Level 6 year 6(75 Posts)
Bright class. A number of kids got sats level 6 for writing (DS too) I know that's a good level to achieve but surely level 6 in year 6 can't be equivalent to level 6 in secondary school. But also if they are achieving level 6 now does that mean A's at GCSE. What about A level?
It's a watered down level six. Would be classed as five in secondary though
Level 6 is level 6 and NOT watered down. We are working with our nearest secondary school and their staff are teaching our level 6 pupils.
Any level is THAT level. There's no such thing as a KS1 L3 it's just a L3. L6 is a L6 no matter what year they're in
Not a hot housed class for sats. Just a bright class from the start. In Y2 half were level 3
Very impressed to hear a secondary school teaching your level 6 Mrs. We use our local comps swimming pool but that's it
Like mrz we have level 6 extension classes taught by local secondary school maths teacher for a limited number of children. I don't see it as hot housing, just teaching at the level certain children require.
Most likely he will be level five at the start of secondary
You both raise some really good points & contradictions in the system.
In an ideal world (a world like mrz's situation) a L6 in primary = L6 in secondary; however, that isn't every school in England. It should be perhaps, but it isn't. I think we have to accept that cramming Y6 classes for SATs/ endlessly taking past papers/ giving class SATs workbooks/ etc.... (very much the situation for DD1's Y6 class) may be somewhat skewing results; not in the sense of them having passed that threshold on the L6 SATs paper - but in the sense that a new Y7 having scored L6 on SATs in such a way may need a lot more work at that level, maybe even L5 to consolidate skills/ knowledge.
I think we also have to accept that dovetailing L6 teaching in primary by incorporating secondary level teaching (through extension classes, regularly having a secondary teacher teach a subject like maths, etc...) is rare (i.e. not the norm in English primary schools).
maybe given that L6 is the 'new L5' - maybe the government needs to facilitate that bridge at L6 where a primary student has exceeded mainstream curriculum content (L3 - L5) and for their own benefit should be stretched to L6 (secondary) curriculum level work. (and maybe the government needs to accept for the greater good - they need to fund this).
Certainly I have a able mathematician in DD1 - who would enjoy working at L6, but in all sincerity her school is so wrapped up in getting about 1/2 of her Y6 class to L4, that the upper ability group is being taught by a Y2 teacher and endlessly reviewing things. She's bored out of her skull. I fear that is not an unusual scenario - and is a waste of potential.
And that is the reality playing out in school after school here in my little corner of England.
I don't really understand how a level 6 can be a level 6 no matter what. My ds got a level 5 in his English SATs, but the y6 teacher, and subsequently his secondary school placed him at a level 4, which was more accurate IMO. There is a big difference between passing a test well and using what you know for the test in every day work. So what level was he, level 4 or level 5, as presumably he really can't be both?
My other ds went from level 5s at Y6 SATS to apparently working at a level 7 within a term of secondary school. How does that happen? Is it just down to the level they are taught at, or tested at, because I don't remember there being a significant increase in his ability within the space of six months?
There is a difference between achieving a level 5 ( or 6) in a test and working consistently at that level. We always give our secondary schools the teacher assessment as well as the test result just for this reason ( one child last year was consistently working at a level 3 and achieved a level 5 in her reading test, even she didn't know how!!) But a level 6 test result, whether at primary or secondary is just that!
There is no such thing as primary level work or secondary level work, level 6 isn't a secondary level, its just the one after level 5! So there should be no reason why it can't be taught and taught well in primary schools, just as there is no reason why level 2/3 can't be taught in secondary schools-there are as far as I am aware very few areas where primary teachers go into secondaries to teach their level 2/3 students! You teach what you have, and you teach it right!
Ds is in y7 and left with level 6 from primary. He went to a grammar school. At his last assessment he has gone up in all of his 6 by one sub level but remained stagnant on his subject that was a level 5c school said they expect him to achieve 7 by the end of the year where he was 6 end of primary.
Friends dd left with a 6 has remained on it not gone up or down. So in the case of these 2 children level 6 meant a level 6
The L6 Maths pupils from my sons' primary school all achieved A grades at A level. Didn't necessarily follow for other subjects, but basically a L6 primary school child is bright and will do well if they continue to work hard
Not exactly rocket science, is it?
My ds got a level 6 in maths and now in year 7 is a level 6b in maths, in English he got a level 4a in writing and a 5c I reading, now is a level 4a( but he always get a level 5 in the text he have done in the school), in science was a level 5 and still a level 5b in the school.
DD2 is in year 5 and this week said she's been given level 6 writing targets/objectives to work on as presumably she's reached 5a. This is in normal lessons in a normal primary, no secondary school input or hot housing, just her fab teacher responding to her needs.
I know of a group of very bright children in a year 5 class who are already working on level 6 work in maths, and are high level 5's in reading and writing. That's just the level they are, and nothing to do with SATS tests etc.
My nephew, on the other hand, went to a school where they didn't "do" Level 6 papers, and he was given grades of Level 5 in maths and literacy. When he went onto secondary, they assessed the year 7 intake in the autumn term, and he was assessed at 7c.
I had a year 5 boy working at level 7 who skipped year 6, went straight into year 7 at the local selective grammar school and won the maths prize at the end of the year! Primary schools CAN teach level 6 and above and increasingly we have to, our local authority school advisor has said that all children assessed as level 3 in KS1 HAVE to achieve level 6 in year 6, no exceptions!
Until this year (or possibly last year?) Most year 6 pupils did not routinely sit a level 6 paper. So the highest they could achieve was level 5. Which means they would be scored at level 5, but might actually be higher. Level 6 includes things not usually taught in primary.
There has been a change (ofsted?) where instead of looking at just how many kids reach level 4, they want to know about how the school is extending the brighter ones, so they are encouraging schools to give level 6 papers to their top groups and those results now matter (to the school) in a way that they did not previously.
Our year 6 have a group which are being tutored (alongside a group form the nearest primary) with the extra material required to achieve level 6. Some of this is knowledge (you can't pass a test on multiplying fractions if you have never been taught how) so in that sense it is exactly the same as what will be taught at secondary school level 6.
But some of the literacy stuff is more subtle and I could imagine them getting the test result, but not really operating at that level across the board in their reading and writing. It requires very focussed effort, rather than the level they naturally operate on. If that makes sense.
I think we often underestimate the broad spread of children's ability within a class. If the average is level 4, then those children will take 1-2 years to reach level 6 once they get to secondary. But an above average child can already be at that level. Just as a below average child might be still struggling at level 2 or 3. An average is just that, an average and there must be those above and below.
High L5-L6 DCs who work hard at secondary school, should be able to get As in academic subjects at GCSE.
The levels they get in Y7-9 come out of the senior school bingo machine!
(I have 9 examples of this random number generator, I refuse to stress about it. By the time it actually maters in Y10-11, school seems to produce grades that make sense).
All level 3s have to achieve level 6????
High level 3s in KS1 yes.
I would imagine a 3c at KS 1 to level 6 at KS2 is a big ask (
especially when the infant school over estimate the levels )
Satisfactory (requires improvement) progress is two whole levels (6/3) , 7/3 is good and 8/3 outstanding.
9/3 is off the scale!
This prediction of GCSEs is ridiculous too.
My DD got 4a in maths at KS 1, a few marks off an A* at GCSE and is predicted A at A level this summer. Several of her friends were strong level 5s and scraped GCSE B grades. The difference being that my DD works like a trojan and they
thought they were too clever to need to revise did very little
I hate this self fullfilling prophecy that seems to come with these levels so early on in a child's education. Yes good teaching is crucial but pupil attitude has to have a very big influence on outcomes.
My authority, along with quite a few others I have discovered, doesn't believe in 3c's! Any child assessed as level 3 in Year 2 is automatically given a 3B as their "progress from" level. we are then expected to make at least 2 sub levels progress every year, so year 3 is a 4c, year 4 a 4A, year 5 a 5B and year 6 a 6C.
Life is fun!!
We were caught out with that too, Spaniel. Going to be a lot of 2c's I guess.
Join the discussion
Please login first.