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...

technically though if it was something like a child reading without expression then I think they would be held back on the NC level by that because that is required quite low down. doesn't mean they can't read all the words and understand them though and do all the other things.

in that case I would ask the teacher xxwowxx.

what I mean is my daughter is clearly working at level 2 but still got 1a

I am thinking about moving schools, since the school is not good (Ofsted) and a lot of kids cannot achieve the levels they should,I just feel like they are holding my daughter back and not giving her the level she deserves both maths and reading

is she clearly working at L2 though? You really need to speak to the teacher, she may be missing a few skills to make her a L2. Comprehension isn't just understanding what they are reading, there is a lot more to it, if you saw the list for lime leve/3c it is huge!

BTW your OP is slightly odd now you have explained what your actual issue is - just because you think your DD should be on a higher level and isn't means other people are liers? Really no one would have been funny with you if you had just asked your actual question.

It could be the school without a doubt, its worth speaking to them first then considering a move if you are still not happy.

Yes only the people who with advanced kids post, of course. I never mention my DD on these kind of threads because at the end of foundation she is resolutely average (whisper red level whisper :))

DD is just finishing reception level 2a reading, 2c speaking and comprehension, 2c maths and 1a writing. We haven't had her targets for next year. And honestly I was blow away by her results this year, haven't told anyone in RL because its not seen as acceptable to say when your child is well but it is accepted on her so that may be why there's more parents of high achieving children posting instead of saying in RL. There could be a very high achiever at your DCs school, you just may not know about it.

I am just feeling frustrated, it was never my intention to offend anyone, but a lot of the people who say their kids get level 2a etc are exactly doing like my daughter, it makes me wonder what the school is doing... it's obvious the difference between a good school and a unsatisfactory one!!! Apologies, just really confused about what to do next...

I think you really need to ask them what they are doing, if she really should be achieving more then you need to know why she isn't, if there are areas she is not quite as good at then you need to know and can work on them.

Noisytoys - it is so hard to discuss in RL, there is another thread at the moment talking about the same thing. Well done to your DD, don't get too worried about the 3 sub levels progress next year as when children are so far ahead it may not be that 'linear'.

My youngest DC went into yr3 on level 3's across the board. As far as I know he's leaving yr 3 in a weeks time on level 3. The school are happy with his progress within the level and have said that level 3 is quite in depth.
I'm not allowed to talk to other parent's about him or my level 5/6 yr6 DD in rl as that is considered showing off but I'm alright to discuss my three wonderfully average DC.
It's only on mumsnet that I can talk about how proud I am of all 5 of my DC.

Periwinkle
I was genuinely surprised that there were a number of children reading level 15 (just for the record I didn't not believe you - why would you make it up, it was more of a 'wow' type surprise).
Simply because this is the expected age level for children aged 9-10. DS1 was happily reading Harry Potter aged 5 which is 'entertainment' for children aged 9ish, but I was under the impression (ie read somewhere vaguely authoritative but can't remember where) that school books for the same age are meant to be harder as they aren't for enjoyment. There is lots of sub-plot implied in the text but not written down. DS2 (yr1) came home with a level 14 book a while ago, he could read the words, it sounded like he knew what he was talking about from his expression, but on quizzing deeply over it, some of it had definitely gone over his head, but DS1 (yr6) would have been able to see it.
I completely realise that there will be children in year 1 capable of really understanding and discussing the sub plots, but as that must be around a level 4, which would be 3 levels ahead of the level 1 expected at that time, must be a tiny tiny percentage (working on a year 6 child being 2 levels ahead in Wales is 0.5%), so to have several children - even in a 60 cohort, I find surprising (I did first read it on the assumption that the school was like my DSs with 15 in a year!). I was also intrigued as to how the school is teaching so many children to a high level, it sounds very impressive, and presumably a model of good practice to other schools.

It all seems such a silly rat race to me,

Education is not about levels and grades and one- upmanship, or is it?

The schools play along with endless boring SATs preparation, to get high grades to keep the parents happy

But is that really what you want from an education?

It is not a competition, though for some it is I guess

This thread makes me a bit sad

I don't think it is really about competition for the OP but more about her daughter is not being given the opportunity to reach her full potential which is essentially the least we should be able to expect for our children's education.

I smile when I read posts about reports in KS1.

But I would have got just as anxious or excited with dd1.

Now I know that children learn at different speeds, at different ages and stages, and all those levels and figures and fitting kids into boxes is a very inexact science

I know so many who have looked uninspiring early on, who are flying at secondary school. And the reverse, too.

OP, it does sound as though there is something strange going on with your daughter's levels, and I would talk toher teacher. Ask which specific targets she needs to work on to achieve level 2.

Wrt the question in your OP, my DD is just finishing reception and is at 2b. I don't know of the school would have assessed her as this though, I expect they'll tell me she's exceeding and leave it at that.

As a teacher, I would hope that DD will be on a level 3 ina year's time, and probably still there for KS1 SATs. The leap from level 3 to level 4 is a big one IMO, and requires a level of maturity and life experience that is rare for a ks1 child.

I think a lot of the YR/ Y1 children who are on level 2s are early readers rather than gifted readers iyswim, so I think their progress will then slow down.

Exactly right, Pozzled, re early readers. I've read with 5 years' of dd1's class, and 2 years of dd2's, and I watch most kids catch up, overtake, etc.

So reading levels in KS1 don't really mean very much in the long or even medium term, tbh.

Although L3 in y1 isn't rare in mn, I haven't met anyone in rl who has had this. But I don't discuss levels with anyone in rl except my kids' teachers who have said that the levels are very unusual in maths.

In answer to the op's question: ds1 got 3 for maths, 2a for reading and 2b for writing in y1. This year in y2 he was 4c in maths and 3 for the other two and I am delighted with his progress.

Ds2 got 3 for maths and 2a for reading but 2c for writing in y1. I will be perfectly happy with l2 for writing in a year's time as ds2 has had to work pretty hard pn his writing. I expect he will get 3 for reading and 3 or perhaps 4 for maths as he's a little whizzkid.

xxwow My DD is a very able reader but school have levelled her a 2a. The reason? They used written comprehension to level her. The deputy head tested her comprehension verbally and said her verbal comprehension is 'much, much higher than a 2a'. As SATs are done on written comprehension they are sticking with that level officially. Could that be the same for your DD?

numbum I think our school does that too. Otherwise, half dd's Y1 class (not amazing by MN standards at all, very mixed intake) would be level 3s in reading

Actually, I am happy to say that our school tries not to focus too much on NC levels at this stage. Individual progression, yes. Skills learned, yes. NC levels are reported, but played down. In the same vein, kids weren't at all aware of taking their phonics test - and neither were parents. They went very well, but that's not the point or the most important thing in their day.

As the mother of children in both KS1 and KS2, I find this thread amusing to say the least... The type of questions a year5 child on reading level 15 is expected to answer is just not comparable to what a 6 year old who can read well would get out of the same book... Being able to read and decode well for their age doesn´t mean they are working at y5 level, even if they are very "bright", and they would need the experience and emotional maturity to answer NC Level 4 and high Level 3 questions... This is very silly...

I think maths levels are probably less open to interpretation... after all a child can either reliably add numbers to 10 or they can't. I can see that a child that is quick with maths could progress through levels.
I suspect reading and writing is more open to interpretation: when posters put examples of DC's writing that is clear- one persons 1a is anothers 2b.
Re the early reading not meaning a child is "gifted" thing that gets trotted out, I've done some reading around on this. Most children that read early especially if they are self-taught/ learn quickly ARE in the gifted range for IQ BUT not all gifted children read early. Some gifted children that read early will be overtaken by gifted children that didn't. Those that read early are unlikely to turn out to be Joe Average however especially if they show quick progression and are quick to pick up other skills such as maths.
Gifted does not equal Einstein... It means in the top 5% or 10% depending on your definition.

littlemissgreen - they do have some children do very well, many of the kids are bilingual too. It is a non selective Catholic school and I think it is possibly just a very good year. my daughter's year does have 3 in her class of 30 who are 10/11 and either starting on or comfortable with chapter books, not sure about the other class. but based on that then I would expect them to do well next year assuming they make progress.

as you and I have said though it doesn't mean they are studying the books at the level they are intended for though. not sure that that matters hugely in some ways though if they are developing and I suppose it depends on how guided reading is done. I doubt they would have NC levels to match the book band as the maturity and experience wouldn't be there but I suspect they are using those texts more as 'suitable' books to give them to read rather than anything else.

I actually thought they finished the levels at 11 and would then just be able to choose books for themselves but I suppose they are still trying to give them some level of progression. I can't wait for next year and my daughter's views on reading scheme books.....(she has been allowed to take her own in to school over the last few weeks because she was getting very unenthusiastic about the lime books and her teacher obviously didn't mind us supplementing them with Dick King Smith etc. - I have explained that in September she will have to go back to reading what the teacher wants her to though and she did make some comment about hoping the new teacher would have more exciting books!)

My dd was a largely self taught early reader.She could read simple books at 2 and at 5.5 she read The Railway Children.
By 9 she was in what was a 1980's group for the equivalent of g&t pupils and passed a scholarship to a good local direct grant school [we weren't able to take it up in the end].However by 12 she was struggling with maths though she scraped a C at gcse.She passed 10 with C and above but only 4 were A's [no A* then].
She passed 4 A levels including an A in English but she was not 'exceptional' except to me. She went to university and graduated with a 2:1.She now teaches English.
Very early reading does not indicate some sort of wunderkind.

jaws5 I don't think anyone said children reading the higher level books were said to be working at the higher NC levels, I certainly didn't. I said they were reading the books.

a child's personal reading book should IMO be at the level they are reading. they need it to be hard enough for them to be learning new vocabulary, more complex grammar etc. noone would think a child of 6 is going to be able to work at the level of a yr5 child because for one thing they won't have been taught any of the stuff they would be expected to do but what are teachers supposed to give them to read in order to increase their vocab and stretch their reading a bit? I presume that is why they move up the levels for their PERSONAL reading book. Quite probably their group reading will be at a lower level.