Flight paths in secondary are nonsense and demotivating for pupils SAY OFSTED

[noblegiraffe]

Ofsted finally saying what I’ve been banging on about for years. Flight paths are bollocks and schools shouldn’t be producing them.

So if your school does, hopefully Ofsted not being keen might make them reconsider!

It is all done by an external agency, who takes the Year 6 SATs, the CATs, and I am not sure what else, to come up with a "target grade" for each year, and an "aspirational grade"

If it’s FFT, then yes, I’m afraid are still made up for a lot of the subjects. When FFT first came out years ago, a rep from there admitted that they the ‘similar schools’ they try to refer to in order to measure against, don’t exist. Thankfully, my Head at the time then decided not to use it.
If it’s not FFT, then they will still be a blunt tool and for some subjects, they will use a combination of other subjects to arrive at a figure to go alongside the CATs. So basically, still ‘made up’.

So what type of grading system would you recommend for years 7-9, Ms?

And if no targets, how would these grades relate to what is thought to be potentially achievable in the GCSEs?

So what type of grading system would you recommend for years 7-9,

One that isn’t made up.

And if no targets, how would these grades relate to what is thought to be potentially achievable in the GCSEs?

And this just proves that you have hijacked this thread with no understanding of what the actual issue is.

Seriously. Spend some time reading up on Dylan William.

Cool
Why are you so obsessed with wanting to know what your child in year 7 might achieve in year 11.
In a previous school, I no longer work there so don't have the data to hand, I compared student performance in external exams at 16 and 18. There was no pattern, yes the good ones still did well but those with a top grade at 16 got such a wide range at 18.
Why does this happen? - the content changes, the student's attitude changes, the teacher changes. Plus many more reasons.

How accurate do you think any prediction for performance based on grades at 11 will be at 16?

Cool

Have a look at this from page 25 it gives a comparison between GCSE grade and A'level grade.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/183942/DFE-RR195.pdf

After looking at that talk about why you want predictions.

marco, I am well aware of the non linear nature of learning. The thing is, grading without giving any context, is meaningless. How would you propose to alternatively grade attainment in years 7 to 9? What context would you give for those grades?

Why are you so obsessed with wanting to know what your child in year 7 might achieve in year 11.

I'm not. It's years since my child was in year 7. I am quite passionate about parents being properly informed of their child's attainment. And for that information to mean something beyond a teacher's assumptions and prejudices.

And if no targets, how would these grades relate to what is thought to be potentially achievable in the GCSEs?

Why are you so obsessed with wanting to know what your child in year 7 might achieve in year 11.

I'm not. It's years since my child was in year 7. I am quite passionate about parents being properly informed of their child's attainment. And for that information to mean something beyond a teacher's assumptions and prejudices.

Both the bolded parts are from the same person.
I'm confused.

And of course teachers should know about attainment and have expectations about progression. They plan a curriculum, at secondary, from year 7 which will take Student's learning up to GCSE and beyond when there is an attached 6th form.

I doubt very much you are confused, marco. You just don't have an answer to my question about how you would grade student's attainment.

I am confused about if you want targets or not.

As for grading, I have not taught in the English system for years and so not I can not tell you what you want to know.
I teach in the IB system which does have a grading system throughout.

But I do know that GCSEs measure attainment over a wide range of topics at the end of a two year programme so no unit test done when a child is 11 is a reliable indicator of performance in a wide range of topics 5 years later.

You say you have taught, please give us the answer.

You say you have taught, please give us the answer.

I have already done this in this thread. I'll say it again. I am satisfied with how my DC's school uses the current system. Including current grades with a reference to expected progress trajectories assuming linear progression. I fully realise it is not perfect and cannot account for non linear learning (or non linear courses to some extent) and is not fully moderated, although within our authority schools do get together to moderate. However it is about as good as you can get. Targets are given but fully explained along with how they are formulated. Teachers don't rely too heavily on them but they are made available and are referred to from time to time. Teachers also talk about other aspects of learning and attainment, enthusiasm shown, homework completed, work in class, independent learning initiative etc. My child's secondary experience, all in all has been a positive experience.

This is unlike primary where, initially and for several years later, teachers gave a very negative prognosis for my child's potential. They persuaded me to apply for a Statement of SEN, which I did and gained significant individual funding. However, subsequently, my child's attainment seemed very much to be managed in order to cling onto their individual funding, which was spent elsewhere. This was until I managed to get the Statement ceased. It took years to do this and was a difficult process, to say the least. During those difficult years I felt like the teachers and other educational professionals were gaslighting me.

My child's attainment is above average. They are interested in their courses, motivated, sociable and happy at school.

And that 'gaslighting' took the form of being very cagey concerning my child's attainment and progress. When I asked about how grades were formulated, answers were not forthcoming. My DC's difficulties were overemphasised, and strengths were played down. Learning materials given were not matched well to my child's then current capabilities. Interventions were inconsistently followed through. Success criteria were not ever quantifiable. My D.C. was not put in for all the same assessments as other children. Their first set of SAT scores, from the test papers, were marked down by the teacher assessment. Their second set of SAT scores did not reflect the marking down.

So, no, I don't automatically trust the whole of the teaching profession. I have really learnt not to in a very painful and difficult way. And warning bells very much ring for me when teachers are cagey concerning communicating student's attainment and progress made. Warning bells ring very loudly for me when teachers talk about not very easily reportable assessments made using their own 'professional judgement'.

And I think that's understandable under the circumstances.

However saying that my D.C. has had some lovely teachers and some very positive experiences during their education. Particularly in more recent years. So I can still recognise good teaching when I see it.

The thing is we live in a universe full of patterns. However, when those patterns are examined in great depth, they are found to be closer to habits rather than rigid laws. In addition to this whatever perceived to be chaos is found to have very large loose patterns within in, if a large enough data set is used. Yet when looking at things in microscopic detail we find just by the act of focussing observations and measurements the manifestation of phenomena is effected.

But if we didn't collect the data and study it we'd know none of this.

Coolcrisp I'd hazard a guess that you are getting gcse grades sent home for y7-9 students.

These will be absolutely bullshit. You cannot grade a student accurately until they have sat an actual exam. In reality teachers will assess students, look at the flight path and shove a grade on them. I'm a teacher and most of the data I report is absolutely fabricated. I know which students are underachieving by looking at their work in class, their assessment/quiz scores and comparing that to their peers. I don't need a made up flight path to tell me.

Dermymc, if you read more of my comments you'll understand that I fully appreciate the limitations of flight paths and manipulated grades etc etc. My point is more complex than that.

By requiring teachers to draw several lines in the sand forces everyone to accept their limitations.

Manipulating grades, typically grading harshly at the beginning of your professional input and forgivingly at the end, in order to show the most personal professional prowess doesn't really work. This is because there is then a mismatch in terms of learning material to assessments. Which would be apparent if anyone looked in great detail. But if no one looks, and learning is well matched to a student's learning needs, what we actually get is the appearance of a very bumpy progression path. If learning is not well matched, the end assessments have to be very forgiving in order to show good progression. Then standards suffer. The end result being teachers are tying themselves in knots over this.

Yet if grades are not manipulated, and teachers accept the limitations of their methodology, we get a clearer picture of attainment and progression. There will be patterns but not rigid ones. And this is reality.

That should be 'learning material' rather than 'learning' being well matched.

Not collecting data and not grading doesn't make the situation better. It just makes for more unknowns, less of a picture of attainment and progression. Less dots on the tv screen if you like. The tv screen which becomes clear only when you distance yourself slightly from it. When you get too close all you see is dots. If you never switch it on, though, there is no picture. If the signal is interfered with the picture becomes distorted.

Parents want an idea of: whether the full curriculum is being taught or if there are any gaps in what is being covered in class; how their child is performing relative to other children their age (even if only the other children in their child's class or other children the teacher has personally taught); whether there are any areas of the curriculum their child is finding difficult to grasp or areas they particularly excel at; and how they come across in class. No problem getting rid of flight paths, but parents won't be happy if they are not given an idea of the above.

cool you’re needed on this thread.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/secondary/3540607-Help-with-year-7-results

Please go on and explain to this poor worried parent how having bullshit GCSE grades is actually a good thing because she now has dots on her TV screen.

noble, I see, that parent has already been directed to this thread. What I would say to her has already been said by posters on that thread.

Off course students can exceed targets! Especially if they have been set artificially low. I have experienced that, you don't need to tell me. My DC's progression on paper over their years in primary would have been ridiculously unbelievable. From initially being told my child had very severe learning difficulties, so much so that special school was seriously discussed, to achieving well above average without any additional support, whatsoever.

That doesn't mean progress shouldn't be tracked. If my child's progress was more closely and accurately tracked their actual capabilities and potential their progression in attainment would have have shown to follow a much gentler trajectory. People only see when they actually look. And artificially concocted grades distort the picture. No data, no data tracking of progression of populations to gauge how learning progression might look gives no picture at all especially to those without years and years of experience. Because that is what accurate tracking provides. Collective experience which can be shared.

You. Can’t Track. Progress. Accurately.