Am I entitled to an explanation if no progress in writing?

[caffeinated]

Just that really. Finished year 2 on level 3 across the board. Now 3a for reading and maths and still 3c for writing. Which I know isn't uncommon in year 3 and progress is slower and the curriculum is broader. But could be dd is struggling in some aspect that I am unaware of?

Good, glad they are finally seeking to moderate judgements! Hopefully that can continue so that your school won't be in that position again - they should have been doing it anyway.

DD didn't make any progress in literacy for two whole years. She was 4a at the end of y3 and was still that at the end of y5. But she then made loads of progress in y6. The teacher said that maturity is key and that sometimes just knowing the words and structures isn't enough to move up to the next level. It makes sense with DD so maybe could apply to your DD too.

Feenie

my dear I can only refer you to discussion in 'staff room' by teachers:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/the_staffroom/1788566-Any-junior-school-teachers-This-doesnt-sound-right

Government report tracking >3000 pupils shows marked plateau in achievement KS1/ KS2 transition and KS3/ KS4 transition - this explanation best fits data.

Alternatively if your argument is taken to logical conclusion - progress isn't linear - than why a nice predictable plateau at these junctures Feenie (and I did cite data in older feed on this).

I am not saying you or all teachers do this - but your coming on here and always accusing me of lying, being a trainee teacher, etc. etc... does rather give the impression you are indeed A GRUMPY TEACHER.

sorry - should have been KS2/KS3 transition not 3/4.

PastSellBy:

I have taken issue with your first case scenario where you state that My understanding is that the school either has to demonstrate that KS1 SATs were inflated & plenty of documentation at start of Y3 that NC Levels in specific areas are much lower (optional SATs, teacher assessed work, workbooks, etc...) or they have to honour KS1 SATs scores and achieve at least 2 full NC Levels better.

Nowhere in the discussion you have posted - or anywhere in the universe - is there an example of a school being allowed to ignore KS1 levels if they gather evidence. The levels gained in KS1 have to be honoured - there is no other option.

This is the misinformation I object to.

Alternatively if your argument is taken to logical conclusion - progress isn't linear - than why a nice predictable plateau at these junctures Feenie (and I did cite data in older feed on this).
I haven't said this.

I am not saying you or all teachers do this - but your coming on here and always accusing me of lying, being a trainee teacher, etc. etc... does rather give the impression you are indeed A GRUMPY TEACHER

I didn't accuse you of lying or being a trainee teacher. But you do post lots of misinformation as if it is fact.

Finally, you state:

Not a teacher - but from what I glean here on MN (often from rather grumpy teachers who don't like my theories on 'downgrading' of KS1 SATs results - although if you go to the MN education staffroom they talk about it all the time) there can be NC Level inflation at KS1 SATs.

There are no posts on MN which claim that infant schools do not sometimes inflate results - in fact all the posts are to the contrary.

Again Feenie all I can do is refer you to:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/the_staffroom/1788566-Any-junior-school-teachers-This-doesnt-sound-right

and I quote noblegiraffe (a teacher) who states they do this in secondary

noblegiraffe Tue 25-Jun-13 19:31:36
Yes, you need baseline assessments. I'm secondary, but kids were coming in on overinflated KS2 scores and Ofsted were then not happy with the progress they were making to KS4.

We made sure we did our own baseline assessments in Y7, documented carefully and Ofsted were then happy with the progress even though it wasn't quite what it should have been from KS2.

or partystress (a primary teacher):

partystress Tue 25-Jun-13 21:55:59
Yes, Ofsted inconsistent in whether they will accept baselined data. In my school they did (we had brought in LEA moderators early in the year to back up our judgement), but almost identical school down the road got short shrift when they tried. As with all things Ofsted

Perhaps you could let them know they've got it all wrong????

Or is that just reserved for parents?

But PastBy, you've misread them. One is secondary anyway - and they are talking about Ofsted. But they are still judged centrally on whether they have moved the children 2 levels or not, whether Ofsted accept their explanation for not moving them the required levels or not doesn't change a thing. The figures still stand, e.g. x school only moved 75% of their children 2 levels.

It is NOT an long term option to provide evidence to say children have not made progress, and the teachers on that thread all know that, that's clear. It's not okay for you to paraphrase that and say that schools can just provide evidence for the lack of movement OR move them two levels. That's not the choice.

As partystress actually says in your quote - it isn't a choice, Ofsted in hugely inconsistent in accepting the explanation. And that's all it is, an acceptance of an explanation by the odd Ofsted team. It isn't a valid choice that a school may make for children not making progress.

OP my ds was level 3s in ks1 sats and ended y3 with 3a in reading and maths and a 3b in writing. OK so this did show one sub level progress but it's a very similar picture to your child. I think it's really common and I'm sure he only scraped a 3 in writing (I was very surprised) and by mid point of y4 he was a 4c in a writing and I have noticed a huge progress while there seemed to be more (necessary) consolidation in y3.

I don't think there was any funny business from any of the teachers doing the assessment.