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.

Don't schools have to provide an annual parent's evening/meeting too, mrz, by law?

My DC only joined the school at the beginning of Yr3 so not a longstanding problem. Hopefully there will be a parents' evening before the end of the year - we haven't been notified yet - but I was hoping for one earlier in the year. I feel that the end of the year is too late to pick up any problems.

Mumplus - have you not had 1 parents eve? Surely that's not allowed...

Tbh on the argument of using sub levels I can see both sides....in a parents eve or a situation where you are talking to the teacher there is no need to use them as the teacher can explain where they are/what they need to improve on etc but in writing (ie school report)I feel it helpful from a parents point of view to think that a 2B is bang in the middle of a level 2 iyswim so I get a rough idea from a written report what is what.

My DC school have a parents eve every term (not the best at informing us, but that is a whole different story ) and then once the reports are out you have a chance to meet or discuss reports with the teacher (which I believe is a legal requirement).

Schools should hold at least 1 parents evening per year most have 2 or 3
a 2B isn't bang in the middle simpson

Why?

2c, 2b, 2a....

I get that it could be one little thing that stops a child getting a 2a (from a 2b) but what I mean is that a 2b is clearly not just touching a level 2...

simpson I imagine the a, b and c are like bandings, except the dividing lines keep moving, depending on who is talking about them.

Schools undertake moderation etc but there is no absolute standard.

I want to know them if they are recorded and used to inform others simply because they are on my child's record and they provide some reference point, which is better than none.

simpson level 2 is a set of knowledge/skills as defined by the National Curriculum ... basically if a child is achieving some of them (up to about a third in no particular order) they will be judged 2c, if they are achieving more (up to about two thirds) 2b if they are achieving all/nearly all and perhaps even some of the level 3 objectives) 2a.

Nothing like bandings as daftdame imagines and not moving depending on whose talking about them

simpson each level is a set of knowledge/skills as defined in the National Curriculum -
C the child has started to work at the level (roughly up to a third of the skills/knowledge)
B working well within the level (roughly the next third)
A the child has reached the top of the level and is working towards the next level (all/nearly all plus some from the next level)

not bandings as daftdame imagines or with any clear dividing line (moveable or not) and therefore not dependent on who is talking about them.

At level 2 especially the notional sub levels in themselves are very large (almost as big as some whole levels) which is why some children find moving from a 2c can take some time.

mrz The reason I imagine bandings, although I know they aren't officially, with moveable dividing lines is because you have said there is 'no clear cut off'.

daftdame unfortunately there isn't a real cut of point when a child stops being a high 2c and scrapes a 2b it's very subjective and one person's 2c could be another's 2b ... It is down to professional judgement and you seem to think it is somehow set in stone.

The 'rough' thirds (of skills / knowledge) works with my suggested visual analogy of bandings. If you displayed the number of targets achieved as points in a graph I imagine you could formulate bandings, although they are not published (be more fair if they were). The subjective nature of them you have spoken about fits with my 'moveable' lines. I should have said moveable points too, since each individual judgement is subjective- ie. Have they? Have they not achieved said goal? Shall I make it up and confess to TES primary forum?

They aren't officially or unofficially daftdame and they aren't bandings because one child's notional "third" contains different skills/knowledge to another child's "third" which is different to another child's "third" which is different to another child's third which is different ... so you could NOT formulate bandings

Rather than moveable lines think of variable content.

mrz my 'bandings' just had each goal as point (number of points achieved fits into banding)- it didn't inform on which goals were achieved, as the sub levels don't. Like making bandings out of exam scores doesn't matter which questions are answered correctly, you get 50% or 80% of a score, which fits into a banding. If you are saying the goals themselves don't have equal weightings you would have to modify the 1 point = 1 goal.

For the content, I believe as you do, a description is needed. I know one lot of content can not be compared to another lot, but a proportion of the content is the proportion.

But anyway it is just a visual, may work for me and not someone else. I thought it could possibly help tie down what proportion of a score (goals achieved) matched which sub level however I appreciate there is be some 'Proofiness', to coin Seife's phrase, surrounding this issue.

www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_0_10?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=proofiness&sprefix=proofiness%2Caps%2C346

^there is not there is be!

Yes I am saying that some aspects of each level are more difficult/easier so not not equal .. and no it isn't a case of 1 point equals one "goal" as you call them.

Remember too the point system was produced by a commercial company to sell their tracking product.

Yes...'...all is vanity', as Solomon said.

If people have perceptions of my child though, I still want to know them.

If teachers will use sub levels when talking between themselves why not communicate them to the parent. If they are totally meaningless they shouldn't be using them. As it is, they form a guide, concerning the proportion of material taught, that the child has demonstrated they have grasped.

Do teachers use sub levels when talking about children? I don't my colleagues don't, other teachers I encounter don't ...

mrz now are you as pedantic or more pedantic then me?

ipad mentioned a moderation meeting concerning levelling a piece of a child's work which included sub level.

So no, strictly speaking this is about a child's work, what they have demonstrated they know, what is recorded about what they have produced / demonstrated.

I don't think I'm being pedantic just trying to explain that your image of "sub levels" is completely unrealistic ...
For KS1 levels a "moderator" may visit the school and look at samples of work to agree levels (of the work) or teachers may take examples of their class's work to "moderation" where the level of the work will be agreed.

It is not unrealistic to communicate sub levels to parents though.

No it's just your image of teachers chatting about daftjunior being a 2C or 2B or a 1A and how meaningful it is that is unrealistic

mrz Sadly, I very much know they don't sit chatting about daftjunior, they should in my opinion because he is awesome, but I accept I am bias.

I actually do think the sub levels are meaningless, to a (large) degree, but wouldn't like being left in the dark, I can judge for myself. I have actually received his sub levels, I don't necessarily agree with them, I probably won't argue with the teacher about them at this stage.

That isn't what I said daftdame ... teachers may well discuss your child just not in terms of letters and numbers but as a unique individual with unique individual needs which is how it should be.

Nobody is 'allowed' to be unique in my experience, especially in eduction.

They are unique but are expected to conform.

^education!

Although it is ironic that eduction would work too.