GCSE targets - is there any point?

[RilkeanHeart]

Interested in views on this, as I’m torn - and a bit confused! My eldest is just going into yr11. End of term report gave targets which seemed very off (either same as what is already being achieved eg targeted for a 6 at GCSE but already working at 6+ at end of year 10 or out of sync with those flightpaths from SATS we’re told are the reference point). Had a target meeting where I queried what the targets actually meant. I was told they were minimum targets - so the ‘aspirational’ targets would be 1 or 2 grades higher. And that all kids are individuals. Totally got that - but then why produce targets which are either meaningless or, worst case, demotivating? Don’t want to add to the GCSE stress by pushing for different targets, but wondering why schools would do this. Do targets matter at all in terms of teaching input they get? Or kids’ motivation?

hi, OP

I started a similar thread a few days ago as mine hasn't been given any at all.
It seemed from the responses that they were more trouble than they are worth.
The question of motivation varies between children, some on hearing they got a bad result will push themselves harder, others become demotivated and give up.
In fairness, teachers can't be expected to know with the new GCSE's

GCSE target grades are set by the government - the secondary school has nothing to do with it. Teachers can give predicted grades but the student's actual target grades are based on a mixture of factors outside of the school's control, such as KS2 results. Hope that explains why schools have to show them and how they can often seem very inaccurate.

I was never made aware of targets for my children who sat GCSEs in 2008 and 2011. I know they were given indicators regarding what they needed to do to improve and were tested. We got the results and they were graded A, B, C etc. I thought with a fair wind, decent revision and questions they liked, there could be improvement. However no targets were mentioned but I didn’t expect lower grades than classwork or tests. I think that’s what happened. Many grades improved.

I tend to think targets using grades doesn’t work. Teachers should just say what needs to be done to improve. There is obviously a limit on improvement so I don’t see the point of saying 6, but you could get an 8 if you eventually understand everything you don’t currently understand and your memory and exam technique suddenly gets 10 times better!

So I agree that it can be demotivating. It shouldn’t make any difference to teaching. I do think it makes some children over worry and want to be perfect and others feel that they are never good enough. Just having encouraging comments and good teaching is enough in my view and I am so grateful I never saw a single target, aspirational or not! I think the current fad of trying to work out grades is foolish. So many teachers appear to get it wrong!

The schools don’t have to share the grades. They can keep them to themselves.

True, but the vast majority of schools do share them. I don't like the misconception that it's the class teacher's fault if the target grade appears inaccurate as, as I said earlier, the target grade has nothing to do with the teacher.

Thanks for the replies - and certainly wasn’t suggesting it was teachers’ fault! GCSE changes must make it the job more challenging and I agree that how kids are doing in class is a better gauge. I think I was just taken aback by how much of a big deal the school made of the target meeting yet the ‘targets’ t even seem in line with the results from KS2 and then were basically dismissed as not ‘targets’ but baseline...

Rebe, could you please explain what are the factors behind the targets apart from SATs? What makes targets to go up vs Sats baseline and what makes them go down?

RilkeanHeart says that her DS' targets are out of sync with those flightpaths from SATS.

Other factors include the catchment area, average income and results previously achieved by pupils in the area with similar KS2 results. The target is generated by an algorithm which takes all these factors into account - but it doesn't take into account circumstances that might happen between KS2 and KS4 (such as parents divorcing, the impact of moving schools, mental or physical health problems for the pupil or within the family or even the fact that certain primary schools are better than others so pupils may under or overachieve at KS2).

flightpaths from SATS.

There aren’t any flightpaths from SATs. Individual schools are making up their own bollocks here, they’ve nothing to do with computer generated targets which tend to include contextual data instead of some member of SLT drawing a line with a ruler.

Computer generated targets for kids also change every year when a new lot of Y11 data comes in, where flightpaths don’t. Computer generated targets shouldn’t be shared with parents.

Why shouldn't they?
If schools have targets and flightpath for my child since year 7 that for example say she should achieve a grade 8, or that she is not expected to achieve a grade 4, I would like to know that.

I need to know that. I also need to know that the exam technique needs x improvement and what exactly DC needs to better understand or rather better explain on paper.

You don’t need to know that. What you need to know is that your child is getting excellent teaching to achieve their maximum potential. Surely you know if your child got 115 and above at Sats they should achieve highly? Conversely if they got well below 100, a grade 4 might be an achievement. Surely no parent is expecting 9s with below 100 at Sats?

So many things influence outcomes it seems ludicrous to share every target with parents. These are school targets anyway.

When I mentioned teacher predictions I did really have A Levels in mind. I think there is plenty of evidence that a huge percentage of grade predictions are wrong. That isn’t to say teachers don’t do their best!

Bubbles, you are entitled to your opinion about the education of your children as parent of your children.

I am the judge of what I need to know for my children. And I totally do need to know what the targets are, whether they reflect my DC potential and whether the progress actually being made reflects the best teaching required to fulfil that potential. As you say so many factors influence outcome, so parents need the visibility of those factors. Those targets are to measure schools/teachers performance, right?

No, you don’t need to know the computer generated targets that are on the system for your child because they are used by the DfE to measure the performance of the whole cohort of maybe 200 kids, not your child. They are not accurate for your child and they are not meant to be. They are an average target, meaning that some of the 200 kids are expected to achieve above, and some below, and that it will all average out. A kid who has a target of a 5 who gets a 4 hasn’t necessarily done badly and one who gets a 6 hasn’t done well, it’s just statistics.

Schools should set their own targets for each child based on their knowledge of that child. This can be adjusted to stretch a child who bombed SATs and flourished at secondary, or downwards if totally unreasonable (e.g. a dyspraxic child targeted a 9 in PE because they did well in maths and English in Y6). Those grades can be shared with parents because they’re actually designed with your child in mind.

OK, not computer generated targets.

But could you comment on how stretching targets should be set for a child with SEN? Because of course in case of SEN, the targets interact with the level of provisions, which define (limit if they are insufficient) the progress the child can make. On the other thread about targets started by RomanyRoots one parent of a child with ASD posted how the school didn't push the child beyond meeting the targets and without those more "ambitious" targets and provisions the child cannot progress faster even if she has the potential. Our local secondary school has a SEN policy to remove children from SEN register if they make more than average progress. So if the child with SEN would 'flourish', the school could reduce the support and the progress would plato. Especially when targets are set based on SAT result that reflect late diagnosis and insufficient support.
There is a chicken and egg situation and a child with SEN is trapped.

So, I'll ask on this thread rather than my own

If a school doesn't offer any targets or predicted grades to either student or parent, what should we ask at parents evenings and also how do we know they will reach their academic potential, as some kids are better with targets. I do know that some aren't, and can get stressed.

how stretching targets should be set for a child with SEN?

SEN support is stripped to the bone so it’s not like setting more challenging targets will result in more support, it will just most likely end in the targets not being met.
I’m not a fan of setting GCSE targets or predicted grades or anything like that before Y10 (a ballpark could be given for options) and KS3 is a big bunch of bobbins in terms of assessment.
At GCSE, a lot will depend on the SEN. A student with severe learning difficulties is likely to continue to progress slowly. A student with ASD on the other hand can vary wildly with how they cope with GCSE.