Ofsted announce school report grades are bollocks and to be ignored

[noblegiraffe]

Confirming what I’ve been banging on about for ages, Ofsted have announced that school internal tracking data - the sort of ‘working at’ grades that appear on reports to parents - will be ignored in school inspections because it’s made-up nonsense.

“Too often a vast amount of teachers' time is absorbed into recording, collecting and analysing excessive progress and attainment data within schools. And that diverts their time away from what they came into the profession to do. which is be educators.

“And, in fact, with much of that internal progress and attainment data, they and we can’t be sure that it is valid and reliable information.”

www.tes.com/news/ofsted-inspections-wont-examine-internal-school-data

Maybe, just maybe, if Ofsted are no longer interested in seeing it, teachers won’t have to make it up any more?

What I do wish is:

• sufficient warning is given on assessments and topics
• dates stay fixed for the test - I'm trying to teach my DD good preparation technique, but there are only so many times I can get her to 'peak'
• test papers come home so involved parents can see how well revision and prep stood up in the test conditions

We tend to get maths and science papers home as standard (which really, really, helps), but not the others. So I have no idea how well basic literacy or PEE are holding up let alone the subject specific stuff.

And you know that what that kid really needs is a comprehensive test on fractions

So give them a comprehensive test on fractions. I can see the value of both. The more information the better.

There are a number of downsides to giving GCSE maths papers to a pupil too early. The most obvious to me are:

1. Massively dispiriting to be set a paper where you haven't even covered half or more of the contents
2. It means you can't use that paper as a fair test later when contents has been covered.
3. Waste of everyone's time.

All of the data and monitoring and all that is irrelevant if its not based on reality.
DS was really struggling in one GCSE (I mean C/D struggling)
so I sat him down with the revision book the day before the exam.
He and I worked through the test question for every module.
He got an A*
His teachers had not realised that he was guessing not knowing so had predicted an A.

So many parents want to see marks but would not know if they had come out of a random number generator

So give them a comprehensive test on fractions.

So give them a test on fractions for actual educational purposes and a GCSE paper simply so you can plot a point on a graph? One of these things is a waste of time and energy.

And ‘I can...’ statements are subjective bollocks. See Daisy Christodolou on this. I can add and subtract fractions with different denominators means what? A half plus a quarter? Mixed numbers with a horrible subtraction? A worded question? If they fail to answer a question on a GCSE paper does this mean they can’t do it even if they could do it a week ago in lessons?

@noblegiraffe I agree with focused testing, I spent hours pulling apart vocational science exam papers to make topic tests with the recent stuff AND a little sneaky one or two from previous topics. I was a manual version of exam wizard software and it worked beautifully for students, papers got more substantial as they went through the course until we got full papers being doable. Used to do it with yr9 SATs Q's for topic tests back in the day too although software did all that thank goodness.

It's back to, I want the teacher's best guess.

For experienced teachers, this will be their own guess.
For less experienced teachers, this could be informed by discussion with their mentor / HOD.
I don't care it isn't 100% correct, I know that, it's a prediction. I also know that in y8 it will have much bigger error margins than in y10.

But teachers should have more of an idea of where my child is at than I have. I have experience of 2 children. A teacher has experience of 100s/1000s.

Even saying 'they are in set 3'. We generally find that set 3 children mainly get grades 4-6 is a damn sight more than I know, and so would be helpful.

Massively dispiriting to be set a paper where you haven't even covered half or more of the contents

The kids were prepared for not being able to answer much. We found the opposite. High flying low confident DD was suddenly convinced an 8 or 9 was possible if she could achieve a 4 at this stage. And for DS with SN it was the first time GCSEs were actually considered a realistic target (to be fair to him most tests you give him he finds he cant answer half or more of the contents anyway). It has built resilience.

It means you can't use that paper as a fair test later when contents has been covered

Well this depends on your expectation frpm a test. There is value in doing a test then a year later doing a test and demonstrating to a child how much more they were able to complete. It has proven good confidence building.

And ‘I can...’ statements are subjective bollocks. See Daisy Christodolou on this.
Yeah i can appreciate this argument. But in my also subjective opinion of trackng DS with SNs issues they have been incredibly informative and well supported when ed phys has come in and tested progress. Both highlighted similar areas of difficulty.

One of these things is a waste of time and energy.
In your subjective opinion. In my opinion i have seen and experienced the value of both. As a parent id be happy with either

Where is it you live that still has active and helpful Ed Psychs, out of interest green ?

I do think we could operate a discrete system for SN tracking (or indeed any child) that didn't suggest data was somehow teaching and that 'data is king'.This has been the problem. Data became Teaching and Learning. Which is obviously bollocks.

Piggywaspushed im not sure whether it was as much area as stroppy mother!!!
We've done tribunal once for a complete school fail with independent and state reports in all areas. Threat of private ed psych for a specific area that we were failing to make progress in (maths), of course then then look at everything which would most likely be more expensive than lea ed psych fixing a few bits. And ed psych on transition from statement to ECHP/secondary done as standard. Both independent and LEA ed psychs have been fab.

The primary school my younger DC attend bought an assertive monitoring system as Ofsted were highly critical of their lack of tracking in the 2016 inspection. I think they've already ditched using it though.

DS1's reports say the target is based on the KS2 results, but the school must also be using something else, as I can't see how some of the targets have been arrived at. And he didn't complete the CATs (he has ASD and is in an ASD base) so it's not a combination of SATs and CATs. His Yr7 end of year English exam was a total disaster, but the teacher told me not to worry as the issue was surrounding the book, and she's confident that the ones used for GCSEs will be something DS1 can access. And none of that really matters as it will be touch and go whether he sits any GCSEs (anxiety-related).

Our LA Ed Psych point blank refused to assess DS1 for the statement to EHCP/Secondary transfer. Agreed to come to a meeting, but refused to so much as observe DS1. Apparently having Specialist Teacher input was more than sufficient.

Interesting
I'm working with a charity that is challenging EHCP decisions
on the basis that early intervention saves money in the long run

@DobbinsVeil i suspect its partly the case that no-one had any idea where DS should go for secondary. He had started specialist primary that had failed miserably, tribunal for mainstream; mainstream which was a gamble worked. So he could end up anything between very expensive private special to mainstream with support. Theres probably also an element if you hit tribunal DS could become very expensive, it cheaper to try and prevent it getting there by offering just enough.

I'm conscious it's a massive derail, but when you say challenging EHCP decisions, is that for when the LA refuse to assess Ta1kinpeace?

GreenEggsHamandChips I think my LA would still have been resistant in your situation! The Ed Psych expressed faux surprise when I'd emailed, then printed out the statutory information on Ed Psych assessments for EHCP transfers and put it in front of him at the meeting. Even the LA's own guide said if he'd not been assessed for 2 years by the Ed Psych, they must do a new assessment. It had been over 7 years for DS1. Fortunately I got the placement I wanted, which wasn't our local mainstream. Pure luck tbh!

@DobbinsVeil i have pm-ed you.

Contraversial in our department. Some of my colleagues do seem to be fixated on tracking everything and spending copious amounts of time colouring in.
I am pleased to hear that this is not the sort of thing that Ofsted are after.

There is value in doing a test then a year later doing a test and demonstrating to a child how much more they were able to complete.

So you’re talking about termly GCSE papers for children who are not adequately prepared to sit them in order to boost their confidence in a year’s time when they’re not as crap as they first thought? This is not a good educational reason to put kids through inappropriate exams, and dear god the marking and lesson time that would be wasted by this exercise (and remember you also want them to sit a termly test on what they have been taught).
And what about the kids who are still as crap as they were the previous year? Most kids will not be going up a GCSE grade in a year, not that a single GCSE paper is a good measure of a GCSE grade anyway.

Sean Harford of Ofsted has tweeted “Proposal is not to look at internal data to reduce teacher workload.”

So the intention is that schools will stop generating this crap as a response to Ofsted not looking at it and that teacher workload will reduce.

But who will tell the parents...?

I've recently had my ds data report for yr 10.

It's a crock of shit!!!

Predicted grades and working at grades.

Predicted for maths 6 - his teacher told him he'd be surprised if he didn't get a 9. He's had 7's on all recent past papers.

Predicted grade for English 4 - he's has FT 1:1 who scribes and deciphers most of it for him!

I much prefer the data that says working within progress rate. Whether above, expected or below. That's where you can identify support needs. Children will be good at what they're good at and a false set of data that's designed to make school look great "we predicted a 6 and got him to a 9" is a waste of teachers time imo!

Ofsted are removing “outcomes” as one of their 4 measures.

youarenotkiddingme
I'd be talking to the teacher about that... that isnt useful to anyone

@noblegiraffe i dont know the precise ins and outs of how they manage it. But they do and it works for us. You dont like that and thats fine too. I think we will need to agree to disagree on this.

Dobbins
Yup. The charity provide support to parents to bludgeon the LA into dealing rather than sweeping under the carpet.
The kids will end up in a school either supported or unsupported.
Its better for the teachers, the family and the other pupils if they are supported.

So Green you’re trying to sell something as a solution for measuring progress that you don’t know the ins and outs of, as a parent not a teacher, bearing in mind that this thread is pointing out that the data provided to parents is bullshit?

Yes we disagree.