I'm a maths teacher and I make up sub-levels.

[noblegiraffe]

There have been a few threads here lately about parents concerned that Little Johnny hasn't gone up a sub-level since September, or has only gone up one sub-level in a year or hasn't made any progress. There is even a thread where a school is giving out sub-sub-levels.

Sub-levels are bollocks. Levels given for individual pieces of work are bollocks as an indicator of overall achievement. I can only really speak for secondary school maths as that's what I teach, but comments from other teachers on here lead me to suspect the same thing for other subjects. There are level descriptors which state what is required to reach each level. There are no set descriptors for individual sub-levels, making them meaningless. There is even no consensus about what level individual maths skills are. The best they can do in maths is say that in a levelled test, a child just achieved the mark required to get a level, was well within the boundaries, or just missed out on a higher level. A mark of 47 could get you a 5A, where a mark of 48 would get you a 6C.

Levels are also broken down in maths into 4 areas - Using and Applying, Number and Algebra, Geometry, and Statistics (names for these areas change depending on educational fashion). Therefore children's levels can vary throughout the year depending on the topic being studied. A child could be a whizz at algebra and do very well on the end of term test which focuses on algebra. They could also be crap at geometry and so next term not do as well. We do not give out levels for these tests because we would have parents up in arms that algebra whizz Johnny was a level 6 at Christmas but only a level 5 at Easter, thus having gone backwards due to no-doubt dreadful teaching.

The only relatively reliable way to get an overall level in maths is a comprehensive exam which covers all areas of maths. We set these in the summer of each year - a SATs style exam for each year group. The end of year level is therefore usually a reasonable assessment as a measure of progress, although like I said, a different level could just be down to 1 mark.

We have to report levels to parents three times a year, despite levels only being effectively assessed once per year. So, when writing reports in November/December, I will probably put down the same level as they got in the summer, unless they appear to be making very good progress in which case I might bump it up a sublevel. I also need to predict them an end of KS3 target, which I do with one eye on the FFT target and the other on what set they are in and how they are working. By March, I will bump them all up a bit to show that they have made some progress towards their target grade. If they haven't made progress, they will have moved down a set by then. In the summer when they do their proper exam, I cross my fingers that none of them will achieve lower than the bumped up level I gave them in March, because parents don't like it when levels go down.

It's utter nonsense. I do not like it when parents get concerned based on sub-levels and it annoys me when parents think that they quantify progress. Levels were designed to measure progress between Key stages and this is reasonable as they give a broad, not a detailed assessment. Trying to insinuate that they give a detailed assessment by breaking them down into sub-levels (and sub-sub-levels) is stupid.

I know in some primaries they have massive grids of attainment targets in order to show progress through the levels - this, for obvious reasons, has never caught on in secondary. But I am wary of this too. What a child can achieve in a lesson, or a homework just after the work has been taught is very different to what they can achieve in exam conditions at the end of the year. Also, in maths it doesn't matter if you can answer a level 7 question on an exam, that doesn't make you a level 7. What makes you a level 7 is having achieved sufficient marks overall to put you in a level 7 boundary. You could answer some level 7 topics correctly but get some level 5 topics wrong and thus be awarded a level 6.

Please don't get so het up over them.

Apologies for the long post. I am only speaking for how I award sub-levels. Other schools may do things differently, but I am sure based on how levels work that they can't do them much more accurately. There might be a consensus within a department within a school, but nationally there is no consensus and there can't be.

I'm so pleased that people have found this thread useful and that other teachers have also confessed to simply 'adding a bit on from last time' in their sub-level assessments.

It is interesting that as soon as students get to KS4, sub-levels vanish (and please let that not change!), yet GCSE grades aren't any different to levels (certainly not in maths, anyway).

As to why teachers go along with it - I go along with it because I'm a part-time chalkface teacher with little influence in school policy, let alone national education policy. I might moan about it to my immediate superiors in the hope that they might report things upwards but there is also a worry in teaching that if you say 'I make up the levels that I put on students' reports' that your card will be marked and you'll be lined up for incompetency proceedings.

Why do headteachers go along with it? Because other schools do it, and parents probably like it because they think that they are being given useful information. Importantly, Ofsted like it, and most crucially Value Added calculations are based on decimal sub-levels. Ofsted are obsessed with children being able to quote at any given time what level they are 'working at' (meaningless, a child could be 'working at' level 7 one lesson and level 6 the next). Children are also supposed to know their targets, and as FFT targets are given to two decimal places (don't get me started on schools' misuse of these targets by actually giving them un-amended to the children), telling the children that their KS3 target is a level 6 and that they are working well and should meet that target isn't good enough when you could say that their target is a 6a and make up that they are working at a 6c. However, their target is for a numerical result in a comprehensive exam, and what they are 'working at' is something which varies daily.

Giving a target of a grade B at GCSE on the other hand is perfectly acceptable because FFT targets at GCSE are merely a grade with no decimals involved and employers, Ofsted and the people who do Value Added calculations don't give a toss if your B was a low or a high B.

Maybe its time a few more HTs told FFT to FFO
or just held FFT to account : what IS their agenda?
As fine scale points are no longer working?
WHO PAYS FFT?

a ratings agency moment is dawning in education I hope

I can see that.

So, at year 10 you have assess/predict a pupil in each subject as any one of 9 levels A* to U.

In year 9, they would be assessed as any one of (being level p, 1-7 and 8/EP x 3 sublevels) so 23+ possible levels.

Same in primary education - I'm currently sat here doing the APP for Literacy - for 9 of my kids. Did 9 last weekend. Literally sat with my yellow highlighter pen going..hmmm..yep..he can do that..hmm..nope, not sure I've seen it...erm..yes, I have written evidence for that...erm..no...although his last teacher said he had it, I have seen zero evidence.

It's time consuming, and totally totally subjective. Better to go with the, they're a level 2 (lower than they should be), level 3 (on target) or level 4 (super).

It's a paperwork exercise. Total waste of my time. I'm much rather be spending time planning interesting lessons for them to do! If you've ever seen the APP paperwork, you'll understand what I'm saying.

nalubeadsgirl I feel your pain!!!

And what the hell's the point when you give your TAs to your Head teacher and she then alters them according to what she needs to see on her spreadsheet! She may or may not let you know that she's done that.

Are you asked to do APP for each pupil in the class? At the school where I am parent governor they only do it in detail for 3-6 pupils representative of the top middle and bottom of the ability range in each class to identify the next steps for each group. I'd have thought it was too time consuming and counterproductive to do for each pupil?

oh. The whole point of APP is that you're only supposed to do it in detail for 6 children - 2 top, 2 middle, 2 bottom. Yet in a lot of schools, mine included, they don't think this is fair, so we're told to do it for every child.

I have to photocopy their work (not allowed to write on it any levels, or anything that could be interpreted as a 'level') and create a file, with evidence, for each child. I have 30 in the class. Never mind the actual APP..I don't have a TA so photocopied 30 books is time consuming in itself!!!! (hence why I start work at 7.30am and never leave before 6pm..AND take work home..AND work all day Sunday!)

I have to level a piece of written work every week ( primary here) in Literacy. The levels go up and down faster than the proverbial whore's knickers! It depends on
a) whether they liked the topic
b) what they had for breakfast
c) who won at football last night
d) who's fallen out with who ( or as I'm year 6-who is going out with who!)

and 100 and 1 other reasons. Yet I sit for 4 hours every Sunday religiously working my way through each peice of work, assessing whether they have used modal verbs, causal connective and higher order punctuation so I can assign a sub level ot each of 9 Assessment Focuses that I have to record against.

So some weeks I just look at what I wrote the previous week, decide whether it is better or worse and make the levels up!

DS1 started secondary in September. I was shocked that each piece of work/ homework gets a level. I would be happy with A-E like the olden days and worry about the levels when he's older.

Funnily enough the latest research shows that individual pieces of work shouldn't be handed back to the students with a grade on them at all. If students get work back and it says 'B' or '18/20' or 'level 6c', then that is all they look at. If the work doesn't have a grade, they are much more likely to read and pay attention to comments on how to improve which is the important bit of the marking.

Another maths teacher here! Yep levels aren't "made up" we follow a structured programme where every three months each pupil moves up by a sub level!! Whether we think they've made progress or not! The only time actual levels are inputted is after the sats!

Pupils aren't allowed to make negative progress!

Hilarious! Love it! Every Yr 7 parent needs a copy of this. My son's "working at" grades go from a 3C to a 7C! My friend's son at a different secondary has targets of 5s for everything! Another friend's daughter was in tears because she didn't go up a level in reading. You would write Crime & Punishment but without punctuation you will stay at a Level 3.

My understanding of levels is that they are pretty much meaningless until the end of key stage when they have covered all the work.

I don't really know why some parents hang everything on levels. They are largely a measure of what has been taught rather than what the child understands.

It's a sorry system. How many children have been mauled by their parents for not making progress? Or teachers for setting incorrectly? Or teachers for not enabling the children to make progress? Or schools for honestly rebasing after the childs levels were maxed out at Primary? How many Governors use measures based on them to determine strategies and questionning? Hundreds of thousands I would guess.

No wonder when I've asked about levels at parents evenings I have had strange (but very polite) answers, slight changing the subject to evidence of progress.

Noblegiraffe

You have put my mind at ease.. i think!
My ds is in yr7 & was top of the class in maths at his primary, he has just finished his midyear tests & did awfully. He said he was bottom of his maths class & got only a few correct answers on one of the tests. His school dont report sublevels but i think his maths was level 5.

So from your post i believe one of the below has happened.

1. DS just isnt any good at algebra (this terms work)
2. He's got cocky & thought he could coast
3. The other kids at his primary were just not very good at maths & made him look good.

Whichever it is i definatly wont be going in & moaning at his maths teacher.

We subgrade at GCSE and have been for some time.

I don't make up sublevels. Once I have levelled I arrange them in order within that level and then sublevel. So if I have 6 pieces of work at a Level 7 I will put them in order by ability. Those that only just meet the criteria, or just about meet one criteria will be a 7c. Those that are comfortably into the level will be a b. Those that have an abundance of evidence will be an a or perhaps they meet all the criteria.

Levels can be quite subjective so tracking between teachers can be difficult , although we have to give a sublevel every half term so will moderate every half term to encourage consistency.

When marking for the rest of the half term I will not give a level because pupils focus purely on the level not the comment. However in my comment I may say to a student " this is a level six skill here" or " if you had also done this you could get a level 7"

Kez100 - We have always quizzed the teachers if the levels looked strange. We had instances in year 9 when DDs levels in some subjects were 2 full level lowers than in yr8!. And then started yr10 with B grade targets in almost all subjects, where yr9 levels ranged from 5a to 7b.
At last review day, form tutor told us to ignore the targets, as she was certain DD was capable of better!

DD now has set her own targets of a B in English, and as many A's as possible.

We don't have any information on our two older DC's levels at all, now they are at (state) secondary school. None. I have genuinely no idea what levels they are working at or what any of it means. I also have no idea if they are doing well, average, badly, on an absolute or relative scale. Sometimes this is good, sometimes it's bad though because honestly, I have NO IDEA how they are doing and neither their reports nor the incredibly infrequent parents' evenings have shed any light either.

Sublevels annoy me too in MFL but my bigger concern is now the 3 levels of progress over secondary. I teach MFL but the 'start point' is whatever they got in their KS2 SATs. So if they come to us with level 5s, they should be leaving at 16 with GCSE equivalent of level 8. Level 8 in MFL is more or less native speaker level!! Most of them have never done French at primary so are in effect starting at level 1 but they still need to achieve that level 8. It's a ridiculous idea.

All I can hope is that many of the little dears will drop French at 14!