Year 1 attainment levels: part II

[lovecheese]

Continuing an earlier thread about KS1 levels, what is the average level that children are supposed to hit by the end of year 1?

Cortina, your belief in having high expectations is commendable but also very normal in the teaching profession. You are reading widely, but most of us were made to read that kind of thing when we trained, took what we should have from it and moved on. In short, it's nothing we haven't heard before, it isn't revolutionary and it's something most teachers have paramount in their minds anyway.

I do believe, from what you've described, that there are possible issues in your child's classroom. But you are just seeing one snapshot of our education system and treating it as the norm.

"Christchurch Primary School in Wiltshire took on board some of Claxton's ideas and they found that their SATS results improved. Over the next 4 years the percentage of children achieving level 4 and above in their Key Stage 2 SATS rose from 59% to 86% in English, 55% to 86% in Maths and 67% to 94% in Science. Averaging all 3 core subjects the % of children over-achieving for their age (who got level 5) rose from 13% to 40%"

Results similar to my own and lots of schools then - and they bloody well needed to bring their results up, they were awful!

This Bill Claxton reminds me of any one of a number of people who deliver useless INSETS on airy fairy concepts. Yes, high expectations are very important - so important that they almost go without saying - but good teaching is absolutely vital, and that's what drives standards.

"Christchurch Primary School in Wiltshire took on board some of Claxton's ideas and they found that their SATS results improved. Over the next 4 years the percentage of children achieving level 4 and above in their Key Stage 2 SATS rose from 59% to 86% in English, 55% to 86% in Maths and 67% to 94% in Science. Averaging all 3 core subjects the % of children over-achieving for their age (who got level 5) rose from 13% to 40%"

Description of the school from OFSTED
The school, which is larger than average, serves the relatively prosperous small town of Bradford-on-Avon. The proportion of pupils with learning difficulties and disabilities is below average. Pupils are mainly of White British origin and almost all speak English as their first language. There are two single-aged classes in each year group. Almost all pupils have attended
private pre-school settings and arrive in the Reception classes with broadly average abilities.

given the description of the school the results are appalling

My own school which serves an area designated "socially/economically deprived"
English 93% level 4 or higher Maths 71% level 4 or higher Science 100% level 4 or higher ...

Feenie that was really encouraging and heart warming to read. I would be a very happy parent if every teacher read and absorbed some of the texts I bang on about 'Mindset' most importantly. Sounds like many do.

Bill takes a similarly dim view of 'airy fairy' concepts. I don't do him justice here at all. Whilst I am not a teacher I think he makes some great points.

For example, Bill Claxton mentions something called 'assessment for learning' (AFL). He says this is a well researched set of shifts to classroom practice that produce impressive improvements in exam results. The shifts included teachers sharing and discussing criteria for success with students, waiting longer for answers to questions, asking open ended question - generally all good stuff he says.

AFL's core idea (and am sure all v familiar to many teachers) is that teachers can go on to diagnose difficulties and so make their teaching better targeted and more effective.

I am talking about this as an example of a concept gone wrong. He says that when politicians got hold of this good and sensible idea they bent it out of shape so it became a justification for even more surveillance of learning and even more dedicated record keeping about every child. So he says while it's spirit chimes very well with his Learning Gym and Exploratory ideas (see his book for details) it has overwhelmingly been used to improve exam results. He would prefer to have seen it used as a way of helping students develop portable attitudes and habits of learning.

As Claxton sees it many positive innovations fail to escape from what he calls the 'gravitational field of traditional aims and familiar methods'. He talks about the early reasons for education and schooling and then about how things are today.

He has strong words to say about 'Happiness' lessons too - he sees 'happiness' as the fruit of successful learning rather than teaching children to 'manage their feelings' etc. He thinks stress and unhappiness springs from the fact children do not always know how to learn or what they want to learn about. He says if we can help them to discover the the things they really want to get better at, and develop the confidence and capability to pursue those passions, then more happiness and less stress will result. No, I am not his wife .

As others have said, is there room for my kids in your school/class please?

mrz - guess the point is the results have improved significantly?

Interesting to get that perspective. I wonder if they've improved again since then? (2007-2008 I think).

Feenie, you said:

I do believe, from what you've described, that there are possible issues in your child's classroom. But you are just seeing one snapshot of our education system and treating it as the norm.

Just to add I may well be and I hope so. What scared me is my experiences chimed with the alleged more general flaws of our education system I've been reading about.

Aw, I'm gonna have to post ours now, mrz! We are also in a socially/economically deprived area - 93%(L4 or higher) in 2009 for all three subjects.

It was a very gifted cohort this year though.

Sorry I should have said my own school was given a notice to improve because of poor KS2 SAT results in English
English 61% to 83% Science 76% to 100%

sorry that should say English 61% to 93%

By Feenie Sat 13-Feb-10 11:56:33
It was a very gifted cohort this year though.

EXACTLY !!

I agree with Feenie. I would much rather trust an experienced teacher like Feenie, who has real experience at the coalface, than some of these gurus with their new-fangled theories. They remind me of the 25 year old management consultants, with MBAs from the top business schools, who charge experienced business people top dollar for borrowing their watches and telling them the time.

These gurus are in business to sell their books, theories and consultancy. They often talk about the need for "radical reform", and the necessity of "overhauling" everything that has worked for the last 100 years. Sir Ken Robinson is another in the long line of these gurus.

I prefer confident teachers who have learnt a thing or two along the way, and I would worry about teachers who would listen to the siren voices of these gurus. Too often these gurus helicopter in, give everyone the benefit of their wisdom, instigate radical reform, cash their cheques, and never return to view the consequences of their recommendations. Even though experienced teachers may make some mistakes, I think they do a far better job than these gurus.

""For example, Bill Claxton mentions something called 'assessment for learning' (AFL). He says this is a well researched set of shifts to classroom practice that produce impressive improvements in exam results. The shifts included teachers sharing and discussing criteria for success with students, waiting longer for answers to questions, asking open ended question - generally all good stuff he says.

AFL's core idea (and am sure all v familiar to many teachers) is that teachers can go on to diagnose difficulties and so make their teaching better targeted and more effective"

Sorry, but this is what AfL means in my ( and I'm sure many other) schools too. But it isn't some miraculous new concept, it is simply doing what all good teachers do all the time, look at what a child can currently do, what they need to learn to do next to develop their knowledge and understanding, and identify how best to teach it.In my class we agree success criteria for each unit of work we cover, both as a group and our own individual success criteria,all children have individual targets to work on, and when they have acheived them they get another! ( even if they have achieved their "predicted" level, they are simply given a higher predicted level) No-one stops challenging and stretching a child just because they have achieved some notional level of expected progress, if you do you end up with bored, disconsolate children rather than interested, well motivated and enthusiastic ones, and I know which I prefer!

Hi primarymum not sure when it was introduced? But Bill's point was not that good teacher's weren't doing this anyway etc but that it was bent out of shape by the Government so it became a justification - in his opinion - for even more surveillance of learning and even more dedicated record keeping about every child. It's initial purpose was distorted.

Claig, from what I am discovering I agree 100%. Claxton isn't one of these, as I say I don't do his work justice on here. From what I've been reading - he would agree with all you say. From what I've seen professional development for teachers is big business, and consultants and trainers are continually on the look out for impressive, pseudo-scientific soundbites to wow their audiences.

Why are you so sure "Claxton isn't one of these" ?

Up again and it's late, because I know of him, he's a friend of a friend. I know he isn't interested in making a fast buck and is passionate about all he does. If you google there are links to his talks IRL. I quote him on here but don't do him justice. He's writing a new book at the moment 'New Kinds of Smart' or something like that which looks to be very interesting - again you can google. He works out of the University of Winchester.