Levels between end yr3 and yr4 end of term

[fuctifino]

Just received end of term report, the effort and attainment type.

Effort is a 1 for all subjects.
Levels have been bettered, apart from writing, which has stayed the same.
At the end of yr3, her levels were above national average, they are now average.

I am not concerned specifically about the level she is working at but that no progress has been made despite maximum effort.

If I question the teacher, would I be seen as one of 'those' mothers ?

My dd has 'apparently' made no progress from last years levels this term either. Assumed it's something about the jumps in the KS2 levels being much bigger than at KS 1?

Would be important to find out from teacher what they are doing to ensure progress - you wouldn't be being one of 'those' parents to ask that question. I'm intending to at the next parents eve!

I have taught Year 3 for a while before moving to Year 6. I always found there was a dip between Year 2 to Year 3. In the past the expectation was that they only moved one sub level for the whole because of the big change that happens between KS1 and 2. Other teachers may disagree, but in my experience it is normal.

Yes, yr2 to yr3, I can understand and agree with but mine has gone from 3 to 4.

Sorry didn't read post properly. Have been sick today so not really with it!

It could be the new curriculum; expectations are now raised, so what used to be considered an ok level is now not, (so your daughter has improved but the levels have moved up faster). OR that the schools reading of the new curriculum is that everybody has to be taught more or less the same thing- so she is simply not being taught the stuff to keep her ahead

I wouldn't expect a change in sublevel after 1 term, unless she was very close to the next level at the end of year 3. It's not necessarily a sign that she's made no progress.

We have to target children to move 2 sub levels over the academic year (3 terms) therefore there would always be one term where on paper they stayed the same. However I would have expected progress within that sub level and for them to be very close to moving up. A quick word with the teacher will probably explain why in this particular case and hopefully put your mind at rest.

Several points

1. The children have moved from the old to the new curriculum in September. The new curriculum has higher expectations to be "average".
2. In KS2 the expectation was 2 full levels (i.e. 6 sublevels) over four years, so totally reasonable to not move a sublevel every term. MOST IMPORTANTLY
3. Levels no longer exist!

Fuct-If-I-No (great name )

You say she's made progress in all levels bar writing but is no longer above average? The question you need to consider is where will she be at the end of the year if she continues to make progress?

The below / average / above average levels, which are provided as a rough guide, are always end of year levels.

So if she was above average at the end of year 3 and makes, say, 2 sub levels of progress over the whole year will she still be above average or would she need to make more than 2 sublevels of progress to remain above average (seems unlikely given her starting point)?

Given you say all levels have been bettered bar writing it sounds like she's on track to remain above average.

When my DC were in Y3 progress of 1 sublevel across the WHOLE YEAR was considered to be perfectly acceptable.

But you're comparing apples with pears anyway.

1: a level 3 at the end of KS1 is classed as a 3b, even if the child was really a 3c (there is no way of logging c,b,a in the system for level 3 at KS1 so they are all graded as 3b) Therefore, if your child was 3c and is now 3b that is good progress but it doesn't show up.

2: children progress in steps rather than in straight lines. 1 term without identifiable progress isn't too much of a concern. There's no harm in asking if everything is ok though.

3: The school should be changing their assessment system soon and completely removing the 'levels' system. Instead you should know specifically what your child can do and what they need to work on next. You will be told whether or not they are working within or below age related expectations (not above... It's a whole other issue!)

4: If your school provides termly data to parents, they are an exception and should be congratulated. Ask yourself 'why' they provide this data? It's so that you can use it to know how your child is doing and to raise any questions that might concern you. They really won't mind if you contact the teacher to ask if he/she has any concerns.

Ignore point 1: I misread your post.

bright levels may no longer exist but many schools are still using them. In our area, a number of high schools are getting together to best decide how to report a child's 'level' and this will then be fed downto primary schools . The idea being there will be some commonality across the board. This has yet to happen, so for the time being, the children are still given levels.

diamond - yes, if she does move 2 sub levels during the year, she will be above average.
It's not the level she's working at that bothers me, just the possibility that she is working at maximum effort and not improved. I guess she must have improved within that band though, at least I'm hoping she has!!

Which leads me to h3ad - why will we not be told if children are working above age expectations? Will their work still be differentiated?

It really shouldn't be that difficult to figure out an alternative assessment system given the new NC is pretty much organised into year groups. A simple at, above or below expectations should cover it with an indication of the year group they are working within if they are above or below. Assessing against a curriculum you aren't teaching is totally insane.

I think your OP does show why the old system as it was being used was totally crap though. Despite having excellent effort grades you are worried that she hasn't made progress because they've used a measure of progress that was never designed to be used over such short periods of time.

Assessing against a curriculum you aren't teaching is totally insane

Well apart from the fact that for many subjects the majority of the old curriculum is still in the new curriculum (history's probably the most obvious exception). Children still have to learn the same basic things.

Yes there's some movement, with a number of topics that were taught in one year now being taught in younger year groups. In maths I think the only genuinely new topic is learning Roman numerals? But things like learning the tables in a different order and earlier than previously can't be that challenging to adjust for.

As for the old system being crap for measuring progress over short periods of time, I think that's more to do with how school's implemented APP. Schools that choose to use + and - (as in 3a- or 3a+) or share point scores, could probably show smaller increments of progress. After all, if children are progressing, why would it be so hard to say so?

However as a parent there's a lot you can do yourself to monitor DC's progress if you have the time and inclination.

Will their work still be differentiated?
Good question, especially given that there is a government steer for children to be taught at the same rate and be taught the same things at a deeper level, rather than be taught things from the next key stage. On the other hand the new curriculum is more challenging, so this may not cause problems for any but the very able/gifted.

Right, I asked the question and I am happy with the answers.
They sat some SAT papers a couple of weeks back. The level they have given her on her report is one below her actual mark. The reason being, the teacher likes them to achieve that level more than once before saying they have actually reached that level.
He said she absolutely had made progress and that I shouldn't be concerned.
Her March report should reflect she has reached the actual level her SAT result indicated.