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!

My dd got a 7 in biology and chemistry mocks this week, she was told that her scores was extremely disappointing and she needs to revise more, as her targets are 8s. Only these aren't her targets, they are the schools.

My dd got a 7 in biology and chemistry mocks this week, she was told that her scores was extremely disappointing and she needs to revise more, as her targets are 8s. Only these aren't her targets, they are the schools.

Your DD getting an ‘A’ grade is amazing and I hope she doesn’t feel like that isn’t good enough. A prime example of why I don’t like this system.

noblegiraffe don’t you mean ‘Fisher Price’!??

Schools are judged by Ofsted. Which takes us nicely full circle to the OP. The person in charge of judging schools from the outside thinks flight paths are nonsense and doesn't want to look at schools' internal data. There you go.

It is incredibly naive to think school inspectors will be happy to rely purely on teacher's 'professional judgement' regarding grading assessments and reporting.

The whole purpose of inspection is to apply a level scrutiny to the work being undertaken. Anything less makes a mockery of inspection. Added to this inspectors will not be immune from professional pride just as teachers aren't. So they will push back in order to make the inspection more meaningful...

Or maybe inspectors will just apply their own 'professional judgement', making assessments that are not 'easily reportable'. Their methodology only to be scrutinised by other inspectors...

My Ds's school have megs (minimum expected grades) I think they use the fischer family trust to help work these out.

He is year 10 and currently undergoing assessment for ASD. At his last parents evening his computing teacher told him that they expected 100% in his exams. He had got 95% in his mock but they decided it was too easy so took 10% off all the students final marks. The teacher spent the whole time telling us that he was a student that he expected better than 85% from. I just sat there stunned that they would put so much pressure on a child going through a difficult time.

Yes, mine have MEGs , too : and it is the same for every subject which is really bizarre (and different from the school I teach in). This really does highlight how bonkers this sort of thing is. He could (might) get a 9 in Spanish, for example, but will be lucky to get a C in IT and his MEG is 6. I guess you could say 'on average' it works as 6 is probably what he will get in 4 or so of his 9 subjects...but it leads his IT teacher to , frankly, bullly him and his Spanish teacher (who needs no particular asistance in this art!) to be complacent and to not push him.

I am not sure I have the answers, but I sure have plenty of questions!

Having a look at this thread from time to time to not admire the subtle teacher trashing going on such as parallels being drawn with child abusing priests...really unpleasant.
Before I retired from Secondary FFT estimates of GCSE grades (predictions or targets as interpreted by SLT) were widely in use (I don't know if that's still the case). They were about 80% accurate on an individual student basis. One year I could have (by chance) a number of students wrongly "predicted" D grades when in fact they were capable of A grades. Result - well dome born! The next the other way round - poor performance born, you need to up your game. Very very annoying, especially when it was clear to see that those forecasts were wrong for those students across the whole curriculum.
Now I work in FE and yes, I meet and help many learners who have been let down by the system. But it's not because their progress wasn't properly tracked. There are a whole range of reasons (the most common being not having had a proper Maths teacher in Y10/11).
The worst thing about all these tracking systems is the way they can reduce living, learning children to a set of sometimes arbitrary data. It's dehumanising.

It is incredibly naive to think school inspectors will be happy to rely purely on teacher's 'professional judgement' regarding grading assessments and reporting.

They’ve specifically said they’ll only be looking at externally validated exam data e.g. GCSE results.

Having a look at this thread from time to time to not admire the subtle teacher trashing going on such as parallels being drawn with child abusing priests...really unpleasant.

I think it is equally unpleasant to only welcome peer to peer scrutiny of one's assessment methodology. It is completely dishonourable to want be allowed to offer professional judgement without being prepared to explain to those on the receiving end, the reasoning behind it. It is ludicrous to actually think it is acceptable to view professional judgements superior yet at the same time state the assessments aren't 'easily reportable'. That kind of system, of course, obviously, is wide open to abuse!

The worst thing about all these tracking systems is the way they can reduce living, learning children to a set of sometimes arbitrary data. It's dehumanising.

But in practice, they needn't because their limitations are so obvious they are widely acknowledged. Once limitations are acknowledged these systems cease to have the power to be truly dehumanising. However, when professionals are put on pedestals and their judgement treated as gospel to be accepted without scrutiny then that has the power to incredibly dehumanising.

There is a middle ground. Which involves good communication and openness creating unity.

They’ve specifically said they’ll only be looking at externally validated exam data e.g. GCSE results.

Time will tell, won't it? However, is that really fairer?

You are misinterpreting me, and I can't work out if it is deliberate or not. You have been a teacher, so presumably you are aware of the nature of of ongoing assessment. It is not easily reportable as a single value, although it is certainly easy to explain, objectively and without any reference to hunches. Rather than a valid assessment methodology which gives more complex but useful data, you prefer an invalid methodology, because it gives a false reassurance of a simple linear progression.

Is it fairer to look at exam results rather than some cobbled together crap that varies from school to school?

Er, yeah?

But in practice, they needn't because their limitations are so obvious they are widely acknowledged

But this is not true, as shown by any number of parents on here taking them as gospel (and being encouraged to by schools) and any number of teachers who work with SLT who treat flightpaths as the be all and end all of pupil progress data. Plenty of people recognise their uselessness but this is not at all widely acknowledged and so I welcome Ofsted’s pronouncement on this issue.

Plus you seem to insist on the fact teachers want to be opaque and hide from accountability, and that also is just not true. It isn’t. There’s no closed shop. You’ll see teachers online talking about assessment and how to make it more accurate and fairer every single day. I’d happily publish any data I had on students that I thought would be of any actual use holding me to account. It just doesn’t really exist. External exam marks remain, overall, the best way of doing this, and they’re available for anyone to see.

External exam marks remain, overall, the best way of doing this, and they’re available for anyone to see.

But only available when it is too late.

So if my son could be doing better at school or we have concerns about progress I would have to wait until he gets his GCSE results to then show the school that they were wrong? Whilst he was at school, and there was a chance to remedy it, no one would see it because the only acceptable data is GCSE grades?

And yes, teachers that are accountable and open and professional - nothing is better than them using their judgement and experience. But we all know that not all teachers are like this and some would be happy to hide quite how bad the situation is in their classroom by fudging results. How can anyone challenge this under the new system?

Flight paths might well be imperfect but frankly so is this idea from Ofsted.

There are two different things being conflated here:

1. accountability
2. how can I tell if my child is struggling

Clearly accountability (Ofsted) has to be through external exam data. Schools and teachers can’t be judged on data they themselves are producing as this will inevitably distort it (see why coursework was an issue).

How can you tell if your child is struggling is a different matter. Clearly no, you can’t wait till GCSEs then say ‘shit, they failed’. But that doesn’t mean the only solution is to get a ruler, draw a line between their KS2 result and hoped for GCSE result, then try to make up data to fit the line, and berate the student when it doesn’t (or fiddle the data so it does, which I’ve heard of).

I’ve got a kid in a foundation GCSE set at the moment. He got good SATs, he’s smart, but he does bugger all. I don’t need to make up a ‘current grade’ for him or plot it on a line to be able to say that he’s underachieving. Losing flightpaths doesn’t lose the ability to do that.

TheFallenMadonna
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.

MichaelBaubles
Professional judgement is open to critique and scrutiny though - but not by parents. In fact, most teachers invite it - I’ll often ask a colleague what they think of an exam answer or piece of work. We moderate as a department. We get observed by other members of staff.

MichaelBaubles
Plus you seem to insist on the fact teachers want to be opaque and hide from accountability, and that also is just not true. It isn’t. There’s no closed shop

With regard to the last statement, do you see how considering the first two statements there is an implied opacity and elements of having a closed shop?

There seems to be underlying offence taken by some teachers when asked specifics about assessments and so on by parents. The assumption being that we are too inexperienced, in terms of pedagogy and the general teaching arena, to appreciate and understand the information. It's an 'us and them' mentality. It doesn't work because it conflicts with our role as parents who are supposed to be in partnership with schools in order to support our children through their education.

Which brings me to my first post. If all the information parents receive regarding our children's attainment and progress, flight paths and even the formal grading of exams (according to noble), is a meaningless sham, how on earth are we supposed conduct ourselves in a partnership with teachers? Hence my comment, 'Just leave to to it, shall we?'.

don’t need to make up a ‘current grade’ for him or plot it on a line to be able to say that he’s underachieving. Losing flightpaths doesn’t lose the ability to do that.

But a flight path is a handy visual which might effectively illustrate the underachievement. Tbh all there needs to be is a chart drawn up on the school's assessment page on their website. Along with mentioning their limitations. It's just a guide but helpful especially when grading has changed so many times over the past few years. Teachers don't even have to bang on about them or set targets related to them, IMO. Just have a chart available for parents a students to look at and discuss if they want to.

And all the changes in education over the last few years mean that greater efforts should be given to transparency because otherwise parents with no recent experience of the current climate have no chance of understanding what any of the information given means. Which results in a completely opaque system.

And some teachers do hide behind new systems of assessment. I have had to look up commercially available assessment tools on line before, when my child was in primary in order to get some clear answers. Those answers being that the tools were not being used as they were designed to be used for my child...

But a flight path is a handy visual which might effectively illustrate the underachievement.

You want me to get a bit of paper, draw a line on it, and put a cross under the line just so you can have a visual representation of the underachievement?

Yep, noble and put it in a little booklet with how the new number grades at GCSE relate to the old letter grades. Hand the book over at the start of term for me to peruse at my leisure and have a up to date copy online. Job done. No need to mention it again unless you think it will help.

Easy.

No, it’s not easy, and it is shit.

I mean, what you’ve asked for is what Ofsted has just called meaningless and demotivating. How bizarre, and what a waste of everyone’s time.

The current grades given are more meaningless without it. Especially before the GCSE courses start. What actual grading system would you use before GCSE? And what would the descriptors for each grade be, noble?

I am not a fan of above expected, expected, or below expected progress descriptors because they only tell you about teacher expectations without a grading.

Or knowing the 'next steps' in terms of where the teacher thinks a child needs to improve because this really is absolutely dependant upon linear progression and a single pathway of learning.

Obviously the flight paths used in my DC school are somewhat different to the ones being described, as no teacher makes them up, or invents them. 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" (which is always a grade higher), and which then shows a flight path in a linear way to GCSEs. BUT next to those targets (which they clearly tell us are done by an external agency who has never met your child), they have the teacher's assessment of whether your child is meeting the target, below or above, very much below or very much above (that means the teacher, for each child, has to put a --, -. =. + or ++ in a box for achievement). Next to that box there is another box for effort, which the teacher also has to mark, and then a further box for behaviour (good, satisfactory or cause for concern). On the final reports there is usually a one line comment box as well.
So from this data you can tell if the teacher thinks your child is putting in effort (if the target is being met, but there is low effort, then clearly the teacher thinks the child could do better with more effort). If the target is not being met, but there is lots of effort and good behaviour, clearly the teacher thinks the agency got it wrong, and the target is wrong.
In our case DD has a ridiculously low target for maths. That (in my view) is because nobody picked up at KS2 that she needed extra time, and she didn't finish the SATs maths paper (although still got 105). This was compounded by the fact that the day they sat the maths CAT, she had a dreadful cold, and said she couldn't really do anything as she spent the whole session wiping her nose. She has now been assessed by the SenCo, and extra time allocated, and for her in maths that means in practice at least an extra mark per extra minute.
Her maths teacher not surprisingly put a ++ for attainment, because she is getting one to two levels above the aspirational grade every time since she got the extra time. But, in many ways the target is meaningful, because we have been told that they cannot guarantee extra time once she starts KS4, and if they take the extra time away, I imagine she will go back to scoring several grades below what she is capable of with extra time. The flight path isn't wrong, the teacher isn't wrong, and the data may well give a pretty fair assessment of likelihood of her GCSE grade (both with and without extra time)! But it is not something the teachers make up at all.

Just to note though, that the need for extra time for my DD was not picked up by the school. It was picked up by me - but only after she went into Year 7, and tests started to come home (they never did in Primary School), and discovering, over three separate subjects, that she came home with tests where she had only completed around 70% of the paper, each of which was the first 70%, but had done so well in the parts she had completed that she was getting scores of around 65% overall. She was then told that whatever it was that was in the last 30% of the paper was her weakest area, which she needed to work on, which baffled her, as often that was her strongest area. I then discovered that in primary school she had been sent to the library to finish up SATs practice papers in maths, because the rest of the class had finished, and she hadn't, which put in context the fact that she told me after doing the SATs maths paper that she hadn't finished.

And after three months of jumping up and down to get the SenCo to assess her, extra time was trialled, with dramatic results. But it still amazes me that teachers seem not to notice when the parts of a test not completed is consistently the last 30%, and that there seems to be no way of having joined up thinking between teachers to see that it was happening across subjects, certainly when dealing with what appeared to be reasonably performing child (i.e. no fails here). And that the primary schools completely failed to flag it as an issue at all.