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 education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

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

    Dismiss Notice

Standards in TES News

Discussion in 'Education news' started by Vince_Ulam, Sep 8, 2018.

  1. Vince_Ulam

    Vince_Ulam Star commenter

    Thank you.
     
    Jamvic likes this.
  2. TES_Rosaline

    TES_Rosaline Administrator Staff Member

    Jamvic likes this.
  3. colpee

    colpee Star commenter

  4. gainly

    gainly Lead commenter

    Just as a point of interest, if I type NCTs into Google none of the entries, at least in the first five pages, relate to these tests. If I type in SATs all the entries relate to these tests.
     
    nervousned likes this.
  5. markuss

    markuss Occasional commenter

    Fake news spreads.

    One way in which it self perpetuates is that people write the terms that they expect others (knowing no better) to put into search engines. It happens a lot.

    Between you, you're hazarding "Sats", SATS", and "SATs". Three different notions. The correct spelling is "NCTs".
     
  6. chelsea2

    chelsea2 Star commenter

    Really? And your evidence for that is.....?
    Most primaries are too small to be able to set children, even if they wanted to.
    Mixed ability classes are the norm in the most primaries. I have not seen evidence that this results in lower results. Have you?
     
    bevdex likes this.
  7. install

    install Star commenter

    Yes I have. Sadly many students come out of primary schools with poor reading and writing skills. Many secondaries retest them first thing because of doubt over the 'grades' achieved.

    Maybe primaries need to improve their approach if they truly teach mixed ability all the time. No wonder some primaries cannot cope.
    It would raise results if they setted - even in small schools like the ones you describe.
     
  8. chelsea2

    chelsea2 Star commenter

    There is no research evidence which indicates primary pupils do better when 'setted'. In fact, I'm not sure there's evidence that pupils of ANY age do better when setted, although I can understand why schools do so, and would advocate it for some subjects at secondary level. It certainly makes teachers' lives easier!

    And it is just not true that 'many' pupils leave primary with poor reading and writing skills. Some do. Some can read and write better than children 3 years older. Normal distribution curve.

    I haven't noticed that secondary schools, including those who set, have been more successful in teaching the lower achieving pupils.
     
    Rott Weiler likes this.
  9. install

    install Star commenter

    In my experience you are completely and totally wrong . Primary Teacher Assessments and KS2 results have been totally unreliable when they are picked up by some secondaries - year on year. And when Reading Ages are tested in secondaries its a very telling story - often leaving doubt about some KS2 Teacher Assessments in the past.

    Many secondaries set in some subjects to fix the damage done in some mixed ability.classes in prmaries. Its not too long ago the Govt considered paying Secondaries.to play 'catch up' in Yr 7..after poor primary outcomes in mixed ability classes.


    Some Primaries.sadly.teach to the exams now in much of Yr 6 .- maybe in the hope they will save things.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2018
  10. chelsea2

    chelsea2 Star commenter

    If you read my post I made no comment whatsoever about the validity or otherwise of SATs results. Teaching to the tests in Y6 is done for obvious reasons - league tables, OFSTED, performance related pay - NOT because teachers wish to do it, believe me.

    Show me the evidence which proves that primary pupils do better in setted classes. I have looked. I can find none, In most cases, the conclusion of research is - it makes no difference.

    Even in secondary:
    A large correlational study in the UK found no overall effects on GCSE performance of setting in English, mathematics or science. However, disadvantaged pupils are likely to do relatively worse when in sets organised by attainment.

    https://educationendowmentfoundatio...aching-learning-toolkit/setting-or-streaming/

    I'm amazed that you're quoting what the government planned to do with their aborted 'catch-up' classes - they have a great track record of improving education in recent times! And any 'catch-up' planned was NOTHING to do with whether the pupils had been taught in sets or mixed-ability at primary school. It was to do with the fact that, despite our best efforts, some children could not reach the arbitrary 'expected standard' for 11 year olds. It used to be the 'average' standard - therefore you'd expect some children to be unable to achieve it.

    And I'll ask again: how successful are these lower-achieving pupils when taught in sets at secondary schools? I believe the evidence shows they do even worse than when at primary - even when bench-marked afresh at the start of secondary. So, it's far from 'fixing the damage', as you so offensively put it.

    So - why not provide me with the evidence that setting produces better outcomes than mixed-ability teaching, particularly at primary.
     
    JohnJCazorla, Rott Weiler and bevdex like this.
  11. install

    install Star commenter

    Lol. Tell that to Grammar schools ...they might believe you when they select their students for their classes . I doubt they will want all of those mixed abilities you seem to be so keen.to say works...:rolleyes:
     
  12. chelsea2

    chelsea2 Star commenter

    I'm not saying it - the evidence says it.

    Setting is easier for the teacher (I know - I've taught in primaries where we have had maths sets). Research evidence indicates it has no academic impact on the pupils, especially at primary level.

    And it would be impossible in many primaries, anyway. Many already have mixed-age classes because they are small. I have supported in a school with 60 pupils:
    Reception/Y1 class
    Y2/3 class
    Y4/5/6 class

    How do you suggest such pupils are setted?

    You do know that work in primary schools is often heavily differentiated, don't you, to stretch children of all abilities? There's no need to set, and you have the flexibility of tailoring the work to the child, not the child to the work.
     
    Rott Weiler likes this.
  13. install

    install Star commenter

    [QUOTIOE="chelsea2, post: 12607254, member: 544340"]I'm not saying it - the evidence says it.

    Setting is easier for the teacher (I know - I've taught in primaries where we have had maths sets). Research evidence indicates it has no academic impact on the pupils, especially at primary level.

    And it would be impossible in many primaries, anyway. Many already have mixed-age classes because they are small. I have supported in a school with 60 pupils:
    Reception/Y1 class
    Y2/3 class
    Y4/5/6 class

    How do you suggest such pupils are setted?

    You do know that work in primary schools is often heavily differentiated, don't you, to stretch children of all abilities? There's no need to set, and you have the flexibility of tailoring the work to the child, not the child to the work.[/QUOTE]I am not sure what you are arguing? The evidence shows many primaries fail in the UK. You do know that don't you - despite their efforts to differentiate? Primaries do struggle awfully..

    If you need ideas on setting visit some Sec schools. You do know they raise student achievement from their low attainment levels gained at Primaries.
     
  14. chelsea2

    chelsea2 Star commenter

    Many primaries fail? Primaries struggle awfully?
    Where is your evidence? I am frankly open-mouthed.
    Have you ever taught in a primary school?
    There are poor primaries as there are poor secondaries - but there are more good or outstanding primaries than secondaries.

    At the end of August 2017, 89% of schools were judged to be good or outstanding at their most recent inspection: the same proportion as at the end of the previous year. Grades remain higher for primary schools (90% good or outstanding) than for secondary schools (79% good or outstanding).
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ills/ofsted-annual-report-201617-data-summary

    Well, I would hope they WOULD raise achievement in 5 years!

    However, in terms of 'closing the gaps' - no, I don't know. My understanding was that children who perform at a low level at primary fall further behind at secondary.

    This report focuses on KS3, but contradicts the claims you are making:
    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/...data/.../Key_Stage_3_the_wasted_years.doc

    Some key quotes:

    In his Annual Report 2013/14, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector reported that primary schools had continued to improve but the performance of secondary schools had stalled.1 The report noted that one of the major contributory factors to this was that, too often, the transition from primary to secondary school was poorly handled. Consequently, the gains made by pupils at primary school were not embedded and developed at Key Stage 3.

    Inspectors reported concerns about Key Stage 3 in one in five of the routine inspections analysed, particularly in relation to the slow progress made in English and mathematics and the lack of challenge for the most able pupils.

    Inspectors found that too manysecondaryschools did not work effectively with partner primary schools to understand pupils’ prior learning and ensure that they built on this during Key Stage 3. Worryingly, some secondary leaders simply accepted that pupils would repeat what they had already done in primary school during the early part of Key Stage 3, particularly in Year 7.

    It was evident that some school leaders did not use the pupil premium effectively in Key Stage 3 to ensure that gaps between disadvantaged pupils and their peers continued to close on transition to secondary school. Instead, any additional support was typically focused on intervention activities in Key Stage 4, which often sought to compensate for ineffective practice in the earlier years of secondary education.



    You have made a lot of claims about poor primary practice, but haven't substantiated any of them.

    And all the evidence indicates that setting or mixed-ability - the outcomes are the same.
     
    harsh-but-fair likes this.
  15. install

    install Star commenter

    Open mouthed? Are you seriously using a 2013 report -some 5 years old as your evidence ?

    You do know that Secondaries don't just teach English and Maths - the subjects referenced? You do know GCSE results rose in those years and the years following ? Your point is flawed.

    And Now- in 2018.
    The Govt is seriously concerned about the results of Yr6 students. You have conveniently rejected the point about money put on offer to all Secondaries to improve poor Primary Outcomes?.You do know student failure is happening now ?

    Your evidence is outdated. When Govts offer money to improve year 6 outcomes, that is evidence for me of where things are now. Seriously get into Secondary schools - see what they do with do now with failing mixed ability students in all subjects. You will be even more surprised..
     
  16. chelsea2

    chelsea2 Star commenter

    OK - find me the more recent evidence which refutes what that report says.

    It's hard to compare primary and secondary results & progress in subjects other than English and maths (and science) as there is no primary data to use. And I'm not sure how this is relevant to the results of setting or otherwise.

    Show me where the government has said it's seriously concerned about the results of Y6 students. Despite the stakes being raised enormously with a more difficult curriculum and tests in English & maths, leading (as expected) to an initial dip in results, they are improving again.
    %age achieving a scaled score of 100 or more:

    2016: Reading - 66%; Writing - 74%; Maths - 70%; SPaG - 72%
    2018: Reading - 75%; Writing - 78%; Maths - 76%; SPaG - 78%

    Can you please provide evidence that secondary schools close the gap between lower achieving students and the rest.

    Can you please provide evidence that this progress is greater in schools which set.

    Can you please provide evidence for the many disparaging claims you have made about primary schools.

    Can you please suggest how small primary schools with mixed age classes and 100 pupils or less can set, even if they wanted to.

    Can you please provide evidence that setting pupils improves outcomes.
     
  17. install

    install Star commenter

    So having provided no realistic evidence - and being heavily reliant on 5 yr old reports - you want some from me? Ok.

    1 GCSE results year on year
    2 A level results year on year
    3 Money being offered to Sec schools to raise the poor results gained from yr6 students
     
  18. blazer

    blazer Star commenter

    Only a small sample but the 3 or 4 primaries I have supplied in all had setting of one description or another. Some had 'table' where the kids were grouped and given tasks differentiated to their level. In other with more than one class at each year kids would move classrooms for subjects like Maths and English according to ability.
     
    install likes this.
  19. install

    install Star commenter

    Yes - I have seen setting in bigger primaries and it works well. The problem with differentiation for some primaries who stick to the single mixed ability approach, can be that there are too many layers of attempted differentiation reliant on too many worksheets. All smoke and mirrors sometimes in some mixed ability classes. But not all.
     
  20. bessiesmith

    bessiesmith Occasional commenter

    For both these statements to be true, that implies to me that some groups of pupils (most likely the higher ability) do better through setting, to off-set the fact that there are no overall effects on results despite the fact that one group (the disadvantaged) do worse.

    My observational evidence supports this - mixed ability is better for the lower ability (bottom sets are often dispiriting and lack any aspirations) but setting allows the higher ability to move on more quickly.
     
    install likes this.

Share This Page