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!

So my DD2 has a "target level" of 0.5 - 2 for all her subjects this year. Using the information we've had, they are expecting her to get GCSEs of level 4-6. Other pupils, who are expected to get 9s in their GCSEs will have much higher target levels.-*

It seems they’re using 0.5 as a sort of pre-1, not a P8 score. Anyway using P8 as a way to report to parents would also be ludicrous and not at all what it’s meant for.

Surely a school can do all the monitoring of progress required and not communicate it to the DC unless it’s necessary?

Yet until recently (it might have changed now) Ofsted expected secondary students to be able to describe their current "working at" level plus their expected target grade.

This is the issue in my view - Ofsted historically demanding certain things from schools despite teachers voicing concerns. Schools had to do what Ofsted demanded or face loss of control by removing the head, replacing governors, forcing academisation, down grading schools which potentially leads to a decline in pupil numbers, yet then changing the goal posts constantly. So what they wanted last year, and measures of a good school last year, are suddenly thrown out and entirely new criteria brought in without warning.

Schools that had been concentrating on improving against Ofsteds previous criteria suddenly find the goal posts have shifted and again are caught on the back foot because they don't have evidence to prove their latest idea.

Dd had a target of 6s based on sats. Her teachers seem amazed that she's exceeding her targets hugely. Surelycommon sense tells you that what a child gets in an exam at 10 isn't what defines them for life.

DS1's school has these, but when I attend parent teacher consultation nights, the teachers generally distance themselves from them, warn me that the results are derived from a formula rather than their own opinions of his capabilities and progress, and then get down to how he is really doing. I therefore pay little attention to the predictions, keep an eye on the attitude to learning figure and wait for a chance to talk to the actual teachers, who have generally been spot on.

And that’s the sensible thing to do, Sound, but the thing is literally hours of teachers’ time is taken up with assessment purely for the sake of putting data into these tables, inputting it (never found a system yet that wasn’t stupidly time-consuming and fiddly), analysing it at meetings and being berated for it not being what’s expected.

In an ideal world, teachers would do their own assessment for their own purposes and use their own professional judgement to say whether or not a student is succeeding - which is what actually happens, by the way, except they also have to spend hours and hours on this utter nonsense as well to keep SLT happy.

It's not to keep SLT happy ultimately though is it? Unless you think a school being put into special measures, forced into a MAT chain is something to look forward to.

Maybe in some schools SLT are the enemy. Schools that I know this isn't the case. Heads and SLT hate it as much as the teachers but try justifying to Ofsted without having evidence, in a format that they deem acceptable, that your school is where it should be.

And yes, in an ideal world we would trust the judgement of teachers. But does anyone think that we are best serving pupils by having no checks or balances between yr 6 and yr 11?

0.5 isn't P8. P8 is a level for 'pre-National Curriculum' levels (before levels were scrapped) and is used for children with Special Needs to differentiate their attainment instead of simply giving them a 'W' for working towards (old) level 1.

The levels DD2 are given are 'GCSE levels equivalents'. So a level 1 is a G, level 2 is a E/F, level 3 is a D/E, level 4 is a C/D, level 5 is a B/C, level 6 is a high B, level 7 & 8 is A and level 9 is A*.

literally hours of teachers’ time is taken up with assessment purely for the sake of putting data into these tables, inputting it

In an ideal world, teachers would do their own assessment for their own purposes and use their own professional judgement to say whether or not a student is succeeding -

I think this is the crux of the issue. Whether it is good to have a standardised way of assessing progress or not, teachers don't like it because it means extra work load.

The thing is not all teachers are the same. My D.C. has had fantastic teachers and some not so good ones. The good ones, where I could see my D.C. visibly progressing and loving learning in front of my eyes were/are not opaque concerning describing progress. They would happily will discuss trajectories, how my D.C. performs in class, enthusiastically. The worst ones were evasive and only ever critical whilst at the same time saying any suggested solution was not part of their job.

professional judgement

And the ones going out to emphasise their professional status generally weren't.

Professionalism generally involves a system of standards...

Are you sure P8 is no longer a "thing"? I took this from FFT website

Progress 8
Although DfE will publish provisional Progress 8 scores early in October, schools are understandably keen to get a handle on their scores for 2018.

At the end of the post is a table showing how provisional Progress 8 benchmarks (overall, English and maths) have changed compared to last year for each prior attainment group. Averages for participating schools in 2017 were very close to published national averages, always within 0.6 points and within 0.2 points for KS2 fine levels of 3.9 and higher.

Whether it is good to have a standardised way of assessing progress or not, teachers don't like it because it means extra work load.

There isn’t a standardised way of assessing progress (or even any way). Flight paths is schools making stuff up. Teachers object to extra workload when that extra workload involves making stuff up to appease parents and SLT.

Teen a flightpath isn’t going to tell you what subjects a pupil should take at GCSE because it’s generated from KS2 results, which only involve maths and English.

Teachers reckoning based on personal knowledge what grade a pupil will get at GCSE in Y9 is not flightpaths.

So.

Suppose I'm a supportive parent of a DC who has limited bandwidth for extra work. (No supposing, I am and I have such a DC).

Without something like 'flightpath' or measuring against a set standard, how am I mean to know which subject is most deserving of time and effort for extra support at home?

Especially since passing appropriate and sufficient GCSE is so critical for opening doors for other courses later?

Who is more likely to know the standard of a DC? A parent who may have 1 or 2 children (and say 6 at the very most), or a teacher who teaches 100s?

I get that SLT might overcomplicate things. But this is where subject teams need to stand firm and say no we can't do that but we can do this.

But I refuse to accept that teachers have no idea how my child is getting on and can't give a best guess which will be more accurate than mine would be. I'm not going to sue if they get it wrong, I just want to know whether/where to provide extra support.

Teachers reckoning based on personal knowledge what grade a pupil will get at GCSE in Y9 is not flightpaths.

But then as a parent, I've had experience of teachers predicting As and A*s for my yr 9 pupils because they wanted them to choose the subject for GCSE. Not based on attainment or achievement in that subject, particularly, but just on the basis that they were hard working, well behaved and achieving well in core subjects. Is that any better than basing it on data plotted on a flight path?

Neither are perfect and I think there should be a combination of opinions and data but I'm not convinced that it should be either/or.

X-post. Ok so maybe I am arguing at cross purposes.

As long as I can get a report which says currently headed for around and about this grade range I am happy.

I don't want or need it to have come from SATs. I need it to come from what my DC is doing now, everyday at school.

There isn’t a standardised way of assessing progress (or even any way). Flight paths is schools making stuff up. Teachers object to extra workload when that extra workload involves making stuff up to appease parents and SLT.

A good school / teacher will explain how a flight path is formulated and it's limitations. It does serve as a guide only but an important one as parents and students need some degree of communication concerning how the student is performing up till now and what the picture would look like if they would continue with the same rate of progress. A current grade is meaningless, without putting it within this context, for a course that has not been completed yet. A parent will not know how much material is yet to be covered or what is to be covered in greater depth within which the student could improve their grade with, for example.

As far as 'appeasing goes', I must say, this betrays a very 'us and them' attitude within teaching as opposed to a partnership where transparency and good communication between stakeholders is a given.

I’ve been teaching 16 years and certainly managed to pass on information to parents and provide transparency before flight paths were ever thought of, so they’re certainly not essential.

Yes, but grading systems have changed a lot in recent years. Parents need extra information so they can place the new grades within a context.

You’re assuming, cool that the data and context you are being given is at all meaningful. This is an error.

A number of secondary schools near me are not providing working at or predicted grades for KS3. They have advised that it is assessment without levels and producing GCSE working at grades in KS3 is nonsense. They also claim to be backed by OFSTED with this.

I am inclined to agree with them because if I look at my dd's year 8 & 9 reports and her current working at grades in year 11 it looks like no progress has been made in a number of subjects. I know this is not the case from the work she produces and her efforts. I can only assume her KS3 reports were inaccurate.

noble, I think you are assuming that the data and context is completely meaningless just because it has limitations. The data exists and has been collected and stored about my child, anyway and it is my right as a parent to see it. Why would you deny me this? It's is information which is up to me to use my own judgement dismiss or act upon it. It would highlight any area whereby I might investigate further, at the very least.

From you posts, you suggest all the data collected is meaningless. Grades are pretty meaningless. So what, if anything would you communicate regarding progress to parents? What standards would you hold yourself to account by? Because all professionals have to conform to some sort of standard...

"Are you sure P8 is no longer a "thing"? I took this from FFT website..."

Progress 8 is different from a level of P8. Progress 8 is still a thing. P8 as a level for children with SN is still being used right now, but it's not the same thing.

I think, tbh, that there will always be levels of some sort. You can change the name of them, but it won't take away the perceived need to classify students as doing well, or not progressing as they should.

I'd be really interested to see what evidence schools intend to present to Ofsted. Ime, simply saying "because we say so" didn't get very far with Ofsted. Maybe they have had a re think but if they have sadly there are a few local heads who have lost their jobs based only on Ofsted demanding "proof" in the form of data and refusing to accept professional judgements from SLT and LA school improvement partners.

Where teachers are open and transparent then, yes, it's great. But where teachers are defensive or out and out fudging marks, possibly because they are at risk of capability or no pay progression, I think there's a risk that the reality won't be apparent until students sit external exams in yr 11.

I'll be interested to see how it plays out, whilst being relieved that my children are no longer in school.

The data exists and has been collected and stored about my child, anyway and it is my right as a parent to see it. Why would you deny me this?

I wouldn’t deny you the right to see data about your child, I’m saying it shouldn’t be made up in the first place.

I’ve spent years making up data for reports, I know it’s not possible to do what it is claimed is being done, I.e. accurate assessments of current GCSE grades plotted against some straight line drawn between two points 5 years apart.

And now Ofsted are saying that it can’t be done either. Flightpaths are meaningless. Internal data is not reliable. They won’t be looking at it in inspections any more.

So if it’s that bad, we really shouldn’t be giving it to parents either.

So how would you check progress, Lougle? How would you decide which students might need extra help to achieve? Data has to have some meaning. It is just like checking your appearance in the mirror. Yes, it might not tell you everything concerning how you appear to others but, at least, you can see whether you visibly have spinach stuck in between your front teeth!