Apologies to Cambridge matmos.

[grovel]

I just loved being number 1000. Such power!

[pugsandseals]

The biggest problem we had with our local comprehensive system was the continuous assessment & baseline assessment. DD's friend scored highly in her 5+ baseline assessment, largely due to her starting school as soon as she was 3 as she is a September baby. Was assessed as g&t then & has gone on to receive all the associated benefits of being stretched ever since (now 11). On the other hand DD spent from 3 to 4 & a half in a different type of nursery provision (not school), was an August baby that started school at Easter when nearly 5. Had the test just as few weeks later & was assessed at a lower level & not given the same opportunities has her friend.
By the time the year 2 SATS came along, we were pretty much told by the school that because she wasn't g&t (decided age 5) she would not be allowed to even try the higher level work or exam & that the 5+ exam had pretty much decided what her GCSE grades would be.
Needless to say, she got very bored in year 1&2 & we looked down the private route which is where she has just been offered an academic scholarship.
Surely the comprehensive system which predicts GCSE grades at age 5 is therefore failing a large number of younger kids in year & is very unfair!!! This is why I am very interested in the 11+ at least giving another opportunity to 'reset fate'.

[seeker]

Pugsandseals- your experience does seem to be uniquely challenging. I have never ever heard of anyone being told their child's predicted GCSE performance in year 2. Your child's school must really have been a law unto itself!

[pugsandseals]

Teacher - he would probably have failed this time but been asked to audition again in a years time. With the greatest of respect, fine motor skills are a very important part of playing an instrument & he may well have struggled to keep up with the class at that young age. This is why I am one of a few teachers who do not just take a one form entry age 7 - so that I can take the best candidates from all year groups!

[teacherwith2kids]

How bizarre - I have never heard a primary being described as 'comprehensive', nor Foundation Stage assessments being used in the way you suggest to design and limit progress through KS1 and 2, and I also know that no mention of GCSE grades has EVER been made and DS is now in Year 7.

DS's secondary comprehensive uses 'entry point' (ie Year 6 SATs) data as an initial indication, but has predicted his Year 9 attainment based on continuous assessment of his current in-school Year 7 performance.

I am sure that his Year 9 prediction, then his GCSE predictions, will be 'flexed' as he progresses exactly as has happened so far.

I have to say, either your state primary was VERY unusual, or you have misunderstood....

[TotallyBS]

A lot of posters ask why we don't want our kids to be educated at a comp. If I had a great comp to send my kids to I would but I haven't so I won't.

A lot of selective parents don't object to sending their DCs to a comp. They just object to sending them to the ones that are available to them.

So when you go one about snobby parents that don't want their kids to be educated alongside lesser ability kids, you are focusing your debate (and contempt) on a small number of parents.

[pugsandseals]

But Seeker, that is what a lot of comprehensive systems do! It apparently makes it easier to predict value add scores & is better for the 16+ league tables!!!

[teacherwith2kids]

DS took up the clarinet aged 8. He's Grade 4 standard at 11, with all but the last 1.5 terms having 20-30 minute small group lessons from a peripatetic teacher at (state primary) school ... so his early poor motor skills were no indication of ability...

[teacherwith2kids]

Pugs - how many primary schools do you have experience of? In the upwards of 7 I have direct (teacher or parent) experience of, plus the many more I know of through having friends who are either teachers or chiuldren there, I have NEVER experienced what you describe....

[creamteas]

Total social class is not just about occupation, and ethnicity and class have a complex relationship. So many of the Asian parents in occupations such as bus-driving might well be middle-class.

I won't bore you with all the details, but you are welcome to come to my lectures on the subject ;)

[teacherwith2kids]

I do genuinely think that either you have a unique primary school (you do not have experience of a comprehensive secondary, I believe?) or you misunderstood.

[seeker]

Pugsandseals- I really am struggling to understand you. Are you saying that secondary schools base their GCSE predictions on KS1 SATs results? Have I got that right?

[teacherwith2kids]

Seeker, I think she said on EYFS assessments, actually.....

[pugsandseals]

Teacher - you will never get it in writing, only off the record.
I have to say that it is normal in our local schools to only give the higher level sats papers to select pupils. I am very uncomfortable with that because of reasons stated before. At least everybody gets the same opportunities in the 11+

[pugsandseals]

correct Teacher

[seeker]

So what is it you get off the record?

Oh, you are right, schools only give level 6 papers in year 6 to pupils who have shown themselves to be there or thereabouts. Which seems to me to be entirely sensible- why set a child up to fail?

[pugsandseals]

In our purely comprehensive system, where your lower school decides which middle & upper you go to YES.

[seeker]

Ok.lost you again. Could you explain how your system works again? I am deeply baffled.

[seeker]

Are you in the UK?

[TheOriginalSteamingNit]

Off the record sounds off the wall to me! I can't help wondering whether you got the wrong end of the stick somewhere, pugs.

[pugsandseals]

& the EYFS assessment also dictated which table you were on all through years 1&2 & therefore what work you were given. Table 2 would never even be allowed to try what table 1 were doing in class, so it becomes a prophecy.
Just to say this is my personal experience of my very insular state comprehensive system where I live. I obviously cannot comment on other areas of the country as I have no experience. But hopefully it goes some way towards explaining why we left thee state system. Surely it should be impossible for a child who was not allowed to take the higher level sats papers at 7+ to get an academic scholarship at 11!

[pugsandseals]

Yes UK

[seeker]

But...but...but.. Why would a school do that? I honestly think you must have misunderstood. Are you saying that children not on the top table weren't allowed to take the level 3 SATs paper? And that somehow only getting a 2A made a difference to what GCSEs a child could take?

All I can say is that the school concerned must have completely misunderstood the system, and I'm amazed it got past OFSTED.

[pugsandseals]

Ofsted outstanding school apparently

[seeker]

No. I'm sorry,npugsandseals, but you are wrong. That is not how it works. You have misunderstood.

And I do think you ought to be careful what you post about state education if you genuinely think that children's GCSE choices are dictated by EFYS scores. Because they aren't.

[pugsandseals]

It's to keep the cohort graphs looking smooth. If one year group in a small school has a higher number of level 3's than the year above & below the graph shows a hump & the council come down on the school like a ton of bricks about the perceived dip the following year. Schools are reliant on the council for their budget so want a nice smooth graph line to show they are very slowly & steadily improving. That years cohort will need to stay 'in it's place' until they leave school at 16.
This is what I am talking about with our comprehensive system! Our children get predicted levels at age 5 which they are expected to achieve at 16. If they don't the council complain, if some peak too early they are held back so that the upper school can claim better value-add scores & climb up the league tables further therefore getting more money.