My daughter came home last night with a slip of paper showing what grades she was predicted to get by year 11. In her case it was B's for all subjects.
This of course leads to a load of undue stress because "X and Y friends are predicted A*s"
To me this just doesn't seem right - firstly how on earth can they predict the grades of children in 5 yrs time. Children can change massively in that period (for better or worse).
They've only been there a few weeks, and in my daughters case and no doubt many others, it's been a massive leap from a small primary of 70 kids to a school of 1500.
And how can it be a good thing to hand these out in open class. A sealed letter to parents maybe. But not soon after starting secondary school - she's now got the 'I'm thick' mindset to battle with before she's started.
That's extraordinary, never heard of anything like that.
Yes, been there
It was to do with an iq type test when they all started
Midyis or something
They're 'targets' based on her performance in her year 6 SATS and the observations that her teachers have made during this term.
The school and teachers are now judged on progress against the predicted grade/targets throughout the child's school career.
Our son and daughters school worked on a traffic light system in their online reporting against these grades.
It's all about making 2 levels of progress each key strage these days. If your kid looks like they're achieving that they'll be largely ignored 🙁
Our eldest's school has just done the same. Based on her SATs results, she's expected to get an A*+, which doesn't even exist.
The kids will have a minimum target grade, based on so many sub-levels of progress per year from their Key Stage 2 SATs. Schools are judged on how much progress their students make, which inevitably leads to pressure on the kids.
The teacher isn't really predicting that grade, they're entering the current attainment into a spreadsheet which assumes linear progression through the time at school and spits out a prediction.
All part of the wonderful education system that years of meddling education ministers have produced. Children are numbers entered into Reception and they're processed through to the end of Year 11.
It's all about making 2 levels of progress each key strage these days. If your kid looks like they're achieving that they'll be largely ignored
That would just be expected progress which, under our current masters, is not good enough - children are expected to make more than expected progress. In the same way, Ofsted are not satisfied with satisfactory.
My daughter came home last night with a slip of paper showing what grades she was predicted to get by year 11
This is how secondary school teachers are assessed. Primary school teacher grade them as they go to secondary school and secondary school teachers then have to improve on those grades (known as value added). The obvious failing point is primary school teachers giving inflated grade to make their teaching look good.
It's all about making 2 levels of progress each key strage these days. If your kid looks like they're achieving that they'll be largely ignored
This is very true. If your kid is bad/average they will be given the most tuition because they can be bumped up by several grades and the teachers get the most value added.
If your kid is achieving A/B grades they will mostly be left on their own because there isn't much value that can be added.
Modern tick box teaching is not working for bright kids
I'm guessing she did some Midyis type tests? We've (teachers) had this sort of data for years. There's always been some debate about if it should be shared with the child/parent. Some argue that it can be counter productive as it can demotivate a child destined for better through shear hard work and application, some argue the opposite. In some cases it is used as a stick to beat the individual teacher or the school by the parent ("my child might be a lazy fekker and I might take him off on term time holidays 5 times a year but you are failing him because he is meant to be getting As/Bs/Cs") and sometimes it's used to calm down a crazy parent ("I know you think little Jonny is very special and deserves to be getting A*s coming out of every orifice but you might like a look at these results to get a more realistic perspective of his capabilities) but mostly they are tucked away and not looked at again once the teacher has got to know the children. Until GCSE results day of course when they are used as a massive stick to smack the teacher/school around the head with (praise for meeting/overachieving is curiously not as forthcoming).
Like most statistics they are pretty meaningless when looked at from an individual perspective taking little account of the 'unmeasurables' that even themselves out over larger numbers of people but can make the statistics look pretty silly on an individual basis. They do have more use looking at whole year groups or school intakes though. Personally I think schools should keep them under their hat as one of a number of tools to help a teacher get a feel for who is in front of them. But in these days of freedom of information I guess some heads think it's better to be totally open. Your daughter is going through the consequences of the level of openness that modern society feels it wants from its public servants.
MCJnr started secondary in September so I will see whether we get these as well.
If your kid is achieving A/B grades they will mostly be left on their own because there isn't much value that can be added.Modern tick box teaching is not working for bright kids
That certainly isn't the case at my daughter's (state) school.
If your kid is achieving A/B grades they will mostly be left on their own because there isn't much value that can be added.
Getting a B target to an A grade adds just as much value as getting a D grade target to a C. Having a B target get a C grade loses just as much value as having a D grade target get an E.
A few years ago, anyone who was a shoe in for 5 Cs was sometimes left to their own devices because 5 Cs was what was being measured, but nowadays every f=grade for every student counts. In some ways this is good, because nobody is left to coast, but it does lead to a lot of pressure on the students.
This happened to my kids in Y9 and was handled quite well
Lots of explanation of its stats and great examples of people exceeding the predictions
Don't be afraid to complain to your MP, DFE or school
There is an assumption that all this target stuff will be popular with the voters as a way of increasing standards. If you don't like it tell some one on
Oh and sorry yes I agree with the OP that this was poor. We do it something similar in my college but that's with kids who are alot older and have opted in. But it can still do more harm than good. Many of us prefer a scatter graph of ex students. This has the benefit of showing that almost any starting point can lead to almost any end point. Effort obviously being the big variable
We do it something similar in my college but that's with kids who are alot older and have opted in. But it can still do more harm than good. Many of us prefer a scatter graph of ex students. This has the benefit of showing that almost any starting point can lead to almost any end point. Effort obviously being the big variable
We use average GCSE grade to set initial targets for AS and A level grades. I always draw a 'random' scatter graph on the board when explaining the grades making sure there's a low GCSE who does well and a high GCSE who does badly, and stressing that effort on their part is what moves them above the best fit line.
Hopefully this has been pointed out above but they are likely not predicted grades but targets based on what a child with your childs ks2 and other test scores predict they should get at gcse. I would expect they were aspirational targets too based on what the top 20 or 10% of schools would get on average with a child with that level of prior attainment. Ask for clarification from the school if you are unsure.
MCJnr started secondary in September so I will see whether we get these as well.
The sensible thing is for schools to get the grade for gcse and work back to end of each year targets.
My daughter came home last night with a slip of paper showing what grades she was predicted to get by year 11. In her case it was B's for all subjects.This of course leads to a load of undue stress because "X and Y friends are predicted A*s"
It's not right.
My best mate got straight D's at GCSEs and some outright failures, then got the highest marks in the county at A-levels and went on to go to Oxford University.
My scores at GCSEs were almost exactly the opposite of what I was predicted to do well in.
I get the feeling somewhere, some educational pseudoscientist did some utterly awful statistical work and decided that they could predict a childs performance with a good degree of accuracy.
Hopefully this has been pointed out above but they are likely not predicted grades but targets based on what a child with your childs ks2 and other test scores predict they should get at gcse. I would expect they were aspirational targets too based on what the top 20 or 10% of schools would get on average with a child with that level of prior attainment. Ask for clarification from the school if you are unsure.
How accurate are those predictions, because if they are anything but 100 percent accurate they are utterly unethical to use.
School should be using them to make sure that her learning is progressively in line with the top 25% or so of previous years of kids (KS3-4). Teachers should use it to help plan for her learning.
There's no reason to tell her - give her targets for the end of Yr7 by all means.
Phone school or email and politely ask for the reasoning behind it.
Tell her to relax - it's her teachers who could face trouble if she doesn't get there........
Has anyone actually done any studies to see what the effects are of biasing both students and teachers with preconceived ideas about individuals?
You know, is there an evidence based argument showing that this improves the education of our children?
We were given 'predicted' grades as well.
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/most-a-level-grade-predictions-inaccurate/2008800.article
lol
Muffin man are you belper based? Sure I recognise the name from other posts. If so our daughter is in year 8 and it's still on levels at the moment.
's not right.My best mate got straight D's at GCSEs and some outright failures, then got the highest marks in the county at A-levels and went on to go to Oxford University.
My scores at GCSEs were almost exactly the opposite of what I was predicted to do well in.
I get the feeling somewhere, some educational pseudoscientist did some utterly awful statistical work and decided that they could predict a childs performance with a good degree of accuracy.
Statistics 101 didnt go well for you did it. Based on national data sets they are remarkably reliable as long as they are used correctly. Not sure they have been in the ops case though.
Again they are target grades not predicted grades.
It's all about the removal of levels. Pupils used to be given yearly and key stage targets however levels don't exist anymore and schools soon won't be allowed to use them. We have stopped using them....however a target must be set to measure progress and the only target that can be age is a gcse grade.
However....we have always been able to predict gcse grades since yr7 from FFT data.
The gcse target is good though, instead of assuming linear progress it gives a longer time scale taking int account different progress at different stages of education.
The point at which it is shared with pupils is obviously open to debate.....
I don't think I agree with a/b grade pupils being ignored though, I have to offer as much explanation for someone not getting an a as I would not getting a c.
Muffin man are you belper based?
Yep!
Thanks for your replies folks. Based on replies there doesn't seem much point in raising it as an issue with the school. We're learning about how it all works nowadays as much as she is.
If you have to come here and ask for clarification the school havent done a great job. Just email in and let them know in a friendly manner. Others might not have this great oracle to turn to!!
How can levels not exist? Its all just a set of numbers from 1-40 or whatever, how they are expressed can surely be up to a school.
The job worth zombie bureaucrats are extending their tentacles even to your children education now so watch out. They are tightening their grips on all walk of lives.
I mean I am not surprised one day your children careers will be determine by their year 7 test results ...
🙄
How accurate are those predictions, because if they are anything but 100 percent accurate they are utterly unethical to use.
How so?
bullheart - MemberHow accurate are those predictions, because if they are anything but 100 percent accurate they are utterly unethical to use.
How so?
Coz it is a sneaky step zombie maggot jobworth will eventually use as a way to justify their positions.
It is in their gene ... 🙄
On average, the targets are a good prediction 😉
For their first assessment grades last month, I gave about 1/3 of my 126 AS physics students a grade below their target grade, about half got a grade equal to their target grade and the rest were above target; some students were up to three grades above/below target.
Overall, our value added (based on those assessment grades) was about average for the country as a whole.
miketually - MemberOn average, the targets are a good prediction
Why they can predict education grades and not criminal grades ... I don't know ... 😈
If you have prior criminal attainment and how they progressed in a life of crime of a big enough data set I'm sure you could predict future criminal activity of people early in their criminal activity.
anagallis_arvensis - MemberIf you have prior criminal attainment and how they progressed in a life of crime of a big enough data set I'm sure you could predict future criminal activity of people early in their criminal activity.
Ya, they should try it out just to see if the prediction comes through ... 😈
You would think the educational community would know better. Total crock. Just ignore it.
Statistics 101 didnt go well for you did it. Based on national data sets they are remarkably reliable as long as they are used correctly. Not sure they have been in the ops case though.Again they are target grades not predicted grades.
Actually I'm pretty handy with anything from basic probability theory through to bayesian statistics, so nyahhhh.
We were told they were predicted grades not target grades at school. My point still stands, I think they are biasing both teachers and pupils expectations considering only 48 percent were correct according to my link.
How so?
You are potentially giving children a self fulfilling prophecy and effecting their grades by predicting what they are capable of, as well as biasing teachers in regards to a childs ability - this is dodgy ground when predictions/targets are made without much accuracy. Even if there is a degree of accuracy you have to contend with the ethical question of whether it is right for some children to be given incorrect targets and or predictions. Have grade targets/predictions been proven to help, do they actually drag up grades in comparison to classes that do not use them?
she's now got the 'I'm thick' mindset to battle with before she's started.
This is the bad bit. Do what you can to fight it.
Our dyslexic daughter started secondary school thinking she was thick. One of her primary school teachers even told us that of course, university would be out of the question 😯 Stuff that. She's just got an unconditional offer in from Glasgow Uni.
Don't let these predictions get your kid down. They don't mean anything if she rises to it instead
My son had a bad experience with sats. The primary school put so much pressure on the kids to get good scores he completely stressed out over it. Mental maths became a case of trying not to hyper ventilate.
I spoke to a head teacher at another school and she said it was the school trying to get their 'figures' up. The sats would have little effect on my lads future schooling.
Went straight home and told my son I didn't care if he sat and picked his nose when they did the sats. He immediately calmed down and did pretty well in his sats. Funnily enough even though he entered secondary school with lower sats scores than his pals from other schools he is now out performing the same lads because he now knows that him being relaxed about tests is nearly as important as what he actually knows.
Very proud of how he has faced his demons on this and completely hold his primary school to blame. My daughter is less stressed out in general and will probably be laughing at them when they tell her how important they are
Tom_W1987 - Member... I think they are biasing both teachers and pupils expectations considering only 48 percent were correct according to my link.
OH! Oh! me! Me! Let me say this ...
50, 50 (fifty fifty) ... I say it's like saying the answer is either yes or no. 😆
Funnily enough even though he entered secondary school with lower sats scores than his pals from other schools he is now out performing the same lads because he now knows that him being relaxed about tests is nearly as important as what he actually knows.
This. Keep an eye on the panic and make sure it doesn't get worse in the future, it can really hurt a child/young adults results.
considering only 48 percent were correct according to my link.
Your link is about something completely different. Your link is referring to the predicted grades entered into UCAS for applicants by their centres as part of their reference. They are inflated and everyone knows it - its part of 'the game'. The teacher/college lecturer generates the grade partly based on the students AS results and partly on a hunch - no science/ statistics involved. The basic rule of thumb is if the student is boarder line between two grades, you put the higher of the two down. Our school even keeps two statistics for A level grades - UCAS predicted and forecast. There is often a difference. Nationally pupils are predicted 1.5 grades higher in total (spread over 3 A levels normally) per student. And guess what, the average clearing place is picked up by students 1.5 grades lower than the course standard offers which is all rather symmetrical.
Returning to your actual point though - yes, the Midyas predicted grade (or however they are spastically generated) on its own when thinking about individuals rather than large cohorts could bias a teacher to to think less of a student IF TEACHERS WERE MORONS, but fortunately most are not. They are used in conjunction with boring qualitative stuff like actually knowing the kids personally and taken with a healthy pinch of salt. They are just quite useful to help you ask questions about your previous understanding of the child, a bit like a peer review. That's why personally I'm not in favour of sharing them with kids and parents - teachers are less emotionally involved with the grades for an individual so can be more objective. they have also seen so many thousands of them over the years to be able to treat them with a healthy disrespect which would be hard to achieve if it was your own child and they were the only set of result you had ever seen.
edit to add:- what is sad is your mate you mentioned early on in this thread getting into Oxford on D grade GCSEs would not get in today (or to any Russell group uni come to that). So oversubscribed are they today for the very top universities that they all employ a first sifting process (by an administrator not an academic) of a minimum of normally 8 As or A*s at GCSE before they are past on to someone who will bother to read the application and make interview selections. Resits don't count. So basically nause up at 16 and that avenue will close for you irrespective of what you achieve subsequently.
Tom, he is thriving now. He uses the previous experience as his way of getting his head right for any tests. They simply do not matter anymore and if he stuffs up a test, well he is the same lad he was yesterday and he knows for a fact he isn't thick. What will be will be
edit to add:- what is sad is your mate you mentioned early on in this thread getting into Oxford on D grade GCSEs would not get in today (or to any Russell group uni come to that). So oversubscribed are they today for the very top universities that they all employ a first sifting process (by an administrator not an academic) of a minimum of normally 8 As or A*s at GCSE before they are past on to someone who will bother to read the application and make interview selections. Resits don't count. So basically nause up at 16 and that avenue will close for you irrespective of what you achieve subsequently.
This wasn't the case in 2006. Not that long ago, I can't see Oxford turning down the best grades in the country automatically......
Things have become a bit ridiculous though. I can't apply for a lot graduate programs because they ask for my a-level grades, as if they are any indicator of my character and academic ability 8 years on. What they are basically asking for are wet yes men/women who have spent their whole lives being told what to do and generally being good little boys and girls. The people who have been good and listened to all their lives since the age of 5 are rewarded, unfortunately these aren't always the best people to drive a dynamic economy.
(or however they are spastically generated)
You shouldn't laugh at your own posts but I quite like this freudian typo! I might use it again when talking about poor quality statistics (in the correct non-pc group of people clearly, unlike this fine upstanding community).
This wasn't the case in 2006. Not that long ago,
Time are changing - 2006 is a long time ago in education reform - the number of people with 4+ near perfect A*s at A level is quite impressive so they are using GCSEs as the tie breaker. To be honest though GCSEs are piss easy - if you are Oxbridge material you should be virtually able to wake up with the mother of all hangovers and get a top grade with no revision.
Only if you've been taught well, I got half decent marks at GCSE's without even knowing how to write an essay. That changed during A-levels as I actually got a decent education, I just went off the rails a little.
I think Oxford will get a sharp shock when they realise that theres a possibility that a lot of their new pupils are uncreative sycophants, but that's just a hunch really.
I think Oxford will get a sharp shock when they realise that theres a possibility that a lot of their new pupils are uncreative sycophants
They still do the mad as a box of frogs questioning at interview which I guess will trip up the life long rote learners
I think Oxford will get a sharp shock when they realise that theres a possibility that a lot of their new pupils are uncreative sycophants
Oh, I don't think there'll be too much in the way of a surprise...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gove
Actually I'm pretty handy with anything from basic probability theory through to bayesian statistics, so nyahhhh.
Yet you use two examples of individuals to try and show that a national data set has no worth in producing target grades for pupils. This suggests you really struggle with probability.
This is a good read for anyone interested in educational statistics: [url= http://physicsfocus.org/lies-damned-lies-ofsteds-pseudostatistics/ ]Lies, damned lies and Ofsted's pseudostatistics[/url]
et you use two examples of individuals to try and show that a national data set has no worth in producing target grades for pupils. This suggests you really struggle with probability.
However, if we apply a modicum of ethics to the argument, my point still stands. No one has shown and nor can I find an evidence basis proving the benefit of using these targets/predictions and from what I gather nor do these targets/predictions seem particularly statistically sound.
ethics are involved in statistics? good deflection though.
The targets are a very effective method of making generalisations about what a pupils progress is likely to look like. Very useful to show a coasting pupils what he/she could be capable of. Very useful in giving a teacher an understanding of what a "good" set of results might look like. (as long as schools remember probabilities multiple up they dont add up, but dont get me started on that)
How have you come to the conclusions these targets are not statistically sound?
ethics are involved in statistics? good deflection though.
The targets are a very effective method of making generalisations about what a pupils progress is likely to look like. Very useful to show a coasting pupils what he/she could be capable of. . (as long as schools remember probabilities multiple up they dont add up, but dont get me started on that)
How have you come to the conclusions these targets are not statistically sound?
The statistical work on the part of the educational community, when you dig a little deeper isn't very good though is it? There are numerous criticisms of it.
The targets are a very effective method of making generalisations about what a pupils progress is likely to look like. Very useful to show a coasting pupils what he/she could be capable of.
That or they are good at telling Bright Key Stage 2/3 coasters that they are going to get D's at GCSE level, when in reality they end up with straight A's. This is where ethics come in, this is especially the case when no one has done controlled pilot studies to show whether this actually helps pupils. I can't find any, can you? If someone in the medical community started using practices that hadn't been proven to help people, they would be vilified - meanwhile the educational community seems to be perfectly happy pushing pseudoscience.
Very useful in giving a teacher an understanding of what a "good" set of results might look like
O RLY?
https://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6006241
Teachers know the basis of the targets, so they know there will be a variation. Clearly, students will have talents on one or more area and so they will achieve a different result.
The statistical work on the part of the educational community, when you dig a little deeper isn't very good though is it? There are numerous criticisms of it.
any specifics of the question in hand?
That or they are good at telling Bright Key Stage 2/3 coasters that they are going to get D's at GCSE level
you still are not grapsing the idea of a normally distributed set of probabilities are you, nor have you grapsed the idea that a target is not fixed and not a prediction.
I can't find any, can you?
I havent looked
If someone in the medical community started using practices that hadn't been proven to help people, they would be vilified - meanwhile the educational community seems to be perfectly happy pushing pseudoscience.
Mr Gove was hated by the educational community for these very reasons
Different meanings to the word "class" 😉
you still are not grapsing the idea of a normally distributed set of probabilities are you, nor have you grapsed the idea that a target is not fixed and not a prediction.
I get normal distribution. What I'm saying is, is that it's utterly unethical to give students these targets/predictions as they are utterly imprecise, if students...those on the right tail.... with a given grade at key stage 3 score higher in their GCSE's and some kids score on the low side of a normal distribution.....how can you possibly justify using this - as giving students predicted grades or targets based on this could affect the outcome of a students grades for the worse.
Well thats a complete change in your argument. You have a number of times said the stats are wrong, how? They are used to inform teaching and give pupils an idea of what their progress might look like if they were to carry on as they are.
Theres nothing wrong with the statistics they are sound. The question is how you use the information they provide. All the points you make are about miss use of the information as is the frankly idiotic link you posted.
Would it be more ethical to ignore a pupils prior attainment because some people lie at the edges of a distribution?
When I was at school they were called predicted grades and so yes, using something as shitty as a normal distribution curve is awful statistics. 'Target' grades are slightly different and I guess a nice way if getting round the fact that a normal distribution would never be used by an actual statistician in predicting something as complex as a childs educational outcome - complex models would be used to generate individual predictions.
If theres no utilitarian value in predicted/target grades as evidenced by randomised trails of some sort, then yes, it's entirely ethical to ignore a childs previous attainment and treat everyone equally.
For someone who professes to know something about statistics and science, I find you ****ing hilarious.
Some good arguments being made here for grammar schools!
What and make even more wild assumptions about future attainment by sending them to grammar schools at ages 10/11 based on vacuous statistics?
Grammar schools effectively fix it at the same stage, thats very different from using them to inform teaching.
why are normal distributions shitty? Its just a correlation.
Irony, Tom, irony....
WGAF anyway (sorry OP) like most standardised crap, best to simply ignore. At least the link to the GCSE grade. Loads of factors there so any deterministic link is bllx by definition. Keeps a few folk in a non-job though and out of harms way, so look on the bright side!
using something as shitty as a normal distribution curve is awful statistics.
On average it will have value though wont it.
Obviously a multi variate model would be far better at giving a more accurate prediction but even then it wouldnt work for all. So getting a rough idea and then adjusting up or down as appropriate is fine as far as I can see.
Which brings us back to the use and interpretation of statistics.
http://trudiiemma.wordpress.com/2013/02/03/predicted-grades-help-or-hinder/
If targets don't actually help students and they aren't actually accurate predictions using complex models (if this is even possible), why are we using them in the first place? Again, I'll reiterate - I can't find the evidence supporting their use.
I had some serious issues potentially caused by being wildly under predicted then subsequently attaining good grades - lack of respect for authority, shit poor motivation as a young adult etc etc.
Got bored quite early on but I dont think that link says what you want it to say. It seemed to be about predicted grades for uni's which someone has already tried to explain the differences to you already.
So quack teachers are changing the way they make predictions for GCSE results and A-level results? Whoooo, that's even better.
If a target is set high, it gives the student something to work towards; although it has been [b]shown to increase the level of stress and anxiety[/b] during an exam, actually lowering the student’s performance level. So these high predicted grades may get them an offer into university (when used at A-level), but they can actually hinder a pupil achieving what they are truly capable of. But looking at things from the opposite end of the scale, students being given lower predicted grades have actually been found to achieve grades a lot higher than expected, so having the opposite effect (Snell, Thorpe, Hoskins, & Chevalier, 2008). Pourgonabadi (2008) [b]suggested that self-perception of abilities and their own expectations were key roles in motivation[/b], and provided the basis of their achievements.
Again, until someone produces some kind of controlled study showing some kind of utilitarian benefit to use of target grades - I'll continue to believe that it's snake oil.
Predicted grades are different to targets grades and are produced in an entirely different manner and used in an entirely different way.
If you refuse to listen and take on board what you are told it makes debate impossible. I'm off to argue about englands useless centre options some more.
You can obviously deduce from this that you are entirely right and the education system in the UK is wrong. Long live Manu Tuilagi.
Predicted grades are different to targets grades and are produced in an entirely different manner and used in an entirely different way.
Explain? Different statistical methodology? Or do teachers now use their own 'judgement' to make predictions in comparison to targets?
Both are shit and the use of both should be eliminated unless proven to have some value.
Predicted grades are based on what the kid needs to get a uni offer on the course he wants. Target grades are based on national data sets gained over a number of years and a pupils attainment in standardised tests. Target grades are used to inform planning and giving parents, teachers and pupils an idea of what expected progress might look like if they continue on the same track. ( also used by ofsted as a stick to beat teachers with)