How indicitive of future success are nc levels at 7?

[secretlemondedrinker]

Just that really, do all the level 3's tend to become A's at GCSE? how about the ones that don't get 3's?
I'm genuinely interested in this, does anyone have personal experiences of either a dc that was a very high achiever at an early age that didn't fulfil potential or the other way round a dc who started off low but ended up doing really very well.

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/222084/DCSF-RTP-09-02.pdf
has as much data as you could wish for on progression from KS1 to KS2 and KS2 to KS4!!

Thanks spanieleyes

When I was in year 10, my school showed us a chart of expected GCSEs based on year 2, year 6 and year 9 SATs.

It is a loose guide, but to be honest I think a lot of the level 3s I receive (or even the 2As, actually) are not going to be A* or A material at GCSE level. In my school, there is a lot of hot-housing in year 2; both from the school and from private tutors. As we use the same SATs paper year after year, a lot of the children have already seen it and worked on it with tutors.

The year 3 class I received last year had 21 level 2As or 3c. They just weren't that.

Incidentally, I got 3s in year 2, 5s in year 6 and 8s in year 9. I didn't get all A*s and As, though.

I have been teaching a few years and hear of ex-pupils' progress. Several who got 2cs across the board in Y2 have gone on to pass the 11+ and get As and A*s at A level.

Parents are led to believe that progress is linear and academic outcomes are predictable. It's all a load of baloney.

One of my DS got 1s at the end of KS1. Fast forward 14 years and he is a very happy young man. Just in the last year of his maths degree at Cambridge. Lots of things can change as they grow up.

as a parent and teacher, I feel a child should be seen as just that and not a level to be achieved or a grade to get. all the data in the world doesn't include the realities of life and outside influences.

dont get me wrong levels and grades matter but data is not always accurate. its important how children are in the classroom.

I don't really think they indicate much at year 2, other than how they are doing at that moment, too much can change at that age.

My little sister is in year 11 now, she didn't do particularly well in KS1 SATs (2b/2c) and is now top of her class at a super-selective grammar and got 9 A*s in her mock GCSE's and 2 A's for the GCSEs she took early, but one of my brothers got 3's in year 2 and left school with 6C's, 3D's and an F at GCSE.

I looked at the data spanieleyes linked to above. Lengthy but very interesting. From that, performance at KS1 has a strong correlation to success at GCSE. What was ESP interesting was that those achieving W (below L1) at KS1 and those on L1 had no or almost no chance of achieving top GCSEs (A or Astar) which I suppose is not surprising, but very very evident from the figures.
Of course these are general trend and patterns based on thousands of children. There are always some who buck the trend and your child may be one of those......but it is statistically unlikely of course.

Yup. My 21 year old was one of those statistics. Level 1 (just) at 7, just made 3 at KS2 & is now at Cambridge. Kids are NOT statistics & can surprise us all.