Age 11 rankings..

[Westyfield2]

The idea is though is that the government plans to tell parents how their child has performed nationally and where they are ranked nationally. In schools, for streaming purposes, it is all relative. I went to a grammar school and was in the bottom set for maths, but that was relative to my school. In a different school I would have been in a higher set.
I now work in a primary school where we do set for maths (we have 4 classes in a year group so it works for us).

This amused me back at secondary school. From what I remember our maths setup was:

• 1x Top Top Set
• 2x Top Set
• 3x Middle Set
• 1x Bottom Set

I was in "Top Top" set.

Someone moved to our school from another school (rough area about 20 miles away), and their old school told ours that she was "Top Top" set, and literally the cleverest kid in the school. Within a day it was obvious that she wasn't up with us lot, a week later she'd been moved down to "Top" set, and a month later she was in middle set. Shame really, she was better looking than most in our class .

 

[Raymond Lin]

There's a difference between telling a child (or their parents) that they need to work a bit harder to achieve the level expected of them at a certain age (which is what happens at the moment) and telling them they are in the bottom 20% of children in the country.

I also doubt there are many children who think they are 'amazing' and need their ego checked when it comes to academic ability. Most kids are pretty honest with themselves about their own capabilities.

Facts are facts. Sugar coat it how you want, but if your child is in the bottom 20% of the country then he/she is in the bottom 20% of the country, you can't deny it, just because they don't do the tests/ranking doesn't mean it isn't true, you are just not aware of it, ignorance is bliss and all that. If they do have the ranking then perhaps then you can then look closer to the data to see how many points he/she needs to get up to 50% average. The difference may be minimal, so you know he only has to work that little bit harder and is well within the child's capabilities if only a little effort is applied, perhaps 1 hour of Playstation a night instead of 2.

It is better than thinking the child is doing fine, and living in a dream world. The sooner you know the child is falling behind the national average then the more time you have to make up the difference. We all want our children to have a better lives than ourselves and education is the key. Yes, you can have an entire debate to the whole system is set up to learn how to pass exams and all that but the fact of the matter is that is the name of the game whether you like it or not.

So, when if I have a child, and if he is the smartest in the school, and wants to get into Oxford, but if he know nationally he is not in the top 10% then at least he knows has some work to do if he wants to get into Oxford and not rest on his laurels, even if he is top of his class. Sure there are always children who does not care what grades/ranking they get, but how those children read into the data is down to them.

 

[Irish_Tom]

The absolute frustration that the kids who ****ed about in every class and did the bare minimum to tick the pass/merit/distinction criteria 2 weeks late got EXACTLY the same qualification as the ones who worked hard, paid attention and handed in well written and structured pieces of work on time, or even early.

Sounds like the school wasn't supporting you enough!

Facts are facts.

It is better than thinking the child is doing fine, and living in a dream world. The sooner you know the child is falling behind the national average then the more time you have to make up the difference.

The facts haven't changed – it's the presentation of the data which is being changed by this proposal to shift the focus from the individual to a national competition.

It's the difference between an out-and-out race and a time trial against your own personal best.

It's already been said in this thread that competition doesn't motivate everyone, especially at 11 years of age and especially with academic subjects.

All this proposed change seems to be is to make the SATs grade a little more granular, breaking it into 10 grades. As a parent I appreciate as much information about my child's performance as possible so I can help in areas where she is weak and encourage areas where she is strong.

I appreciate that parents want as much information about their child as possible. I just don't think that changing the banding from eight levels to 10 and comparing those levels to other children rather than an attainment target is going to help you help your child any more than the current system does.

 

[Raymond Lin]

The facts haven't changed – it's the presentation of the data which is being changed by this proposal to shift the focus from the individual to a national competition.

It's the difference between an out-and-out race and a time trial against your own personal best.

It's already been said in this thread that competition doesn't motivate everyone, especially at 11 years of age and especially with academic subjects.

And I repeat my point

It is better than thinking the child is doing fine, and living in a dream world. The sooner you know the child is falling behind the national average then the more time you have to make up the difference. We all want our children to have a better lives than ourselves and education is the key. Yes, you can have an entire debate to the whole system is set up to learn how to pass exams and all that but the fact of the matter is that is the name of the game whether you like it or not.

So, when if I have a child, and if he is the smartest in the school, and wants to get into Oxford, but if he know nationally he is not in the top 10% then at least he knows has some work to do if he wants to get into Oxford and not rest on his laurels, even if he is top of his class. Sure there are always children who does not care what grades/ranking they get, but how those children read into the data is down to them.

I'd rather know than don't.

If you don't care then don't read the rankings, continue to live in a small pond, eventually the child will need to face the world and the world is much bigger than his class.

 

[Irish_Tom]

And I repeat my point

I rather know than don't.

And I'll repeat my point:

You do (or should) know that already.

Bear in mind, it's not just Key Stage Attainment Levels in isolation, you will know about your child's ability through parents' evenings, end-of-term reports and (hopefully) your own interaction with your child.

 

[Raymond Lin]

And I'll repeat my point:

You do (or should) know that already.

Bear in mind, it's not just Key Stage Attainment Levels in isolation, you will know about your child's ability through parents' evenings, end-of-term reports and (hopefully) your own interaction with your child.

But that is in the context of his school, not nationally.

Small pond.

 

[Haggisman]

Sounds like the school wasn't supporting you enough!

No, in fact it was their policies that meant it was like that. Students would be given multiple chances to hand in the same assignment, have it marked and make the changes (basically given till the end of the year to keep redoing an assignment until they got a distinction).

All due to the fact that if a student left part way through the year, we'd only get paid for the terms they were there, if a student didn't pass at the end of the year we would get paid less, and if a student didn't achieve a certain grade, we'd be paid less. "Yay" for performance rated pay...

All the while the more able and willing kids losing out due to government targets.

It's the difference between an out-and-out race and a time trial against your own personal best.

That would be great if there were an infinite number of jobs, and all you had to do was meet X, Y, and Z criteria to get one, unfortunately, the harsh reality of life is that you have to be better than the next guy to get that job.

It's already been said in this thread that competition doesn't motivate everyone, especially at 11 years of age and especially with academic subjects.

It doesn't necessarily need to motivate the kids - that should come down to the parents, and finding out that little Timmy isn't doing as well as he keeps telling you could be just the trigger needed for mummy and daddy to pull their finger out.

I just don't think that changing the banding from eight levels to 10 and comparing those levels to other children rather than an attainment target is going to help you help your child any more than the current system does.

Again, an attainment target is great as a benchmark, but like it or not, life is a competition. The ultimate aim of education is to put the students in a position to be able to get a decent job to support themselves and their family. They may have reached an arbitrary target, but if everyone else is miles ahead of that target it's about as useful as a waterproof teabag.

 

[Irish_Tom]

But that is in the context of his school, not nationally.

Small pond.

No, it's in the context of nationally agreed Key Stage Attainment Levels.

If you don't know that your child is Oxbridge material without being told they are in the top 10% of their peer group in an assessment report, the whole system (including you as a parent) are failing miserably.

Why is it so important for you to compare your child nationally? What's wrong with knowing that they are doing their best?

 

[Raymond Lin]

No, it's in the context of nationally agreed Key Stage Attainment Levels.

If you don't know that your child is Oxbridge material without being told they are in the top 10% of their peer group in an assessment report, the whole system (including you as a parent) are failing miserably.

Why is it so important for you to compare your child nationally? What's wrong with knowing that they are doing their best?

Unless the child studies attends every class with 100% attendances, after school home work all completed, after school tuition, weekend study group, summer schools.

Then they are not doing their best. You can always work harder if you want better grades. Getting an E in Maths and think "it's fine, he is doing his best" when he is spending his evenings at home on Facebook, that is the failing on both the parents and the child.

"just doing their best" is just an excuse of saying doing just enough, and think that is their best.

 

[Irish_Tom]

No, in fact it was their policies that meant it was like that. Students would be given multiple chances to hand in the same assignment, have it marked and make the changes (basically given till the end of the year to keep redoing an assignment until they got a distinction)…

That's sort of what I meant. Not all schools are like that, sounds like a pretty poor school.

That would be great if there were an infinite number of jobs, and all you had to do was meet X, Y, and Z criteria to get one, unfortunately, the harsh reality of life is that you have to be better than the next guy to get that job.

True to a degree but not many 11 year olds are looking for work and a lot can change between 11 and employment age. You're not going to get a job (or not get one) because you were 'only' in the top 80% of children it the country at age 11.

It doesn't necessarily need to motivate the kids - that should come down to the parents, and finding out that little Timmy isn't doing as well as he keeps telling you could be just the trigger needed for mummy and daddy to pull their finger out.

What is it about the current system that doesn't identify these issues?

Again, an attainment target is great as a benchmark, but like it or not, life is a competition. The ultimate aim of education is to put the students in a position to be able to get a decent job to support themselves and their family. They may have reached an arbitrary target, but if everyone else is miles ahead of that target it's about as useful as a waterproof teabag.

I wouldn't say they were arbitrary but they should certainly be reviewed frequently.

Unless the child studies attends every class with 100% attendances, after school home work all completed, after school tuition, weekend study group, summer schools.

Then they are not doing their best. You can always work harder if you want better grades. Getting an E in Maths and think "it's fine, he is doing his best" when he is spending his evenings at home on Facebook, that is the failing on both the parents and the child.

"just doing their best" is just an excuse of saying doing just enough, and think that is their best.

I know there is a cultural difference here, but I think that's quite a sad outlook. There's so much more to life than working every hour of every day.

Academic ability is not the be-all and end-all of a successful and well-spent life.

 

[Irish_Tom]

Double Post.

 

[Raymond Lin]

I know there is a cultural difference here, but I think that's quite a sad outlook. There's so much more to life than working every hour of every day.

Academic ability is not the be-all and end-all of a successful and well-spent life.

Don't play the culture card, this has nothing to do with that.

If he actually studies and still not getting those A's or B's, then may be that's how far his abilities can take him. However, if you child spends his evening on Facebook or playing on the iPad and getting D's & E's and you still think he is doing his best then you are fooling yourself.

 

[Judgeneo]

What about those who spend all night on messing around and still get A's and B's? The concept of a child near constantly working is quite alien to me.

 

[Raymond Lin]

What about those who spend all night on messing around and still get A's and B's? The concept of a child near constantly working is quite alien to me.

And if he natually gets A's and top 1% nationally without picking up a single book then he is set for life practically.

The point is being better than the next person, if you want to be, if you want your child to be.

If you don't care and is happy as everything stands than that is your perogative. However, why deny the option to those that wants to know?

 

[Haggisman]

True to a degree but not many 11 year olds are looking for work and a lot can change between 11 and employment age. You're not going to get a job (or not get one) because you were 'only' in the top 80% of children it the country at age 11.

identifying a potential problem at 11 gives 5-7 years to address it before the child will be looking at work/uni. Attitudes to learning & work ethic aren't going to change overnight. Or do you suggest waiting till they actually leave school, start applying for jobs, and then realise it's a bit too late to start studying a bit more?

What is it about the current system that doesn't identify these issues?

because it only compares to the student's school (which may in itself compare poorly to the rest of the country).

I know there is a cultural difference here, but I think that's quite a sad outlook. There's so much more to life than working every hour of every day.

I'd actually argue that you're looking at it the wrong way. Who's more likely to have to work every hour of every day in a job they don't enjoy? The person who gets good grades, performs well, and gets a decent paid job at the end of it, or the person who messes about in school, ends up with no a-levels and a poor GNVQ, and ends up as a cleaner or stacking shelves?

Academic ability is not the be-all and end-all of a successful and well-spent life.

I'm not trying to argue that at all - in fact I mentioned in a previous post that it's a stupid idea to encourage people to go to university and do a pointless degree when a vocational qualification would be far more useful to them.

Unfortunately however, having an acceptable quality of life in our current society requires a certain amount of money. While it's not the be all and end all, a lack of money is definitely a massive barrier to a "successful and well-spent life."

I'm certainly not someone who "lives to work", and in fact I'll confess to not being the greatest student when I was at school, I did however get a massive kick up the **** by my mum when I barely passed my A-levels and realised if I didn't want to be stuck in a dead-end job, I'd better do something about it ASAP.

Now due to several years of hard work, I have a well paid job in a great company who are extremely flexible, and I have loads of time to spend with my little boy - who I will be making sure learns the value of putting in the effort in order to reap the rewards later in life

 

[Irish_Tom]

Don't play the culture card, this has nothing to do with that.

Fine.

If he actually studies and still not getting those A's or B's, then may be that's how far his abilities can take him. However, if you child spends his evening on Facebook or playing on the iPad and getting D's & E's and you still think he is doing his best then you are fooling yourself.

I have never suggested that a child who spends every evening on Facebook is doing their best or couldn't do better but equally spending some time on the computer isn't going to do them any harm.

However, that's completely off topic so I'll try and pull it back:

If your child is spending all their free time on Facebook and their grades start to slip or they aren't reaching their expected attainment level you're going to know about it under the current system anyway.

 

[antijoke]

League tables and targets and all that guff should not be anywhere near education.

All education is now is training for someone to pass a test, I think the whole system needs a complete re-think.

 

[Irish_Tom]

We're going around in circles here but anyway:

identifying a potential problem at 11 gives 5-7 years to address it before the child will be looking at work/uni. Attitudes to learning & work ethic aren't going to change overnight. Or do you suggest waiting till they actually leave school, start applying for jobs, and then realise it's a bit too late to start studying a bit more?

You can (and they do) identify those issues under the current system. Of course I'm not suggesting kids should be ignored until it's too late.

because it only compares to the student's school (which may in itself compare poorly to the rest of the country).

Which is completely untrue. They are national levels to which all schools are supposed to assess their students by.

Individual schools don't make up their own Key Stage Attainment Levels.

I'd actually argue that you're looking at it the wrong way. Who's more likely to have to work every hour of every day in a job they don't enjoy? The person who gets good grades, performs well, and gets a decent paid job at the end of it, or the person who messes about in school, ends up with no a-levels and a poor GNVQ, and ends up as a cleaner or stacking shelves?

I'm arguing for a balance, not either or.

I'm not trying to argue that at all - in fact I mentioned in a previous post that it's a stupid idea to encourage people to go to university and do a pointless degree when a vocational qualification would be far more useful to them.

I know you're not, Raymond is. I agree with you entirely about vocational qualifications.

Unfortunately however, having an acceptable quality of life in our current society requires a certain amount of money. While it's not the be all and end all, a lack of money is definitely a massive barrier to a "successful and well-spent life."

I'm certainly not someone who "lives to work", and in fact I'll confess to not being the greatest student when I was at school, I did however get a massive kick up the **** by my mum when I barely passed my A-levels and realised if I didn't want to be stuck in a dead-end job, I'd better do something about it ASAP.

Now due to several years of hard work, I have a well paid job in a great company who are extremely flexible, and I have loads of time to spend with my little boy - who I will be making sure learns the value of putting in the effort in order to reap the rewards later in life

That's a great success story and I expect it chimes with a lot of people (myself included). I kicked myself up the arse when I nearly failed my A/S levels after getting A*s and As a GCSE.

However, the current system of Key Stage Levels is not hindering the communication of a child's ability to them and their parents.

 

[Mason-]

We should take a leaf out of Finland's book when it comes to education.

 

[Biohazard]

So you think it's a good thing that the learning of hard working students with the right attitude is hampered by disruptive students?

Do you think it's right that the students with behavioural problems/learning issues are lumped in with the rest of the class and just left to struggle along without any extra support?

That would be a position that I don't recognise in the first instance so it's hardly something I could class as acceptable.

Nor have I said anything about learning support, although I would like to see more done to integrate it into the normal class room where appropriate again to prevent segregation and derision.