Different schools, different approaches to school reports

[Notcontent]

I was chatting to some work colleagues and it became apparent that schools have very different approaches to school reports (this is state schools in England).

So, for example, at my DC's school, you get a score of 1 to 4 for all subjects, with 1 being the highest and translating to "exceeding expectations". At some other schools they have a choice of 3 possible scores, and for some subjects there is no scoring at all.

Why is there no consistency? I thought this would be covered by government guidelines. Doesn't it also mean that it it's really hard to know how your child is really performing?

Just go into school and ask. I can't see any need to have them all the same.

Since the government in its wisdom decided to do away with NC levels it told schools they will have to come up with their own assessment. Hence the lack of consistency. Btw the gov told schools it was doing away with levels (which they invented and made everyone use) because parents couldn't understand them!
Naturally many schools are still using NC levels and SATs come back with levels so no consistency from gov either!

Thanks! Just saw the other thread about levels, and the current state of confusion...

Tissie only this year are SATs still coming back with levels, as y2 and y6 were sticking to the old curriculum. Next year they will come back with something different.

There has never been a standardised format for school reports and it has only ever been statutory for schools to report levels in Y2 and Y6.

Excellent work, Mr Gove. Remove levels because you think parents find them confusing and replace them with.... nothing.

Parents are much clearer now, aren't they?

I think they are possibly paving the way for testing again. Under the guise of "reducing teacher workload" and "consistency"

I think the general consensus from all these threads on MN is that parents liked the levels and want them back!!

I haven't read one post by anyone saying they are glad they've gone.

I think the levels are not the simpliest to understand, in particular it is hard to see whether if your dc is a 4b whether that is good for their age or hopeless.

Also in year 2, I thought it was quite obvious year 2=2b average. Makes sense. But then it took me a bit to realise that they then weren't expecting to get 6b in year 6, and 9b in year 9.

I sort of understand the saying each school setting their own, because different schools use them in different ways, so it looks consistant across the schools but isn't.
For example you always get a few people on here saying they know people in year 2 who got a level 4. Well I don't know any schools round here that would test for that.
A group of our local infants and juniors get together to moderate year 2 marks together to have some consistancy when they go to the same juniors. I know one school refuses and their results don't seem to match the other schools if that makes sense.

I think levels can make a proud parent think their dc is doing better than they are, or a nervous parent think they're doing worse.
If I take my dc's school, they give a list out of "Expected level in year 3 3c-3b, etc." Problem has been at times that some parents think if they've got a 3a, or in some cases a 3b, they are a total genius and are outstanding at the top. Being my 3rd dc I now know that they give up to 4c in year 3, so 3a is good, but it doesn't make the top.
Equally well I've seen parents panicking because they've got a 3c and thinking they'll be in a class at the bottom on their own, when actually they're doing okay.

You then have the time when your dc just scrapes a 3a in one year and is just at the verge of going up to 4b the next year, so apparently has made only 1 sublevel progress. However they really have made almost 2 sublevels.

I quite like the way dd1's secondary does it which is a points system which equates to levels. There's about 3 points per level, plus they give you the range of points in the (very large) year. So when you get one subject that they've only got half what they ave in the other subjects you can look and see everyone is getting less, which puts things into context.

But I have to admit I was quite pleased that the schools here did still give levels, because it's taken me ages to get to grips with them. I think it;s better then this exceeding/expected etc.

Our school always sent out a little graph with the reports so you could see what the level meant. It was easy enough.

I agree that they weren't intuitive though. People pretty much understand A,B,C,D - kinder wording for little ones are the 'exceeding, on target, working towards' also make sense I think.

It ought to be standard across schools though. Taking away one system and not replacing it at all is absurd.