End of KS1 levels 3C, 3B, 3A - given out? How unusual?

[NorhamGardens]

Do state schools ever differentiate the different tiers in level 3? Ours seems to, which I thought was unusual and a bit surprising? It was verbally after an open afternoon we had.

We seem to have some that have been given level 3B as a target for end of Y2 and others that are on target for a 3C etc.

How unusual is it that a child achieves a 3B or 3A in any area at the end of KS1?

AFAIK just a 3 has to be given, no sub-level within that. I suppose it could be at the school's discretion? I am getting comments from DD's teacher that she is "well within a level 3" already but know from experience that her school's policy is not to give a sub-level (officially).

Oh just be pleased that your DC's are doing well, presumably enjoy school?? and are making better than average progress for a 7 year old. 2B is the requirement for end year 2 so if working anywhere in 3's they are doing just great.

Seems to me that around this time we always get MN's "asking questions" about level 3 but really they just want an opportunity to boast

"We seem to have some that have been given level 3B as a target for end of Y2 and others that are on target for a 3C etc."

How do you know this NorhamGardens? Do parents at your school really discuss this stuff with each other? No-one in our school (last year) discussed levels with anyone other than the Teacher.

I think most parents whose children are doing SATS key stage 1 for the first time, have no idea of the sub levels in any case. I certainly don't and have had 3 children do them.

Schools always differentiate the levels - but they don't always tell parents.

They only tell the LEA a level 3. And I think the formal KS1 certificate you get won't have the sublevels on it.

But there's no reason why your school report can't. Internally and in their school records they def have differentiated. The teacher doesn't just assess your child for the LEA....

Around 1/3 of our current Y2 will achieve a level 3, and around 1/5 will be a 3B. Next year's cohort have a very different profile and will achieve accordingly.
They are children not Big macs, so the outcome is variable from year to year.

Our school haven't mentioned Key Stage 1 levels at all - neither have any of the parents. I mentioned Sats in passing at Parents' Evening, and was told, not to worry at all, he will do well. Clearly not policy to volunteer the information.

"They are children not Big macs, so the outcome is variable from year to year."

So funny, and so true!

1/3 of the cohort L3 in writing? If so.... I'm in awe!
How???!!! Tell me the secret!

That's interesting, IndigoBell. I was only told "3" and "5", and never thought to ask if it was a, b or c.

'1/3 of the cohort L3 in writing? If so.... I'm in awe! grin
How???!!! Tell me the secret!'

High ability and enthusiastic children. Articulate and positive parents who encourage them, very high quality teaching and interesting material.
The SEN and EAL children are benefiting from being a part of that year group.
Next year, the intake to Y2 is very different and the results might reflect that. Or not, who can tell?

V curious by all this as, being at an independent, we don't any of this sort of metric and in fact one is left pretty much in the dark as to where one's child comes in the class or wider community. I suppose they do do NFER standardised tests, but the school keep it all v close to their chest. There is a definite appeal in knowing, but I imagine does cause loads of stressing, comparisons etc.

When DD did her KS1 SATS many years ago, it was completely test based and there were no sub levels for level 3.
I think its now more teacher assesment based now so they are able to give a sub level.

Our school has a new policy of informing the children, and now the parents at parents' evening, of their end of year targets(with sublevels).
The idea is to motivate the children and inform them (with labels and ladders in their books) of what they need to do to reach the next level/sublevel. The method seems to be working.
Previously, all the teachers said was "doing well" and "nice child" so I welcome the additional information

purple - I'd be demanding performance indicators if I were paying!

As it is, our primary tell the DCs where they're at and where they should be heading, as in 'Currently your literacy standard is at 3a, I think you can achieve 4b by the end of the term/year/whatever'.

I think it's important.

In Y7, DS1 gets given, by several teachers, a list of key performance indicators which is brill- 'OK, if you include a map, level 4. You annotate the map, level 5, you put the map into the context of your work, level 6. You describe the conditions, level 4; more detail, level 5; the implications of the conditions on the outcome of the battle, level 6.'

In answer to a question, yes the parents in the class seem to be fairly open about levels etc. It's not a competitive school and parents seem fairly relaxed, I've got different children with v different standards of attainment currently and feel comfortable about it and will be open if people ask.

The 'Big Mac' comment made me laugh! But it does feel sometimes that that's the set up and the assessment system lends itself to that way of thinking. Class teacher told me that a certain number, a very small number, achieve 3B come what may, every year. Those that started ahead are the ones, in our school anyway, that are in line for the higher level/s in KS1 (as others say on here sometimes I think.)If you don't have a 3B target at this point in time you aren't going to achieve that level even if you have the potential and showed amazing progress in the final term. I can see the flaws in the system, a 2A could in theory become a 3B by the end of term but won't be viewed as having the potential/in line for one - won't be in the 'right' phonics groups, guided reading groups or have the appropriate targets set etc. I don't see it matters really longer term as think it will all even out.

We discussed this on a prev thread. Ks1 levels aren't given out at the end of the year they are submitted to the LEA at half term. And between now and half term there are almost no days of school left. We have Easter, royal wedding, may day......

Very few kids will make significant progress in thatamount of time. But if they do - great. If their y2 teacher doesn't notice, or ha e time to gather the 3 pieces of work done in class to use as evidence to justify their grade - well their y3 teacher will notice.

Can I ask a question....if no-one in a class got given higher than a 1a in anything at this stage in year 1, wouldn't that mean that none at all would be expected to get a level 3 if they progressed at typical rates.
Even if they ended the year on a 2c they'd still only be 2a by the end of year 2. It seems odd to me, especially in a class with a number of seemingly bright kids.

But children don't progress at typical rates! They progress at their own rate, that may be faster or slower than "average", one year they might move 2-3 sublevels, the next 1-2. If children came out of a little sausage machine it would make teaching very boring!

Kids can easily go from a 1a to a level 3 in Y2. My DS certainly has. Lots do.

Basically, school doesn't expect them all to progress at typical rates....

mumoverbored - being totally cynical, so that the yr2 teachers can claim massive progress??

Kids do not progress in a linear fashion - even though the dictate is 2 sub-levels a year they go in fits, starts and plateaus

all my kids so far have zoomed ahead from year 4 and been slightly worrying beforehand

so IMO as long as the kids like school and have good social abilities by end KS1 it's a win

We were never told sub levels for either of ours when they acheived level 3 at KS1 - one state, one independent at the time.

Similarly for DD1 in KS2 - just told 5's. Although over on the secondary school board, many posters mention sub-levels at KS2.

Yep Lovecheese that's exactly what I was thinking too....I know they all progress at different rates etc. and some will progress more than two sub-levels but it seems mighty strange that even the top group were almost all 1b, with just a few 1a from what I know.

So you think the Y1 is going to deliberately grade her students low (and by implication make it look like the kids made poor progress under her) so that the Y2 teacher can claim massive progress?