Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Secondary education

Connect with other parents whose children are starting secondary school on this forum.

Is anyone with a year 9 prepared to post a few of the NC levels they got this year? I need some points of comparison!

34 replies

seeker · 25/06/2010 07:46

That's it really!

In case anyone's interested, mine got a range from 6b for Citizenship to 8c for History (obviously better at the past than the future!

OP posts:
sue52 · 28/06/2010 11:54

It's really pleasing to note that many pupils in comps did just as well as those in grammar schools. Makes me wonder if all that 11plus stress was worth it. Well done to all the year nines.

seeker · 28/06/2010 12:19

Particularly as if you live in a grammar school area there are no comprehensive schools....

OP posts:
sue52 · 28/06/2010 12:28

I do. The only school near me that could be considered properly comprehensive is a Catholic school. It's pupils on the whole get very good results.

JGBMum · 28/06/2010 15:04

Sue, it's also really pleasing to note that that many people in grammar schools did just as well as those in the top streams at comps in their GCSEs. Makes me wonder if all that not doing the 11+ , and total lack of stress, was worth it.

sue52 · 28/06/2010 15:19

Quite so, JGB. Bright children tend to do well wherever they go. The 11plus turns quite sane parents into stressed out basket cases.

BUnderTheBonnet · 30/06/2010 23:04

What subject(s) were the kids getting levels 5s in??? I know some subjects like MFL will always get lower levels (nationally - they start lower in secondary than for other subjects, not a cop out!) Maths, English and Science should be level 6 and above. Ask the school for their value added data - they will be more than happy to provide it. I'm sure they're very proud of it really . It should be discussed in the Ofsted report, available from the school's website????

cat64 · 30/06/2010 23:19

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

daphnedill · 01/07/2010 02:05

Oh my goodness! This thread makes very interesting reading, because it demonstrates how the general public has been hoodwinked by SATs levels. Firstly, before SATs were abolished, it was impossible for a child to be a Level 8 in English or Science, as the tests only went up to Level 7. If a school judged a child to be Level 8, it was because they were using their own system and was absolutely nothing to do with national criteria.

Secondly, levels in KS3 have never been officially subdivided into three categories. If a school claims a child is Level 5a rather than 5c, the teachers have made up their own descriptors. There is absolutely nothing scientific or official about it. What a 5a generally means is that the teacher's gut feeling is that a pupil is easily within the band for Level 5 and possibly achieving at Level 6 on occasions. To be honest, the way level descriptors are written, there's no concensus about what they mean anyway.

Thirdly, termly progress levels are often, at best, a "guesstimate". Individual pupils just don't progress through levels at an even rate and teachers rarely have the time to assess every single pupil against every single descriptor. What seems to happen is that targets are based on performance at KS2 (and some other factors). The reality is that teachers look at the targets and performance in the last progress check. To avoid worrying parents, a wise teacher makes sure that there is an indication of progress (ie. the level is at least as high as the last one) and fits in with the eventual target. Again this is based on gut feeling and experience. Levels were never intended to report progress to parents, except at the end of key stages.

An additional problem with targets based on KS2 levels, using what is known as FFT data, is that if a child is already underachieving at KS2, the target will be lower than the level a child could potentially achieve and could hide underperformance. There are also pupils who work conscientiously at KS2 and cope well with the demands of the basics, but do not have the ability for more abstract and conceptual thinking. It simply is not true to assume that every pupil will make even progress at approximately 2/3 of a level every year throughout his/her school life.

There's an awful lot more to education than levels!

kickassangel · 01/07/2010 02:28

ok, as someone who ran ks3 english in 2 schools (but haven't taught for 2 years so a bit out of date)

SATs results at the end of ks2, whilst meant to be a continuous flow from primary to secondary, have almost no relation to the levels awarded at ks3. in fact, most pupils drop about half to a full level, just by changing schools - because the marking is different. so the same piece of work by the same pupil could get a level 5 in primary, but barely scrape a 4 in secondary. i have done many training events at county level where this has been shown. in addition, i worked closely with our primary feeder schools, and an ofsted 'outstanding' head teacher which showed this.

...

actually, i just started writing a really long, far too detailed account of how levels & progress work. but i think it can be summed up using the educational phrase 'it's all a load of bollocks'

i once heard a quote 'measuring a person's intelligence by their A level results is like measuring what they've eaten by how much they shit.'

having run ks3, AND taught A level for many years, i'd say that A Levels were a far better indicator of intelligence than any levels at ks3.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page