Levels and targets question

[couldwinterstopnowplease]

If a child achieves a particular NC level/ sub-level, that means they have achieved pretty much all that level's objectives and should be working on targets for the next sub-level up right? There might be one or two minor things they don't do and still need to work on from the level already achieved though/

I had a little discussion about this with a teacher who thinks that all children on say for example 2b at the end of last year would still get 2b targets now because even if you achieved that level you are still actually working towards that level's targets. Hope that makes sense.

I have never heard her view before and feel pretty sure mine is correct but who is it?!

Anyone?

My understanding from talking to teachers is if a child is assessed at the level they can do all criteria for that level, then they would be working on next level work to complete those criteria. So a child attains a certain level then will be working at the next level to achieve at. if he was 2b at the end of last year then he should be 2a now and working towards 3c, is my understanding.

Leveling for writing is really complicated. A child who is level 7 would not be marked as a level 2 just because they missed off one full stop. Sometimes children write better on some days than others depending on tireness and whether they are in the mood.

Glad it's not just me then Plain.

Reallytired, this isn't just for writing and is across all subjects.
I understand that the whole class have the targets for one sub-level from their end of last year levels.

So if you were a 2b at the end of last year her view is you might still be working on some 2b ones. All the children I'm aware of seem to have targets that assume they are at best at the same sub-level they were at in May last year. We are now nearly a year on...(and no it isn't a separate infants/ juniors and I very much doubt there was any over-inflation of levels at the end of last year).

Why focus on the levels though? Your child's target should be "the next thing" they need to do -or something that they are starting to do but need to do all the time. As long as the target is set correctly, who cares what level it is? If your child's target is to use capital letters consistently and they've been able to do that since this time last year then query the target - don't query that they are already at level 2b and that's a 2b target ...

That's the point. It's not the levels that matter so much but the targets aren't correct either because they are automatically picked based on the levels last year. There is no individualisation apparent. They have just been given the target card for that level. So the two are synonymous really.

The levels are important though, and they should be progressing. There should be 2 sub levels a year. My dd was 2b, 2b and 2c at the end of last year and is now 2a, 2a and 2a, and working towards 3s all round.

Of course it's important that a child is progressing.
But seeing their level going up is not the important bit.
Seeing they are making progress that is relevant to them is.

But redsky the whole point of their targets is they determine what they learn next. If they are nonsense then they won't learn much.

Since technically sub levels don't exist the targets are just level 2 targets

That level was simply an example but what if a child was 2a or 3a then? When would they move on? Also even if sub levels do not exist officially they do on our target cards.

Last term at parents evening we were told that the literacy is now being assessed differently with a view to how they perform on a daily basis plus how they achieve in their termly QCA tests. Not all schools may do termly QCA testing but many do. My understanding is the expectation is a sub level per term, at least that's the goal for our school, which is split infants, juniors.
I believe the country average for a child leaving year six is 4B but it may be different?

the point is that since they don't technically exist couldwinterstopnowplease the aspects for each "sub level" is open to interpretation

OP, I agreed that the point of targets was what they learnt next. It was the obsession with levels I was objecting to!

DD is a level 3b writer in every other respect but still has a level 2 target to remember to use full stops (she has a tendency to forget when she gets into full flow). I am happy that her target is relevant to her and am not worrying that she has a level 2 target when she is at Level 3.

Mrz is totally right that technically sub levels don't exist.
However, it it important to be able to indicate a child's us level because of the big differences between a 'c' and an 'a' of a level.
It doesn't help when some teachers falsely inflate levels - a 3c for example is a whole different ball game to a 3a.
Many schools moderate each others' writing and that can be an eye-opening experience!

It certainly isn't as scientific as it seems is it?

A number of children could all be assessed at the same sub level but have achieved completely different aspects of the level and therefore have completely different targets

That's not what happens in our class. If you were a 3c at the end of last year you now have the 3c and 3b target cards. None of the targets are ticked off, they just have the cards. No individualisation of targets beyond this.

Is the raised eyebrow at the teacher or me?

In a previous year they did have targets ticked off so it was more individualised.

DS yr4 has what I assume is a literacy NC target card in his planner. They seem to have to get three ticks & dates next to all the targets before a new one is issued.

The hmm is for the school couldwinterstop

An end of year result of 5b in Y7 (secondary) would lead to an end of Y8 target of 6c, as students are expected to progress two sub levels per year.
5b > 5a > 6c
No idea what's going on with your school
It is correct that students in 5b (for instance) aren't necessarily hitting all criteria perfectly. It's a best fit. But I'd give specific elements to improve - e.g. 'include more complex vocabulary' so they knew exactly what to do.

Hi couldwinterstopnowplease:

Your school sounds similar to ours. DDs achieve something end of one school year and then at the beginning of the next year are given those same targets (on paper) to work toward again.

Several things going on here:

1. teachers have to show two sub-levels progress to management for every pupil, therefore it is in their interest to downgrade achievement from previous year.

2. pupils can 'lose skills' or 'need refreshing' over the summer. I don't totally believe this in primary school children, but let's just agree that there is a possiblity that some concepts (maybe punctuation or technical terminology/ mathematical formulas) may be fuzzy or forgotten.

I've found all of this very frustrating and endlessly getting targets like 'distinguish between fact and fiction', 'writing in paragraphs' or 'identify/ discuss issues locating supporting evidence within text' less than helpful, as DDs often are more than able to do this. So target selection seems to be about identifying the achievable (or already achieved) rather than 'what next'.

My solution has been to talk to friends at other schools and learn what their children of a similar age are doing. In some cases it's light years ahead of us.

I've also used Campaign for Real Education's website information on what each year of primary curriculum should cover very useful: www.cre.org.uk/primary_contents.html. It's gold standard stuff (and your school may well not be working to this) but at least you understand what is possible in an ideal world.

My motto is keep it simple. Work on the core skills you know your child needs:

Reading: ideally they should be reading books labelled for 10 - 11 year olds in shops by the end of primary school.

Writing: s/he should be capable of writing a letter with conventional opening, closings and paragraphs. S/he should be capable of writing 3-4 paragraphs on something without freaking out (they may not enjoy it but it shouldn't be 'too much' or physically painful).

Math: s/he should be capable of carrying out all main maths functions: addition/ subtraction/ multiplication/ division - to at least 3 digits.

My feeling is that if you can achieve that (regardless of what the school is doing) your child will be capable of engaging with senior school curriculum. And a lot of it can be achieved cunningly by activities related to things they are interested in: science, history, geography, etc...

HTH

That does sound similar.

It's a shame as the idea of targets and levels is great when used properly (although a lot of work for teachers I'm sure). In our school it's disheartening when they've made a leap in progress but it's not recognised as you seem to have to progress through the levels at a set rate and you get general targets that don't make sense for that child.

Oh well. Maybe there'll be a better teacher next year.