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.

I've always been resolute in not asking about levels for my DC other than for my youngest when she was approaching the end of Y5, in relation to where she was vis a vis the 11+. I haven't a clue what level they're supposed to be when and it doesn't seem to have done them or me any harm. It also doesn't denote lack of interest in their progress, just a vague sense that it's better to leave this micro stuff to the teachers, because anything else could well end in tears.

My children have both attended school B. I made up school A.

It was very unusual when I was in secondary school (I was in Y8 in 2006-2007) - I managed a Level 8 (they didn't do the a, b, c thing at my school) in English, and a point was made of how unusual it is. I have always been a very high achiever in English... unfortunately I more than make up for it by crashing and burning at Maths and Science

I think they must vary by teacher though, because there doesn't seem to be any continuity across the board.

(I find it a little sad that you don't believe in school B, and assume that was the one I invented. Says a lot, really. I invented school A based on the 'wilder world' of Mumsnet.

DS left school B as a genuine L6 - as his progress since then has indicated - and DD is very likely to as well. Both have had mixed ability teaching throughout primary.)

I'm not saying that a level 6 isn't a genuine level 6, and that someone getting level 6 at primary is a hothoused fake, I'm saying that achieving a level 6 doesn't actually mean you are a better mathematician than a kid who hasn't been pushed to pass SATs papers and 'only' gets a level 5, but has spent a lot of time on enrichment activities rather than simply plodding onto the next topic.

If you have learned Pythagoras (level 7) and have some spare teaching time then you could do a load of problem solving around Pythagoras, work through some proofs, or you could push on and do a bit of trigonometry (level 8). The kids who do the proofs and problem-solving are doing valuable stuff, but because it's not a level 8 topic to tick off, won't come out as a level 8. Which is better? Superficial knowledge of both topics or an in-depth understanding of one?

Y6 DD's scenario is school B.

The maths highers had one additional/fun maths lesson in place of one normal single-form-entry mixed-ability class numeracy lesson per week, (except in Y5 when it was every other half term because of school resource juggling issues).

Early in Y6 autumn 2013 term they did their first past SATS L6 paper and not-trained-at-home DD scraped over the latest pass threshold: 34/50

In Y6 spring 2014 term they were taught L6 curriculum content.

The SATS L6 paper does of course test some harder L5 content rather than being pure L6, but that's not a sufficient explanation for that initial score surely? However when DD came home after that test her headline news was that some of the questions were new territory but she had managed to correctly infer what they were about [in 10yo-speak]. It didn't work for all of the highers and it worked best for her, but I think that is one of @teacherwith2kids' accidents.

There will always be good mathematicians who can answer harder questions than they've been taught, because maths is based on pure logic. They probably won't manage a Pythagoras question if they haven't been taught Pythagoras but they could certainly have a stab at some data handling, e.g. figure out what a scatter graph is about, or maybe some trickier algebra.

I said on the previous page why I thought school B was made up.

noblegiraffe my youngest DD went to a school exactly like school B, but without the 'fun sessions'.

Lots of talk about "plodding" on this thread. So if one is not achieving L7-8 by end of y7/y8, that is a sign of plodding or low ability or laziness or bad teaching???

How poor education has become when parents are buying in to these ridiculously narrow measurements of 'success'.

I am so sad for my about to be y7, bright DS, who loves to learn, and is saddled with this crap obsession with levels. Children discussing their relative levels at age 10? Madness.

No wonder we have the unhappiest teens in Europe...

It's not that unusual. We have a lot of children at high level 7 and even 8b in Maths in our school.

and ^ what RaisinBoys says too

It's good but not exceptionally brilliant.

Dd1's (year 8) very good at maths, and there are three others in her set (standard comprehensive, but only set across half the year) who are similar. They are working above level 8 (just), but there are a good number (I'd guess 1/3-1/2 the set or more) are working at level 8 now.
But they do have a very good teacher, who has let dd's group set their own pace, and they're very good at working together, which has helped.

Levels have been scrapped by the government now anyway, so soon you'll find that a 'level 5' in one subject in one school, is different to a 'level 5' in another! And some schools won't be using levels at all!

Only on Mumsnet.........

OP 7a at the end of year 8 is very very good indeed- and most definitely worthy of a congratulatory McDonald's!

I think the important things are:

Are they working at an appropriate level of understanding? Is their learning being consolidated and built upon?
Are they enjoying maths?
Are they having opportunities to look at it from beyond the confines of the curriculum (whether that is problem solving or practical application)?

Levels are not important.

As long as they are improving and gaining knowledge it doesn't matter what the level is in any subject.
If they are that able there is probably very little the school can offer anyway.
Yes, its great to be told your child is G&T and be given a level for something way beyond their years.
But levels given to dc so they can compare with others and to encourage unhealthy competition is wrong.
Levels mean nothing now anyway. They have always meant nothing outside a classroom and curriculum setting too.
My dd was assessed as working within level 8 when she was aged 8, it meant jack shit really, they couldn't do anything to help her.

"My dd was assessed as working within level 8 when she was aged 8, it meant jack shit really, they couldn't do anything to help her."

Good lord! In what subject??????

" And some schools won't be using levels at all!"

So you'll only get some anodyne comment bank comment like "I'm pleased with how they're working" once in a blue moon?

If DD's school tries that I'll likely end up asking the governors if I can view her records a couple of times a year.

Levels are both meaningful and useful to some of us parents, although you obviously need to understand what an optional or real SATS paper score actually tells you and sometimes allow for teacher-assessment 'optimism' or fiddling for the bean-counting. They can ditch NC levels, but as I'm apparently in a 'partnership' with the school I do want something else in the same informational league.

We had parents' evening not long ago - what I found really useful was the way DD1's maths teacher had written a list for each child in her group of all the things they needed to work on, and how to do it. I couldn't care less about her level, I just want to know that she has a solid understanding of the work she is doing.

She did badly in her end of year maths tests, nerves got the better of her, but she is now driven to use the information her teacher gave her to work on those areas of weakness.

"As long as they are improving and gaining knowledge it doesn't matter what the level is in any subject"

Stuff and nonsense, unless you're confident the child will never need to work to pay their bills.

Novble, I am still not sure why you think school B - an entirely genuine school - has been made up.

You have explained why some of the level 6s from both school A and school B might not be 'true' level 6s, and I understand that (though I do genuinely think that 'coached to pass level 6 papers' vs 'working at level 6' are different, and a school that does no coacning cannot have any 'coached to pass level 6' children, through it can have some 'fluked it' results).

But I do not understand why you thught that school b must be made up? All 1 form entry schools, almost by definition, do mixed ability maths teaching every day?

No, lots of single form entry schools have different tables, where the different ability kids are taught separately within the same classroom. Often a TA will teach the weakest group. The top kids may be taken out to work with a higher year group, or in a 'booster' group.

I'm not saying that any kid who gets a level 6 on a maths SATs paper isn't a 'true' level 6. I'm saying that getting a level 6, which is a tick-list of topics isn't necessarily the best way to deal with an able mathematician.

I'm saying that pushing through that finite checklist of topics will produce mathematicians who on paper are a level 8, but who won't necessarily feel confident with maths, enjoy maths or even retain much of what they have been taught. An unfamiliar question may completely throw them.

It's like saying to an English student: 'you've read The Tempest? Great, this week we are going to read Hamlet, then next week Much Ado and the week after Twelfth Night...'. That kid could sit his Shakespeare SATs and get a very high level, where levels are based around how many Shakespeare texts you have read.
But could they answer questions about poetry? Could they make links between the texts? Probably not, if the aim has been to get as many texts read as possible. But to be successful at studying English Lit later, they would need the other stuff, otherwise when they are suddenly being asked to think for themselves, they may find the leap too big.

It's the same with maths. Kids who are a level 8 in Y7 have mostly just been fed topic after topic after topic with very little breathing room.

But you still haven't explained why you think school b (which I can see from my front door) seemed so clearly fictional (to me, school a was clearly the fictional stereotype).

Level 6 is, of course, not the be-all and end-all of being a good mathematician. But if a school teaches lots of maths (inside and outside the confines of the curriculum, and definitely not with a narrow view of 'level 4 is this so we teach this') and then the children have a paper that they can take to give some measure of what they know, and it comes out as, say 20% level 6s, then as the parent of 2 very able mathematicians, i can't say I'm sorry.

(I do realise my children are a little odd. DS could add and subtract 3 digit numbers and negative numbers in Reception, for example, and is wholly willing to 'have a go' at any type of question, familiar or unfamiliar. I'm glad they have gone to a school that fosters that, and am VERY glad they are going on to a secondary that was quite happy to believe in the level coming up from the primary and simply started off on day 1 from 'well, since you know this and can do this, let's have some fun trying this now', rather than saying 'any primary child coming up at year 6 must have been fed topics and won't have a proper broad understanding of maths')

I said in the post where I said school B was made up why I thought that type of school would be rare.

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. (and indeed at secondary for that matter).

At my secondary we don't get kids to level 8 in Y7. Not because we are crap teachers or only have average kids but because we don't teach them level 8 topics even though we could, and instead fill in the time with rich tasks and problem solving. But the school is now asking that we accelerate progress at KS3 so that kids have a better chance of doing well at the new tougher GCSEs. So we will have to rush them through KS3 as quickly as possible. On paper they will look like they are doing better, but they will actually be missing out. My school has a very bright intake, so I know how other schools who are getting level 8 in Y7/8 are doing it, and it's not something I would especially want for my kids.