Year 7 targets.

[seeker]

I've just come off the phone to a friend who's dd has been set level 7 as her target for the end of year 7 in all her "academic" subjects except MFL. She and her dd are pretty stressed about it - but she seemd to think it's quite normal. Is it? My dd is at a pretty high performing grammar school and her targets are all the the high 5 to high 6 range. My dd is nowhere near as clever as this other girl - but even so....! I suggested she queried it with the school and said she thought it a bit much to ask, but she says that "wouldn't reflect well" on her dd. What do you all think?

[Cleo1303]

I know this sounds stupid but I've never heard of these levels. Is there a website somewhere which explains them?

Does this relate to exam result percentages?

[nicp123]

DS at a grammar school. Their NEW levels state levels 7 and 8 targets as the norm.

[freshprincess]

Bah! Just saw its a zombie thread! You had me all worried then!

[freshprincess]

Are these targets across the board for all schools? My son's target is a 9, which according to this thread is impossible. (He's year 7)
He got 6s and 7s in the last set of tests, and he's quite disappointed that he's doing so badly. I'm a

He's bright, but certainly not 'taking his GCSEs at 12' bright.

[Iamnotminterested]

Levels do not exist any more, Ellie, isn't she being given GCSE grades?

BTW this thread is 8 years old, I'm guessing the OP's DD is at University now?!

[EllieLynch]

My Daughter is in year 7 and she is very capable. She is a 7b in both reading and maths with 2-3 months before she breaks up. She's nearly level 7 in RE too despite not being religious

[christywhisty]

A little update

DS got his report yesterday.
In science his current grade is 6a (which represents his results throughout the year) although it says he got level 7 in the end of year exam in the teachers comments.

Then in a box entitled

"A description of typical work required to reach next grade"
it says

"Work at this level represents exceptional performance in Science, and pupils working at this level have demonstrated achievement above that expected within the Key Stage."

I assume that means for a year 7 child.

[christywhisty]

That probably sounds about right Littlejo

[ravenAK]

I've said it before - the whole thing's a crock of sh*t.

Levels at KS2 do NOT equate to realistic levels in year 7. (Which are subject to 'grade creep' anyway, not least because of those wretched optional tests in y7 & 8.)

An inflated target will simply have been generated from KS2 SATs test result (marked by an overworked, underpaid & inexperienced teacher trying to fund her summer holiday, more likely than not), CAT results (not reliable across curriculum) & teacher assessment.

Any teacher setting/agreeing a L7 target in year 7 is a bit daft, frankly, because teachers have to show progression, or they don't get pay rises. So we routinely (consciously or not) mark DOWN at start of year, UP at end of year.

Oh & L7 in year 7 would be pretty outstanding if it represented genuine achievement. It's more likely that the school is using (unrealistic) 'upper quartile' targets (ie. 25% of students are likely to achieve their target) in an effort to cattle prod the kids a bit more.

[littlejo67]

They give a end of term assessment that only has questions from that term. Therefore its not a test over the whole sylabus, but the score is given as a key stage 3 grade. My ds`s maths group (excellerated) was doing yr9 workbooks in yr7 and is now at end of yr 7 going into yr10 depth even though they are still in key stage 3. This is to keep them interested otherwise it would be so boring for them.

[SqueakyPop]

It would be interesting to know how they came up with Level 7. It can really only be a teacher 'estimate', as the real Sats questions rely very much on Year 9 work to produce the Level 7 questions.

[christywhisty]

DS YR 7 got some of his exam results today, he got Level 7 in science.

[seeker]

Oh help - I'm not even thinking even vaguely about A-levels yet. You don't have to when they're only in year 7 do you? Tell me you don't - please!

[littlejo67]

I dont think there is any advantage as you would probably go off the boil if you had a years break before doing A levels in that subject.
For me as long as you get the grades you need to do A levels in your chosen subjects thats what is important.
My son wants to be a Maths teacher so it would be an advantage to him to accelerate so he can do Stats as well.Dont see the point in taking others early.Just enough to do chosen A levels. Those are the important pre-uni ones.

[seeker]

littlejo - what advantage is there in accelerating like this? I can understand in Maths, I think because as someone said it's a linear subject, but why woud it be a good idea to do the same in science?

[roisin]

Maths is generally a very linear subject, so if you choose to accellerate in this way, it is relatively straight forward to do so.

Science atm is a very broad curriculum with lots of information to cover, so it's more difficult to accellerate. Also some boards are now doing modular exams, which makes it even more complex.

Personally I'm not a big fan of accelleration (though I did some O levels early myself!) and prefer schemes which focus primarily on extension work.

[littlejo67]

Hi scaryteacher.
Yes just in maths.Then the more able do Stats as well. Not sure why they dont do this in science too as my DS`s top set are all Level 6 and 7 already.Was wondering why schools tend to do this in Maths only. Anyone know??

[scaryteacher]

It is unusual to achieve that littlejoe, but there will be exceptions. Out of my year 7 tutor group of 28, there were perhaps 3 who would have achieved that. I don't think any of the teachers on here actually said it was impossible, but in our experience, unusual.

I would also add, as I did earlier, that a 5a in primary does not equate to a 5a in secondary, as the continuum across the levels is not there. My ds got a 5 in all his KS3 SATs and is a very bright child, but I don't expect him to be at a L7 across the board in all his subjects until the end of KS3.

Is it just in maths that your ds is doing this, or in all his subjects? I'd be interested to know.

[littlejo67]

Was interested in the replies that state that it is unusual to get a L7 in yr 7 hmm. My ds got a 5a in yr 6 sats for maths. When arriving in yr 7 was assessed at 6a. 8 months later in recent test he achieved 7a. Now he is working at L7/L8. He attends a high achieving comp. He is taking his KS3 a year early and doing GCSE Maths and Stats in yr 10. In yr 11 they progress onto the first year A level Maths. There are about 10 in the group and they are all L6a/L7c in yr 7. All on G and T accelerated programme.

[ScienceTeacher]

It's great for A-level. I usually pass out the mark scheme and examiners' comments with practice papers .

It's not what I really value lower down the school though. Teaching to the test? Not me!

I have a two-pronged motivation - to make them enthusiastic and enquiring about the subject, and to build relationships with them. Worrying about levels would be a bit of a passion killer.

[seeker]

fizzbuzz - I must have expressed myself badly - I think the self assessment is brilliant! I like the fact that they are given guidelines to assess their work against. I think it really helps them to understand what's needed from them. And one of my BIG complaints about the education system is that I think children often don't. If you see what I mean.

[fizzbuzz]

We get pupils to assess themselves, and then I assess their work. I thought this was meant to be a valuable learning tool, rather than relieving me of work. I mark it anyway, and then give them a target.Usually they are pretty good at getting it right, and isn't the point of it to make them understand their assessment criteria

BUT think target setting is a waste of time

[seeker]

At dd's school they sometimes mark their own work - they are given a sheet telling them what to look for for each level. It's very interesting to see what's needed - from a basic telling of the facts up to real interpretation and reasoning from cause to effect. I think they are expected to do much more analytical thinking earlier than I remember.

[ScienceTeacher]

One of the nice things about working in the independent sector is that we are not tied to targets.

I do tend to record levels just because they are there from the scheme, but we never do anything with them.

I have found that when I worked in schools that did use levels, that it was very mechanical thing to set targets, ie they consistently perform at level six, so their target is level seven.

I don't think there is anything wrong with levels, but you really need to know your pupils well to use them properly. I think the state system is leaning in the opposite direction where they are getting pupils to assess themselves, and to set their own levels and targets - this relieves teachers of the task.

It is only proper that we try to move pupils up in levels, but this predates the National Curriculum and any concept of 'levels'. In Science we have 'knowledge' as the lowest level of achievement, ranking up to understanding and then application. This is levelling, but without making a big fuss about it.

[FluffyMummy123]

Message withdrawn