KS2 Year 5, Level 4b & 3C??

[Leaveitbabe]

Forgive me if this has been answered but I cannot get a clear answer via google. DOE pointed me here:

www.education.gov.uk/schools/teachingandlearning/assessment/keystage2/pupil/b00206193/ks2-results/level-threshold-tables

DD is Y5 and achieved
3C in handwriting this sounds low even though she has a glowing report for her handwriting i.e. very neat etc.
4b in Literacy and Mathematics

What do these scores mean?

Many thanks in advance.

tiggy - See feenie's post on the thread "Nationally how many people get 4b's" unless I'm reading it wrong I think it's indicating that something like 80% get 4+ - that's why its' the base line expected, not the average, which is the same mistake ellen is making.

fair point ahve just re-read and it does come across as snarly, funny i wasn't at all feeling like that at the time but am now totally p'd off.

tiggy - your post reads as very reasonable.

Most parents here and in RL will agree, and not see any cause to enhance childrens' knowledge at home.

But if parents got to see their childs papers, if parents were given full knowledge of how many points were needed for each level, I truly feel that they would be surprised at how little extra input is needed (on a 1:1 at home) to progress between sub-levels in maths.

for example my sons papers showed that he did not answer correctly questions on co-ordinates, measuring the spines of a hedge-hog, and algebra - had he done so he would have gone up a sub-level (subject to teacher asessment).

Now he's not super-bright, and i'm in no way a primary school teacher, but I do think if I had gone through these areas several times with him over this year he would have understood them.

So I do think children are capable of quite a bit more.

But of course children always have next steps! Learning never ends. So of course they can do a bit more - that's where the teacher will take them next, and next after that.

The OP asked if she needed to worry - we were able to place her query in perspective to let her make a judgement. You just went off on one! Not fair on the thread of an anxious parent.

Using your logic you could go on anyone's thread, regardless of progress/attainment/achievement and say exactly the same things.

Are there any statistics on what the average levels at the end of year 6 are as oposed to the 4b target? I can see RosemaryAndThyme's point although I would be unlikely to have put it quite like that.

At DCs school we got reports today and found out they only give levels in year 2 and year 6 so no idea what levels year 1 and year 3 DC are at anyway.

Year 6 SATs national % 2112

Reading- 8% level 3, 41% level 4, 42% level 5
Writing 20% level 3, 55% level 4, 20% level 5
Maths - 14% level 3 45% level 4, 35% level 5

2112 seeker? Wow! And to think I only target set for a year!

Re bell curves and normal distributions- most children will sit within quite a small region, and some will be on either side. Whether or not we, as teachers, assign numbers and letters to those children, they are still a bell curve. A class is a small sample. My class is unusually bright, so the average for my class is far higher than the national average. There is still a bell curve, just as my sample is so small it doesn't match the national.

The national average is 4b. This may be counted as low for some schools, and high by others. But that's why it's a national average.

That's Michael Gove for you!

Why are so many teachers and parents hung up on levels? It really surprises me that when the education in this country is laughable that anybody gives a monkeys.

• monkey's

1. because we want to ensure no child is left behind, and monitoring levels is one way to keep a track.

2. because, from September, our pay will be affected by pupils' progress.

Mainly 1

Now he's not super-bright, and i'm in no way a primary school teacher, but I do think if I had gone through these areas several times with him over this year he would have understood them.

What you appear to be saying here is that with one to one support a child will progress well.

Would it be rude to say....duh?

Can I ask when you last read a peice of 4b writing, or saw the level 5 questions in the Year 6 maths papers? To me the skills necessary are roughly equivilant to what you would expect from an adult. A normal, run of the mill adult. With maths, yes you probably would expect them to know more because they cover a wider range of things. But in level of complexity at level 5 is what I would expect an adult to be able to do. It isnt easy by any means. Manageable, wouldnt push you. But then, you're not 10.

These are 10 and 11 year old children. I think the bar has been set high enough. Children writing at a level 6, then a 7, then an 8 may possible. But why is it desireable?

Why is it desirable for children to be passing SAT's at levels 6 then 7 then 8 - because (admittedly only in my view) - they can.

If what your saying in your post is essentially good enough is good enough, don't keep pushing for higher achievement, then thats I would completly disagree with.

Level 5 is pretty for an 11 year old- level 6 even more so. And there is so much else for them to be doing at this age- time enough for level 7s!

I think Rosemary's message is actually a positive one - children are often capable of more than we know & we should have high academic aspirations where possible.

I live in Asia and I see children with 'average' intellect increase that intellect through purposeful practice daily. I see ordinary children achieve the extraordinary quite often.

I was told that one of mine is unlikely to get a 5a or level 6 at 11 due to end of KS1 level (youngest in year). The trajectory is already set & cohort divided into high, middle & low ability. In Maths they won't be exposed to enough material to get a top grade in time. They can move set but it's going to be a slog. I expect teachers to push for the maximum a child can achieve & not just settle for 'good enough' ever.

Just to say IMO the responsibility also lies with parents & the good news is the summer holidays loom & there are loads of interesting free resources on the internet :).

I wasnt quite trying to say 'good is good enough' but I can see how it reads like that. But I dispute that you were saying 'some can do this' - from my reading of your first post you were saying the bar is set too low at foundation and so MOST children can achieve better than a 4b at year 6.

I am not suggesting we shouldnt encourage the children that can get a level 6 at year 6. But I think you are wrong in saying that the expectations of the primary curriculum are too easy and that we do children a disservice by not acting when they are slightly below. Hence why I asked if you had recently seen a 4b peice of maths. I think if you, and many parents, saw the work Year 6s produce they would be quite surprised.

Not sure if you were directing that to me PP? I am not OP & previous comment first on this thread.

Generally I think many can acheive more - when I lived in the UK our non selective Prep got 99 percent to a good level 5, many do. It's about boosting attainment, to think you can get to the standard of a low level 4 & that's your permanent limit that year doesn't make sense to me.

The is no such thing as a non selective prep.

No Hamish it was directed at me.

I do definatley think that we do children a disservice by not acting when they are slightly below, I think that is the very best time to act.

I have not seen level 4 SAT's script, most children DO acheive 4b or better - see above confusion from folks about the difference between average and expected, 80% of children at y6 achieve level4 (per feenie).

Year 6 SATs national % 2012

Reading- 8% level 3, 41% level 4, 42% level 5
Writing 20% level 3, 55% level 4, 20% level 5
Maths - 14% level 3 45% level 4, 35% level 5

Just in case this got buried earlier.

The trajectory is already set...In Maths they won't be exposed to enough material to get a top grade in time.

Hamish, I don't remember what ds's level was at the end of KS1, but in his Y5 optional SATs he achieved a 3a in Maths, as the teachers had predicted. In his Y6 SATs, he got a 5 (he tells me he got a score of 85, which would be a 5b if they did sublevels - tbh if 85 = 5c or blinking 4a then I'm as pleased as punch!).

I don't think it was the marking - a couple of others have gone up 3 sublevels but the rest have moved up 1 or 2 (caveat: I'm relaying what ds has told me!).

What I'm getting at is that the trajectory isn't (or at least shouldn't be) set as such. There's an expectation that a child will achieve at least Level x by a certain point and if they don't, the school/parents would want to know what was going wrong (or at least ascertain that it wasn't just a lull). But it is not a limit.