To wonder why so many intelligent parents...

[FallenCaryatid]

Are still completely confused about reporting levels.
They've been around for years, they are searchable on an enormous number of websites, your older KS2 children are using them as targets, schools have curriculum evenings about them, many schools glue the levels into books as success criteria for children to use to self-assess and yet every year it's the same kerfuffle of parents wondering if a 3a is better than a 3c and is it OK for little Jocasta who is in Y1 to be a 3a for maths.
Every...year.

FallenCaryatid - I was training to be a teacher and I found them hard to grasp. The criteria for awarding them changes from time to time, and changes with change of keystage so a level 4 in Maths in primary is not the same as level 4 at secondary. Oh and officially the sub-levels don't really exist.

So no I see no reason why parents don't get it.
Or you could read this thread.

what confuses me is you get a slip that explains the number and letter to you but then the level ds1 gets isnt on the slip

So what was the level he got, biddysmama?

i dunno lol he hasnt got his report yet,thats what happened last time. hes asd tho so im more likely to boast about him giving his little sister the last ice pop last night

YABU... Having no experience of the education system since my own time (dark ages ... we had 'good', 'v good' and 'see me') until my own DS started school I wasn't even aware that there were reporting levels. Wasn't mentioned in either parents' meetings or letters. So the first time a teacher says '3b' or whatever, I probably asked what it meant. It's one of those things like jargon where, if you're in the business, you assume everyone knows what you're talking about and, if you're outside the business, it mean nothing.

There are, of course, people who genuinely want information. Of cours there are.

But if you google SATS levels explained, the first page that comes up is a beautifully clear explanation of how they work.

And the people who are most puzzled always seem to be the people whose children ar well above average.

I always use Jocasta as a default name because I've never met or taught one.
Unlike Darren, Tracy, Jamie, Magenta, Minerva or Galadriel who are all real children to me.

I'll answer this one OP.

I had no idea about NC levels until recently, despite having three children at school (year 8, year 3, year 2). I paid no attention to these things at all because I could see my children were making progress and they were in top sets. The older two that is. I've been pulled up short by my youngest being identified as having ASD. I was very shocked to be told that he's leaving year 2 with a 1C in writing. It had to be explained to me that only a tiny handful of children in his year are at this level.

I have now become obsessed with NC levels.

@seeker.. Once aware they exist, they're not difficult to fathom out. But if you've not had any contact with the education system for 15+ years, knowing they exist is the first hurdle and probably the point at which the OP gets the '3c, what does that mean then?' questions

I use Jocasta too. And Tarquin.

SF- are you honestly saying that you did not read your older children's school reports?

Shagmund, how is he with a laptop?
Several of our children with ASD or dyspraxia manage much better using electronic support like thinkpads and alphasmarts.

"Please just tell me if my daughter is doing ok or not in language that I don't need to go to a website to decode."

This

I've taught a Tarquin, and Lucius and several Piers.
And a Skywalker.

You see, I don't understand what is so hard about "this number is the level expected nationally of a 7 year old. This number is where your child is at the moment"

DS1's old school used to do an 'Attitude to Learning' score. So you could get a 5 (highest) and that showed you were trying even if the results aren't fantastic.

Every single piece of work was marked with the appropriate level too, I would prefer A,B,C etc for the actual work.

"What some parents really want is a breakdown relative to everyone else in the class. Wouldn't that be good for FB boasting?"

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. People qn't intrested in whether the little Tarquin is where he should be for his age, they want to know whether he has beaten Jocasta.

A long and illustrious Civil Service career has left me with a serious talent for reading upside down. I therefore always know where my children are in relation to the rest of th class- there is almost always a list somewhere on the teachers desk with the most recent test scores on it.

sometimes the parent wants to know where their child is in the class (relatively speaking) so that they can fully support the child.

It can be no fun at all knowing you are struggling more than your friends, and can (on occasion) lead to some very unequal friendships. it can be meaningless (to a child) that they are achieving the 'national average' if they are still bottom of the class (and don't kid yourselves that the children don't know who finds things easy/difficult - even if this is sometimes exaggerated in a "but I'm no good at that' wail)

it isn't always about boasting

I think on primary school reports (in our area) they tend to state that level 2 for end of KS1 and level 4 for end of KS2 is on target, i.e. average, where they are expected to be.
So if you have that information, and you note that your child's actual levels are above or below that ,then surely it is self-explanatory?

The sub levels ,c,b,a (in that order) don't mean much more than "beginning to", "working towards" and "working solidly at".

So, basically, if you have a level 2 or level 4 at the end of those Key Stages, don't worry!!

If your child is above those levels, be proud of them for working hard.

The main thing to remember is...it is not a competition! Children can suddenly pick up a couple of sub-levels ,or sometimes they will not move for a bit. The sub levels do not denote intelligence!

Someone will probably now tell me that is not the official language, but that is my understanding of how it works.

I have a doctorate and I'm an ex-teacher and I'm clealy too thick for these levels too . For each subject you have to look up the criteria for each level and part level.

All so the teaching profession doesn't have to hand out those terrible grades where some pupils risk getting Es...oh, except when they get to GCSE and beyond, then it's OK.

The thing with using grades is that everyone automatically understands them - they are a universal currency. Would save a lot of time at parents' evening too as teachers repeat to each parent what the levels mean.

Well I've been told for yrs that DD is a "gifted" writer, "marvelous" at English, only for her to come up with 4a in writing at end of y5.

• yy that has happened to me with my DCs as well. (Although that would predict a 5b at end of KS2 sats which is a whole level above what's expected at that point).

I am also as to how at secondary, they can get, say a level 6 at Maths and on the report you get a grudging: "yeh yeh doing quite well" then at a language the same child gets a level 3 with the comment: "doing fab, clearly very able with languages" WTF?

And no, the school doesn't explain this.

I think I might have found something on Mumsnet which said that they will have much lower levels in subject they have not studied before, but that's all I ever found. Because I don't like to ask.

PMSL at Galadriel.

Galadriel has now replaced Tarquin as my "John Doe" name....