So Level 6 at KS2 SATS...

[BogeyNights]

My eldest has just completed SATS at the end of KS2. I'm hoping (as is he) that he's done ok and will achieve a Level 4 for all subjects without a problem. Don't know about Level 5, as he's only ever been 4B for any subject this academic year. Anyway....

As SATS have been on my mind, and as some children take the Level 6 papers, this is my question. Or what I was wondering...

If kids are supposed to achieve Level 6 by the end of KS3, what do they achieve by reaching this level a full 3 years early? And who's really responsible for this outstanding result? A gifted child? or excellent teachers?

What's the point?

Um um um..

1. They don't get very bored and grow up to be James Bond villians or politicians.

2. The child.

3. Followed by the teacher who only needs to be good enough.

4. They don't get very bored and grow up to be James Bond villians or politicians.

There was no point in my ds doing the level 6 maths paper, there was however a point in him learning this stuff through the year as he would have been bored at going over the year 6 stuff - which he did in years 4 & 5.

He is gifted in maths, that's not "down to him", it is just part of who he is.
His teacher is in no way, shape or form a mathematician - but he has put in place ways in which ds can access the information.

Not enabling ds to access this learning would effectively mean he wouldn't progress during the year, that would be no more acceptable for a child at the higher end of the scale than one on the middle or at the lower end.

DS got level 6 maths a couple of years ago - the first year the papers were reiintroduced.

What it meant at the time was a year 6 year full of new, exciting maths (including a fortnightly 'fun problem solving' sessio with a secondary school maths teacher) rather tjhan revision of level 5 work.

What it means now is a high KS3 target (8A) which means that his maths lessons started off at a fast pace in Year 7 and have continued to challenge him throughout.

The combination have meant that he thinks maths is fun. He knows that maths lessons wuill always challenge him and give him something to learn. He is a better mathematician, because he has never been allowed to 'coast'.

Ok. All fair points. Except the James Bond villains, which I don't accept. I have been educated and am grateful. I naively saw it as a big show off statistic for the school. But yes, a child fully engaged & stretched by a subject is a good thing.
So... Do these children take GCSEs or A levels early further along in their school life? Just curious....

Do we know, yet?

DS's comp - historically some children have done GCSE Maths early, and all able maths pupils take Additional Maths or Stats as an extra GCSE. Whether the early entry will continue, with changes to exams, I don't know, but I think it is still likely that DS will end up with Maths + Additional Maths or Statistics, whether or not he also takes the main maths GCSE early.

Obviously also offers Maths and Further Maths as A-level subjects though those are typically not taken early.

"Except the James Bond villains, which I don't accept."

Yes, with hindsight that was very last century and I think DD would rather be Bellatrix Lestrange.

If you have a cheerful, happy child then a normal parent will want want to keep them that way. DD thrives on challenge, so part of the recipe for her continued well-being is some challenge and lately that involved some L6 work. The world won't end without routine challenges, but the devil makes work for idle hands and I'd rather she didn't get bored and perhaps resort to making mischief.

As for later on then yes running out of curriculum is a potential problem and we'll learn more about the in the next year or two, but there are plenty of challenges to be had beyond her current comfort zones.

1) They don't get very bored and grow up to be James Bond villians or politicians.
I am so stealing that for next time MIL starts ranting about there being no point in challenging DS.

I think the main point is that if a child knows a 5 is the highest possible mark they will reach that stage and coast for the rest of the year, wasting time that could be spent reaching their potential, where as level 6 papers give them something more to aim for so they keep trying.

Dh was part of an experiment to push kids to do their A levels early. It was a disaster - even dh who did really well, ended up treading water for a year before going to Cambridge as he was just to young to get the most from university education.

I think the main point is to challenge children that are already achieving level 5's.

It's just another way of ensuring all childrens learning needs are met, same as providing additional support for those who need it.

Ds1 did level 6 papers, he needed the higher level in maths as he was apparently already level 5 at the end of year 5. He enjoyed the harder work and rose to the challenge.

I have no idea what will happen for ds1 further down his school career. All I know is he is better at maths than me

I think it's an odd question. For children who have already reached level 5 in year 4 or 5, what are they supposed to do in year 6 if they aren't allowed to progress?

If kids are supposed to achieve Level 6 by the end of KS3, what do they achieve by reaching this level a full 3 years early?

DD got satisfaction, she really wanted it and worked very hard for it.
She has high targets now in y7, but not the only one she knows with such high targets (she is at what I think of as bog standard comp).

And who's really responsible for this outstanding result? A gifted child? or excellent teachers?

I dunno & not sure I care about it precisely. I know DD is high ability and i am happy for her. I know her teachers must have made a point of stretching her appropriately which is reassuring; same teachers sometimes let my DSs down, too.

What's the point?

oh, well, we know that, it's govt. accounting. Maybe it has done DD good so I shouldn't complain.

I don't expect DD to take GCSEs early. She is very good at stretching herself sideways.

Can I ask a strange question about the L6 Sats?

DS1 is only in Y4 at the moment but is a 4a/5c in maths...he seems to be almost a 5c but not consistently. He is no maths genius at all but genuinely seems to enjoy it.

When it comes to his turn to do them in Y6 would it be better for him to do a L5 and be really good at it or if given the opportunity to do L6 and not do so well?

ihearttc
All children sit level 3-5 papers and a select few will sit the level 6 papers. Presumably the school has to pay for the extra papers so it's only worth some children having a go.

I meant to say that a few children will sit the L6 as well as 3-5.

Also to add - a child cannot get a L6 unless they also get a L5 on the 3-5 papers.

If your child hasd been working at the L5/6 borderline in the current Y6, then the most likely approach would have been that he would have done the L3-5 papers (as everyone didl) and then 'had a bash' at the L6 papers. He would have had nothing to lose by doing so, as he could not 'lose his L5' by faling the L6 paper.

However, levels are going for your son's year, I think, and what replaces them has not yet been announced, so you may just need to wait and see!

Thats really helpful thank you! Was just curious as to how it worked...I didn't realise they all sat the 3-5 paper and then take the L6 from there if necessary.

I assume if he is working at a 4a level now theoretically he would maybe be L6 in Y6?

Id actually rather he didn't do a higher paper when the time comes as he doesn't cope with tests very well and I think it would stress him out too much. What is there to be gained for L6 pupils actually doing the harder one-for them I mean not the school?

There is a deadline to enter them for L6 papers which is typically mid-late March. So come February time the staff will make decisions about who to enter for L6. You could discuss your worries about not pressuring him at the October parents' eve of y6. He may feel differently about it by then.

Like I said, DD enjoyed the challenge of L6 or I never would have pushed for it. It has little benefit to kids otherwise that I can think of.

My daughter did level 6 maths and reading last year. She passed the maths easily and scraped a pass in the reading. She worked hard out of school off her own bat (because she didn't like the school's "if you pass, you pass attitude" with very little extra help). It became apparent she would care if she didn't pass and the school was on it's 3rd year of putting people in for the reading without a single pass. She is very good at both maths and English but not gifted and talented in my opinion - although school statistics may say otherwise. The reading only gave her and us stress and with hindsight, she should never have done it. I don't think it stretched her in any useful way and she wasn't previously bored, although was at the top of her class but along with others. The maths gave her an insight into year 8 work - although she was forced to quickly grasp things like algebra, that would be covered thoroughly in year 8 anyway. It did increase her confidence, she enjoyed the extra lessons and she has found year 8 easy because of it, but again she wasn't bored by level 5 work. We have also found the levels to be quite different to secondary school. For example, she got a 6a/6b at the end of year 6 and her end of year target for year 8 (and this is the highest target for the year, along side others) is 6b!

merle,

re secondary school levels - DS also got Level 6 maths at the end of Y6. His target for the end of Y9 is 8A, and for the end of Y8 8B (I don't quite see the logic of that - though as his end Y7 result was 7B, I suspect that may have generated a very high end Y8 target). To have 6B as an end Y8 target, having got a 6 at the end of Y6, is worryingly unambitious.

The top maths class consists of those with 6b predictions and those with 6c. My daughter got 99% in the last maths test and therefore got the higher prediction. I had already been warned by her primary teacher that secondary schools don't like children going in with a level 6 because it generates a high end of key stage 3 target which may be hard to achieve and it is a different thing to know enough level 6 maths to pass at key stage 2 but at secondary school, you will need to know all the key stage 3 material properly to get that level. I just thought that that was the reasoning for it. She hasn't been given a target for end of year 9 but I know from past experience that the top part of the top maths class get a level 8 and then go on to do their GCSE in year 10.

I also wonder what difference a higher target would have made if 99% is still only giving a target of 6b. I'm guessing a level 7 just isn't possible in her school in her year. It's a fairly good comp.

I think the secondary school targets are based on eg if you get a level 4 at the end of year 7 then you are predicted a C in GCSE (the acceptable national average maybe), so if you are a level 6 at the end of year 7 then you should be on target for an A. For any cohort there will be the higher achievers and those who struggle and the vast majority in the middle, thus making up the resulting GCSE grades (ie a few with A's who would have finished primary school with a level 5/6 and most with C's and a few with less). Not sure on the relevance of taking exams early!

someone on MN has said that kids who have L5 in KS2 SATs will have A* targets as starting point for GCSEs (I have no idea how to verify that). So L6 doesn't mean anything higher for GCSEs. And that otherwise KS3 & GCSE targets are based on things like parents' postcode (so again, L6 no different from L5 result).

I've had no info whatsoever about how they worked out DD's targets in y5; actually I don't even know if the targets are for today in y7 or end of y7 or end of KS3.

It's more subtle than 'who have L5'. The best predictions of GCSE outcomes are indirectly based on raw scores in the KS2 SATs, but if you break it into sub-levels then a rough rule of thumb is that a KS2 5a points to an A/A*, a 5b to A and a 5c to B.

No guarantees, some will perform worse or better, but that's the essential picture. My claim is based on RaiseOnline KS2-KS4 transition data that anyone can go get. It doesn't tell us anything about the influence of KS2 L6 because the cohorts containing children who could do that in the last few years haven't got to their GCSEs yet.

However GCSEs are changing and so is end-KS2 assessment, so the prediction business is about to get murkier.