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.

Bolognese do listen to noble and other who actually teach. Going to school and having a child in one does not necessarily mean that you know more than the teachers.

This article about data in education should be required reading by all SLT who think the data that is being churned out is meaningful.

headguruteacher.com/2013/03/17/the-data-delusion-on-average-its-a-bit-more-complicated/

Bolognese I can't see that noblegiraffe is being abusive in any way. noblegiraffe seems to me to be talking complete sense. There is absolutely no point in linking attainment in the first term of Y7 to GCSE grades whether on the old system or new. It's utterly meaningless under either system. The politics of marking makes it a non starter, for a start, leaving aside all the issues of non-linear progress etc. A 'Working at the level expected/ above the level/ below the level' has always worked fine for me. I've never been given a GCSE level until the start of the GCSE course and never been in any way anxious for one since I know it would be bollocks.

Sophie, that chart is mesmerizingly misleading, at the top end as much as the bottom. It implies that each and every kid at grammar school will get a full set of Grade 9s, so each will be at the very top end of the A* bracket for all subjects. That's not what happens now and it's not going to happen from 2017.

Bolognese the statement that history hasn't changed for thousands of years is also rubbish, obviously.

I've had another look at the report and to be fair it doesn't actually mention GCSE grades, it just says that they have adopted a new system based on levels 1-9. It says in year 7 nationally that most students will be working at a level 1, but at xxx school that is the minimum expected. It says the targets will be refined as more information becomes available.

noblegiraffe

The op has clarified that the school has NOT said these are GCSE grades. If a school tells parents that a DC is at level five but explains these are not yet accurately aligned with the new levels then what's the problem? This is what my DC’s school has done and it seems the op’s school.

I get that you don't like the new system as it is not yet as refined as it will be. However that does not mean their no value in measuring pupils progress as best as possible until the new system beds in.

Its very telling that parents know extremely well which schools are good, bad and in-between. If teachers are unable to do so then I find it hard to believe them.

Your article from the local schools network does not support your claim, it states that more able pupils are more likely to make 3 levels of progress not that it is easier for them to make it. I would assert that more able pupils put in the hard work to get that progress and lower attaining pupils put very little work in. I think it is a very good idea to have 3 levels of progress as a goal for all pupils otherwise you are just leaving those less able pupils to future disadvantage.

IguanaTail and pieceofpurplesky

I accept Noble is an experienced teacher but argumentum ad verecundiam, is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts.

EvilTwins

I read your article from Mary Bousted, firstly I am told she has a very biased political agenda but that aside. Two points: It is not ridiculous for a teacher to monitor a pupil that has been off for 3 weeks and teachers should monitor what is written in a pupils book. So I find Mary’s assertions wrong and the rest of her comments spurious.

A lot people work in jobs where they are accountable every day, I don't see why teachers are so against a 6 week cycle of review (if that's what it is). If we waited a whole year to review teachers progress and they fail then that's a whole year of a child's education lost. A stitch in time save nine. A good manager wont see anything wrong with zero measurable progress over six weeks if its explained but if a pattern emerges over several months then it can be addressed. Good business practise.

noblegiraffe

The Data Delusion seems like a very detailed blog. But in essence I think it highlights one side of a simple argument. A lot of people with vested interests in the ‘educational field’ have an opinion that anything anyone tries to do to improve education is wrong and teachers should be left alone to be trusted to do what they think is best. Everyone is equal at the bottom. I don't have the stats to back this up, so its my perception that when push come to shove these experts send their children to private schools. Hypocritical much? The other side of the argument which I subscribe to is to get the best results you can for the most people you can. Yes a small minority will fall by the wayside but as a country its in out collective best interests to excel.

So if one year a level 7 is 89% but the next year its only 85% then I don’t care, and I think a lot of people agree with me.

Molio

I completely agree there is no point linking attainment in Y7 to GCSE grades but that is not a reason to not give pupils a grade so their progress can be tracked.

And how is, for example, the historical facts of the 15th of June 1215 different now than they were when I was at school 40 years ago?

The op has clarified that the school has NOT said these are GCSE grades

Uhuh. So the school has just started using a new system based on the numbers 1-9 when the government has just introduced new GCSEs based around the numbers 1-9 but you think they are not meant to be the same system?

If a school tells parents that a DC is at level five but explains these are not yet accurately aligned with the new levels then what's the problem?

The OP seemed to think that they were the new levels. The school has done a poor job of explaining if otherwise.

However that does not mean their no value in measuring pupils progress as best as possible until the new system beds in.

As best as possible is not making shit up and pretending it's meaningful. Sticking with the old levels would be better than this. But they've been scrapped and we're not supposed to.

I would assert that more able pupils put in the hard work to get that progress and lower attaining pupils put very little work in.

Go on, post a thread in AIBU asserting that. I dare you. It's bollocks, and actually quite offensive.

Btw teachers assess pupil progress all the time. It's trying to quantify it in this way, distill it into neat little numbers and straight line graphs that's the problem.

I teach my KS3 classes once per week. I have to test them and report their grades every 6 weeks. Which means I am testing and reporting on them once every six hours. It's ridiculous.

Then I have to analyse the data and state what interventions I am putting in place if they are not making progress.

Its very telling that parents know extremely well which schools are good, bad and in-between. If teachers are unable to do so then I find it hard to believe them. - you asserted up-thread that teachers should know where their school fits in nationally. So if I teach in Southampton, I should know how my school compares to one in Lincoln? And now apparently parents know that.

"Its very telling that parents know extremely well which schools are good, bad and in-between."

But the data is at an individual CHILD level. So EvilTwins' school, say, may be less well regarded than another local school by parents, because it has a different profile on intake in terms of proportions of able / less able children but also because the intake of the schools is very different in socioeconomic terms.

But a very able child at ET's school may still be at an 8 or 9, and a child on the SEN register in the 'better regarded school' would still be a 1 or below - but because those children are statistically rare in their respective schools, the staff there will less confidence in putting a level to that child than they would more typical students, and because those 'outlier' grades will be statistically rare anyway, it will be harder to gicve them accurately within an individual school.

Just because a school is 'better', does not mean 'every child is a 7', nor is every child in a 'less well-regarded school' a 4.

A school I know of (not local), is statistically one of the worst schools in the country.The majority of its intake arrive with levels more typical of a Year 2 than a Year 7 child. But it recently celebrated its first 2 Oxbridge entrants.

"I would assert that more able pupils put in the hard work to get that progress and lower attaining pupils put very little work in"

No. Just no.

If you take 2 equally able children, and 1 works very hard, and the other doesn't, the one who works harder will attain better.

But a naturally gifted child, who finds academic work easy and has a good memory will make progress faster, and much more easily, than a child who starts off with significantly lower ability, for whom acquiring and retaining information is a daily struggle.

The child I have taught who worked hardest, every day, was a child who worked harder walking from the door to his desk and sitting in it accurately than any of my able children did at any point in the day. Every day he laboured, and every day he practised counting to 5, and sometimes the first letter of his name as well. But it all had to be done again the following day, because of significant mental impairment that affected his memory. His progress, in terms of 'levels', over the year was 0, but he worked at the absolute utmost of his ability, every day.

It is pretty much impossible to say what the report means without knowing how the school are relating the grading system that they have to the new GCSE levels, and even then as has been posted it would still be a guess as nobody knows how the new GCSEs are going to pan out.

Bolognese a lot can happen to history in forty years. Forty years is a long old time.

As a secondary maths teacher & mum of three with children who range from struggle to almost gifted I would say this.
Our children are in a ever changing world. We are constantly measuring them against targets and each other.
And the targets keep moving.
Smart kids in yr7 often don't do so well in GCSEs and those who struggled in yr 6 often excel by year 11. I would suggest you look at the effort grades. Do the teachers think they working their hardest? Does your child agree? Success is about having a positive 'can do' and hard working attitude, along side perseverance and resilience. They must learn to accept failure in order to experience success. Praise effort and hard work whatever their grades. Don't say " you are so clever well done!" Say " well done you must have worked really hard to get that grade". Get them to value their input not be stressed by the result.
Encourage them to read nightly. No TVs in their room. No phones /tablets overnight in their room on a school night. When you can, sit with them whilst they do their homework. (Tough I know but even if it's only once a month for 10mins). The pressure on our children is so much more than we ever had. Social media is as damaging as it is good. If you deny them it they will feel left out. So supervise them initially. Then trust them. And spot check!
Sorry feel I'm on a soap box now.
My children are not perfect. Nor am I. We are normal. Arguing fighting and making mistakes. But try to have consistency trust and positive discipline and praise. Trying to accept everyone's strengths and differences ( emphasis on Trying).
A happy child, who is secure in their place in the family and knows the family values will learn and succeed. Don't try to make them what they are not. They need manners and a good work ethic. With love and lots of cuddles they will be fine.
End of sermon. Xx

Thanks Debsmumof3. Her effort grades were all 1 which is outstanding (except PE which was good), so no worries on that score. She doesn't have a tv in her room but does have her phone as she likes to listen to music. However she got a clock radio for Christmas, so I can take phone out overnight - good idea. Thanks again everyone for your input and happy new year!

Be careful at only looking at effort grades. One parents evening I had to explain to the parents of a lovely Y7 that yes, her effort and homework grades were consistently excellent, however, she was bottom set for maths and working well below age-related expectations. They had no idea what the levels meant and because her report was glowing, assumed she was doing really well.

They immediately got her a tutor and she improved immensely with lots of help outside of school.

Good point. It is a tough one. Although ideally I would hope the school would have intervention plans in place for all students who were below age expected achievement. Maybe if we also reported the old fashioned 'reading age' and started 'maths age' reporting, parents would understand better.
I truly believe though that we need to make the socially acceptable ' maths is hard' adage unacceptable.
Most maths success is about confidence. Learning through failure and patterns, and having good foundation teaching in KS1 and 2.
And I wish we would stop trying to be like everyone else. Far eastern children may do well in exams but they miss out on childhood and have a totally different culture.
I watched a program about education in Africa. Not sure where. But the school was run on a shoestring. At the end of the day it was the pupils who cleaned the classrooms. Helped prep for next day. Taking responsibility rather than seeing it as a right! Not sure it's the answer but a good point for discussion. My children seem to think they have more rights than responsibilities. And I probably don't help.

Sorry. I seem to have gone off piste. Started a whole new chat.
New to mumsnet.