Correlation between results at KS1/2/3/4/A Level

[redskyatnight]

Just wondered if anyone could point me in the direction of any studies that have been done comparing children's results at each Key Stage?
Or failing that any opinions/gut feelings as to what correlations might exist.

My own gut feeling for what it's worth is that while some children may be weaker/"average"/bright throughout there will be an awful lot that suddenly come into their own at any given stage and therefore do "better", plus a fair few that struggle with the changes between key stages and may well do "worse".

DD has taken key stage 1, 2, 3 and now GCSE's.

Key stage 1. level 3 maths, 2c english

Key stage 2 level 5 maths, 5 science, 4b english

Key stage 3 level 7 maths, science, english

Predicted A* in all the above at GCSE. So fairly steady good achievement and a spurt in english during secondary school.

Don't know where to point you for facts in general sorry.

Well the 'expected' pattern is:
L2 at KS1
L4 at KS2
L5-6 at KS3
Grade C at KS4

If they get a L5 at Key Stage 3, they are expected to get a C at GCSE, so a L6 at KS3 would mean expected Grade B at KS4 and a L7 at KS3 would mean expected A or A* at GCSE. Not sure how these equate to A level though.

basically, they reckon two levels progress per key stage on average - these are the 'challenging targets' on Fischer Family Trust etc.

Yes, lots of data on this. Here's some info about tracking value added from GCSE to A level from Greenhead College which has done loads of work on this area greenhead.ac.uk/teachers/progress_grades.html
but there is also lots of work tracking SATS to GCSE etc. Google it.

It's all done for you on RaiseOnline. I don't think it's public access though.

I think it is the Fischer Family Trust that provides the data www.fischertrust.org/

Yes, you're right, mummyrex. KS2 results are definitely predicted through the Fischer trust using KS1 data.

Fischer Family Trust are sometimes used by schools but not always, but all schools do have a tracker system of some kind. I'm a year 5 teacher and my school uses them together with CATS tests, to track and predict progress across the school.

What many don't realise however, is that a level 3 at ks1 does not correspond to level 3 in ks2 and similarly the expectations for level 5 at ks2 are not the same at ks3. This is why many year 3s and year 7s seem to make less progress.

FFT is used onto KS3 as well. My school predicts KS3 teacher assessed levels AND GCSE results from KS2 results.

Progression expectation is as people have said above.

Although I have come across a school that not only has contracted KS3 into 2 years, but has also increased expected progression to a whole level per year.

I thought the level of progress a year was standard to be honest.

Well, if you consider that the average is L2 at KS1 and L4 at KS2 (so obv 4 years later) it would seem not to be the case. Actually, I've been explicitly told that it's two sublevels per year.

I was impressed by the teacher from the school I mentioned, though. One level a year does seem more logical. Although having said that, if you took a kid who got the average L2s in year two and applied it to them, they'd achieve a L8 in year 8, which would take them from bang on average to exceptional.

I teach secondary, and I have often wondered about the KS1 and 2 levels because as you say it would mean children achieving level 8 and EP very early on.

I know with my own classes I work on a level a year and have done that for quite some time. I can remember hearing about 2 sublevels a few years ago though.

I think it depends on the school.

The one I was on about is the best-regarded school in the area, generally very innovative, over-subscribed etc.

Mine... isn't like that. They stick to the two sublevels.

The school I came from ( which was undersubsribed and very non academic )did the 2 sublevels and then switched two years ago. Although having targets and meeting them are very different things.

Aha, indeed.

I do wonder about low aspirations on behalf of the pupils quite a lot.

As a trainee I've had a class given to me that the teacher openly admitted had been passed around staff as no one wanted to teach them.