New levels

[Marmitelover55]

My DD2 is in year 7 and we've just had her first report. She has been graded with levels which equate to the new GCSE grades but I don't understand how well she is doing.

She has got a 5- for maths which looks good as her target for the end of the year is 5 (she is in the top set) but in RE for instance she has a 1 and a target of 5-, so not good. All of her other targets are 4. How much progress should we be expecting in a year? I had just got my head around the old NC levels and think two sub levels was roughly what was expected - is this still the same?

They do seem to have sub levels still as some are + and some -.

These are definitely the new levels and not the old ones. Any help would be great - thanks.

That is interesting. I do worry that French is off putting because it is so much harder to get the top grades.

I'm a teacher and my school has started a new system this year. Teachers are confused as our students and parents. We have 4 sub grades per grade so the attached grid will not necessarily be that helpful. It should what a working at grade in year 7 should turn into by the time they do their actual GCSE.

Photo removed by MNHQ for privacy issues

*are

So a low ability kid is supposed to make exactly the same amount of progress in a neat linear fashion as the brightest kids in the country? That's complete bollocks. If they progressed at the same rate as the high ability kids they wouldn't be starting 3 grades below them And the kids who start Y7 on a grade 1 which is a level 3 should be getting a B at GCSE? Do the people who came up with that grid know nothing??

Ha! It's based on students making 5 sub levels of progress each year. It doesn't work though as some students have been given yr 7 end of year targets of a 1b meaning they start on a 0c, which doesn't even exist! I think they made it to help explain what 'should' happen.

Also, I don't think our school say a level 3 is the equivalent of a grade 1. We do not refer or equate anything to old levels in our school. I think that's the problem really, each school can make up their own system.

And actually, thinking about it, there are fewer grades at the bottom end now, so they are actually expecting more progress from the lower ability kids than the top end.

The kid in Y7 on a 1a which is an old G is expected to reach a 4c by Y9 which is an old C, so nearly 4 levels progress in 2 years (remember the current target is 3 levels in 5 years). The kid in Y7 on a 4a which is an old C is expected to get to a 7c which is an old A, so just about 2 levels of progress in 2 years.

It's also not clear why they have equated a grade 6 to an A, when a grade 7 is the clear cut off for an A equivalent.

But a grade 1 GCSE is pegged at a grade G which is roughly a level 3.

You can't make up your own grade 1 then call it a GCSE grade 1!

To be honest, I haven't got a clue!

Neither does whoever came up with that table. Is everyone in your school really expected to get at least a B at GCSE?

"I do worry that French is off putting because it is so much harder to get the top grades."

Harder than what? If you've got some time to kill this link is quite interesting. It doesn't tell us anything about the ability of children opting to take a given GCSE which limits what you can infer, but at a superficial level it says you're more likely to get a top grade in French than English.

www.bstubbs.co.uk/gcse.htm

Yes, hard to compare those two really, as French is not a core subject. When kids make their options, there is a sense that their results will be higher in History or Geography (ebacc "academic" subjects), and this is borne out by the figures.

noble: I was able to catch a teacher at school today (half day) and had a conversation about the new levels. They weren't under any pressure to accurately predict what GCSE grade Y7,s would get. Where is your evidence that the somebody is forcing all teachers to do this? Why are you so militant about this (maybe you have a bad head)? What is so stupid about schools doing different things? Yes I get it will upset mumsnetters who wont be able to boast about their DC being a level nine in Y7 but that's not a bad thing.

What is wrong with teachers giving an assessment about how a child is doing? I just don't get what the issue is, can a child add, multiply, work out angles etc, as far as I am aware this is pretty easy to do, it doesn't matter what its called.... are all teachers on here thumping the political bible? I just want to know if my child is progressing!

Evil: I surmise you are very angry about being accountable at work but grow up, everyone else in the private sector has to be accountable. I see nothing wrong about holding teachers to account once a term.

noble: If a teacher doesn't know how good their school is within their local area and the country then they should be sacked. Every parent I have ever talked to (hundreds) know the good schools from the bad. And that is before we look at league tables. Basic job knowledge 101!

I trust my DC teachers to grade my child and I don't need to complain about what GCSE he would get in an exam he might sit in 5 years. As long as he is making progress (and that agrees with my own observations) then its all good.

Progress at higher levels is harder and slower so I dont see why lower achieving students cant make the same or greater amount of progress in terms of 'sub levels'.

Where is your evidence that the somebody is forcing all teachers to do this?

Where did I say that they were? I said schools were making up their own systems. Someone at the OP's school is forcing teachers to make up current GCSE grades for current Y7. My school is forcing schools to predict GCSE grades for current Y7. Either way it's nonsense.

You said What I will be looking for is for the school to pick a base line in Y7 and expect to see good progress every report. The actual GCSE equivalent is irrelevant until you get to KS4.

Well no, not if you pick a baseline in Y7 that's a GCSE grade. Imagine you pick a grade 5, then plot good progress with every report so they end up with, I dunno, a grade 7 in Y9. Then you get to Y10 when the GCSE equivalent becomes relevant and the Y10 teacher does some mocks and says 'hang on, this kid is only going to get a 6, then the parent is going to get very confused about this apparent backwards progress and wonder what the hell is going on. And then you say 'oh, we just picked a random baseline in Y7 and added a bit on each time'?

What is so stupid about schools doing different things?

Because kids transfer between schools. Because kids are going to be tested against their peers in a national exam and it would be nice to know how they compare against their peers before then?

noble: If a teacher doesn't know how good their school is within their local area and the country then they should be sacked.

Er, I can only conclude that you have no idea what you are talking about here.

Progress at higher levels is harder and slower so I dont see why lower achieving students cant make the same or greater amount of progress in terms of 'sub levels'

This is bollocks.

They've been asked to give that child a 'working at' and a target GCSE grade for the end of Y7, when no one, and I mean no one knows what that looks like.

I took this to mean that ‘someone’ was asking you to give GCSE grades in Y7, so noble what did you really mean?

Well no, not if you pick a baseline in Y7 that's a GCSE grade

Why is a baseline in Y7 mean you have determined the child's GCSE grade? Seems like you are trying to destroy the system because you don't like one part of it! No matter what baseline a teacher/school gives a child it does not change their final actual grade they get 5 years later in GCSE!

Because kids transfer between schools.

Ummm can’t teachers tell what level a student is at, are they so simple that they cant tell a clever child from an ‘average’ one? come on is that really why a few teachers argue for nationally equalised grades? I know my DC’s secondary ignores sats and sets pupils on ability. OMG the teachers there are omnipotent! really?

noble your post descends into personal insults so I can only assume that your argument descends into drivel. If you are unaware how good/bad your school is compared to your local area then you are a bad teacher. I could direct you to a website than will work it out for you but after your personal abuse I wont bother.

apologies for formatting, i am new here

I took this to mean that ‘someone’ was asking you to give GCSE grades in Y7, so noble what did you really mean?

Read the OP. That's what the teachers at the OP's school have been asked to do. That doesn't mean that every teacher in the country has and I never said that they had.

Why is a baseline in Y7 mean you have determined the child's GCSE grade?

It doesn't, but if you say a child is currently working at a GCSE grade of a 5- and their end of year target is a GCSE grade of a 5, then isn't that what you'd expect that to mean? Except it's made up because no one knows what a GCSE grade 5 looks like. It's a lie to parents in an attempt to make it look like the school knows what it's doing, because we can't report 'your kid's doing ok, check back in in a couple of years once we've got our head around a few things and we can give you a bit more info'

Ummm can’t teachers tell what level a student is at

Not on an exam that no one has ever sat before, no. Not even exam boards can do that, that's why grade boundaries are set after the exam, once they've seen how the national cohort actually performed.

are they so simple that they cant tell a clever child from an ‘average’ one

I don't know if you've noticed, but GCSE grades are a bit more nuanced than 'clever', 'average' and 'troll'. Did you spot the OP's child being graded at a 5-? That's not being asked to distinguish a clever child from an average one.

If you are unaware how good/bad your school is compared to your local area then you are a bad teacher.

But your GCSE results won't be set based on how your school does compared to its local area. They will be set nationally, and they won't be set based on the headline figures which are reported in the press, but based on figures for your individual subject which usually aren't reported at school level. What raw score did the top 3% in the country get in GCSE maths last year? We know the grade boundaries for an A* but that's the top 6%. How good do you have to be to get a 9? Don't know. So sack me.

Bolognese trust me, Noble knows what she is talking about.

How confident would you feel about being responsible for the progress of students where there are no measurements in place?

Progress at higher levels is harder and slower so I dont see why lower achieving students cant make the same or greater amount of progress in terms of 'sub levels'

I will elaborate on 'This is bollocks' just so you are aware that I wasn't talking out of my arse.

www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2013/06/why-3-levels-of-progress-is-a-very-silly-measure/

This article shows the percentage of pupils who made 3 levels of progress in maths and English from a variety of starting points in 2012. You will see that the lower attaining students are far less likely to make 3 levels of progress than the higher attaining ones, especially in my subject (maths). This suggests that your assertion that it is harder to make progress at the higher levels is wrong. It also suggests that if you do as the PP's school did with that neat grid and expect the same rate of progress from your low ability students as your high ability ones, you either setting your low ability students up to fail, or not challenging your high ability ones.

After hours of discussion and many ideas put forward, my school came up with a brilliant new system for KS3. It's completely the same as the old one ! Everyone understands it, we can relate it to nee GCSEs (as far as anyone knows what the he'll they will require) & everyone can see what progress is being made.

Bolognese - read this

There is a difference between being held accountable and reporting grades every 6 weeks.

Children do not make progress in a linear fashion because they are children, not machines.

You are ridiculous in your assertion that teachers should be sacked if they don't know where their school fits in with all others nationally. There are about 3,500 state secondary schools in England - do you really think I should know where mine compares?

I did much the same with the 2012 transition matrix data a couple of years ago when Ofsted published their Most Able report and started saying all end-KS2 L5s should be getting A/A*. There are caveats and the usual bell curves for where a given end-KS2 starting point arrives on the GCSE grade scale, but Henry Stuart's article is definitely correct.

DD had high end-KS2 attainment and her school still uses and sends us termly reports with NC level:sub-levels and automatic annual targets of two sub-levels progress. This term I went to the school for a lengthy (friendly) meeting with the most relevant SLT-bod and challenged them to point to something, anything, useful a parent like me could take from her latest report. They didn't succeed because the data says DD is being systematically failed by the school, but they're currently contemplating 'life after levels' and I was there to plead for a less crocky replacement that reflects at least some reality. I'm under no illusions about my influence but maybe, just maybe, it will be a straw that helps steer them away from one of these even worse new d-i-y assessment/progress jobs.

@EvilTwins "Children do not make progress in a linear fashion because they are children, not machines"

Perhaps, but I don't believe you don't have the means to reliably measure that progress so any talk about the nature of a progess graph is fundamentally broken. It kind of works for large numbers of children over years.