'By November we will be able to give you the most accurate [GCSE] predictions [hmm]

[Minx179]

Does anybody else have a problem with the emphasis placed on FFT data by secondary schools?

I would have liked to have asked who these most accurate predictions would apply to, because I can't see us getting them. Especially as the last 5 years worth of info from the school(s) has been based on corrupted data.

Yes, me. My DS's FFT predicted results were quite wrong. They were all far too low. What the FFT doesn't take into account is that some pupils mature massively after a couple of years at secondary school. My DS was pretty downhearted at some of them, especially as English in particular was predicated C or D and now he's doing GCSE he is getting A* (couldn't really believe it myself - just goes to show what he can do when he tries which is what I have been telling him all along).

Congratulations to your son. Hope he does well in the exams.

Unfortunately we're the other way round. Massively inflated in the past. So the 'most' accurate predictions would probably have him predicted one if not two grades lower across the board, but I can't see this happening.

FFT are terrible - they predict grades in languages based on how they do at the end of KS2 ie they predict grades in a subject they have never done before!

They are a nightmare, particularly when they are used as a stick with which to beat pupils and teachers alike.

What is FFT?

Fischer Family Trust.

Thanks, never heard of it, our school used CAT tests to do predictions. They were fair enough but not spot on.

The thing is that taken acrossa year group they are roughly accurate! Some are too low and some are too high but it evens out and over 200ish pupils gives a target to aim for that is more meaningful than last years + 5%. When you bring it down to the individual chils however it starts to break down, and individual subjects for the individual child even more dodgy. That is the problem with using statistics to predict - it doesn't take into account an individual just a mathematical model 'average' student.

It is as accurate as any other (Ellis, Yellis etc) on a mass basis but will never work for every child for every subject.

mnistooaddictive - guess you are a teacher?

As I understand it you are correct, but if it breaks down when used for the individual, why do schools put so much emphasis on them in the first place? For the school to state they can give the most 'accurate' predictions is effectively inaccurate. Yet so many parents are taken in by it.

I resent the fact that in our school it appears that once the targets have been decided by the SMT, using the upper end of the range they appear set in stone; for some kids this means having a wholly asperational rather than a realistic target. The teachers have to tow the line and keep their mouths shut which means parents are led to believe their children are doing a whole lot better than they are doing in reality.

No doubt when they fail their GCSE's, it will be the child's fault as they didn't put in the effort. Nothing to do with the fact that if the teachers and parents had been able to work together something may have been salvaged from their education.

Sorry rant over.

Too many senior teachers don't understand statistics! They have the best motives but forget we are individuals and not robots!