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?

"harder for parents " is the purpose maybe!

We have emerging, at age related expectations and secure.

Unfortunately the school didn't provide a more detailed explanation of what the levels actually mean.

Teacher said that DC would have been exceeding in many areas on the old levels but is now meeting age related expectations (Y1).

I come from a country where there are no levels or ability setting at primary school level and I would argue that the standard of education is higher. The focus should be on the teachers comments, which usually indicate areas a child has done well in and things to improve on. This provides far more insight than a level. There seems to be an obsession with being 'x' level as if the child can only be defined by this label. How awful to be pigeon holed at such a young age. This is not how the most successful countries run primary education.

But at least with a level you knew what the next steps were and what the expected progress would be. Whereas in this system they get pigeonholed as above average, average or below average.

shebird genuine question, not a bun fight, if there is no setting whatsoever how do they manage the outliers? Or even balancing the different needs of the 25% that are just above average in an exceptionally struggling group or vice versa?

There a many, many successful primary schools in the UK that don't use setting

The level didn't tell you a thing about the next steps only numbers.
Take any group of children who have been assessed at a certain level and they will have different "targets" strengths and weaknesses

So I keep being told, but what I'd like to know is what methods/ how they deal with the range of ability if they never set for anything?

DS's school is using the 'Stages' which correlate to Year groups (ie 1-6 and beyond) but a child can be assessed as working at any stage regardless of year. For example, he has been assesssed as working at stages beyond 5 even though he's Year 5. I assume the same is true of chidlren working well below expecations - ie they will have been reported as working within stage 4, or whatever. We also have the 'beginning/developing/secure/exceeding' at each stage too. I think this is based on the Rising Stars system, and it does allow parents to see how far ahead/behind children are.

Our school have gone with levels for Maths and English, well below average, below average, average, above average and well above average. My Y5 dd is level 5b for English and Maths, but average for Science and a few others. Considering the old average for Science was a level 3A at end of Y5, I am questioning why they can't teach my very teachable daughter to the similar standards in Science. A reflection of the teaching if you ask me. And besides, what is average and compared to what? Average for the school? the class? the nation? Levels were cut and dried.

Average compared to the new more challenging curriculum year group expectations hopefully

By treating every child as a individual rather that part of a group that is bound to have children with different strengths and weaknesses lurked

Maybe mrz, which could explain why the Science result was lower for her than previous years. However, average isn't a good word, as it requires a comparison to be made against her peers. Meeting expectations, or exceeding would be more helpful. If the new curriculum provides higher expectations, then fewer of the children will be able to exceed. They can't all suddenly become 'average' as the spread of ability in reality will still remain the same.

It isn't a comparison of peers but against national curriculum year group expectation

I wish you would tell the government that .. They seem to think by raising the bar they will ensure every child is above average ... Not sure who did the maths on that statement ????

I don't think you can equate whatever 'average' means with what used to be 3a under the old curriculum. They are different syllabus demands now.

I would be concerned they are still levelling Maths and English unless they have completely rewritten the level descriptors to match the new curriculum.

I agree that average is a bad term to use. Each child should be measured against the expectations for the year group, not each other.

Mrz- am I understanding correctly: for any given year group (ie year 1) the new National Curriculum says they have to learn and master A,B and C.

A child who is meeting expectations has learnt and mastered A,B and C.

A child who is below expectations has mastered A and B but not C (or less than this) and a child exceeding expectations has mastered A, B and C, but also C and D as well.

Is that right? So across the country, maybe only 25% of children have mastered A, B and C and are meeting expectations?

It is not necessarily that across the country 80% of children are meeting expectations, 10% exceeding and 10% below?

And the "expectations" they are supposed to be meeting are Mr Gove's?

Well, obviously the expectations are Mr Gove's. They weren't set by educational psychologists, developmental paediatricians, or teachers.

Since this is the first year of the new curriculum there is no way of knowing what percentage of children have done what

Mr Gove is minister of justice now ????

Yes, he's all set to create a whole new set of expectations elsewhere, now. New national curriculum - tick. Bring back the death penalty?...

In response to your question Lurked the schools somehow do manage cater for everyone's needs without ability setting. The class is taught as a whole with extra support provided to those who need it so that all children keep up to the required standard. There is a greater emphasis on daily homework, meaning parents are more involved. It also means that parents are aware immediately if their child is struggling with a particular aspect of Maths for example and can provide support or ask the teacher for assistance. It seems that by condemning a year 1 child to a lower set means that they will forever be playing catch up with their peers. While they are cutting and sticking the top sets are doing more interesting work and making progress. No consideration is given to the overall child's overall intelligence or potential.

Thanks shebird and mrsz, I get the idea for it, but I'm genuinely interested on a practical level how it works on the shop floor so to speak. I can (and do see) it working in humanities, comprehension and a few others at primary age, if the work given is differentiated ( which in my mind I believe is setting as much as 'tables'). But how do you practically teach a maths lesson, or spag etc to a class covering a wide range? Especially if you don't differentiate the work too? I'm interested because the only teachers I've ever witnessed using no differentiation in work, and/ or no setting in lessons have all been crap and lazy teachers ( coincidence I believe they did nobody any good, not a dig ) so I'm interested in how it does work practically with a successful result