Expert post: How to make sense of school reports

If you're baffled by references to attainment targets, levels, performance indicators and progress data then you're not alone. I've been asked all sorts of questions by exasperated parents. I've written before about communication between teachers and parents. But report jargon seems to be the most frequent as well as most frustrating issue raised by the parents I talk to.

Why can't schools get it right? 

Of course, in the old days it was easy. An 'A' or 'B' would tell you where your child was in relation to the rest of the class, while a comment such as 'could do better' told you all you needed to know about their effort. How things have changed. 

I'm confused by what my child's report refers to as 'attainment targets'. Are these supposed to be an indication of what my child should be aiming for?

Well, you'd think so. But no.

The thing is, although these strands of learning are referred to as "targets", they're really just a way of sub-dividing the curriculum. The target element refers to what the school should be aiming to teach as opposed to what's expected of a pupil. 

In England, attainment targets within national curriculum subjects refer to different subject aims. So, in English, for example, attainment target 1 refers to speaking and listening (known as oracy in the national curriculum for Wales) and a pupil's performance will be measured against one of seven different levels.

This means, at Key Stage Two (the last four years of primary school), a child might achieve up to three different levels in each of the three English attainment targets.

As well as speaking and listening, there are also attainment targets for reading and writing.
In Scotland, this confusion is avoided by referring to different curriculum strands as 'experiences and outcomes'.

I asked my child's teacher where he was in relation to the others in the class and I was told 'we don't do that sort of thing these days'. Why not?

That's quite a question! 

In short, two things account for what you've been told. One is what's known as 'norm versus 'criterion referencing' and it's quite complicated.

Basically, in the old days public exams like 'O' levels were norm referenced, which means the grade boundaries (the numbers of pupils getting 'A' 'B' 'C' and so on) were pretty similar every year.

This was because it was assumed that children didn't get any more intelligent from one year to another. Thus a mark of 80 out of 100 might achieve an 'A' one year, but only a 'B' the next. Clearly this is not a little unfair, and about 20 years ago criterion referencing took over, whereby pupils are measured (at all stages of their education) against an agreed list of skills and competencies. 

If they can do it, they get the grade regardless of what the others in the class can do. So children in England, Scotland and Wales are all judged according to an agreed list of criteria rather than by comparing them to an average, or to the abilities of others.  

My seven-year-old has been set a performance target which I cannot fathom. It talks about broadening the scope of his reading (which is fine) and then goes on to talk about improving his grasp of 'sound-symbol relationships and phonological patterns'. 

Clearly I can't comment specifically, but I will say this...

Your child's teacher should be able to tell both you and your child what has to be done to achieve the target in terms that both you and he understand.

It sounds as if the target has been written in the language of the national curriculum, which is fine for teachers, less so for parents. If it helps, the target your son's teacher seems to be referring to is about spelling and word recognition. If only they'd said that. 

I have no idea what all these national curriculum 'levels' mean. How can I be sure that what my son is doing is okay at school?

This is tricky. The YouGov website states: 'children develop at different rates, but national curriculum levels can give you an idea of how your child’s progress compares to what is typical for their age. For example, by the end of Key Stage 1, most children will have reached level 2, and by the end of Key Stage 2, most will be at level 4.' But as I've already said pupils these days are measured against specific outcomes rather than being compared to other pupils. Knowing what is 'normal' (whatever that means) is only part of the picture and if your child's teacher is happy with the progress he has made, there's nothing to worry about as far as level numbers are concerned. 

UK Governments are beginning to take the issue of clarity more seriously, and you can find out more about curriculum outcomes in clear and easy to understand language on the following websites:

In Wales:

Welsh Government Curriculum website

For England:

The YouGov website

And in Scotland:

The Scottish Government's Curriculum Page