Are ALL children expected to make 2 full levels of progress in KS2, regardless of ability.

[Iamnotminterested]

Say if child A started year 3 at a 3b for writing, and child B at 2c; would the same sub-levels of progress in year 3 be expected of both or would child A be expected to make more??

I think there will be pass-fail tests at end of each academic yr, Runout, not just end of y6. Maybe pass-fail tests several times a yr, like they already have testing-for-what-Level-are they-on ("assessment week") once a term or so at the moment, from y2 onwards.

They have spilt the primary curriculum up into Y1/2, Y3/4 and Y5/6 so if they do introduce testing I think it might be two yearly although there is no mention of it in the draft or in the letter to Tim Oates.

and where does that leave KS3??

clearly, the same decision will follow through...

here we go again......

Hasn't one of the experts that Gove consulted then ignored already publically spoken about how crap the NC reforms are?

Well, it looks on paper like my DS2 has had amazing teaching this year, as he left Y2 on a lvl 1c in maths, and just before the half term (just got his mark back), he was assessed as being a 3a.

What has actually happened is that Maths has suddenly just 'clicked' for him. So on paper, regardless of any further progress in KS2, he has already made 8 sub levels progress in KS2...

Having had 3 DC, who are all different, I can attest to the fact that progress is NOT linear, it goes in fits and starts. Some take a massive leap in Y2, some like my DS2 do it in Y3, some like my DD don't catch up until Y9!

I think they'll be testing - perhaps every year? - if the rigour of the Y1 phonics check is anything to go by (i.e. anyone 'not meeting the standard must have intervention'). I wonder if this will follow over every year group.

If you had enforced intervention for the underachievers, it would inevitably lead to streaming..... and that, mrz is where the double year groups may play a part.

Just my theory......

Double year groups? What happens in a one-form entry school?

I mean the double Yr groups 1/2, 3/4, 5/6! Sorry not clear!

Ah, I see. But what differences would it make to schools that already do other stuff that's not covered in the current NC framework, but is being proposed, like MFL etc? My DS's school teach Spanish from YR, to basic conversational fluency by end if Y6 (for the majority of the pupils, anyway, though MFL lessons are what DC with SN miss out on for 'catch ups', i.e. small group or individual work).

They do a lot of drama, art, history and music, seemingly in a far greater depth than a lot of the other state primaries, and do cooking too, which none of the other local primaries do.

They are becoming an Academy in September, the HT's reasons were "So that we can keep the curriculum here as broad as we currently do, and to control our own admissions so we can stick at 2-form intake"

The school's SEN and bullying policies are, frankly, crap, but educationally, the curriculum is far and away better, broader, and deeper than the other local schools. How will the new NC proposals affect that, especially for a Primary Academy?

They aren't double year groups but for curriculum purposes Y1&2 will be KS1 (as now) Y3&4 will be the next stage (lower KS2 if you like) & Y56 the final primary stage. Still separate classes in most schools bu with a shared outcome to be achieved over the 2 years

The NC proposals won't affect acadameies at all.

it sounds like the real reason your primary is converting is to try and stop the LEA forcing it to expand.

However, the LEA can force academies to expand....... Hopefully they won't.

But you raise a good point. If schools don't like Goves NC, they can always convert to an academy and ignore him.....

OP - In the case of my DS his state primary teacher decided that since he was so ahead of the national average he could be left alone while the teacher focused on bringing others up to the national average.

Based on that experience, I wouldn't expect your school to accelerate your higher achieving DC.

In our school (secondary) all students - irrespective of starting point have targets of two full levels of progress in KS3 (which is only two years now) and two further levels in KS4.

I think this is bonkers.

If a child has been in ft education for 7 years and has reached L3 (yr6), then their learning curve is clearly more shallow and they learn more slowly. Of course we should expect them to make reasonable progress, but I don't think it's realistic or fair to expect their learning curve to suddenly accelerate immensely.

Conversely, if a child has achieved L6 by the end of primary, then it's necessary to expect/predict their learning curve to continue to be very steep.

Therefore selective schools (grammars etc) are obviously going to have a higher percentage of students who have steeper learning graphs, so therefore are more likely to make 4 levels of progress (or more) between KS2 and KS4; than - say - a comprehensive where most students enter with L4 grades, or lower.

This is really obvious to me, but education-wallas who pronounce on this subject just don't seem to grasp it.

This school focusses on the higher achieving DC (those likely to add prestige by getting into the superselectives, so they can say to prospective parents they had X amount accepted to to CRGS), at the expense of their SEN pupils.

It's a sore point for me that DS1 gets Y8 work and hours of the Senco's time every week, yet they left my DD to drift for years, and her issues weren't addressed until she got to Secondary. They DO stretch the most able, even with small groups being taught by the HT twice a week, but they don't give a fig about those who they KNOW won't make lvl 3 at the end of Y6.

Hence me saying the school has an appalling record for SEN. Those with SEN DC who can remove their DC and find an alternative school, do.

DD went from P-scales in Y6, to NC lvl 4b in Y9 in maths at secondary. So she made 12 sub-levels of progress in KS3...down to an excellent SEN dept at her Secondary. If the primary had put the work in, she would have got there much sooner.

This is interesting

It explains how data places children in 3 bands based on assessment scores in the infants. Pupils are labelled as weak, average and high-achieving. As the article states 'average' pupils at 7 are expected to scored level 4 in both English and Maths by the age of 11.

My child was set for Maths at the end of KS1. Those that were a level 3c at the end of KS1 are now at the end of Y3 almost universally level 3a. They were set where these were the expectations and curriculum taught at the beginning of the year. My child was not a level 3c. Expectations for them were lower from the start of the year. Movements through the sets are fluid but depend on a space being available in the set above. If they'd ended Y2 at a higher level expectations would have been higher.

To give an example isn't it better your child is seen as high-achieving at the end of KS1 rather than average? It then means the school will have to push to get them to a higher level to show adequate levels of progress have been reached. This will mean that expectations will be higher for them at 11 and ultimately at GCSE.

I wish I'd known decisions are made at 7 as to who is high achieving, average and weak as it says in the article, I might have done more work at home with my child.

That's interesting Hamishbear - however would doing more work at home have really done your child any favours...? If children are put in a group/set which contains children who can pick things up really quickly and achieve those levels without extra work, would the one who works hard at home always feel like they are struggling to keep up? I agree that the expectations will be higher for higher achievers, and that "average" children shoudl be extended to the best of their ability, but I don't think "average" children should be stressed out trying to keep up with a group beyond their natural ability.... Movement should be possible between groups as some children will become more efficient learners with maturity - labelling them at 7 and expecting them to stay the same for the rest of their school career is not necessarily helpful.

Hi Runoutofideas, I think in our particular case, yes it would. Others were prepping and doing more at home and I didn't realise. My child is very young in the year too and what my DC would have struggled with at start of year is now something they'd do standing on their head at year end. The Government labeling them average and expecting a level 4 from this sort of child is unhelpful in our situation. What happens if 'natural ability' develops? Also our top set is full of Kumon children etc who won't be moving down to make room for others any time soon.

Ah I see - your situation is different from how I envisaged it. Are you in a grammar school area? Just wondered why there are so many being tutored/Kumon etc... Dd2 is yr 2 in a high achieving, well regarded state school. They have just done their SATS which were so low key the children didn't notice. The children don't do any homework except for reading books. I know most of the parents pretty well and none of the children are being tutored as far as I know.

Seems a bit of a shame that your groups have to be of an even size - surely if your child is able to work with the higher group, then they should be moved up regardless of whether anyone comes down, or is that too idealistic....?

The MLD special school I used to work at expected children to make one sub level of progress over two years. I have a friend who works at an SLD school and their progress of children with profound disablities is so low that the school has had to sub divide the sub levels.

I like the levels system and I am sorry to see it go. If think it helped older children to know what they needed to do be a level 5 etc. Prehaps a big problem is that a level 5 at keystage 2 is not the same as a level 5 at keystage 3. I feel that level system focussed on progress rather than who is top of a the class.

Our top sets are full of tutored and Kumon DC too. However, given the massive 8 sub-levels progress DS2 has made this year, at Feb half term he was moved from bottom set Maths to middle set (bulge year with 3-firm intake, so 3 sets), and I have just been told that from the start of Y4 (Sept), he is being moved to top set. Not bad for a non-tutored DC, on SA, on FSM's, who started FT school in YR having only been walking for 13 months, and still under OT, Physio, SALT, and a developmental Paed!

Bet some posh PTA mummy will be peeved when they find out it's my DC that is being moved to top set!

Ooh, how ODD. Before I just posted, the whole thread was in italics, and now I have posted, it's gone back to normal.

"have just been told that from the start of Y4 (Sept), he is being moved to top set. Not bad for a non-tutored DC, on SA, on FSM's, who started FT school in YR having only been walking for 13 months, and still under OT, Physio, SALT, and a developmental Paed!"

He sounds just like my son, although my son didn't have quite such severe developmental problems. DS was under the child development centre until year 2. I occassionally see our ex paediatrian in Sainsburys she tells me that ds is one of her greatest sucess stories.

Ds had physio, OT, audiology and SLT, but now aged ten is doing really well both socially and academically. I think it shows the importance of high quality early intervention. Also its wrong to label children as bright or stupid.

I really had to fight every step of the way for that early intervention, though, it almost drove me to a breakdown. It's all worth it now, though. He will be 9 in November, and aside from some rather dodgy syntax when he speaks, a couple of consistently mispronounced words, and a dx of ASD, you'd not know how much he struggled!

We're at a large, well organised international school. They like to keep sets and ability groups the same size I've found.

Well done Couthy and Reallytired's DCS - great when they progress like that.