Are teachers that report a child working at 3c as a 2a in the end of KS1 assessments "breaking the law"?

[diamondage]

By breaking the law I mean failing to meet their statutory obligations.

Please read this link, which clearly states that a child assessed as 3c must be reported as achieving a level 3.

However it has recently been reported on a number of threads that some teachers report a 3c as a 2a, including a current thread where mrz refers to teachers doing exactly this.

Teachers, is the linked to document correct in its assertions?

Other than reducing KS2 pressure to achieve level 5, or ignorance, why else would teachers artificially lower levels like this?

A child achieving level 3 in Y2 would be expected to achieve level 5 in Y6. Level 6 would indicate the child has made better than expected (good) progress.

Some schools?

Nothing to do with value added especially as it's going to be measured from the beginning of reception to end of Y6.

No it's all to do with the DfE not having joined up thinking

I went to some Raise Online training earlier this year and the LA advisor running the course said they advise schools only to award a level 3 if the child is working "very securely" at that level - and by very secure he said they meant 3b.

Raise is a bit of a farce imho. The whole inconsistency around what constitutes expected progress depending on whether you start from a/b/c is just ridiculous.

When I started teachingYear 6 ( not that long ago!!) it was considered normal for the "average " child to make 10 points progress over Ks2, so from a 2A to a 4B was perfectly acceptable. Then it became that children had to make 12 points progress as a matter of course ( so 2A to 4A), now children are expected to make 14 points progress ( so 2A to 5c) and even 16 points ( so 2A to 5B). To get from a 3c to a 6c is 18 points progress, nearly twice what was expected a few years ago
Now I appreciate that we don't want to set limits on children's learning but there comes a point where we are in danger of cramming so much into children that we don't give them the opportunity to really LEARN, to explore and find out for themselves. You only have to read some of the threads on here where Year 6 has become an exam factory in some schools. Not sure that I'd want to continue teaching year 6 if it gets much worse!!

I think we've already got there haven't we. You read samples of writing from some schools and it's like a formulaic tick list of what you need to include to get level 3a or whatever.

I swear there are pieces of writing I've read where I can tell exactly what 2 targets are stuck in the front of the child's book.

Mrz - hope you don't mind me asking, but I'm confused about reporting of levels at the end of year 6.

We haven't had reports yet, and obv the official SATS results not in until Tuesday. I've been told (not by teacher) that with the official SATS result you're just told level I.e. 3/4/5/6. Apparently the teacher school report does give a sublevel.

If a child was a 3c four years ago at end of KS1, would the school therefore be expected to demonstrate 2 full levels progress I.e. Level 5c. If the SATS are just reported as a level 5, how is the school supposed to show above expected progress? Or is it the case that behind the scenes the APP figures are what is looked at by DFE/ofsted.

Was wondering what to expect really - particularly as dd is definitely aware of sub levels, alas!

Am rooting for the school too - fingers crossed for great results because they've improved so much.

It kind of makes a mockery of the idea that secondaries look at SATS if they are just given level rather than sublevel. Dd's secondary has 240 pupils per cohort, with 8 streamed classes for maths/literacy. If they're getting 150 level 4s, then clearly the CAT test taken at the end of this term and teacher assessment is going to be more important than the SATS result.

I yearn for the carefree year 6/7 that I had many many years ago.

Of course, I could ask the teacher but really would rather not because he's obviously got enough going on this week really!

It may be that what I've heard (different primary) is another way of doing things and doesn't necessarily apply at dd's primary.

The SATs test only gives a level, so will give either 3, 4, 5, or 6. Some schools will divide the range of raw score marks for each level into thirds and then report a sub level that way, others will give a level for the test and then a level and sub level for the teacher assessment. Depends on the school I think.

AFAIK the secondary schools get the level achieved and the raw score, so then can organise sets using that if they choose not to do their own tests.

2 full levels is expected progress so Teacher Assessment will usually give sub levels

Thanks for clarity Rafa and mrz.

Makes sense - particularly wrt raw scores and secondaries.

There is so much contradicting information regarding levels/sublevels going across threads.

It's horrifying that what a 7 year old does pre-determines their 11 year old education based on this riciculous system. The kids who are 'boosted ' to a level 5 are worked a little harder by giving up their lunchtime and given a superior education to the kids targeted at a 4.
Most online sites do a better job tracking and measureing ability than the expensive national curriculum leveling system.

Teachers are human and will not always be objective with the best will in the world. In my ds's old school all the kids of mums who worked in the school seem to be in the top set

I could be just bitter and biased given the thousands of pounds my family has spent - all three of mine are just at the 2b -4b at ks1/ks2. My oldest is now year 8 and finally just starting to break out into the targeted for a a/B GCSE spectrum. My child was very surprised as they were so convinced they were just 'average'.

No OP - the system ought to be against the law, not a misrecorded mark which is not objective and not completely accurate anway!

What about those kids who are 'late bloomers'? There has to be children who scored, say a 2A in y2, who then go on to excell in certain subjects, surely they don't just get left to 'coast' because they're hitting their targets.

they get left to coast for a year in our school

get a 5a at the end of yr5?
great stuff. job done.
just repeat level 5 all next year then

That's terrible, San

It's really interesting reading through all the replies.

Although the national curriculum doesn't have levels am I right in thinking that the DfE came up with the APP grids and the idea of low, secure and high, which are c, b and a sub-levels by another name? Did they also devise the point score system? It is frustrating to just hear about the lack of joined up thinking going on, let alone having to be constrained by it and all of the implications.

I like levels, or rather the APP grids with all of the detailed information about what needs to be learnt, mainly because I can see for myself what comes next.

The issue of not being able to record the correct point score (i.e. the 3c equivalent point score) is idiotic if the statutory requirement is that 3c = level 3 (which it does).

I will await to see if the new system(s) are an overall improvement, somehow I doubt it.

I like the APP grids as well they are the only detailed information I see. But they are still bullet points. I want a syllabus, I want to see my kids worksheets.

We lived in Florida and all of this was so much less stressful and as a parent I had the information I needed to help and could impact change in my child's progress. I also knew when something was too stressful or difficult. I also understood completely the teacher's perspective without having to take up his/her valuable time.