with so many children ending year 1 on levels 2a/3c etc....

[xxwowxx]

I just wonder what levels they get on year 2 and 3...? It seems like all kids here are geniuses, who are years ahead of them, the question is, are they really this good? are all these 5/6 years old working at the same level of a year 3 or 4, some maybe but I doubt that many kids achieve this... I mean a year 1 child with a level lets say 2a would have to finish year 2 on level 3a in order to make 3 sublevels progress, I mean isn't this ridiculous? Either there are a LOT of geniuses or a lot of liars...

Anybody can post anything on an anonymous forum.

Perhaps this reflects the demographic of mumsnet users?
You could argue that people are anonymous so can write what they like but then where is the gain in lying either?
The answer lies in the level descriptors: if you look specifically at the number part of maths level 1 is a lot about working with numbers to 10. Level 2 describes being able to order numbers to 100, understand the place value attached to the digits, mental calculations to 10 etc. If you look at reading the equivalent band for level 3 appears to be white/ lime.
DS1 is end of reception at a small intake school but can read and understand early chapter books, use numbers to 100 and most but not all of the other things described at level 2. I would guess he is working around a level 2 somewhere for reading/ numeracy skills... I would hope he will continue to make progress in year 1 so why shouldn't he reach level 2a or 3 by then? He is the only one in his group at present working at that level but the intake is small. I would guess if you had a 60 year group intake you would see 1 or 2 children working at that level... I'm not a teacher so I couldn't say for certain. If you have 1 or 2 children in every school that soon scales up to quite a few children (whose parents all clearly happen to use MN.)

Statistically don't about 25-30% of children achieve a level 3 in year 2, which must mean 25-30% of children achieve a level 2 in year 1. (Guessing slightly on statistics as we get figures for Wales not England).
As not all children who get a level 5 in year 6 even go on to get a B grade at GCSE it doesn't seem unduly unlikely that a high proportion of children get a level 3 or a level 5.

within Wales only about 0.5% of children get a level 6 in year 6 (so presumably approximately level 4 in year 2 - we have foundation phase outcomes not NC levels in year 2). There seem to be far fewer parents on MN saying their child got level 4 in year 2 so I would say most are telling the truth.

the things you say your son does are pretty basic and a lot of kids can do that and do not get level 2 in year 1... I mean if in reception your son is already working at level 2 and 3 you should want him to achieve level 3 and 4 at the end of year 1! I think you are in for a shock

Having said that I was surprised when someone wrote the other day that they have several children in I think reception (but could have been yr1) who were on level 15 of the reading scheme, as that is expected in year 5/6. That must be way over the 0.5% of children expected to be ahead (1 child per 200).

I agree with Abby - my daughter is end of reception, she is reading chapter books, she writes well, including poems, and her number work seems good so I would expect that at end of year 1 she will still be doing well. in her class I know of a couple of others with close reading and writing and better maths but I also know of quite a few who are the opposite end of the scale but still doing perfectly well.

logically speaking these expected levels are presumably based to some degree on averages. ok so averages may be lower in some places and higher in others but the general achievement level must be aimed at the majority so for that to be the case there will be better and worse as well.

There are quite a lot of mumsnet children who attend selective schools so obviously will be at the higher end of the scale so I don't think posts on here are untrue, just that the people who happen to be posting them are people who have children at the higher end. I do think there is an element of 'in real life we can't talk to anyone about these things' so people with bright children tend to end up asking their questions on here. If they ask the teachers they probably feel they are being annoying, if they speak to other parents they probably think they are boasting and so on. An anonymous forum gives them an opportunity to ask questions.

It all evens out by secondary school

I am not sure that there are lots of children who achieve those levels in YR or 1. I think the 2012 stats for KS1 were around 20% L3 for reading and maths, 14% for writing so overall not that high and like someone else said they dshould be achieving a L2 in Y1 to achieve a L3 in Y2.

DS1s infant school is one of the top results wise in the LEA. Only one child was a L3 in reading and writing at the end of Y1 out of 32 children. They were 2b for Maths and 2c writing. They did not achieve 3 sub levels progress in reading but did for writing and maths.

Periwinkle is right, it is hard to people to discuss bright children in RL so not many people do. There are not many people who have said their DCs are L4 in Y2 so I would believe them.

I think mumsnet gives a skewed picture of children's attainment - the kind of people who use mumsnet are the kind of people who support their children, read with them etc. i think every parenting forum has an inflated average level. There are at least three (in a year group of 22) children in my son's year (Y1) who are securely reading lime level so it's not that unusual with supportive parents. Also keep in mind that 2b is the expected level that children should reach at the end of Y2 not the average level.

xxwowxx, some children are really bright, and Abby's DS could easily be one of them.

She didn't say she wanted her son to reach level 4 by the end of Y1, she said she wouldn't be surprised if he reached level 2a or 3 by the end of Y1. Neither would I.

To put it in perspective, some children start school reading books, and/or understanding much more difficult maths than Abby described. Some people will never be able to. I have seen MNers with children in both categories.

The question is, why are you so upset about it?

BTW a L3 or low L4 in reading does not really make a child a genius either, at that young age it is that they grasp that particular concept and may be mature at the time for their years. It will not make them an A* student automatically!

that was me LittleMissGreen - Yr1 children. But out of a cohort of 60 is it really that unusual to have a handful of very good readers? From what I have seen of the scheme books that go up to level 15 they actually aren't much different from level 12-15. They aren't even particularly long, they don't have especially complex language and these are the sort of children who are reading Harry Potter at 6. Not many of them but there are always going to be some. I am surprised it is such a low number expected to be at this level, perhaps I happen to just know some very good readers?

Xxwowxx... I didn't say DS was a genius and I'm sure there are a plenty of other children that can do what he can do. What I am saying is he ticks most of the boxes for a level 2 according to my reading.
The "lots of children in year 1" that can do those things should get a level 2, if they are demonstrating it at school, shouldn't they? After all that's what a level 2 is.
As for progress this is meant to be 2 whole levels across a key stage on average. It seems therefore that progress slows down when a child hits level 3 as there are 4 years in ks2. I am envisaging there is a bigger jump or maturity issues required for level 4 which may come into play. I wouldn't expect DS1 would be a level 4 at all he'll progress at his own rate.

DSs school is split for ability groups and the top 2 groups are all L3 readers so that is about 10/12 children out of 32. There are some really low level readers also, it is just an odd cohort but it does happen.

I should also say that I think our school only uses levels 12-15ish for the younger advanced readers, once they are yr3 then I think if they finish 11 and are reading well then they just choose from the library but if they are younger than that then they make them do scheme books for longer so potentially they aren't getting them to do the NC level stuff that goes along with those levels. Don't know - we are only on 11 and aren't there yet.

I don't doubt there are amazing readers in year 1 my daughter is one of them, my daughter is reading at level 2a/3c at school but they only gave her a 1a at the end of the year even though she is in the top reading group is a free reader and the books the teacher suggest her sometimes are for year 5. The same goes for maths. Either my daughters school is very different from others or the school is just simply failing my daughter....

DD is finishing reception and her reading is a 2A and her target for the end of yr1 is a 3C as she won't be mature enough to go higher.

The school don't seem bothered about her making 3 sub levels progress in a year.

It may be if interest that our Head Teacher told us recently that Level 3 is enormous and therefore takes much longer to progress through than any of the other levels. So someone at L3 in Y1 could well still be there in Y4.

it sounds like her school are doing it right, her personal reading books should be at the level she reads at, that isn't to say her guided reading is at the same level or her 'other' skills (not sure what to call them) that are required for the NC level are there too. It does sound quite a gap between a 1a and her physical reading level of a 2a though but they will/should know what they are doing.

My daughter's reading books are book band 11 so I think that is a 2a/3c sort of level isn't it but I can't believe for a minute her NC level would be that. she can do most of the things required for a 2a I think but not all of them and her maturity as a reception child wouldn't match it anyway.

I think what makes it deceptive with regards to people's understanding of it is that level 1 is yr1, level 2 is yr 2 so logic would assume level 3 would be yr3 and 4 yr4 etc and of course it isn't. would be a lot easier if it was though

Why on earth would they have given her a 1a if she is a 2a/3c, presumably she can read the words but does not have the comprehension? If that is not the case I would be asking the school why. What do you mean - the same goes for maths? They are either working at a particular level comfortably or they are now?

Simpson/Taffeta - I think that is the case really, even a child who is a comfortable 3c at end of Y1 may not reach a 3a/4c due to the maturiry required.

If you finished Y2 on a 3c you would not be expected to be a 4c at the end of Y3 so the expectation to do that from Y1 to Y2 is silly.

She does not have any problems with comprehension either so don't know what the problem is... so what would she need to be at level 2... according to what I have been reading a lot of kids achieve this, reading lower levels than my daughter, failing the phonics assessment etc

Not sure I worded my post well, if her comprehension is not to the level of her reading then a 1a is possibly her proper level. DS1 can read any book/words pretty much but he is not a L5/6 at age 7 even though he has a basic reading age of an older child, it is all about the comprehension.

Sorry x posts. I would speak to the teacher to ask then, the comprehension requirements for a high L2 or 3 is vast though.