Afaik (I teach secondary and this is what I do) levels 3a 3b and 3c would all be classed as a level 3. TA usually gives sub-levels so you can see where a pupil is on more detail but official SATs only give straight levels.
It is in my authority! To be assessed as a level 3 in year 2 has to mean you are a solid ( ie b) 3. This is simply because of the progress tracker system that is used by many authorities which assigns points to each sublevel- so a 2b is 15 points, a 2a is 17 and a 3c is 19. Unfortunately they "system" assigns 21 points to a level 3 given in year 2. This is the same number of points as a 3b, so a level 3 has to be a 3b! ( as progress is then measured from the points given) We don't like the system and it certainly makes teachers and Heads very cautious about assigning level 3's in year 2, you have to be convinced that they are a secure level 3.
For the purpose of the KS1 SAT the child has to achieve a 3b or 3a to be awarded a level 3. However, the data passed onto the Y3 teacher (based on teacher assessment) may state 3c. All very confusing. The SATs at KS1 do sub-level for level 2. KS2 they don't.
Certainly isn't here. We report 3cs as 3s. This is endorsed by moderators at end of year meetings.
I find it interesting that some schools are required to report 3b+, yet their internal tracking reports 3c. It gives me the chance to ask my question again .
I think it was Feenie who said that her school is required (by the LEA) to report 2a for children working at 3c at the end of Y2. Her school will inevitably show better than average progress for these under-assessed children, as they will be likely to get L5 in Y6.
However, her internal tracker will track these same children from 3c through to an expected L5 at the end of Y6. According to the school's internal data, the same children will have made expected progress, which isn't so good in Ofsted terms!
How does this square up when Ofsted is rating progress as satisfactory, good or outstanding?
In my LA we can only report 3s and it can be 3C. The print out says 3, but I log 3C on the internal tracking system and tell the parents it is a 3C. It's frustrating; what is the point of sublevels at all if the assumption that 3 = 3B and nothing else?
Just thinking about how even more ridiculous this 3b nonsense is.
It allows you two levels of reporting for end of year2 for those children exceeding national expectation: 2a - just above national expectation for a 7 year old 3b - working at the expected level for a 9 year old
I find it just as frustrating for the level 1s. There is a huge difference in how concerned a parent should be with their child getting a 1C and a 1A. I had a few 1As that I reported as 1s who are now already 2Cs and, as summer birthday boys, are really closing the gap rapidly. They are so close to "national expectations" for end of year 2, but are just reported as 1.