Progress 8 - less focus on C/D borderline and consequences for grade 4 students

[noblegiraffe]

So we are now all about progress 8, it's progress that counts and getting a B to an A is as valuable as getting a D to a C (except for slight quibbles about numeric values). This is seen as a good thing, all pupils will get support to reach their targets.

What I'm seeing: There is a limited amount of maths intervention available to help students - 1-1 and small group tuition at tutor times and so on. Previously this was focused on C/D borderline kids to help them get the magic C grade and boost the school headline figures. Now it is given to students who are falling well short of their target grade, who need the double weighted boost of an increase in a maths grade to improve their overall score.
I teach several students who are sitting on a 3, and with extra support could reach a 4 - the key grade where they won't have to resit in sixth form, and which will ensure access to certain college courses. Getting a 4 would be extremely important to them. They are not on the intervention lists, and not getting the help that they would have got in previous years, instead it's going to other, higher (and lower) achieving students. The grade that is important to them is no longer important to the school.

In practice 'more support for all' seems to mean 'less support for those to whom it really matters'.

"My DS was getting above the magic C so got no further attention"

I'm presuming this was a while ago?

I think that most if not all children will do better in a subject if they have dedicated 1-1 support and personalised feedback, so there will be kids at any grade who would benefit from intervention.

The problem at the higher grade is that if they got it by 1-1 intervention and then go onto A-level where they're expected to work at that same level by independent work and ability then they may flounder.

Yes, people do seem to think that progress 8 meaning that progress is measured for all students is the first time that schools have been measured on the progress of A students as much as C students, whereas in fact the school Value Added score always did this, it's just the main focus was on the 5A-C measure.

Yes, it was a while ago and it still rankles. If it wasn't for the help on MN, DS wouldn't be where he is today.
I'm not sure what your point is but the attitude of "stop bleating, there are others more deserving than you" still prevails today.

He did get A*/A once proper provision was in place.

Out of interest, what was this proper provision?

proper provision

Extra time in exams. I am not aware that he got any special help in lessons. I'm not aware that the school did much apart from admit in the UCAS reference that his GCSE and AS Levels had been compromised.

What sort of pathetic exam system do we have, where it is impossible for children to get top grades without serious hand-holding and bottom wiping?

Totally possible to do well withouy all that. I did very well at school through listening to my teachers and working hard (normal comp).

In my experience from my ow students, the ones who get the top grades are the ones who are very able, who complete all the extension work I give, homework is routinely done to an excellent standard (i give my top end more challenging tasks), they are brilliant in class, ask if theyre unsure, attend revision club and do their own revision at home.

Top grades = teacher input + ability + student effort/attitude/revision.

Unfortunately, what sometimes happens is kids coast along and dont pull their weight and then in y11 suddenly feel entitled to an A. That's not the wya life works.

(One 6th former this term told me it was outrageous when I told him that uni lecturers didnt do intervention & allpw students to submit late 'because they were busy'. His words "but we're paying for a degree!" Nope. You are paying to attend university. The degree you get depends on your attitude)

IDK if he needed extra time in exams, then the kind of intervention which we are now discussing wouldn't have helped him anyway.

Identifying SEN is another area in which state schools don't have enough resources - see the recent headlines about 20% of kids in private schools getting extra time.

Top grades = teacher input + ability + student effort/attitude/revision.

Unfortunately, what sometimes happens is kids coast along and dont pull their weight and then in y11 suddenly feel entitled to an A. That's not the way life works.

See what I mean when I say that the attitude still prevails!
DS's school was one of those who select 10% of their pupils. DS got in by academic selection. He was at one stage, on their Oxbridge watchlist. He was underperforming and nobody did anything. They probably put it down to "effort/attitude", not thinking that his effort/attitude was being caused by a SpLD that they hadn't spotted. Wouldn't your attitude slip if you spent all day struggling against a brick wall.

For the record when he got to University and they made provision for him, he did fine.

Identifying SEN is another area in which state schools don't have enough resources - see the recent headlines about 20% of kids in private schools getting extra time.

I know, I'm on that thread too.
It's easy to blame it on lack of resources. DS's SpLD was 'diagnosed' on here because several kind posters took the time to think about him. It didn't cost anything. The Ed Psych's report cost money but I thought that it was worth it for DS's future. I paid for it when it became obvious that the school weren't going to do anything despite GCSE and then AS results being disappointing.

IDK - my db went to a grammar school where that attitude prevailed. His issues were all put down to laziness, not paying attention, not caring sufficiently about presentation of work etc, as it was recognised that he was extremely bright. That's a matter of poor understanding of specific learning disabilities, not a need for 1-1 attention in order to bump up grades.

It's easy to blame it on lack of resources.

That's because that is, unfortunately the reason. Lack of resources to train staff, lack of time for staff to sit down and think about individual students, lack of prompting to consider SEN, lack of SEN staffing which would enable them to be proactive rather than reactive.

And it's only going to get worse.

Many parents will pay for 1:1 with tutors to get their kids the best grades possible. Its pretty rife around here. Some of these are C/D students but others are definitely A/A* and A Level students. My DS wouldn't have got his C in maths without it. The same maths tutor got a friend's daughter through her maths A Level.

That's because that is, unfortunately the reason.

Sorry, noble, I'm not buying that. It was a few years ago, after Labour had been pumping money into education like it was going out of fashion.

IDK Labour were pumping money into education - we weren't all teaching 5 lessons a week and swimming in SEN training. We had more money for textbooks and slightly smaller class sizes.

SEN has always been a neglected area.

SEN has always been a neglected area.

Don't I know it. My parents had a similar response from school with DBro (different but related disability) nearly 50 years ago. It looks like school attitude hasn't improved much since then.

Blunkett shut down a lot of special schools in the name of inclusion, meaning that there are now a lot more students with SEN in mainstream schools. You can absolutely guarantee that the money that was spent on special schools wasn't fully transferred to mainstream so there is now even more of a battle for resources. Training on SEN really is minimal, please don't blame teachers for not spotting something that it takes professionals to diagnose.

Training on SEN really is minimal, please don't blame teachers for not spotting something that it takes professionals to diagnose.

I'm not a professional. As a total amateur, I spotted that something was not right. My concerns were ignored as pushy parenting.

I'm assuming that the A/A kids get the taught lessons that they are entitled to and aren't just left in a corridor?*

Noble, but surely all the children were getting their allocated lessons and nobody was left in a corridor?

There is a prevailing ideology in state secondary schools that what little resources they have should be ploughed into ensuring a C for those who may just achieve it. Their reasoning wasn't just based on ensuring published data was acceptable but also a genuine belief that helping those kids to a C could be life changing by allowing them access to FE etc.

I don't disagree that the effect for those children is huge. I do disagree with the sentiment that it's no big deal in the wider scheme of things in Johnny gets an A rather than an A* or a B rather than an A. Because it's a big deal for Johnny. And if needs must and all that then why don't we have it in our literature? Why, as teachers working in the state sector, aren't we honest about the limitations.
One of the reasons I got out was after the fall out of a parents eve where I basically told some parents that there 'middling but superbly behaved and consistent try hard' children simply weren't reaching their potential in my class because virtually all my time was spent on either crowd control or trying to endure my low achievers left primary school with a L4. Of course they got attention. Of course I tried my best to stretch them but they could have done oh so much better with a bit more targeted support and adult direction.

But you only have one child, IDK. Teachers have hundreds, and are also amateurs. Teachers teach loads of lazy arse kids who need to pull their finger out who don't have any SEN, so the one who does can be hard to spot.

Why, as teachers working in the state sector, aren't we honest about the limitations.

Schools get paid by bums on seats. That simple fact means that schools will promise the earth even if they can't deliver it, because if they don't, the school down the road will.

It's why it is only now that heads are starting to speak up in the news about how funding cuts are affecting their schools, and are being described as 'brave' to do so.

It's also why extra resources were focused on the C/D kids. Because the higher the headline measure, the safer from Ofsted, and the easier to get bums on seats. The extra resources are a bonus rather than an entitlement.

And it is, IMVHO, those 'middling' children that are most let down by the state system.

I have no doubt whatsoever that many well behaved, academically average kids who come out with a handful of Cs and maybe the odd B at GCSE could have achieved As in the independent sector simply because there would have been support and extension activities in place for them.

In recent years we have moved more towards breadth and extending sideways but by and large, extension and support exists only for those at either end of the attainment spectrum.

And if we all came out and told it how it is, there would be a massive domino effect.

And I don't just mean the off HT saying that resources are stretched. I mean come out and admit that we are, through no fault of our own, failing some children.

Teachers teach loads of lazy arse kids who need to pull their finger out who don't have any SEN, so the one who does can be hard to spot.

Even when the parent flags up a problem?
It isn't "the one" anyway. SEN is somewhere between 10-20% of the cohort.

IDK My DS is the same - v bright but with dyslexia - scores all over the place, from very top to bottom 7% yet average at school and so no red flags. I have had similar battles. I used to feel the same way as you until I started working in schools and saw the reality. All the teachers I work with are extremely professional and hard working and they genuinely care about all their students but they are extremely over worked and have 100s of students to worry about, ranging from the severely autistic who struggle to even get into class, to the A* students, plus everything in-between. It is simply impossible for them to be on top of every issue.