Is it 3 National curriculum sub-levels or 2 per year?

[PastSellByDate]

Hello out there:

I've had all sorts of heated comment from teachers on various posts because I have suggested that standard progress is 2 NC sub-levels per year. This information comes from Mumsnet: www.mumsnet.com/learning/assessment/progress-through-national-curriculum-levels specifically on numbers of NC sub-levels progress per year and also from our school prospectus (updated for applications early this school year).

Some teachers have said that 'good progress' means 3 NC sub-levels. Our school rather presents this as 'outstanding progress'

Genuinely not trying to score points (well here on Mumsnet which is a resource I heavily rely upon for reality checks vis a vis our school). But curious to know if our school is playing with language. They say the 'expected' progress is 2 sub-levels and that they 'endeavor' to achieve 3 where possible.

What is the actual legally required progress? Are schools are legally required to achieve 2 NC sub-levels or 3 NC sub-levels (basically one full NC Level) per year in English/ Maths/ Science per pupil?

Many thanks for any information and links to direct guidance from government on 3 sub-levels as a legal requirement greatly appreciated.

1 whole level over 2 years, so 1-2 sub levels per year

thanks pippiblue that gels with MN and what I'm hearing from our school.

If others feel differently or can say which LEA has higher standard (I truly understand you can't name school & may not be happy to name county) - please do let me know.

My school is aiming for 4 sublevels. They are nowhere near. This is to catch up, it isn't working.

I thought that it was actually done (government wise) per keystage, so a child is expected to move 2 full NC levels in a keystage.
KS1 is years 1 and 2, so they should move a full NC level each year (if making linear progress, rather than moving rapidly, plateauing, moving rapidly etc) or 3 sublevels.
However KS2 is years 3,4,5 and 6 so they make 2 full NC levels over 4 years, so 1 full NC level over 2 years, or 0.5 levels in 1 year.
But I think in KS2 they expect more plateauing than in KS1.

Isn't four sub levels a bit unrealistic?

Each level is worth 4 points although they are split into three sublevels.

Good progress (ala Ofsted) is considered to be three points per year or just over two sublevels. This means that good progress with result in more than two whole levels throughout KS2.

So a child who gets 2c at KS1 should reach expected levels by the end of KS2 (e.g. 4b).

And 2a at the end of KS 1 should result in level 5s at the end of KS2.

Sigh...

Thanks all. Very useful and gels with my understand (except 4 sub-levels - but wonder if that 4 points).

Can teachers provide a link to something which shows NC sub-levels vs APP points?

or

If Mumsnet are monitoring out there - do you think it might be possible to update your progress through the levels page to include APP points (I presume that's the points referred to) vs. NC sub-levels because teachers talk in both NC Level and Points but parents really only just about grasp the former and there's nothing on Mumsnet learning really.

Again many many thanks for all those writing in here. Very helpful to understand points vs. NC sub-levels thing.

Don't think there is any legal requirement.

I believe the overall expectation is 2 sub levels per year but there are some anomalies. So I think year 2 is expected a whole level.

Another factor (certainly at secondary, don't know about primary) is that there are families of schools who's targets reflect slower than average progress or faster than average. This is determined on a school by school basis and affects the targets a school sets for their pupils and therefore presumably the progress tge chikdren are expected to make may reflect this by expectations being shifted to, for example, 3 sublevels per year. Or 5 per 2 years.

What I am trying to say is that whilst there are national averages, at secondary at least, there are local expectations which are determined on a school by school basis. If you want to look up more on the secobdary stuff look up 'fischer family trust' or FFT

Wow not sure what happened there - should read:

Thanks all. Very useful and gels with my understanding

Oh...and I don't think the sublevels exist officially. Think they were introduced by teachers to break down the large levels into more managable sub levels.

Could be wrong on that point but im sure thats what I've read on mn....so mist be true :o

EdwiniasRevenge

Thanks for that - secondary school is the next adventure - so will look at like to Fischer Family Trust with interest.

Also very interesting about families of schools - our primary certainly is in something similar and again wonder if that also feeds into notional target setting in area (as schools here in this area of LEA seem very similar in terms of notional NC sub-level targets).

Again - if anyone out there is being required to perform as a teacher to 3 NC sub-levels per year can you explain if your understanding is that this is a school-based target or a government target?

Many thanks.

EdwiniasRevenge:

yes, good point on sub-levels being notional rather than hard & fast. Certainly have the impression that one person's 2A may not be another's.

Any info on tracking NC sub-level assessment variation in primary out there? Teachers? Educational Researchers? LEA workers?

many thanks.

The families are fischer family trust families rather than geographic families. Think there are 4 families. A-D.

As a (trainee) secondary teacher we don't necessarily expect 2 levels per year, but we are monitored at a management level (and ofsted) by end of KS results. Within departments we do break those down into yearly targets to aid progress monitoring.

And as a (trainee) secondary teacher the management set tougher expectations for our pupils because we are in family D than if I was working in a school that was family A. it isnt straightforward tho. It is all based on modelling of data, past performance of pupil. Past performance of school.

But yes. If you take a pupil and put them into an D school they would be expected to make more progress than if you put them into an A school. The teachers would obviously have those targets reflected back in their targets. I don't know, quantitatively, how many sublevels different A would be to D. And I don't know if the situation is similar in prinary.
Just to reiterate. Progress is only formally reported at end of KS and annual progress is kind of arbitary anyway.

It is 1 full level per year in KS1 and 1 full level over 2 years in Ks2

There are eight National Curriculum levels, covering the ages 5-14 years. The lowest is Level 1, which describes the achievements of children at around the age of five. The highest is Level 8, which is attained by the most able pupils at the age of 14. There is also a description of ?exceptional performance? above Level 8, which only a very few pupils are expected to reach.
Children move up through the levels at a rate of approximately one level for each two years in KS2.
Children at the end of year 2 are expected to achieve at least Level 2, and children at the end of primary school (year 6) are expected to achieve at least Level 4.
At year 9, the expected level is Level 5 or 6.
After this, pupils start on their GCSE courses in year 10, and the National Curriculum levels no longer apply.

www.gov.uk/national-curriculum/overview

It is 1 full level per year in KS1 and 1 full level over 2 years in Ks2

WSS

So, in KS1, it is expected that our children progress by 3 sub-levels in a year, but in KS2-the children only move 1-2 sub-levels.

The NC doesn't actually mention sub-levels anywhere though, I don't think! My school now have to give sub-levels in all subjects three times a year-not just the core subjects. Trying to establish exactly what a 1a might look like in RE is a great way to spend an evening ;)

Although sub levels do not appear in the National Currciulum, they do appear in the (now defunct) QCA tests eg end of year assessments for Y2 - Y6 and LEAs still need them to be reported.

Funnily enough I've been sent this info this week in preparation for the parents' evenings next week. Each year group actually required to make different amounts of 'points progress' (not sub levels as they don't actually exist in real terms) The numbers next to the sub levels are the equivalent number of points. Each sub level is worth two points. Year one is required to take a child off the EYFS (now defunct) and put them onto the NC, making 6 points progress across the year. Normal expectation for the other year groups is 4 points progress a year, though this is not necessarily the case as you can see in year 4 and year 6 (remember in Year 6 they only actually have two teaching terms before the SATs and a percentage of that is spent taking the time to prepare the children for the tests themselves).

Level National Expectation
5A
5B
5C
4A 29
4B 27 End of Year 6
---------
4C 25 End of Year 5
3A 23
---------
3B 21 End of Year 4
------
3C 19 End of Year 3
2A 17
-------
2B 15 End of Year 2
2C 13
-------
1A 11 End of Year 1
1B 9
1C 7
P levels

These days though, we need to make accelerated progress so many HTs would want at least 4 points progress a year, more like 6 or even more. This means more level 6s in the Year 6 SATs, if not a few level 7s (as a school near me is currently boasting).

Hope that helps

"The NC doesn't actually mention sub-levels anywhere though, I don't think" no it doesn't and it doesn't set progress targets for each year group ... schools and LEAs have done that themselves. The NC, rather sensibly, expects most children to make 2 full levels of progress over a whole Key Stage, recognising that children don't make nice linear progress. The fact is that some years children have spurts and other years they need to consolidate learning so progress more slowly. Hopefully when levels are scrapped next year the alternative will be clearer (until someone distorts it)

Thank you everyone for writing in & mrz thank you for the link.

I really appreciate everyone writing in and am very interested to know Ogretmen and others whether this drive to increase progress (accelerated progress) is coming from ambitious HTs or is a directive from DfE or similar?

Ofsted - that's why many outstanding schools have suddenly found themselves downgraded.

Ah! Thanks mrz.