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!

Which involves an element of prediction, albeit flawed because our bodies are complex and individual.

If a teacher is giving a GCSE grade in year 7, they are not applying a standardised methodology.

If a group of doctors said some process used and imposed in their job was unhelpful, useless and unreliable - and, at worst, misleading bollocks, I'd tend to trust them.

Do you mean rather than letting kids make plans for post 16 only to fall on their faces when GCSE results come in because nobody explained what they were likely to achieve?

I mean the young people who I work with, in tears, having panic attacks, just giving up because of these randomly generated ‘aspirational’ (note, not actual realistic target grades) target grades that are presented to them time and time again. And because they are interpreted differently by all and sundry, for example, as what they could get, too many do start ‘making plans post 16 only to fall flat on their faces’.

Neither are they if they don't, TheFallen. At least in the attempt to formulate trajectories the limitations are overt and realised. This does not really happen if teachers are allowed to rely purely on 'professional judgement'.

I'd tend to trust them.

Would you? Without the supporting research?

Yup. I don't need to read medical research! I assume they have.

Well, thankfully you can't have had any complex health conditions that require you to make a choice in terms of treatment, Pig.

In the example you describe, the staff really are "just" using professional judgement. That is the only way they can be coming up with a GCSE grade for a year 7. It might be a department's collective professional judgement, but that is all it is. Unless they are using GCSE papers with year 7, which would be a pretty unprofessional choice, IMO.

I don't know what's right or wrong. I know that DD2's maths teacher got some thought-provoking information about DD2 using a GCSE Foundation paper.

In her parents evening consultation, he asked DD2 how she thought she was doing in maths. She said she thinks she struggles. He said 'I would agree with you, but you always do your best with a good attitude.' He went on to say that if he 'pegged' DD2, in classes, he would peg her towards the bottom of the middle ability kids in his class. But he set a true Foundation Maths GCSE paper, and he was surprised.

When everything was taken away, when she couldn't say "I don't know how..." or ask for help, DD2 actually scored in the top quarter in her class, with only 5 people ahead of her. Bearing in mind that some of the content of the paper hadn't been taught, she did really well.

So her teacher did get some useful information, and it was helpful to me, because I know that DD2 is more able than she appears, but has difficulties that make her seem less able.

I say that is all. My professional judgement is not a guess. It is based on assessment, in fact. Just not easily reportable assessment. I am well aware that there is variation in the quality of professional judgement. I think poor judgement is exacerbated by poor reporting practice.

TheFallen, yes but it's collective professional judgement which is openly admitted to have its flaws and limitations. Far better than applying some mystical occult status to professional judgement.

All I need to know I'd my child is ok at school are answers to a) are they happy at school and b) are they putting in their best effort. If yes to both then it's fine.

Just not easily reportable assessment

Well, that says it all really...sound quite opaque to me. I'd take flawed but transparent over giving mystical status to anyone's professional 'hunches'. The latter is to open to abuse.

You don't sound very trusting cool.

Judgement and hunches are very different words and professional indicates expertise.

You have no idea AT ALL whether I, or anyone in my family , has any complex health needs cool. No. Idea.

professional indicates expertise.

It also indicates standards, accountability and transparency.

Pseudo GCSE grades are hunches. Really, you are comparing apples and apples.

You have no idea AT ALL whether I, or anyone in my family , has any complex health needs cool.

Sorry, just a hunch. Not very nice when people offer judgements based on hunches is it?

What transparency is there when the grades are made up but parents don’t know that?

What accountability is there when teachers are making up the grades they are accountable for?

What standards are there when there are no standards being measured against?

For pity's sake.

Pseudo GCSE grades are hunches. Really, you are comparing apples and apples.

Yes, but they don't pretend to be anything else. They're clearly stated openly with their limitations obvious for all to see.

Unlike the practically mythical occult status seemingly attached to professional teacher judgement...

You mean cult surely???

They're clearly stated openly with their limitations

You’re told that the teacher made them up in a couple of seconds while rushing to get some reports done over break time?

noble, we do know because teachers are hardly shrinking violets about the subject. But at least when they are complaining we get some dialogue. Which gives away more information than allowing teachers to report purely according to their professional judgement.