1 year ago

Special Report: The flaws in Attainment 8 - Part 1

  • Text
  • Attainment
  • Ethnic
  • Futurist
  • Flaws
  • Accountable
  • Feature
  • Published
  • Males
  • Monitoring
  • Females
Table of Contents The flaws in Attainment 8 – Part 1: 1 New systems have been introduced, do you know about them? 3 What is Attainment 8? 5 Calculating Attainment 8 and Progress 8 6 From model theory into day to day practice. 8 Where does Progress 8 begin? 10 Let’s recap again. 13 Benchmarking the common good in society 15 How the GCSE grading system works? 16 The True Potential of the Child 19 Attainment 8 in Haringey by ethnicity and gender 20 Progress 8 in Haringey by Gender and Ethnicity 22 Male performance In Black and White: 24 Concerns, conversations to be had and solutions. 27 The value of HSKE 31

Misty balls aside, the

Misty balls aside, the old monitoring system ranked secondary schools on the amount of pupils gaining C grades or higher in five GCSE subjects including English and Maths. That has been replaced by this new value-added scale known as Progress 8 – this is seen by many as a big improvement however it has problems that must be respected and addressed. Using average Key Stage 2 Prior Attainment scores in English and Maths as a baseline. Progress 8 monitoring is then checked by getting a group of Year 11 students to sit English and Maths tests, as a kind of sample progress reference. With this “Prior Attainment” and “sample progress reference” idea school managers and teachers put pupils into predicted attainment groups essentially based on their Key Stage 2 results, so that conceptually they have groups of pupils who have similar starting points, that's the idea. Recap: Progress 8 is calculated by working out a pupils’ average performance at Key Stage 2 across English and mathematics. Pupils’ actual test results in English and Maths are changed into points and an average of the points is taken to create an overall point score which is meant to reflect the eight subjects.. Pupils are then placed into attainment groups with other pupils considered to be “of their ability”, who have the same Key Stage 2 point scores as them. The Key Stage 2 Prior Attainment, also known as Fine Point Scores, can be subjective in ways that many parents might find very concerning if they saw the process clearly. Teachers and schools depend upon parents considerable trust as much is built on parents accepting that the school can truly see and meet “the ability of the child”. Therefore given its importance as the first base reference point in the Progress 8 monitoring scheme it is vital that this assessment and predictive activity be made as resistant as possible to implicit or explicit bias (those ways of prejudice, racism, sexism and others known to be systematic in large institutional sectors like education). Progress 8 is said to only compare schools with similar intakes. The term similar intakes is basically referring to socio-demographic factors, the punch line of which is a classification of children as disadvantaged or not, which really boils down to disadvantaged, average or advantaged although reviewing the progress pathways for children of advantage is rarely focused on and will also prove to be a very interesting area to look into properly. Who are the advantaged? What is the nature of their advantage? This new measure called Progress 8 is said to be designed to encourage schools to offer a broad, well-balanced curriculum, it is intended to be used towards determining the “floor standard” for schools, which means a secondary school is now considered to be underperforming if their Progress 8 score falls below -0.5. For a secondary school to be judged as “coasting”, fewer than 60 per cent of its pupils must have achieved five A*-C GCSEs in 2015 and 2016 and it must be below the median level of expected progress in English and maths. And this year, its Progress 8 score would have to fall below -0.25. Because only grades C and above counted towards passing the government’s floor target of 40%, pupils expected to get Ds received more attention in an effort to haul them up to Cs, The flaws in Attainment 8 – Part 1: page: 14 of 39 Should schools be most accountable to the community or the government? This is a special feature report published with The Futurist (Haringey) - Episode 01 – 2018 | View the digital version online | Get all the helpful links and extra resources | [ v1.0 ] 10 th Aug 2018

especially in the compulsory Maths and English subjects. It is expected that In most schools extra effort will be placed with students who maybe expected to score at level 3 or 4 in an effort to bring them up to level 5, the equivalence of the C level standard under the previous monitoring scheme. Interestingly level 4 in the new system is also considered a C representing the bottom two thirds attaining that score and level 5 is considered a C representing the top third of Cs (blending into the bottom third of the old B score). This means that the equivalent of the C grade has now been split into a “low C” and a “high C”, perhaps this is to give those entered into “foundation tier” learning a sense of differentiated achievement, some kind of added value, as the highest score they can achieve is 5, children entered into the foundation tier can’t achieve levels from 6 to 9, the highest levels (higher tier). Remember that in the norms of society the professional, management and societal governance career paths will be more accessible to those with the higher tier results. Some children are being told (directly or indirectly), from the ages of 11 and 12, that they are not expected to enter those kinds of “higher tier” career pathways, this is wrong. Unfortunately some teachers under their own motivation or perhaps under pressure from a school’s senior management, may be inclined to put, recommend or “motivate” children into easier subject selections perhaps under a teacher’s rationale these subject selections are more appropriate for the learner, “within their ability”. By the school’s rationale, these kinds of manoeuvres may raise the chances that the student will have less empty slots, adding points towards more of their allocation of the 8 subjects which makes everyone’s performance look better. This is where school teachers and senior management will need to check (or be checked regarding) the ethics of the processes used to get the better looking result. In a school community many objectives and needs come together. Inevitably some of these needs and objectives will be prioritised higher than others. Who determines this, what is the process of setting priorities in a school community? Our Trust advances the placing of the learner’s essential needs at the top, yet in the centre as a controlling force upon all other objectives; desires, intentions and plans. Terms like “essential needs” require careful redefinition, in such a term more unified approaches to learning would include the perception and development of the most advanced capacities and potentials of the child within respect of each child’s cultural context; their heritage - ancestral patterns of growth and ways of being. Who really cares and knows about this? The flaws in Attainment 8 – Part 1: page: 15 of 39 Should schools be most accountable to the community or the government? This is a special feature report published with The Futurist (Haringey) - Episode 01 – 2018 | View the digital version online | Get all the helpful links and extra resources | [ v1.0 ] 10 th Aug 2018

Episode One

The Futurist (Haringey) - Episode 01 - 2018
Special Report: The flaws in Attainment 8 - Part 1
Food Waste to Energy: An Overview of Sustainable Approaches for Food Waste Management and Nutrient Recycling (BMRI2017-2370927)
EER and CREC Summer Event 2018 - uLearn Naturally Radio - Podcast
Home-School-Knowledge-Exchange (HSKE) Icon- (the neuron key)
Parent TEAMs for Raised Attainment - Project Introduction
Black Open University (BOU) Prospectus 2019-2020
Prospectus - Level Being 9 - The Best - The highest possible level - uLearn Naturally GCSE Mathematics
The Futurist (Haringey) magazine - advert rates info


© 2018 The Futurist: a STEAM'd uP3 Magazine

© 2018 uLearn Naturally Learners' Cooperative

© 2018 Abundance Centres (UK)

© 2018 Peoplescience Intelligence Unit