More schooly stuff
Earlier this evening we went to Anna’s Y7 parents’ evening at school. It’s the first time we’ve properly met any of her teachers, didn’t really know what to expect, etc. Her report last week was good, really, apart from those who thought she shouldn’t let music get in the way of her education. She just wishes that her schooling didn’t have to get in the way of her music! (yes, schooling is different to education!)
So, with no particular problems, what does one do? See *all* the subject teachers? I think not – there are too many, we’d be there all evening! Wanted to show our faces though, and be willing … so decided to do the core maths, science, and english, adding music as the other one that we were interested to chat to the teacher about.
[as an aside, interestingly between 4 - 6pm each teacher only had 12 ten minute slots available. What on earth would they have done had every parent wanted to see them? Do they bank on parents just not bothering? or what?!]
Anyway, won’t say too much other than we were fairly bored by the first three who didn’t really say much more than they’d already written on her report but then enjoyed our meeting with the music teacher, who has clearly spent more time with Anna outside lessons (in fact he doesn’t teach her) than any of the others, so knows her much better. He made us laugh with his OCD about excel, as well as his pretty graphs. I especially giggled at his disclaimer at the top of the excel generated report card he handed us which said: I am not in a position to offer any other information on this student. In many cases I may not even know who this student actually is, seeing as I teach over 520 students per week. At least he’s honest. He did seem sadly resigned to the fact that music is viewed as a second rate subject in the school but on the flip side, very positive about actually teaching Anna next term, and we’ll look forward to seeing him challenging her in his lessons.
There was something strange going on with the level predictions as well; apparently the prediction that we were given in Anna’s report for music was not his, in fact it was made in combination with some other subjects which have nothing really to do with music. I didn’t really get that part, I must admit. Perhaps cross-curricular level predictions work for some children/subjects? Who knows what the rationale is. I really really do not care about these level things, they are meaningless to me. (Must start paying more attention as I may apply for an HLTA post at my school, and they might expect attention to be paid to such things.) Better stop there, anyway, as said music teacher also let slip that Anna has pointed him in the direction of the blog before now!!
Anyway, after that we came home for tea, then Anna went out to another rehearsal, Abbie did some more work on her project, and I took Joe out for a bike ride. Nice evening 
Steve avoided all children and read motoring forums instead, having done his parently duty by attending the KS2 sports day before parents’ evening.
July 8th, 2009 at 23:00
Parents Evening sounds odd – seems weird to not actually see the teacher who teaches her! At least he did know her though
As for levels – I know Violet has got a 3 in Art, lol!
July 8th, 2009 at 23:05
Well, in actual fact we did see the teacher who’s had her for music because he’s her maths teacher as well. But that was a lucky accident, iyswim.
July 8th, 2009 at 23:06
sounds terribly complicated!
July 9th, 2009 at 0:45
I think the levels ARE meaningless, especially if they simply say “this student appears to be average”.
But if, for example, Anna had needed a certain music level to go to do something different next year which relied mostly or even partly on being at least average or better (which you know she is) and if a teacher who didn’t know her had given her a grade which said she had below average ability, would you feel differently?
I think they are inherently dangerous, because they are only being used to pick out deviation from a norm, reduced to a single figure by a person who barely even knows a child in some cases. It’s not like they record a nice report on the database to pick out the ones who are different. It’s ignorable if they say “average” but less so if they say “below average” and you know that is not so.
At least that was my take on it, which was why i wanted to know – leaving aside that if his assessment was sound i needed to know what was wrong. I have a feeling that most parents of kids who have gone into school from HE might feel similarly if within 6 weeks their child was wrongly assigned a “below average” level, for all their flawed nature.
Anyway, that said (and i’m extremely glad to be leaving it behind and have sworn blind i will never do another single one of those things with any of my kids!) it does sound an odd parents evening, but it sounds positive and cheerful anyway, which is good
July 9th, 2009 at 5:40
Yes I guess if the numbers were low, or if I felt they were wrong, I might try to understand them, but then again not, because it’s not about the numbers.
*We* managed to get through school without all these wretched levels at every corner, didn’t we?!!
July 9th, 2009 at 8:16
We did but we had other things. I think if i’d had a glowing first year report that said i was able, interested, talented and a pleasure to teach but then i got put into the bottom sets, my parents would have queried that.
I’m not sure i agree it isn’t about the numbers – it *shouldn’t* be about the numbers but unfortunately they’ve made it so and it is hard to know how they are going to use them. Less so for you, i agree, because if they were saying “below average” then if anyone asked who had been responsible for the schooling, you can say “the school” but that isn’t the same in my position – and if they were to impose compulsory SATs on HEers (as is pretty much the case in France), then it would matter.
I think it stinks as a way to measure children, especially when they said in the news this week that 1 in 5 results are inaccurate. Imagine if the school that Abbie could go to next year was riding on them as an arbitrary judgement of talent – it would matter then. My view is that as i don’t know what they might do with them at any future point, i want them to be representative.
July 10th, 2009 at 0:13
I saw this post earlier and wanted to write a bit about levels.
First, the predictions/targets Sarah first mentioned – how are they made using ‘non-music’ data? Well, the KS2 (y6) results are used for this. Each level there is given a score, and the average points score for Eng/Math/Sci is used with various algorithms to make these predictions across all subjects. I’ve found it to be pretty reliable. Also Anna will have sat some cognitive ability tests (CATs) or such like early in year 7. This also is used to make predictions, again, pretty reliable, although I’ve found they tend to underestimate progress for the brightest.
Targets, at my school anyway, are set by adding an element of challenge to a prediction. This is more subjective, but since pupils are expected to make about a level progress a year, you might add a 1/3 or 1/2 a level to a prediction to make the target. It helps if you know the child. Most schools set targets to reach by the end of the Key Stage (y9 in this case). Most children should reach at least level 5 by the end of KS3.
As for the point of levels? I don’t think it’s quite true to say we got through school without them. They weren’t introduced until the National Curriculum came in in 1995 or so, no, but teachers have always had to have an idea of whether a child is making progress against expectations for that individual child. To say a child is ‘average’ isn’t really what teachers use them for, but is the child making poor, adequate or good progress? They’re not quite as blunt as all that. They’re a useful shortcut in that respect, but I don’t think parents understand them in the way GCSE grades, for example, are understood, but teachers do understand them and set them pretty accurately.
Levels, with GCSE results, are used to put schools into league tables. This is, of course, ridiculous. It would be like some riders in the Tour de France starting 50 km along the road and being called better because they won the race. They don’t mean that your child has a 50% or 90% chance of 5 A*-C grades, obviously. Is your child making good progress?
But I don’t think parents should sweat it about levels. Let’s face it: although they were introduced as a way of tracking individual children they are mainly used to decide by the ignorant whether a school is ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Leaving aside the ridiculous notion of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ schools (if it is good for your child it is good, duh!), levels have become a burden for teachers. We tend to look over our shoulders all the time, losing focus on the children as individuals and worrying about the overall progress of classes and schools. So Sarah’s right – it isn’t about the numbers. Is your child making good progress, are they happy?
We do get some parents hauling us over the coals at parents’ evenings about why Johnny hasn’t made the requisite 1.66 level progress since he left primary school (usually because he’s a lazy bugger whose parents don’t know the half of it). That’s always awkward, but the focus seems always to be on the school, the teacher, rather than on the pupil, who probably hasn’t handed in his homework for the last term. Parents have used them to abrogate responsibility for educating their offspring.
As for how levels are used by schools, again as a parent I wouldn’t worry about it. Unless you choose a selective school (because you believe all the crap about ‘good’ and ‘bad’ schools (how do you think selective schools get better results?)) it is illegal for schools to choose pupils based on SATs levels/NC levels etc, so they don’t.
Inside schools they are used to group pupils into appropriate sets. Sounds ominous until you remember that that is exactly the same as setting based on test results/homeworks/coursework etc, which is what the levels are based on anyway. Mixed ability classes sound nice and egalitarian, but in my experience it serves noone well, with noone getting teaching targeted at their needs.
As for 10 min slots at parents’ evening: I really hate parents taking up 10 mins as usually they want to argue about some incident or figure we’ve all stopped caring about, or like the sound of their own voice. We give 5 min slots, and most parents find this more than enough – ‘Hi, how’s she doing? Pleasure to teach/fine/needs to do this/really needs a change in attitude’ For most, they’re a source of reassurance and it is good to know the families from ‘our’ side.
Sorry about the long, long post. That’ll teach you to bring it up. You won’t be doing that again.
July 10th, 2009 at 5:39
lol, I did wonder when you’d pop up, Rog. I still want to know how many parents teachers actually expect to see, percentage wise – as they certainly don’t expect to see all of them, do they?!
And I’m interested in these algorithm things as well, much as I hate numbers/predictions. Anna got 5L for music this year and her prediction on her report for end of Y9 is 5U. Seriously, how can that be right, to only improve from L to U in two years? I think not. Mr Coates predicts level 7 but informed us that would not be what was on the report because of this, it seems wrong to me that an algorithm would give me the parent the wrong information on a report?!!
[and this is where Merry's problem was too - she felt her daughter had been given incorrect KS2 levels after entering school only at the end of Y6, and had she gone on to secondary schooling these would have been used for her predictions]
Unfortunately I suspect I will moan about it again as I do really hate the system. Or perhaps next time I’ll just avoid parents evening altogether! Don’t get me started on gifted and talented, that’s next Wednesday’s post
July 10th, 2009 at 7:43
Our parents’ evenings are well attended if we get 60% of parents turn up. Personally, while it is nice to see the successful kids I’d rather see the parents of the rest. Parents’ evenings are for parents, not teachers, and parents need to choose based on the report. Most of the time I’ve said all I need to on the report. If all my parents turned up I wouldn’t be able to see all of them, and I teach a core subject, so don’t see that many, unlike Mr C, who obviously teaches the whole year!
So why hasn’t Mr C changed Anna’s prediction? It’s not set in stone, which is the whole point. I’m changing them all the time as pupils’ progress changes. It is about the individual and schools will (should) be looking at them regularly, knowing the pupil and having a bit of sense. If Merry is finding that they are set in stone at her place then she should be making noise about it!
Gifted and Talented. Box ticking. Remember the people who tell us to do these things don’t understand education, just how to make the right noises to get re-elected. It is nice to be on the list, sure, but they’d get the opportunities anyway because nice, motivated, clever kids do. But it is good for successful pupils to be recognised and rewarded. I think it is a pity the list is so elitist and closed, although I don’t think it is meant to be.
There’ll be another initiative along next week.
July 10th, 2009 at 8:30
re. 2nd paragraph – don’t know why he says one thing and the year report says another, and as I’ve said all along, don’t care really!
Another year if there are no burning issues I don’t think we’ll bother, then, as we’re only taking up space that would be better used seeing someone else!!
July 10th, 2009 at 9:52
“Gifted and Talented. Box ticking. Remember the people who tell us to do these things don’t understand education, just how to make the right noises to get re-elected. It is nice to be on the list, sure, but they’d get the opportunities anyway because nice, motivated, clever kids do.”
Um, not all kids who can achieve highly are nice, motivated and clever, does that mean if your face doesn’t fit you can’t be gifted and talented. (And yes I am thinking of a certain Small someone close to home Sarah – who is very obviously very bright, but is very often not very nice!)
July 10th, 2009 at 10:10
That’s not what I really mean. I think I meant that that type of kid goes out of their way to find the chances. My problem with it is that it just offers those kids, on the whole, stuff they’d do anyway, given the chance. We’re supposed to identify the top 10% or so of students and offer them the chances, but what about those motivated kids who haven’t made so much progress? So the register is elitist in that way.
July 10th, 2009 at 10:55
And I think that some of the top 10% (in what way? potentially?) don’t go out of their way, wouldn’t know how to and could very well be languishing in middle or even bottom sets, completely disenchanted and unrecognised.
The motivated kids *will* make it, they are motivated. The ones who are underachieving and unrecognised might not. Or at least not within the education system.
I’m coming across as quite antagonistic, and I’m not trying to be, but I think we’re kind of missing each other’s points and this isn’t the ideal way to try and meet in the middle!
July 10th, 2009 at 11:39
Rog, Am going to come back and read that properly tonight as it was interesting but it is too noisy here to concentrate!!!!!
July 10th, 2009 at 16:11
Jax, you’re right, I think we do agree. The top 10% is based on levels/results/whatever, so isn’t really aimed at nurturing potential, and that’s a problem (I think it’s aimed at middle-class pony-club parents who all think little Chardonnay is the next best thing). I agree that there are pupils who languish, and I’m frustrated that the system within which I have to work sometimes prevents me from nurturing potential because of it’s rigidity and its demands for measurables. Government and press, as well as parents, need to recognise the value of unmeasurables (happiness, feelings of success, self-esteem, independence, for example). This would allow teachers to ease off a bit, take a tangent, whatever, because it is motivating, and really nurture learners, rather than exam passers, which is all people seem to be interested in.
I don’t think it is possible to have education for all that is perfect, however, and some will fall through the gaps, but that’s not for want of trying – there are only so many hours in a day. Some children don’t learn at their best in the context of a classroom.
Am I still missing the point? I think I’m going to stop now because I’m boring myself (it takes some doing)!
July 10th, 2009 at 18:27
Note to self: don’t bother posting anything about gifted and talented stuff next week!
July 10th, 2009 at 20:35
@Rog, yup, we sound like we’re coming from very similar viewpoints there.
@Sarah please do!
July 10th, 2009 at 20:37
What’s wrong with Chardonnay?