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.

This is a strange conversation. I've obviously made teacher cross.

No Dotty I'm afraid you failed if that was what you intended.

I didn't intend to, but by your being deliberately obtuse and a little condescending I discerned that you have a marvellously passive aggressive manner.

No Dotty it is very simple the National Curriculum levels are level 1, 2, 3 , 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 there are no A, B or C sub levels in the National Curriculum.
The average level in Y2(end of KS 1) is level 2 the average level at the end of Y6 (end of KS2) is level 4 and the average level at the end of KS3 is level 5/6 ... no A, B or C just whole levels.

From the link you sent me:

Allocation of points for each level at Key Stage 1
The following table sets out how points have been allocated to each KS1 teacher assessment level to
calculate the KS1 Average Point Score (tables 12 and 19).

1 9
2C 13
2B (2) 15
2A 17
3 21
4 27

And you're right, you did keep it simple.

mrz Aren't sub levels (or the equivalent points) used when monitoring progress, by Ofsted for example?

I thought it was typical to expect so many sub levels of progress per school year.

I'm feeling cross at the internet! I must disengage.

Again expected progress is 2 full levels per Key stage but some schools choose to break this down into equal "parts" per year (because as everyone knows children progress in nice linear graphs and never have periods of consolidation or spurts ) sensible schools work on the KS model.
Ofsted will look at Key Stage progress daftdame.

When is KS3?

Also surely if you have a child who is on a high NC level in the beginning of yr1 (ie a level 3) then they are not going to climb 2 levels iyswim?

I guess in this case the school would set the child their own target?

Secondary school age 11-14 - KS3

According to end of reception data there aren't any children who are level 3 at the end of reception (therefore none at the beginning of Y1) simpson. The expectation would still be that a child makes at least 2 full levels progress across the Key Stage.

mrz However you say schools do use sub levels when setting targets, with progression in mind. It must follow that sub levels are assigned to individual children yearly at least (if not how is their attainment recorded?).

How do you think schools can fulfil their obligation to have transparency in reporting to parents without reporting sub levels? If sub levels are recorded, surely they should be reported. Will not the sub levels exist on a child's school record? Should schools be attempting to manage parents' expectations by holding back information concerning children's progress?

No daftdame I didn't say schools do but some schools do choose to use sub levels to set targets.

How do you think schools can fulfil their obligation to have transparency in reporting to parents without reporting sub levels?

I'm not sure how transparent it is to report something that technically doesn't exist daftdame or how reporting factual information is attempting to manage parent's expectations

My DC school do use sub levels to set targets yearly (I know DS's target for end of yr3 is a 3A - which he will not get)...consequently lots of chats with his teacher etc...

See, this why I was asking about level 3 in yr1 as to me it is totally unrealistic to expect 2 levels of progress from DD in KS1 (and I would hate for her to be pushed to iyswim)...

This is beginning to get almost metaphysical mrz! (re. the existence / non existence of sub levels)

Fact is, some schools use them. They exist in these schools, so they should, in terms of transparency report them. If they are used, the intention must be to inform on progress somehow so they will affect teaching ( and parental support) etc.

Where schools don't use sub levels, at all, how is progress monitored? It is a long time between Key Stages.

Agree with daftdame to a certain extent, if my child was reported as a level 3 (KS2) and then a year later still a level 3 it's easy for parents to think no progress has been made but by using sub levels (a,b,c) it is easier to track (from a parents point of view)...

"Where schools don't use sub levels, at all, how is progress monitored? It is a long time between Key Stages."

Against the National Curriculum as that is the statutory document that ALL maintained schools must use daftdame.

The fact is that in any group of children who are working at 2c it is very unlikely 2 children will require exactly the same aspects of level 2 just as in any group working at 2b will have identical achievement or future teaching needs ... they aren't transparent as you like to say because they don't tell the whole story.

That is the down side of sub levels, but by the very nature of all kids being different and learning in different ways or at their own pace I can't see a way of avoiding it....

Is it more transparent to tell a parent that their child knows and can apply 2, 5 & 10 times tables in calculations using numbers to 100. They can choose the correct methods to calculate answers to word problems and and that they know the relationship between addition and subtraction facts ... or that their child is 2c in maths?

As long as it is explained that they also are expected to know their 3, 6 and 4 times tables at this stage (but don't) and need help with X but can do Y.

It might make parents eve longer

I appreciate the complexity mrz, however I do believe that if schools use them they should report them. Usually where they are used there are also descriptions of what the child can do.

Whilst children do learn differently parents still want to know how well their child is doing overall. The sub levels just give an extra piece of information. It is like any piece of assessment information, you have to know a little about what it entails to know the worth.

They wouldn't be expected to know their 3, 6 and 4 times tables for level 2 though simpson.
and yes the teacher should say that next they need to learn x and y.

I give parents webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110809101133/nsonline.org.uk/node/237754 so they can see what the expectations are for each level and discuss which aspects their child can do already and what we will be teaching next.

It isn't a matter of children learning differently daftdame.

So If I you your child is working at 2c in writing you would know exactly what that means?

if I told you

I would know that overall they had achieved some of the goals of a Level 2 in writing, but not all (or thereabouts). I could look up the exact definitions.

This information is useful in that it gives an overall impression. If this is coupled with the detail of what exactly has been achieved I will have an idea of how much is left to achieve within that level. To use analogy it prevents 'not being able to see the wood for the trees', it gives a more 'rounded' picture.

mrz If parents are expected to be 'partners' in a child's education, as schools seem to be fond of spouting when they want extra help / resources / to support home work, then they shouldn't have information actively withheld from them.