ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
End of year 1 target level(21 Posts)
What level would you hope your child would achieve by the end of year one?
What level should an average child be at at the end of term one year one?
What levels, if any, are a cause for concern or signs that you may need to ask for extra help etc?
Not putting it well and am a stranger to KS1 etc, off to read up on it.
The school should have targets recorded for your individual child. You child should know about them - not what levels but what he or she is working towards - for example "using full stops in my writing" or"knowing number bonds to 10" That sort of thing.
Disclaimer - don't know if they are real year 1 targets - I just remember them both for my children - can't remember what year!
Do you mean SATS levels? If so, then basically anywhere between a W and a 2! As a year 1 teacher I would hope that a good proportion of my children are a 1B by the end of the year, above this is lovely and a 2 would be great! I would certainly expect some to be below this and wouldn't worry too much, although would be looking for some additional group work to bring them along. If still on W by the end of yr 1 I would be concerned.
Hi Primary Mum. Yes I mean SATS, thanks Ws etc make sense!
Out of interest where would you 'expect' an average pupil to be in terms of reading, writing and maths at the end of term one?
Do you ever get a paragraph on the child in a report or am I hopelessly out of date? In other words 'primarymum is an lovely child, anxious to please and always helpful. At the beginning of the year she showed some signs of....etc'.
We certainly get paragraphs like that. I always look for the teacher speak sentence that can be translated as "Miniseekeris doing very well, but if he shut up for five minutes, he would do even better and I wouldn't spend my break times in the staff room beating my head against the wall" It's always there, however well they try to hide it!
Thanks seeker. Sounds familiar .
How much is it reasonable to expect? Is a sentence on progress enough? In my day we had a side of A4 or possibly more actually about the child in general.
DD just left primary, but we didn't get a proper report ie with a paragraph on childs abilities on each subject, until June/July.
Question maybe for the teacher?
Why do you give an attainment target for end of year one?
Surely anything less than a 1b or a 2 is limiting and potentially negative? (Unless a child has learning difficulties).
I read that this target can change each term but if parents see that their child's target is lower than they might expect isn't the danger then that parents and teachers negatively label, even subconciously, 'Susie isn't good at maths' etc?
I don't believe it's about innate talent. I believe anything is possible. The more a child is challenged the more they grow.
Other 'qualities' should also be measured IMO.
Targets for the end of Year 1 are based on where the child was at the end of reception/beginning of Y1. Realistically children should progress a full level every 2 years.
It feels like the targets set are safe and easy for the child to reach rather than more ambitious. If a child is on W for writing say on entry to year one why should a predicted level be less than a 1A or a 2 by the end of the year?
Is there pressure on teachers to set targets that they 'know' children will reach so anything else is bonus?
Not blaming teachers, they must be under a lot of pressure in this sort of situation.
Are we supposed not really to pay any attention to 'grades' at this early stage?
Firstly children entering Y1 shouldn't be assessed as W. Unless they have been identified as having SEN (when they should be assessed on P scales) they should continue to be assessed on the EYFS profile if they have not completed all ELGs.
No there isn't pressure on teachers to set "lower" levels but all targets set should be "achievable" and "realistic" so depending on the child's ability setting a target of NC level 2 may not be realistic. I know I sent children to Y1 who are already level 2 and others who won't get there until much later in their school careers.
Thanks. Where can I find more on EYFS online and what are ELGs? Thanks again.
Hello again, just to say DC is Oxford Reading Tree level 3, Songbirds level 3 and 5 yrs, 5 months- they got a W for reading and are not SEN.
Teachers in Year 1 can continue to use the EYFSP as their assessment tool for children where they consider this to be appropriate. This will be particularly the case for children who have not obtained any or most of the ELG - scale points 4 to 8 - in a particular EYFSP scale. The point at which teachers begin to use APP criteria is a matter for professional judgement and the teacher's knowledge of the child. Teachers will need to consider carefully which criteria best match the child's developing strengths and needs, and support them in identifying the next steps in their learning.
Teachers will also need to use their judgement to determine whether a child has not achieved the ELG as a result of a special educational need. Children with identified special educational needs who are likely to be working below level 1 at the end of the key stage should be assessed in relation to the P scales.
Working on the government figures of an "average" child (no such thing exists) reaching NC level 2 and the expectation of 2 (imaginary) sub levels per year it would be 1b/a
I just found this which some people may find interesting
Do the levels relate to stages in intellectual development?
Basically, no. Once we accept that there is a meaningful notion of progression (that is we agree on what it
is that gets better when a student gets better), then the levels are arbitrarywe can site them where we
like. In particular, the levels do not purport to correspond to significant stages in a students development.
The TGAT report suggested that the levels should be equally spaced with respect to time, whereas other
schemes, such as the ILEA graded assessment systems proposed systems where the earlier levels are
closer together than the later levels.
What the Task Group actually proposed was that, to begin with, the performance requirements of level 2,
for example, would be pitched so that the majority of students would achieve it by the end of key stage 1,
but some would achieve level 3, while some would achieve only level 1. At the age of 7, therefore, the
median student is not on the borderline between level 1 and level 2, but well on the way (in fact exactly half
way!) to level 3. It is the median 6-year-old who is just on the threshold for level 2 (and this was made
explicit in the DESs specifications to the consortia developing the first standard assessment tasks for 7-
year-olds). Similarly, while the median 11-year-old will achieve level 4, she or he does so comfortably. It is
the median 10-year-old who just scrapes a level 4 in the TGAT framework.
I'm going to read it thoroughly when I return from Christmas shopping
How I wish, at times, we were in a prep school where you wouldn't have a wretched level and end of year target level to get in a lather about at this early stage.
I feel that these levels put parents and children and quite probably teachers under un-necessary pressure.
I think most prep schools only go there with this at 11?
Quite frankly I don't care about whether the school reaches targets, I just care about my child and the other children.
Might you no doubt there are other pressures!
By the way mrsz, I took a look at that link and will look at more closely later, thanks.
Mrsz thought this was interesting:
Key stage 2 results are used to compile league tables for primary and junior schools, and so
there is a pressure to make these results as good as possible
Which is why some schools feel they need to teach to the test. It keeps results artificially high
Join the discussion
Please login first.