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

what happens to children who don't get level 4+ in primary schools?

Discussion in 'Primary' started by mrstodd, Jul 12, 2011.

  1. I am working on some staff training around assessment and I want to make it a bit more 'real' than just explaining how many points progress a child needs to make in a year etc.
    I know that there are statistics 'out there' about the longer term prospects for children who don't get level 4+ at primary school but I can't find them! I'd like us to all think about the longer term implications of a child not achieving at primary school to motivate us further in really trying everything we can to help all children attain as highly as they can. Do any of you know where I might find some information about longer term outcomes, maybe in terms of employment, homelessness, prison, etc? (I do know that 'getting a level 4' isn't the be-all-and-end-all but it IS a key factor in influencing what happens next in a young persons life)
     
  2. I am working on some staff training around assessment and I want to make it a bit more 'real' than just explaining how many points progress a child needs to make in a year etc.
    I know that there are statistics 'out there' about the longer term prospects for children who don't get level 4+ at primary school but I can't find them! I'd like us to all think about the longer term implications of a child not achieving at primary school to motivate us further in really trying everything we can to help all children attain as highly as they can. Do any of you know where I might find some information about longer term outcomes, maybe in terms of employment, homelessness, prison, etc? (I do know that 'getting a level 4' isn't the be-all-and-end-all but it IS a key factor in influencing what happens next in a young persons life)
     
  3. becktonboy

    becktonboy New commenter

    how do/could you know this? nothing happens to them at secondary school as a result and the levels are themselves so wildly unreliable as to be virtually useless.
    I don't think SATs and REALity are happy bedfellows.
     
  4. Cervinia

    Cervinia Occasional commenter

    Do you actually think the difference between little Michael turning into a smackhead or not is the difference between a 3a and a 4c in year 6 tests? Don't make a fool of yourself in front of your staff by pretending so.
     
  5. lardylegs

    lardylegs Occasional commenter

    Burger King or Bailiol.
     
  6. lardylegs

    lardylegs Occasional commenter

    meant Balliol!
     
  7. How well a child does in their SATs in Y6 is a very good indicator of the level they achieve in their Y6 SATs.
    As far as government statistics are concerned 3a and below is a complete failure and a write off likely to end up in prison or on the dole. 4c and up is the average child.
    As far as I am concerned, every child is different. Einstein was a failure at school, as was Richard Branson. Two of my friends left uni with top degrees and have done nothing useful since.
    Let the children develop at their own rate. We must do the best we can for all children. Level 4c is a purely arbitrary yardstick invented by an uncaring authority who wished to for some statistics to beat teachers with. I'd forget this line of research.
     
  8. mystery10

    mystery10 Occasional commenter

    Ask on the secondary thread about streaming / setting in secondary, whether it correlates in any way to year 6 results, and outcomes at 16/18 from the different sets. My impression is that your set / stream at secondary can be quite influential in how you do at 16 / 18.
    I don't think quoting the Branson and Einstein examples is that useful. I don't think there are that many people who do really badly at school at 16/18 and then are mega-successful. I don't think we are talking about going to prison or not, but the difference between feeling working life would have been better if one had achieved better at school, or knowing that one did the best one possibly could have done.
    And if you turn up at secondary with a level 2 in reading, you're not going to suddenly blossom academically are you?
     
  9. becktonboy

    becktonboy New commenter

    my point was that KS2 SAT results are so unreliable that coming out of primary with a level 3, 4 or 5 is pretty well meaningless, any setting done by secondaries had better be done by their own assessment methods if their own work is not to be badly affected. Perhaps correlations could be found between A-C grades achieved by schools and the extent to which they ignored KS2 SAT levels passed on by primaries?
    true enough but if you turn up with a level 4 it certainly doesn't mean you will either, which kind of invalidates the process. IQ tests were even simpler than SATs and were mainly discredited because of their inaccuracy and uselessnesss as a basis for future development.
    Richard Branson is living proof of the value of being born into a rich family.
     
  10. I fully agree that the 'scores' or 'Levels' are unimportant in themselves but it is critically important that pupils master all of the basic education skills before they graduate to secondary school - most importantly, the literacy skills! The acquisition of skills, unlike the assimilation of concepts', is not dependent of IQ and it is therefore entirely possible (and extremely important) that all normally endowed children are fully literate before they confront a secondary school curriculum. Any child that has mastered the literacy skills (reading, writing, spelling, grammar, listening etc) should get a Level 4 English with little difficulty. As someone who is retired from teaching, I know from much personal research that mastery of literacy skills is possible for virtually all children.


     
  11. i am living proof that failure in school (primary and secondary) does not mean failure in life - throughout primary school i struggled with every aspect, my school reports make for sad reading - in secondary i went through that rebellious stage and left with no qualifications but now as an adult i am a fully qualified teacher - i had to return to education a number of times to build up my qualifications, while bringing up a family of my own and holding down a job to bring in the money. i would have been 'written off' - so i never give up hope on any of the children in my class, they will be what they want to be.
     
  12. Those children who do not achieve level 4 are shot at the leavers assembly so that our local secondary school only has the most talented children.
    This is done using a compressed gas cannon which contains stacks of NCT papers and their revision books that they have been completing since the Christmas of their Reception year.
    They had the whole autumn term to get used to school and then the revision began.
    Simple.
     
  13. The number of children who leave school less than functionally literate has always been consistently the same number of children that achieve Level 3 English or lower at Key Stage 2 so I would imagine they must be the same children. The disadvantages associated with illiteracy are well known but less well recognised is the horrendous damage to these children's self-esteem - all very sad especially when it is entirely unnecessary!
     
  14. The Literacy coordinator of our local secondary school came in yesterday and together we sat and set the children for Year 7. Yes we used their Sats results but she also relies heavily on a frank input from me, that often runs along the lines of 'Got L4 but is really a 3A so put him in Set 3/ achieved a 5 but isn't top set material' etc etc. It's a good system, she says it works and last year they didn't have to move anyone - and I feel that I've delivered a more honest and accurate assessment of each child
     
  15. Milgod

    Milgod Established commenter

    How horrible.

    Our children are just tarred and feathered. A much more humane way of humiliating them.
     
  16. lol @ Milgod and Bekseb
    [​IMG]

     
  17. Wotton

    Wotton Occasional commenter

    Well my daughter only got a 3 at ks2 but achieved A's B's and one C at GCSE that included B and C in English. Alot is down to the provision and support in secondary and having high expectations of all children.
     
  18. mystery10

    mystery10 Occasional commenter

    I'm a former secondary teacher and a parent. I wouldn't want with either hat on the year 6 teacher telling me that a child had got a level 5 but wasn't top set material. Unless of course in that particular school the top set was made up of children with Level 6s. I don't really know how a year 6 teacher can know what top set material is in maths at a school they don't teach at? How does the school who likes this advice know that it was the correct advice ...... they didn't have to move anyone ........... what are their criteria for moving children?
    If a child does better than you expect in an external test, then maybe this tells you something extra about that child that for some reason you may not have gathered about them despite teaching them all day every day for a year. It is just possible that teachers do not know everything about the children they teach including their future capabilities. Teachers are frequently wrong and do not generally have the benefit of much information about a child once they passed out of their hands to know how right or wrong they were. I also think we should avoid influencing others too much with our opinion of a child. It's the same with parents - we know how our child behaves and performs at home but they can be completely different in other situations. However, if a child is capable of a good performance once in a while then they are capable of that performance unless it was "faked" in some way.
    IMHO more children suffer from people expecting too little of them, not from people expecting too much, and there are few children who are really going to go out of their way to prove that their setting was wrong. If they are the types to do the minimum to get by they are going to match up with whatever set they are put in. Or they can feel instantly demoralised and a bit thick because of the set they are put in. Put them in the bottom set and see if they prove you wrong.
    End result - I'm sure there are plenty of students in middlish sets at GCSE (I've met them) who are bright enough to be in a top set but don't work very hard in lessons (because it's a middle set and they can still understand what's going on while talking to their friends 75% of the time and no-one has ever expected great things of them) and don't do as well as they might have done as a result - e.g. take maths as an example where frequently there are textbooks which match the set you are in and limit the complexity of what you cover.
    If secondary setting is done now at the beginning of year 7 by talking to the year 6 teacher at a lot of schools then aaaaaaaaaaargh.
     
  19. anon2799

    anon2799 New commenter

    All the secondaries I've ever fed to do CATS in the first 2 weeks of the Autumn term and use them to set.
    Levels mean very little. We just play the game because we have to, and it's a complete waste of time.
    A child who achieves level 3 is written off as a failure, yet for that child a level 3 can be the most fantastic achievement.
    Plenty of my parent community would struggle to achieve a level 3 in reading and writing - I know, if I levelled the ranty letters I get from time to time (most of which make absolutely no sense at all) they would struggle to achieve a level 2. If the offspring of illiterate parents who do not value education and spend their entire lives in a drug addled fug, manage to achieve a level 3, in spite of growing up in the most challenging of circumstances, then I for one am delighted and sod what Michael Gove thinks.
    Pupils are with us 15% of their lives, and we do our damndest to get them to be the best they can be, in spite of the pretty awful lives that many lead outisde school - some idiot somewhere has decided on an arbitary level which renders them failures aged 10 or 11. As a society we should be ashamed we accept this.
    Sorry - that became a bit of a rant.
     
  20. mystery10

    mystery10 Occasional commenter

    How well do CATs measure ability as opposed to using whatever one has been taught (or learned) to date? On the face of it, I would imagine they are a better measure of future potential than English and Maths KS2 SATs, but are they in reality much better?
    For example I know of a grammar school that does maths sets based on CATs, but you still get a few children in the bottom set doing much better in the National Maths Challenge than many top set children. How does that happen?
     

Share This Page