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?

[Heated]

The targets your dd has been given are in line with the more able in my year 7 who currently work at 5a/6c. But you might be a bit optimistic on the progression of levels front unless her class teacher has indicated otherwise. If your dd's target is a 6c/6b now at the end of year 7, then it probably means she's working at 5a? It would be entirely realistic of her to attain level 6 in year 8. As a guide it generally takes 18m to move up a whole level. It would then put her on target to be 6a/level 7 at the start of year 9, hopefully consolidating the level 7 by the time of the SATs. In theory level 7 in year 9 equates to a A/A* at GCSE which is where a bright grammar pupil should be...if that makes any sense!

[seeker]

So, fizzbuzz (this is the stuff I want to hear - I need amunition!) what are reasonable targets for a very clever child for the end of year 7 at your school?

[fizzbuzz]

A target isn't the same as what they are expcted to actually achieve. It is uaually a grade higher, but not always.

End of Year 7 target for a very clever child in Year 7 would be probably a 6 of some description, bearing in mind that this is higher than expected grade. Another way to work it out is: On the whole kids are expected to move up 2 sub levels a year (I think!) So if a child scored a 5c at end of KS2, then by end of Year 7 they could perhaps be a 5a.

This target could be based on CATS, which IMO are not really much good at predictiong ability tbh

Doe this help?

[Heated]

I teach at an 'outstanding' grammar and you dd is in line with my better students. A reasonable target is one level above what dc has achieved, so if her achievement is 5a, then 6c is a reasonable target. You need to ask the teacher how they arrive at their targets. As I said earlier, some schools will have them generated for them, from the CATs (not SATs) they've sat, considered a pretty reliable indicator of future performance. But don't get too caught up in targets, it's the attainment that is all important.

[fizzbuzz]

Yes, I agree about your dd, the better ones at my school are working at around that level.

[christywhisty]

This has reminded me of a thread I started a few months back when ds (yr7) was given a level 7a as a target for science, which turned out to be impossible to get. It was based on his cats and sats scores. He is consistently working at level 6 for science.

level 7 thread

[christywhisty]

Also forgot to say in history DS had to write an essay on Castles. He was given a mark scheme on what was needed to get up to Level 7.

[missis]

As a science teacher I have similar feelings about targets. The way it is now, we are asked for so many targets, so often, personally I give them very little thought. After all we are being asked to predict the future and there is no allowance made for home circumstance, different rates of development etc.

Really, level 7 is very unlikely at the end of year 7 as this is supposed to be achieved by the brightest students by the end of year 9.

If year 7 students however bright are achieving level 7 then, someone is manipulating levels for reasons of their own.

[seeker]

I think I must be misunderstanding something here. It seems that some people are saying that children should be given aspirational targets that they are unlikely to attain. Surely this is icredibly demotivating?

[fizzbuzz]

Yes it is...especially for the poor teachers! We are supposed to try and make them reach this!

It can act as a spur for kids sometimes, to make them try a bit harder, and sometomes they to reach these targets, but what seems to happen is they confuse these with a predicted grade, and then get annoyed when they don't reach it (as would anyone) We are forced to give targets by govt, and I'm sure they don't make any difference...

[Peapodlovescuddles]

I thought you could only get a level 8 in maths? not in science too?

[FluffyMummy123]

Message withdrawn

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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??

[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.

[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?

[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]

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!

[christywhisty]

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