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’s not that teachers don’t want parents to see data, it’s that the data isn’t worth seeing, or meaningless out of context. For example, I keep a spreadsheet of marks scored on exam questions by my upper 6th class. It’s just for me - of course students get their marks back but there’s no point showing parents the mark sheet because it really wouldn’t tell them anything without my interpretation- I know if I set a question that was deliberately easy or hard, if it came at the end or start of a section of work, if it represents a good or bad effort for the student or class as a whole. The best way to communicate the information to a parent is face to face at parents’ evening, or via email if they have concerns at other times. Sure, you have the “right” to see them but they’re not being withheld from you if you don’t.

Or, in terms of looking to the future, a mirror could help you decide when to have your next haircut. Without the mirror there is just less information full stop. Even if the mirror has a crack in it, or is distorted it can tell you more than no mirror

Data helps.

We know data helps. Teachers have always collected data! Teachers still do! But there is nobody on this earth who can accurately predict what gcse grades a student will get from a KS2 mark. And anyone claiming they can is a liar. It’s all guesswork and most of the time flat out made up, because if leaders expect students to have made a certain amount of progress in a term, that’s what the data will show, one way or another.

Meanwhile in the teachers’ own markbooks are non-standardised, non-pretty, non-colour-coded marks that actually tell the tea truth. But don’t fit neatly on a graph or stick to a nice straight line, so will never get used.

Shit data doesn’t help.

it’s that the data isn’t worth seeing, or meaningless out of context.

I'd rather decide that for myself. I say that as a parent who has officially asked for my child's school record before. The information on it would never have been disclosed to me otherwise. My child did have a Statement of SEN at the time. The record really confirmed to me how the teachers were assessing, the (lack of) reliability of the methodology and their attitudes towards my child's potential. This information helped me help my child who now is achieving well without a Statement or any additional 'help'.

It’s all guesswork and most of the time flat out made up, because if leaders expect students to have made a certain amount of progress in a term, that’s what the data will show, one way or another.

Of course we know it is guesswork. However, this all becomes very pertinent when ascertaining whether additional needs are present or being met. Because the very definition of which children require individual funding is reliant on them being seen to need additional help long term.

In the context of additional needs keeping a close check on progress is vital in terms of creating measurable success criteria for any interventions given. For which there needs to be data collected and trajectories plotted as the results of interventions may not be instant.

Data about whether an intervention for SEN is working isn’t going to be provided by the bog standard school data cycle.

I never said it was, noble. However, the principles of predicting progress in order to secure and allocate budgets are the same.

Maybe you should work at improving the reliability of methodology data collection and trajectory plotting, if you think it is all so meaningless. Because there is very much a need for budgets to be secured and allocated where they are going to have the most positive impact.

Data about whether an intervention for SEN is working isn’t going to be provided by the bog standard school data cycle.

And maybe there should be more consistency of data between different pupil groups. If pupils considered as having SEN are assessed in a totally different way to those not considered to have SEN you are not even getting comparable data between the two groups. This is when the very definition of which children are seen as having SEN involves a comparison to their peers.

How can anyone assess progress if we don't know what progress looks like?

What is good progress too one teacher will be adequate to another. So there's no way of standardising progress or achievement or attainment? How does anyone monitor progress in schools or amongst groups of students or for individual students?

None of it is perfect. Hopefully by blind marking some tests, by externally validating and moderating schools can attempt to remove teacher bias. No, none of it can predict an outcome at GCSE but it just seems to random for individual teachers to try to describe progress at parents' evenings. How can students make any decisions? How do teachers attempt to predict grades for 6th form or university?

And how on earth can Ofsted justify the removal of some HTs based on quality of data only now to say data is meaningless so we'll get rid of it?

I've never heard of Flight Paths, apart from in the aeroplane sense, and I have daughters in Y9 and Y5. DD1 does get graded in all subjects at the end of the year though and I find that a heck of a lot more useful than the "meeting expectations/exceeding expectations" reports at primary school. I used to find National Curriculum levels extremely clear and informative.

I like the idea of knowing where my child is now, and where he is headed.

but what I seem to get is whether he is on target to get where he is predicted to be. With the prediction based on his SATS score in a different subject where the teacher also doesn't know the grading for the GCSE anyway as its a new exam.

Hopefully by blind marking some tests, by externally validating and moderating schools can attempt to remove teacher bias.

Yeah good luck with that. Look at this graph of reliability of GCSE marking. If only 56% of GCSE history papers get marked correctly by trained markers, on a full GCSE, then what are the chances that a teacher marking a topic test can come up with something remotely accurate?

And these report grades don’t tend to be whole grades either (which are inaccurate even at GCSE). They are things like ‘4a’ or ‘7.2’ or ‘6+’. Total shite.

So why do you teach, noble?

What do you propose instead then noble?

If GCSE marking is that inconsistent, why bother having GCSEs at all?

Maybe you should work at improving the reliability of methodology data collection and trajectory plotting, if you think it is all so meaningless.

Do you actually what a flight path is that we're talking about? A flight path assumes absolute linear progress from ks2 sats to gcse. I'm sure most teachers are actually pretty good a plotting the direction of individual students without using fixed flight paths.

How do teachers attempt to predict grades for 6th form or university?

Ask the teacher who’s teaching them. I can give you a very accurate idea of what I think students will get based on what they’ve done in my lessons so far. I don’t need any prior data or a flight path to tell me that.

Yes, titchy. Of course I do! And I understand its limitations! It is still useful as it is an indication of how much progress will be made assuming progress is linear!

Do you realise how patronising it is to assume parents don't know anything? My child was given a Statement of SEN based on concerns assuming linear progression. Thankfully my child's progress was not linear. There were a series of 'light bulb' moments when everything came together and they improved exponentially. Unfortunately that achievement took longer to come to light as the teacher were not putting my D.C. in for the same assessments as the rest of the class or giving my child the same degree of teacher input in order to realise this. It is something I realised at home years earlier. Only when the Statement was ceased and additional funding removed was my DC's progression and actual attainment fully acknowledged.

So I know full well how corrupt trajectories can be. Without them or assessments, though, the reasoning behind certain decisions is even more opaque. Which is what I don't want. Where there is data and projections they can be questioned.

Michaelbaubles

But what are you basing that on given that nobel appears to be saying that only 56% of gcses in history were reliably marked anyway? Where are you benchmarking against?

I use knowledge from:

• exam board training
• examiners’ reports
• past papers marked and returned
• work done in previous years by my classes
• grade boundaries from previous years
• internal moderation within my department team

to check my marking/assessment of students. This is more than an exam marker has to do, by the way (I’ve done that too). I can’t guarantee grades but I can very easily “spot” a potential A/B/U grade student. I don’t need any data to tell me that apart from the evidence of my own eyes. Assessment matters but only if you know why you’re assessing and what you’re assessing for, and assessing for a “data checkpoint” isn’t a good reason.

But you could still get it wrong, Michael. Because students can still surprise you. Such rigidity regarding the believed superiority of your experience versus standardised data collection displays the type of lack in humility I experienced from educational professionals. These are the experienced professionals that were effectively managing my child's attainment in order to cling onto funding.

There is a need for transparency which does involves a degree of standardisation in order to act as a safeguard against this. Because your experience only goes so far. And anyone with any integrity should recognise this and actively be involved in making improvements to mapping progress. Instead we get teachers acting as gatekeepers to marks of attainment and progression.

N.B. My child's first set of SAT scores at age 7 surprised their teachers greatly. The teacher decided to use teacher assessment to downgrade the score from the SAT papers (which I got a copy of). My child achieved well during their next set of SATs too. The down grading did not reflect the progress that was actually made.

It happens.

There is a need for transparency which does involves a degree of standardisation

Not sure what standardisation goes on in the levels that are reported to parents. Basically it’s none.