to think that level 6 maths at primary is pointless

[ReallyTired]

Having children pass a level 6 primary paper puts unrealistic pressure and expectations on secondary school children later on.

Our primary school headteacher is convinced that level 6 at keystage 2 is the equivalent of GCSE grade B. I believe that if a talented eleven year old with a level 6 in maths sat a GCSE higher level paper they would fail. Maybe a year 6 child with level 6 could pass foundation GCSE maths, but they have not covered the majority of the secondary school curriculum. I don't think that a primary level 6 is even the equivalent of a secondary level 6.

Many level 6 children have been moved down to the second set at ds's secondary because they have huge holes in their subject knowledge. I feel that primary school school should extend their gifted mathematicans sideways rather than pushing them through exams. (Ie. maths investigations, questions that require thought rather than mathematical knowledge ie. nrich.maths.org/frontpage) Improving mathematical thinking gives a good foundation for maths in later years.

Thanks, OP, I am capable of that. In fact, much of level six is exactly that.
E.g. Level five requires children to order decimals to 2 do, level requires them to do it to 3. Why wouldn't I let them do this?
If they've shown they can capably investigate the area of triangles, why wouldn't I let them investigate the area of a trapezium. Etc? When you let them advance and investigate on their own, it does tend to take them into level six.
Level six is not some mythical higher level we're selfishly pushing children on to - it's a naturally extension of level five. Have you read the thread about the English teach apparently telling the girl to "dumb down" her gcse work? That's what I'd be doing if I didn't let me kids access level 6 material.

Dp, not do.

And, having re-read your OP, I can assure you that at our school we certainly don't push these children through tests with gaps in their knowledge.

I had a group of bright year 6es for boosters one year...mainly boys, incidentally...and I really looked forward to their maths lessons, because I already knew they were solid level 5s, and back then there was no compulsion to put some of them through the level 6 papers. I did a lot of extended investigations and more complicated space and shape stuff. They loved it.

Problem is that once level 6 was more for 'fun'- if the child is capable, then why not? I'm worried about the possibility that it will become expected and that children will be put in for level 6 ho are not ready just so the school can show that they are producing level 6. Not good for the children if that happens.

Dd1 got level 6 last yr in maths and had transferred seamlessly to high school

No actually that's a lie, high school maths was too easy so I had a chat with the maths teacher and now it's fine

There was no pressure in primary, no extra classes -it was just to have a go

I read her the dragon question and pretty much before I'd finished reading she's told me it was 19

My yr5 top table dd however looked at me in blind panic -she is a worker rather than a natural

I think the level 6 should be available for the dcs who have a natural talent but children shouldn't be pushed into it

In my last year at primary school, at the age of 11, I was factorising quadratic equations, solving simultaneous equations, and had to do a Latin grammar paper every Friday morning after break.

There were written exams in all subjects - English, arithmetic, algebra, geometry, French and Latin in the summer and at Christmas. There were also fortnightly orders in class where we totalled up all the marks we'd got and were arranged in descending order.

Thursday afternoon music and scripture lessons were often cancelled and we walked all over local national trust hills with the head's golden retriever - Whisky - who also sat in the classroom.

It was, however, quite a long time ago........

I think that the levels should simply be a true reflection of the child's levels in class. So a "push" for level 6s in the exams is not helpful.

DS1 has a natural ability with numbers, and is in a class with two other similar (and brighter!) children. They all covered the level 5 curriculum in year 4, and this year are repeating with extension level 6 work.

They will be at level 6 next year in year 6, regardless of whether there is a level 6 test or not.

So, guess the test is fairly pointless, but the work is not.

I was a state primary and by 11 I could do trigonometry with sines/ cosines and quadratic equations with letters rather than numbers and used log tables to do multiplying etc as this was late 1970's and calculators not really used I used a calculator when did A level in 1986 was using pi to 2 or 3 decimal places.

in last year of primary maths was mostly figuring it out for yourself working out height of trees from angles etc, the teacher was excellent at maths but expected us to work out which calculations to do as well as actually doing them

got to senior school in top set of 8 did nothing new for 2 years and got told that pi was 3 as 3.14 was too complicated though I behaved at school I deeply resented being kept back for 2 years instead of being taught new stuff, many others in class did misbehave as sooo bored

I do not think children should be stopped progressing but neither should the able ones just be taught to test they should expand both sideways and onwards,

silly rules like you can't do level 6 maths you aren't old enough or you can't read red/green/yellow or whatever books as too young is silly nonsense

the problem with reading literature is that advanced readers often have a problem getting age appropriate reading material this would not be true in maths though reading more non fiction might help

So, guess the test is fairly pointless, but the work is not.

Nail. Head.

Doing L6 has taught my DD2 to enjoy maths. That is priceless.

Your Head is confused. A pupil who got level 6 at the end of KS3 would be expected to get at least a B at GCSE. The levels aren't equivalent. As others have said, a level 8 us roughly equivalent to a grade B. Not sure I'd know what to expect from a pupil who had level 6 at KS2. I'm an English teacher, though, so the levels do not match as well - they don't have to study Shakespeare for their grade 5/6 at KS2, they do at KS3. Different ball game, even if the descriptors still match.

A Level 6 at the end of year 9 means with normal progress a DC would get a B at GCSE at the end of Year 11. If they took a GCSE the day after getting their Level 6 they would in all likelihood get a D.

A Level 7 at the end of year 9 means a predicted GCSE of A . . . if they took the GCSE at the same time as getting the level 7 they'd probably get a C.

Level 8 at end of year 9 - A* at GCSE in Yr 11, B in a GCSE taken in Yr 9.

Someone has got their wires crossed.

We get in trouble if we don't enter our more the children who attained L3 at KS1 for Level 6 SATs. The data doesn't show enough progress to maintain Outstanding status, and we get red flagged for Ofsted.

That said, our children really seem to enjoy the booster group - they go up to the local secondary school, along with other cluster primaries, and get to know each other and the school.

We have the same problem as Batman.

Half my class got Level 3 at Year 2. This counts as 3B (even if they just scraped a 3...)

So, for them (and my teaching),
5B = Satisfactory progress
5A = Good Progress
6C = Outstanding progress

We are an outstanding school. My (performance related pay) target is that 60% of my children make outstanding progress.

My only option is to prepare and enter them for the Level 6 paper.

Sorry, secondary Maths teachers....

My children's primary is inadequate and prehaps that is why children have been pushed to oblivion to level 6 and may have gaps in their level 5 knowledge.

I feel it would be more accurate to give the children who pass level 6 a level 5 with distinction rather than pretending its the same as a secondary school level 6. (The level 6 paper could be similar to a step paper that used to exist for A-level)

Even if a child who has achieved level 6 is extremely able, they don't have level 6 maths knowledge. A child who has achieved level 5 in keystage 2 Sats doesn't have keystage 3 level 5 Sats level. Prehaps its an indication of how ridiculous it is to compare secondary school levels to primary school levels.

Not even bothering with stealth boast - my six-year-old got the dragon question right straightaway. But she's probably at level 0.5 in maths and just too young to overthink things. All tests are bunkum really, but I suppose that we must attempt to fatten those little piggies somehow.

ReallyTired that is still a sweeping generalisation. There are genuinely very able children out there who do deserve that L6 - and who deserve to be moved on properly when they reach secondary. I do suspect it's a smaller number than those who are currently getting L6 though.

In my DD1's case the evidence shows that her L6 was the real deal. In my DD2's case I suspect she won't pass the L6 and that is as it should be as she is a high L5 and no more - but the booster lessons are teaching her confidence and a love of maths so are still doing her a lot of good. She sees the L6 test as a challenge and fun.

I do sincerely hope her teachers' pay doesn't depend on her getting L6 though, that would be insane.

Frankly, the level 6 test was the only thing that kept DD1 sane during year 6. She was bored rigid of the maths curriculum and could do the level 5 papers in her sleep. Her father is an extremely gifted mathematician (note, not her mother!) and she has inherited his feel for it.

Her primary school created a level 6 group to cover the extra curriculum but they were not placed under any particular pressure to do anything other than "have a go".

Her first year 7 report agreed that she is a level 6B, so I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that she was pushed too far too soon.

Secondary maths teacher here -

GCSE target grades are assigned based on KS2 SATS results, the government expect the student to make 3 levels of progress from KS2 by the time they finish their GCSEs.

This means if a student gets a level 3 in SATS (or teacher assessment at end of year 6) they should get a D at GCSE, a level 4 would be a C and level 5 can be differentiated - 5c/b is a B, 5b/a is an A, 5a / 6 is an A*.

Obviously, this is ridiculous for many students, my SEN class mostly came in with levels 2 / 3s (a lot of whom when given a baseline did not have those levels - possibly because of primaries 'teaching to the test' or impossible government targets placed on them), it will be lucky if even 2 of them will get a D at GCSE.

Likewise, some students change dramatically in the years they are at secondary and learning slows / increases dependant on what else is occurring in their lives, so to base their targets on primary levels is just insane...

With regards to level 6 at primary, I personally find that the majority of students that come to me with a level 6 SATS do not equate to it and instead have a mid / high level 5...

"ReallyTired that is still a sweeping generalisation. There are genuinely very able children out there who do deserve that L6 - and who deserve to be moved on properly when they reach secondary. I do suspect it's a smaller number than those who are currently getting L6 though."

I am not saying that the children who sit the level 6 paper in year 6 aren't able and don't deserve recongition. However the curriculum and style of testing is very different in secondary to primary. I expect that many children with good secondary school level 6s would fail the keystage 2 primary school level 6 test and vice a versa. Level 6 in primary is more of a test of intelligence than mathematical knowledge.

Prehaps primary schools get more able children to sit the 4 to 6 tier of keystage 3 SATs papers, especially as the Gove wants to bring back keystage 3 SATs.

Maybe the two tests are an equivalent standard, but they test very different things. Its like comparing grade 6 violin with grade 6 flute.

cuban, I totally agree.

Not just with Maths, either. My son achieved L6 in English in Year 6 with very little effort. His work was riddled with what I would call lazy mistakes and he was frustratingly complacent about making improvements.

Having moved to a really good, innovative Senior School, he is now being challenged to work harder, more accurately and to demonstrate a far more methodical way of working. He is still marked as a L6 but it is clear from reading his work that he has made considerable all round progress since SATS.

Whereas he primary taught to the test, his new school is equipping him for life - something that will remain pertinent to him long after GCSE.

I don't care about L6 tests AS TESTS. I do care, deeply, that their existence has rapidly 'normalised' continuing to teach children who arrive in Y6 at L5 new stuff throughout the year. And has also, UIME, brought secondary school maths teachers into primary schools, initially to 'help to advise on L6', but discussions with colleagues from both primary and secondary suggest that another effect is for secondaries to realise the level of maths that is atually being taught in good primariesd and to adjust the 'starting point' in Year 7 accordingly.

DS was L6 at the end of Y6, is a high L7 / low L8 in year 8.

(As for subject knowledge, both DS and DD - who will take L6 this year and is likely to get it - studied algebra, trigonometry, areas of parts of circles etc in Y6, as well as having 'problem solving' fun maths sessions with a secondary teacher)

well my ds loves his l6 work. he was bored stiff all last year and still is in other classes as l6 in maths is all the school will agree to do

can you imagine the tedium of doing the same work again again again again again and again for overayear

poor ds

thank goodness for some new stuff to learn

sideways extension my arse. once they reach 5 a, job done