Is a level 8 unusual at the end of year 8?

[MyballsareSandy]

The reason I ask is I've just met a friend for lunch, we both have kids in year 8. I was telling her how pleased I am that DD got a 7a in her end of year maths exam, how hard she has worked etc etc.

She replied that she was disappointed with her DD as she believes she should be at a level 8c at least by now.

I thought a level 7 was excellent at this age.

BTW this isn't something I normally chat about with friends, it does sound boasty, but this particular friend is obsessed with levels and always asks.

Yep - 7a is really good. My Yr 8 son is no where near that. Couple of 6's in science and maths. He is top group maths and science, not the top but not the worst.

I know it's hard but try not to compare.

I wonder how consistent a grade is between schools now,they haven't done testing at KS3 for ages.

She sounds a loon

I think she is boasting. Just say that your DD is at exceptional performance level or whatever it is called.

I got 7s. I'm really clever now, y'see.

L8 in Y8 would be very unusual indeed. Unless the child is very gifted (taking GCSE and A levels early, not just 'top of the class' gifted I mean) it sounds like the poor thing is under excessive pressure. We have about 1 or 2 such students per year (at a very 'maths and business' focused school).

As a general guideline, a well performing student will go up two sub levels of progress per year (e.g. starting Y8 on a 6c/6-, they would reach 6A/6+ by now, and would progress onto L7 by Y9). If you work backwards from a Y8 grade of an 8B/solid 8, you can see that they would have come in at the start of Y6 on a high 6. So rather rare and not normal.

I think schools do have a rather loose interpretation of levels. I now know of one school locally that seems to have come up with a level 9.

I think your friend is being unfair to her dd. That sort of pressure can really end up backfiring.

Level 8 is pretty exceptional by the end of year 9, let alone year 8!

Although we no longer have external exams, we do have level descriptors for every level and every subject: in maths this takes the form of a detailed grid until next year when Gove shakes it all up again.

As schools are measured on their progress from KS2-4, but also KS3-4, it makes sense to keep KS3 scores in line with those grids. ...but not every school does, especially if it massages egos (of teachers and some parents) to throw around L9s. Of course the poor kids get a shock when they do GCSEs.

I have taught for 10 years and have never awarded a level 8, in year 9 or any other year. To be honest, I'm not sure I've awarded a L7 either.

What do you teach (need a nosy icon!)?

And yes, I think she's just boasting too :)

It totally depends on the school. In my younger daughters school children were working at level 7&8 in first term maths in year 7. Strangely at older DDs super selective grammar some of the year 9 girls did not reach level 8.

I think the levels are applied creatively to say the least!

Not unusual but not common - my daughter is a Level 7B in Yr7 a class of 27 where I think most are 6A to 8C ..... to my knowledge these are fair assessments ...they all sat the level KS3 5 to 7 paper and then 60% sat the KS3 6 to 8 paper ....the teacher stated that she is just filling in Gaps in their knowledge ...they do their work then can work on the GCSE workbooks .... What is amazing is that this is a very average comp with kids that attend from the local schools and is not selective but its a GOOD school......

I think Maths is a subject where high levels can be achieved at younger ages...

I'm really proud of my daughter - she's always had natural ability but she was not very confident ...until she got a teacher who is enthusiastic and lets the children work to the level of their ability- no holding back with lots of motivation - sadly next year she has a different teacher :-(

The difference between a 7a and an 8c could be one mark out of 150 on a test. Meaningless.

A school that is pushing lots of kids to get level 8s early is not doing the best by them in terms of a rounded maths education. So you might want to mention that to your mate

www.acme-uk.org/news/news-items-repository/2012/12/acme-launches-raising-the-bar-developing-able-young-mathematicians

Disagree noblegiraffe - my daughter was a 5A when she left primary 12 months ago ...so not hot housed at all (I would say the opposite lacked motivation to achieve her potential)....she is now in a school who believes that children can work to their own ability ..so they are taught the syllabus of that Yr (in her case yr 7) but when they have done that work they can then spent time working on the GCSE workbooks so that they are challenged ....they are not pushed - they just find work they can do rather than being restricted and bored - you cannot hold kids back ....

Most of the class did the Maths Challenge - they are one of the leading schools on Magna High ....these are children who are being coached that it is cool to learn ...not plod....

There is little difference between levels but if consistent testing is carried out then levels reported should be accurate ...my daughter was 6b to 6a to 7b throughout Year 7...having started at 5A....

I think what noble giraffe is saying is that the curriculum is so restrictive if you follow it in a linear path. It doesn't give a deep understanding and therefore produces far fewer mathematicians than it should do.

My DS is also being taught to push himself, not plod, as are all his top set classmates.

Most of the top kids in the top set in Yr 8 are on level 7c-a as far as I can see - all the ones that got Silver in maths challenge, anyway.

7 or 8 of them got Gold, and the one who is in Maths Olympiad has been working at L8 since Yr 7 , and she is definitely, noticeably of that ilk and has been since early in primary. Way beyond ordinarily academic and bright.

DS needs to get an 8C at end Y8 to be guaranteed a place in top set in y9 (local comp, in a superselective grammar area). A 7a will probably give him a place but not guarantee it - which would imply that over 30 children in a Y8 of c 200 will be 7a or above at this point. He is working consistently at L8 within class, but the final decision on sets is influenced by the test results.

His end Y9 target is an 8A, probably because he got L6 at the end of Y6.

He's bright, good at Maths, but not 'exceptional' - Silver not Gold in maths challenge, for example.

(They seem to have a 'have a go at this challenge, it cropped up in Y10/11/12 / in a Maths challenge / in a discussion earlier, see what you think' type of mentality - a 'think as a mathematician' approach rather than a 'how much of the syllabus have you covered' idea.)

You should be very proud- it's a great achievement. But- without wishing to burst anyone's bubble- I teach KS3 and manage others that do too. The levels vary wildly between teachers quite often and certainly between schools. I've sat in moderation meetings where people have really over/under marked. With this in mind I would always take these levels with a pinch of salt. If you're really bothered you can have a look at the National Curriculum levels online have a bit of a critique of DCs work yourself. It's not rocket science at all.

lotty it's not me saying that it's ACME (as my link says), the Advisory Committee on Mathematics Education.

"Chair of ACME, Professor Steve Sparks FRS said: "Just because a pupil can charge through the curriculum at top speed through procedural learning, does not mean that he or she has developed a clear grasp of the subject matter or could apply the fundamental principles more broadly. The 'acceleration' approach is driven by league tables, and puts us at odds with many of the world's highest performers in terms of mathematics education. It is inconsistent with the Government's stated aim to encourage more students to study maths to 19.""

Noble, I think it is more nuanced than that. Some schools will push for level 8s through procedural maths. Others will have students at level 8 level almost 'by accident' through a broad-based matsh education.

It is a little similar to the level 6 thing in primary.

In school A, the top maths group is coached through level 6 questions, including at lunchtimes and in after school sessions. They are taught almosty solely through 'this is what you need in order to answer these questions' methods.

In school B, maths is taught throughout the school in mixed ability classes. There are no booster groups in Y6, and in total 3 practice papers are covered for SATs in the coure of the year. There is a strong empahsis on a balanced maths education, with a teaching of the curriculum not to the test. However, once a fortnight an maths teacher from a linked secondary school comes to run 'fun maths problem solving' lessons for a largely self-selected group of more able mathematicians.

School B happens to have a far higher percentage of Level 6 mathematicians, and I would argue that they are much more likely to be genuinely at that level than those from school A.

That is very true teacher.

"does not mean that he or she has developed a clear grasp of the subject matter or could apply the fundamental principles more broadly"

That's a two-way street i.e. it might mean that. However being binary-mode education I bet high-level = narrow + procedural is the rule for some folk now.

Tangentially, I have to wonder what went on given that the preceding paragraph from that abstract apparently written in 2012 erroneously said: "At primary, schools are assessed on the results of Level 6 tests".

But you've just made up school B, teacher, and from what I've read on here, there are very few if any schools teaching genuine mixed ability in primary.

Yes if there was genuinely excellent maths teaching throughout primary, it would be possible to reach a genuinely higher level of achievement. But that is probably pretty rare in a country dominated by league tables and progress measures, and with a severe shortage of maths-trained teachers at primary.

I guess ACME did some research before publishing their report.

I was told that level 8 was exceptional for less than end of year 9.
however, if her dc is G&T I can see why she might be disapointed in terms of improvement and value added.
It would still be a bit loony though, poor child.