1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

How about the 'decimalisation' of NC levels?

Discussion in 'Welcome lounge and forum help' started by gknipe, Nov 18, 2008.

  1. Some time just before I was born, someone decided the metric system might by a good idea for money and measurement.

    Why did the 'brains' who devised the National Curriculum not think this may be a good model to adopt?

    We are told that children should make about 2 sub-levels progress per year. Based on a child attaining 2b at KS1 SATs and 4b at KS2, that's 2 levels over 4 years, which is half a level per year. But sub-levels are in thirds! So actual expected progress should be 1 and a half sub-levels per year.

    The current levelling system is as bad as pounds shillings and pence (apologies to anyone who had to learn that system but what a waste of time). The simpler you make a process, the more effective it can be.

    So to my point. Why do they not rewrite the levels to correspond to years in school? A Y4 child would be expected to attain Level 4, Y6 would by Level 6. Furthermore we could sub-level by term (Autumn is C, Spring is B, Summer is A). Everyone would be able to see where pupils were at in relation to expected attainment.
    Not that I'm in favour of much of the sytem anyway, but at least this way would be clearer and simpler.
     
  2. Some time just before I was born, someone decided the metric system might by a good idea for money and measurement.

    Why did the 'brains' who devised the National Curriculum not think this may be a good model to adopt?

    We are told that children should make about 2 sub-levels progress per year. Based on a child attaining 2b at KS1 SATs and 4b at KS2, that's 2 levels over 4 years, which is half a level per year. But sub-levels are in thirds! So actual expected progress should be 1 and a half sub-levels per year.

    The current levelling system is as bad as pounds shillings and pence (apologies to anyone who had to learn that system but what a waste of time). The simpler you make a process, the more effective it can be.

    So to my point. Why do they not rewrite the levels to correspond to years in school? A Y4 child would be expected to attain Level 4, Y6 would by Level 6. Furthermore we could sub-level by term (Autumn is C, Spring is B, Summer is A). Everyone would be able to see where pupils were at in relation to expected attainment.
    Not that I'm in favour of much of the sytem anyway, but at least this way would be clearer and simpler.
     
  3. There is some flexibilty - just - in the system - so why not do that yourself? Average progress is in fact an 11 - 13% progress per year. If one makes that 13 or 15% then one is offering challenging targets with measurable outcomes. It depends on your school and the cohort but you could, in your subject area, be displaying challenging aspirations.
     

Share This Page