have no clue. This is a gift for dds school, I can no longer ask why she hasn'tade progress because now I don't know if she has or not.

In reality, the headteacher of a primary school normally has a fair idea of who is doing a good job and who isn't and will therefore suspect if figures are being fiddled. However, if it's the headteacher doing the fiddling, then there's not much the teacher can do about it.

Schools have to collect data for Ofsted on progress, not just achievement - in fact, it's progress that's all important. So surely they ought to be able to come up with some way of reporting that to parents?

None of our local secondaries use CATs so children are set by KS2 results then by end of Y7 tests

They just don't like teachers doing the levelling

Yes, I think this is very true!

I'm not talking to the level of fiddling figures rabbit, but bumping them by obsessively and rigidly only teaching specific curriculum aimed purely at smack bang on average, with absolutely no interest in whether the child had properly grasped it, or whether they'd grasped it several years before. And more frightening with young children whether she was turning them off learning. While there is little chance the head teacher thought that was good teaching, the data wouldn't look any different

Why didn't you trust SATs, FATE? Not being snarky - genuinely interested. Is it because you thought some kids were taught to the test, or there was an artificial focus on the Level 4 borderline? And do sixth form teachers feel the same way about GCSEs, where presumably the same issues apply?

In terms of tracking progress, schools using below/expected/exceeding type systems won't just be plucking those descriptions out of thin air - they'll be based (or at least should be) on a pretty rigorous analysis of how well a child has achieved against the national curriculum for the year they're in, and any other criteria the school thinks it's important to track progress against. So teachers and heads should be able to track the amount of progress a child is making, at least in English and maths, by how many of the curriculum objectives they're meeting. I think good schools should be willing to share this level of data with parents if they're interested.

Lurked - such a teacher should be getting assessed by senior staff, though, who would be observing them teaching, looking through children's books, talking to children in the class, getting the teacher to observe good practice from other teachers, or even other teachers in other schools etc. They might even do standardised age testing to see whether there are any gaps in a child's learning from years ago, if they were that suspicious. There would be written appraisals through the year so that the teacher concerned shouldn't be surprised about others' opinions of their teaching by the end of the year. Yes, a not particularly good teacher who nevertheless got reasonable results could use those results to complain if they didn't get a pay rise, but it is unlikely that such a teacher would be achieving good progress for all children, from the least able to the most able, anyway, and the focus now is on progress of all children, not on the rump in the middle doing OK. So it's more likely that said teacher would be complaining that children's progress is not linear and that the children who didn't make progress that year were just in a less progressive stage of their development! All of which can be true, of course, which is where you have to rely on the expertise and fairness of the people appraising the teacher to tell the difference between bad teaching being the main cause, and child development. And then, of course, even with a good teacher, their hands may be tied, because even a good teacher can't afford to have children in their class who stubbornly fail to progress.

That's the problem Amber, exceeding could mean worked really hard and just scrapes in at above average, or doing 4 degrees consecutively age 8. Same for below, just below average but currently on a huge development leap and will be expected anytime soon, or massively struggling and is working at the level of a child half his/her age. Again with no reference either way of what progress is being made

amber our so called outstanding school will give us nothing other than 1,2 or 3. According to dds report the national average in maths is either a very low level or there has been some kind of miracle this year and dd has learnt more since sept than she has in the last 3 years put together!

That's what I was getting at, it really comes down to the head/ leadership, which as well as the issue of they themselves being either great or wildly incompetent, brings it back to the fact if we're basically going on the headteachers competence, what's the need for the levels ( or new 'words'). Not that I have any viable alternative tracking method, unless it's ratemyteacher.com!

The need for the levels is so that Ofsted and the government can bash schools over the head with something and tell them that nobody deserves a pay rise for another 20 years.

Our dc's school uses Achieve, Secure and Work Towards but no exceeding or above. So children are either have "achieved expectation" or "below expectation" for Secure/Work Towards. So no child has done above or exceeded expectation this year.

Agreed!

Our dc's school uses Achieve, Secure and Work Towards but no exceeding or above. So children are either have "achieved expectation" or "below expectation" for Secure/Work Towards. So no child has done above or exceeded expectation this year. confused sad

Do they mean that working towards is below, achieve is inline and secure is exceeding?

Ours are using bands. 1-6 corresponding to years. You then get working within, secure and secure plus. So DS year 4. Band 4 maths WW, Reading SP, Science S.

Without levels, it feels like these reports are geared towards children doing ok/ average.

If your child is meeting expectations in year 2 and then is meeting expectations in year 3, then you know they are doing ok and have progressed year to year. Which is fine if your child is average.

If your child isn't meeting expectations in year 2, you will only know that they have made progress if they make a massive 2 year leap in progress by year 3 to be meeting expectations. If they are still not meeting expectations in year 3 you don't know if they have made a whole years progress, no progress at all, are getting worse, have made a huge leap forwards but not quite enough to be average etc.

Similar thing applies for those exceeding expectations.

Stupid system only works if your child is average. But the government wants everyone to be above average (haha how does that work?!) so how does this help?? Also for the SATs if the average score is 100, children can only do well in comparison with their peers, the goal posts will be forever moving.

Grrrr.

timeandtimeagain how sad for children who have worked hard to achieve and improve and then don't actually have that recognised because they can't go above average.

Rollon, no, 'Achieve' = 'Met' and is the highest. 'Secure' = Spring term level, Work Towards is even less good. I think?!

The teacher did say that we have a high number of children are given the Below Expectation in the main subjects this year due to the changes of new curriculum. What is worrying to me is that she said both teachers and parents are in the same boat.

How odd; I'm very surprised that achieve is higher than secure!

As SomethingFunny has said this really is of no help to any parents.

If my child is below average I want to know if she is a week behind or a term or a whole year - I now have no idea and it is ridiculous

We got below /at/exceeding age related expectations.

Thankfully we have a good teacher who put some detail in the subject comment box. ( he knows I'll be in asking if he didn't)

it's not tangible though. Unless you know the curriculum and know exactly what you child can do its all flipping pointless and wooly.

Massive balls up in my opinion and I know our school uses the old levels internally ( governor) in my opinion they should be running both measures for a few years. I'd much rather see "Johnny is a 4c for reading and is exceeding age related expectation.

They have made it much harder for parents to help at home.