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!

But that doesn't mean they should be scrapped, noble. It means the methodology should be tightened up.

Otherwise, beyond 'trusting teachers' which I'm afraid IME are not beyond reproach, there is little to verify, to parents that their child is doing OK at school or that any shortfall in learning is successfully being addressed.

Surely you can see that is not right? What other profession is there which has little or no form of accountability for the work done? (...well apart from politician...)

the methodology should be tightened up.

It can’t be. Even GCSEs where a huge amount of training and moderation goes on can’t be marked reliably. Teachers looking at topic tests on a fraction of the course sat by a tiny amount of students and termly data drops have 0 chance.

For interest, what data would you like to have about your (say) year 8 child in Maths?

noble but it's what we've got with all its faults. What are you suggesting, there should be no qualifications because they are all flawed?

TheFallen, I was satisfied with what we got. Current grade, based on regular tests along with what the (new) number grades meant at GCSE level and a chart showing trajectories of all the grades which might be given, throughout each year, up to GCSEs assuming linear progress. You could see in subsequent years whether your child was beating the trajectory or was level with it or whether their progress was slower which allowed for further discussion.

I would say they have their use along sides other methods. If that's all you get, then no, it isn't good enough.
However alongside say comments (as someone put earlier "They're struggling at understanding fractions"), looking at past improvement, possibly (for teacher only) how they're improving relative to the rest of the class and other things they are useful.

I was talking to a friend not very long ago. She was telling me about her ds who is playing the clarinet. He's apparently absolutely brilliant and she's quite put out that the school hasn't acknowledged how special he is. Thing is I know a bit about grades. And I know that doing grade 1 after 3 years and taking 2 more years to do grade 2 is well below what you'd expect. She has no knowledge of music grades at all, and thinks that they are doing far better than 90% of children would. I'm not going to say anything, but I do think the music teacher should have given a little expectation managing and let them know it is not outstanding progress. At some point they're going to discover it, and it'll probably hit the child hard enough to stop them playing.

That's how I feel on school subjects. I have no idea what level my dc are working at. If they said "they're currently at this level in year 8, then that means nothing to me. Does it mean they'll be scraping a (old money) E at GCSE or pushing an A*? Should I be encouraging them to drop it when they ask, or saying it could be an A-level subject.
You could say that I don't need to know. But in which case, why do I need to know anything about their education, except they're there and not being a pain?

The point flight paths miss, to me, is where it is taken as the be all and end all. Where if a child is coasting and hitting their target it isn't picked up that they could fly over the target. Or if a child has for whatever reason started struggling, they're not put in the position of being thought not to be trying because if they were they'd get be doing better.

No way is going to be perfect to apply to imperfect schools and varying children. Any method of assessing that might suit one child may be a disaster for another.
What are OFSTED suggesting instead if they don't believe in this one, because unless they come up with a solution that is better for most children then surely this imperfect method is better than just not using anything?

Current GCSE grade in year 8?

DD's starting yr7 in September. What are flight paths?

Yes, well a grade using the same system. It's pretty much got the same amount of flaws as marking A as meaning excellent, B as very good, C as average, D as below average and E as well below average which is what we got.

Tbh you can look at a trajectory and extrapolate it down at that stage.

The trouble is, cool, there is no such thing as “current grade”. The only meaningful grades are for external exams such as GCSEs which are taken by thousands of children and externally marked and moderated.

If I set a test for my class half-way through year 8, and a child scores 68%, what “grade” is that, and how can it possibly relate to a set of GCSE exams they will take in 3 years’ time?

I am required to make up some sort of number, but it is emphatically not a “current grade”.

I absolutely agree with you noblegiraffe. A different ‘flightpath’ for each young person is divisive and limiting. Parents don’t need to know tagrget grades (different from predicted grades) and neither do pupils. All they do is cause unnecessary stress and anxiety (I am convinced this has been a big reason in the recent rise of young person mental ill-health issues.)

All young people need to know is where they are at the moment and the next steps planned to help them move forward. Not to be restricted by a nonsense flight path.

Is it using the same system if it is not sampling from the same domain? Or is it just using the same numbers?

What are flight paths?

The grade given is an approximation what they would be graded if they took the GCSE paper at the time of grading. A trajectory predicts what they will get, assuming linear progress, after studying the subject for the requisite number of years, at GCSE.

I don't think an approximation of what they would have got if they had taken an exam that they haven't taken, made using a different exam that they have taken, will give the standardisation you are looking for. There is a lot of judgement in play there.

And that is without addressing the assumption of linear progress. If a system is based on an invalid assumption, how valid is it?

The grade given is an approximation what they would be graded if they took the GCSE paper at the time of grading.

It’s really not.

Of course some schools do actually do full GCSE papers from year 7, for this purpose. I don't think that is better though.

Hip, Madonna, I understand the limitations. However these limitations are part and parcel of grading before a course is complete and the final exam taken. My own teacher's grading had the same limitations.

MsRabbit

All young people need to know is where they are at the moment and the next steps planned to help them move forward. Not to be restricted by a nonsense flight path.

I find this incredibly patronising. A flight path need not restrict it just informs as to what an approximated linear progression is. With that information a student or parent can decide whether to alter the way studying is undertaken. Personally I would prefer a teacher not telling me my 'next steps' unless I ask them specifically. They don't necessarily know how much effort I have put in or which learning methodology suits me best.

It's not grading before a course is complete. It's grading before it's started.

It’s really not

Yes, I know Hip, you concoct it in relation to what your SLT wants to hear at the time.

If a system is based on an invalid assumption, how valid is it?

All systems are based on invalid assumptions. You could always do a Bayesian probability analysis of all the priors...

Don't get me started on how nonsensical this all is for English with two different subjects, with each 'data drop' testing a completely different skill, yet some data guy 'predicting' progress from all this and not allowing classroom teachers to use professional judgment as we are not 'accurate' enough!! And ,yet, in my other (more autonomous) subject, I seem to manage.

That said , we have never used these flightpath things. DSs' school did and dropped it after a year because they were widely misunderstood and hated by everyone.

It's not grading before a course is complete. It's grading before it's started.

So? The material learnt pre GCSE courses reaches towards those GCSE courses, providing the foundation. Just as preschool and reception provide Early Years Foundation which reaches towards the National Curriculum. And have grading (of sorts). Which flags up any 'concerns' before any formal testing has occurred.

allowing classroom teachers to use professional judgment

What profession applies no standards? If you only judge based on your own teaching experiences, a student's grade will be dependent on what those experiences are. They will vary hugely from school to school, area to area, and on the age and experience of the teachers employed.

Flightpaths and any other prediction methods really ought to factor in effort. Generally, they don't.

Our latest lot of data , produced for students nearing the end of year 10, 'predicted' that a whole clutch of stduents (many with top effort grades) would go backwards.

There is a lot of judgement in play there.

And a lot of judgement with the traditional A = excellent etc

ought to factor in effort.

And you complain that trajectories aren't accurate. How on earth do you know how much personal effort a student has applied?