SATs in year 2 - is it really necessary???

[Notcontent]

Ok, so I am not British so find a lot of things perplexing!!

But I just find the while idea of testing 7 year olds a bit pointless and also have concerns that at such an early stage judgments may be made about their ability - because really, at 7 children are at many different stages of development. To cite an example, my dd didn't get reading at all in reception. She slowly started getting it in year 1 and then this year, in year 2, she has really flown through all the levels and is now a great reader at lime level. Her maths is ok, but she is just starting to get it, and I hate the idea of someone making a judgment about it.

Fine nationally - within individual schools maybe not.

technically the sub levels don't exist. There are only whole levels in the national curriculum.

Some schools set their own targets using the sub levels

ah, the simple 2.

sorry dotty I assumed you would be able to read the link

I was looking for the letters and thought that Y2: 2 was a rather broad brush.

Letters as in Sub levels. It's a whole new game, I tell you.

It is very confusing to us non-teachers mrz! As a teacher you are telling us sublevels don't exist and the link you posted refers to levels, but we are given a/b/c on our children's reports and people talk about the sub-levels progress that are expected each year.

Why does it have to be so complex?

Well Mr Gove plans to scrap the levels so things may be simpler in the future

Of course a, b and c matters. There may be a move for teachers or the Education department to scrap them, but that is only to make their lives easier. I presume the range from bottom of a 2c to a top 2a substantial (80% or more even, with most falling around the 2b, bell curve fashion).

Dotty technically a, b and c have never existed only full levels (and no not 80% or more and no bell curves)
The a, b, c roughly equate to the child can do some of the things required for the level up to the child can do all the things it's a very inexact science.

and it isn't the a, b, c he plans to scrap, but the official level 1 -level 8

So what does spread of aptitude/ SAT results look like over a school year then? Do you have a link to in depth analysis rather than the very generic table?

ooh, I'd be curious about that, too.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/phonics-screening-check-and-national-curriculum-assessments-at-key-stage-1-in-england-2012

That's interesting. I wasn't that far out: to quote from the report

The percentages of pupils achieving the expected level in 2012 were:
? 87 per cent in reading (2 percentage point increase from 2011)
? 83 per cent in writing (2 percentage point increase)
? 88 per cent in speaking and listening (1 percentage point increase)
? 91 per cent in mathematics (1 percentage point increase)
? 89 per cent in science (1 percentage point increase)

but that has nothing to do do with A, B, C sub levels Dotty

How not? They all fall into the 2 category, which the sublevels lie in, surely? Is this all an even bigger minefield than I anticipated?

Dotty there are no sub levels in the national curriculum only whole levels which is why the data reports level 2 and NOT 2a, 2b or 2c.

That i understand mrz. However, in RL they are broken into sublevels by some schools and teachers to cover the 80ish% spread. Probably to differentiate between those at the bottom to those at the top.

What a child knows or can do at a 2A may not be the same as another child on a 2A I would assume...

but both are able to do more than those who measure at 2c?

TBH, my DS was a 1c at the end of last year and I'm hoping for maybe a 2c, so I'm not bigging up any achievements here!

true simpson