Wanted to ask this for a long time

[sgcmum]

Ppmum,

On the contrary I fully believe the 16% you calculate will achieve the levels if there is some deterrent as you put it. I prefer to look at it as a motivation to go to high school. That's at least a start.
I don't think a school is going to be' full' of 12 and 13 year olds with behavioural issues. Once there is an expectation children naturally tend to fulfil it. A tough one this but
I would really like to know what else can be done to make it better.may be the schools themselves can hold after school extra classes. Or may be keep track from early on instead of suddenly talking about levels in year 6 like my dd's school did.
May be it is not the best solution but what is?

[xyzzy]

Ppmum,

On the contrary I fully believe the 16% you calculate will achieve the levels if there is some deterrent as you put it.

Why do you believe that remaining in primary school is a deterrent? Or, if you're going to make primary schools unpleasant enough that they are a deterrent, what's that going to do to the main body of pupils? And if it is a deterrent, as a parent, how keen are you (as others have pointed out) for the junior school playground, and the year 6 classroom, to have a bunch of disaffected, possibly border-line SEN cluttering it up?

And let's assume a child who's not quite on top of the work, and whose parents aren't quite as supportive as they might be, and who's an August birthday premie. He's held back a year, and then by some miracle makes the grade second time around and moves on to secondary school a year late. Do you now extend his time in secondary school by an additional year, or is he denied the chance to take qualifications at 18? You're assuming that being in the wrong year group is a deterrent (presumably, it'll also deter people from being so careless as to be premature or choosing unsupportive parents: it's important to remember that educational failure is entirely the fault of the children) so the child will now have that "deterrent" for the rest of his school career, even though he's now passed the hurdle you set.

As with all these sorts of schemes, you can be certain that the middle-classes would run to an educational psychologist and get a note if it were their children at risk of being held back, and you can be certain that primary schools with a non-zero number of children held back (proof both of the fecklessness of the intake and of the risks to the "nice" children) would become sink schools within seconds.

The idea that you should punish children of ten for their parents' failure to be supportive (you're seriously thinking that leaving the children at primary is a deterrent to parents who don't care about their children's education anyway?) would be funny, if it didn't appear you're actually serious.

[Waiting_For_Godot]

Only read original post. Is that not why children are set in senior school, so each class has a uniformity but each are different levels?

I wonder if you would think this was a good philosophy if your 15 year old child was still in Year 6, or if a 15 year old boy was sat next to an impressionable ten year old girl!

And what do you do with the child who is only weak in one subject buy flying in others? No uniformity there....

[Amber]

I work with children in secondary school who are failing to keep pace with the curriculum. I have been genuinely shocked by the lack of continuity on the Year 6/Year 7 boundary - often children who were receiving some kind of support (School Action most usually; occasionally SA Plus) just never get to grips with the demands of that first year of secondary school and are left foundering. It is assumed by most secondary teachers that the children can read - but many are still struggling with this when they get to secondary school and whereas at primary usually someone will hear them read even occasionally, on the whole this doesn't happen at secondary. Personally I do not believe that making them repeat endless years (or even one year) at primary would be a good idea; nor would 'forcing' them (how?) to reach a certain level. I think that there should be a rigorous assessment of basic skills carried out upon entry to secondary school (not on leaving primary) and then targeted and intensive support be put in place very early on to pick up those falling by the wayside.

Dream on girl.

[xyzzy]

Personally I do not believe that making them repeat endless years (or even one year) at primary would be a good idea; nor would 'forcing' them (how?) to reach a certain level.

The OP appears to believe that children only fail to reach level 4 SATs because they're feckless, and you just need to give them and their parents a stern talking to and they'll pull themselves together. We're too soft on failure, apparently.

[sgcmum]

Deterrent was not a word I used to describe it,merely picked it up from ppmum's post. And I don't look at it that way. For me it's merely an attempt at ensuring more uniformity in intake.And encouraging each child to it's best. If there was an expectation early on would it not be easier for everybody later on? It's more like a carrot and stick,whichever works for the child.
I am under the impression that the gap between primary and secondary can be greatly reduced by having some sort of expectation and early intervention. I agree that
Holding back does create some unpleasant situations. Amber's suggestion seems best overall.
I seem to have a rather overly optimistic assumption that the vast majority will reach the levels if it is made a requirement. so finding it difficult to imagine playground filled with older kids. And I have seen that many kids choose secondary school based on where their friends go. So why not use it as a motivator?
The children cannot control most things in their life.it is up to us to see that they make the best out of what they have.

I can't somehow imagine very many kids not able to do it.(and I dont include special needs kids in this)

[sgcmum]

The OP appears to believe that children only fail to reach level 4 SATs because they're feckless, and you just need to give them and their parents a stern talking to and they'll pull themselves together. We're too soft on failure, apparently.[/quote]

No, believe that most fail to reach because it is not a requirement to do so. It's like why is your room not clean.. Because you never told me to clean it mum.
It is in the interest of the child to reach level 4.and we should ensure they do. And I believe they will.

[scarlett]

Thinking of the children I listen to read, the ones who are really behind ( and across the board also ) often try really hard and on top of that have to put up with the other children commenting that they are behind.Some of the children who can barely read are practically in tears .I don't think it would motivate these children who are behind , but not classed as sen to have the threat of staying down a year. My son would regularly announce he was dim and rubbish because he was behind the others....if he had the added pressure of having to perhaps stay down, well, that would have just finished him off and me too.I feel choked up just thinking about it.

I don't think many children know what level they should be when they leave school ?

[Amber]

No, believe that most fail to reach because it is not a requirement to do so. It's like why is your room not clean.. Because you never told me to clean it mum.

I think it is most unlikely that children in Year 6 are under any illusion that they are not 'expected' to perform well in their SATs - the majority of curriculum time is devoted to gearing up for them. (The question of whether SATs are the best indicator of whether a child can access the secondary curriculum is one I will leave aside for now; I suppose we need to assume for the purpose of this discussion that they are). I really think it is over-simplistic to suggest that if we made it a statutory requirement that children had to reach that level or they would somehow 'not be allowed' to go to secondary school we would somehow increase standards: it is not only more or less unworkable but it fails to take account of the many and complex reasons why some children have difficulties with literacy and/or numeracy. A little compassion is never a bad thing.

Regarding whether children know what level they 'should' be: yes, I think many will. Certainly some schools will mark according to NC levels - and my son's primary school has 'booster clubs' (ho ho, makes it sound like a bit of jolly fun) to try and push borderline cases over that crucial 3/4 boundary.

[sgcmum]

Hmmm, I have to agree with you Scarlett, it is not fair on the child. So how do you get the best out of a child?
And if he can't reach the level required for high school curriculum,in spite of his best efforts, how will he understand what is being taught there? What do we do then?
Amber,
I don't think I am without compassion here. Surely all of this applies to other things as well. That's why I referred to swimming in my first post. It is a question of achieving at least a basic standard so they can keep up at high school.
Holding back, as many of you have pointed out, doesn't seem to be the best idea,in fact, not even a good one.
So what do we do?
I still can't shake off the idea that achievement levels can be improved with a little bit of firm push. Isn't that what all independent schools do?
Please keep the opinions coming.