What is the "expected" amount of progress expected

[sweetteamum]

My dd, year 7, has recently had her targets/guidance levels for year 9. I've worked it out and it equates to an even 2 sub levels per academic year, since her year 2 sats.

In that time dd has been off with 2 operations and her sen doesn't seem to of effected her according to this. But it's contradictory to reports/assessments we've had done.

Is this normal or am I just being cynical?

I think the Government like to see, and use as one of their statistics, three levels of progress in core subjects from year 7 to year 11 GCSE.

Obviously MFL is different where they start very low in year 7.

Also, in reality, some level 5 at KS2 will be looking at the really high GCSE Grades, not just B which is three levels of progress.

I just tried to get my two to work as hard as possible and they ended up exceeding some and not quite making others (but only by a sub level). At the end of the day it's just numbers on paper and they never happen without work by the student, so try and encourage them to sustain their work effort.

Thank you Kez100 for your reply.

Her levels in year 6, where only level 3. But they're saying she's "expected" to make to level 5 by Year 9.

I do understand that it's based on each child's individual progress, rather than the level they're on but i'm more confused, as she has sen and to keep getting consistent sub-level/levels per academic year is to me 'suspect' especially, when we are gathering info for statement.

Targets are generated based on actual levels attained at the end of yr 6, these are generated by a computer so do not take into account sen. They are targets, some children will not reach them, some will exceed them. Also progress may come in fits and starts, e.g. A whole level one year just one sub level the next.

Thank you for your reply also, Trinity

She has somehow managed to gain 2 sub levels of progress per year in junior school and apparently can do the same at high school.

We however, know that she was desperately upset about her Year 6 sats results as the school had told her she would achieve a certain level based on them giving her help, which she wasn't entitled to and we blocked.

I wasn't sure how they would factor the sen into the picture, but it makes sense that it isn't done through computers :)

Ofsted would bollock the school if they expected less progress from a student due to lower attainment in primary school.

Ofsted seem to believe that simply having high expectations of a student will improve progress.

Schools are encouraged to expect the same amount of progress of all students, regardless of circumstances (or in fact reality).

(This is exactly what I heard at a training session given by a current top Ofsted inspector).

So, re the targets, I would advise you to ignore them completely. They are nothing to do with your DD as an individual.

"Obviously MFL is different where they start very low in year 7. "

No, we have to make 3 levels of progress from their KS2 English/Maths SATs results, even when they have done no French before at all!! It is a rubbish idea.

That does indeed help show what madness it all is!

Targets are all frustrating nonsense. My school has just changed how it sets KS3 targets- we used to go from KS2 SATS and work forwards, and now we use FFT and work backwards. So I have 3 classes of yr9 students whose targets are along the lines of Yr7 target: 5b, Yr8 target: 6c, Yr9 target: 7b. Ridiculous. Computer generated and not taking into account any individuals. This is the same in all subjects. I teach drama, where the higher levels are sometimes more down to natural talent than anything else. In one class, there are 10 students whose target is 8b. The level descriptors don't even exist!

Level 8 in MFL is more or less native speaker level! It's ridiculous - NC levels are only supposed to go up to 14, how many kids will reach that level by 16, never mind 14? We've also had part of a listening exam that a native speaker (teacher) had to listen to twice to get the answers!