If schools don't predict a level 3 at KS1 do they think a level 5 unlikely at KS2?

[NorhamGardens]

I've heard from friends that sometimes if a child doesn't get a level 3 at KS1 targets can be set inflexibly going forward?

In other words less than a level 3 at KS1 may translate to a level 4 at KS2? The middle group being taught to lower NC targets than the higher group. Therefore unless you're plugging the gaps at home a level 5 at KS2 will be nigh on impossible to achieve?

I've seen how some lessons are differentiated and there is plenty of scope for the top group to pull further and further away from the others in terms of ground covered. It may be that some in the middle don't have a chance to prove their potential?

I know that it's in the school and teachers interest to push etc, which is good, it's just that the expectations & exposure to more challenging work might not be the same in one group compared to another.

I am sure in most schools this won't be a problem, but perhaps in some?

Norham - look up your school's CVA scores.

If their CVA is over 100 that means that quite a few kids make more than 2 levels of progress between KS1 and KS2.

If their CVA is under 100 it means it's a rubbish school :)

But regardless of the CVA school, or their league tables or anything else. No one can predict exactly what your DC will get in KS2 - nor whether or not they will get into the grammar school you have set your heart on.

NG - thinking about this thread and wondering if you have an update re: your DS?

One of my dss would have definitely got 2s in KS1, but had a developmental spurt in KS2. The other got all threes, as he's 12% of the whole country I can't see that only 12% will get all 5s at KS2.

Ks3 english I got a level 5. GCSE english language ~ b english lit~ b english vocab and communications ~ a. This was before a* came in.
My teacher begged me to do english at a'level due to the progress i had made in her class.

My point being that you can never guess what rate a child will improve at given the right teacher and the right circumstances.

I have just been told dd is likely to come out at 2b/2a at end of year 2. I thought that was fairly good. Am I wrong?

Thats good, cokezone1; the expected is 2b, so 2a would be very good.

Think its probably 2a for maths. 2b for others. Thank you Lovecheese.

I can't imagine any school limiting the potential for more children to gain a level 5 in Y6 regardless of levels in Y2 it would be foolish as a predicted level 3 doesn't guarantee a level 5

My sister would have been level 2 at ks1 and definitejt level 5 for KS2. She blossomed in year 5 with an amazing teacher.

Dd1 was 2a for reading and 2b for writing and maths. Her Y6 teacher is expecting her to get L5 for reading and maths and 4a for writing.

Whether she does get her 5's depends on how she does on the day, but the expectation is there. She is not in the top set btw, but normally gets the same work as them. Y6 teachers love seeing children exceed their predictions.

All children are monitored. If the school is not doing it properly, Ofsted will get very cross! (unless overall average results because of talented children hide poor teaching).

Level 2s are good at the end of KS1. A level 3 for writing is quite hard to get at that age (lots of punctuation required.

There is lots of fluidity at primary level and good schools do review the targets every year. For admin purposes, a child getting a level 3 at KS1 will always be predicted a level 5 at KS2. Anything less and ofsted would question what the school was up to. However, that is not to say that children getting 2As are expected only to get L4s. Lots of these children will also get L5s.

So a child getting 2Bs or 2As may well, initially get a prediction of L4 at Y6. However, as that child matures and moves through Y3 and Y4, that prediction is often changed to a L5.

School can be a little cautious with regards target setting for obvious reasons but that doesn't mean they are under-ambitious for the child.

Madsometimes, The satisfaction of seeing any child reach their potential in the tests was always an amazing feeling. It made the whole job worthwhile.

For some that was straight L5s. But for others, it was a L3 and leaving us with a basic functioning level of literacy and maths. Many of these kids had entered the juniors on the old 'W' score or 1C and were still struggling with basic number and letter recognision at 7yrs.

Lots of very high performing 'outstanding' graded schools have very poor CVA scores. I wish prospective parents would look at these alongside the levels.

Also, some schools will be top of the primary league tables because they have the highest number of L4s. In fact, a closer look might show they produce little else but almost 30, level 4s. Another school may be behind them in the table due to lower L4 scores but of those L4 and above, a high percentage attained L5. They also have a good mix of L3s in there.

A broad catchment where they support the less able and stretch the more able has got to be a more vibrant learning environment than one who just makes sure all the children reach the required L4 through intensive boosting. This usually happens in schools where 90+% of the children could read and count to 50+ on entry to Reception.

Give me an improving school or one with a very mixed intake any day over a complacent outstanding rated primary any day!

Dont get carried away by cva scores,its not unknown for schools to keep ks1 down so ks2 looks great with lots of cva,treat with caution.

I have asked similar questions about this in the past, and my understanding is when a child is given a Level 5, the schools dont say whether its just a scrape through, confident or almost a 6.

There have also been many posts on here from teachers who say children have gone to high school with a Level 5 score, but in reality do not know enough to be accurately assessed as a Level 5 and should have been recorded as a Level 4.

I would prefer children were given accurate grades to assess where they really are rather than a higher grade that they have just about scraped through to.

RoadArt, that is a problem as they cross a key stage. A L5 at Y6 is only ever just reaching the standard so can accurately be called a 5C. Therefore, when the enter Y7, they need to spend quite a while consolidating that level which is actually quite vast.

It's the same when they come into Y3 with L3s. They are certainly not secure L3s and if they were immediately tested on a Y3 paper, they wouldn't actually reach a L3 at all. All it really means is that they are above L2 and starting to touch on what is required for L3.

So the child in my Y2 class currently at 3a in maths won't be a level 4 by Y3?

Well that child may well be. Just as a child can be in Y5 and already achieving a solid L5.

I'm talking about a L3 on the test paper. They can get a L3 on the test paper and more often than not it just means they are above L2 and touching on L3. It certainly does not mean they are a solid L3. Although, of course, an individual child may well be.

Just to clarify, I am talking about the test papers which often belie a child's actual ability.

No it doesn't but depending on the score it's possible to work out whether they are low, secure or high on the test (obviously a maximum score is high). But Y2 levels are based on the work over the year so quite easy to see if a child is secure. It is also possible to award a level 6 in Y6 if a child is working at that level even though the test is level 3-5.

Oh but in the good old days we had a L6 paper. We rarely needed to order them and it was exciting when we did.

The problem arises when Y2 parents are told their child is a L3 at the end of the year then they complain when their child 'only' gets a 3A at the end of Y3. Now both levels are correct but many parents then assume that their child hasn't moved on at all in Y3. I remember that being very frustrating.

Of course, a few children who came up on L3 would get a L4 at the end of the year too. But those children have probably made the same progree with the only difference being that they were a more secure L3 in the first place.

If a child was a Level 3 at end of year 2, would would the forecast be at end of Year 8?

I presume these forecasts are the same for both maths and literacy?

Oh I can't remember-probably about a 6B?
two thirds of a level a year and a likely projection of L5 in Y6 so 5A in Y7 and 6B at the end of Y8.

But as we were just discussing, it could well be that an individual child is quite far into L3 at the end of KS1 and quite far into L5 at Y6, so perhaps a 6A? Though I'm not 100% sure as it's a long time since I taught KS3.