7 Year Old Working at Level 3B for Maths and 3A for English

[UltimateMathsT]

In terms of KS1 SATs, how would you adequately assess a 7 year old child , already attaining secure Level 3 in both Maths and English?
Are there any extension assessment provisions for the "More Able"?

The school can extend a high achieving DC in any way they choose to. How they would assess it, especially as you are moving from old to new curriculum, I have no idea. Whether your school does extend your DC is a whole different question!!

In the past we have used the KS2 tests (before KS1 moved to Teacher Assessed levels) and a school may choose to do this as additional evidence but if a child is working at a higher level that is what will be reported.

The school I was in today had a number of Y2 children working at this level- not that unusual. Why do you think that they wouldn't be able to assess your child?

Many schools are already teaching the revised national curriculum for Y2 in current Y2 to avoid a big gap next year.

When you say English do you mean reading and writing-both?

Thanks for all your responses thus far. My question wasn't on whether or not the child in question will be assessed. I set the premise with the KS1 SATs, which has a limit, as to what level a child can attain ( nothing beyond level 3).
so if a child is already secure at this stage and comfortably accessing Level 4+ material, my question is how the assessment needs will be met, with the current KS1 assessment methods.

I am sure other bright children might also be working at similar levels, and that's real credit to child, school and home. At the same time we want to be able to ensure that 'More Able' learners are not disadvantaged at any stage...
There is currently little or no provision for Formative Assessment for learners who might be achieving a Level 4 at end of KS1. That was my question. What would schools do in this scenario?

If any of you have any information or suggestions on this matter, ill be happy to hear them.
Thanks

By English, I meant both Reading and Writing. The child has a reading age of 13-15 years.

Formative assessment monitors pupils learning to guide next steps whereas summative assessment evaluates pupil learning against a benchmark.

You say there is little or no provision for formative assessment, however you referred to the KS1 SATS initially - I am therefore slightly confused.

During the period that KS1 SAT results had to be reported teachers could use the 3 - 5 level papers to enable a L4 to be recorded, however the 3-5 banding is narrow, with no sublevels (not that sublevels exist as such, although any teacher should know whether a child is beginning to work within a new level, is secure at that level, or is just beginning to dip a toe into the level above). The point is that technically a child beginning to work in L4 because they are completely secure at L3 should be awarded a L4. The SATs are, however, considered a blunt tool by many. Hence the move to teacher assessment reporting for the KS1 SATs.

As KS1 SATs levels are now all teacher assessed and the SAT paper can be sat at any time during year 2 a teacher can, at least in theory, report a child as working at L4 whether or not there is a SAT paper to back the assessment up. Of course you could argue that if the child hasn't taken the SAT yet and are already working at L4, they should be given a L3-5 paper because they should presumably sit a paper that is pitched at their level.

However a 3b and a 3a are not working at L4, therefore are you concerned that the child is not being accurately assessed?

At DDs private school all reported assessments are summative. In May the year 2 children will sit SAT papers and if they achieve a secure level 3 they will then sit another paper to see whether they can achieve a L4. This does not seem like an improvement on TA to me.

Thanks Diamondage!
Your indepth explanation has been very insightful too. I'll take note and speak with the class teacher about what arrangements are in place for Summative assesement of the 'more able' child. Its just that we've just moved into this particular school in November and 'things' seem a bit slow-going...
What I meant by level 4 was with the notion that, since the child is comfortably accessing tasks at this level ( having already attained a secured 3), it would be helpful to give this learner the opportunity to attain a 4, if offered assessment material in that region.
But currently the maximum level assessed at ks1, that I know of, is L3.

I like the idea of being given a L3-5 task and then assessed accordingly. Would there be any cons than pros to this approach?

Perhaps you didn't understand my earlier post ultimate maths ... The school may choose to use the Key Stage 2 tests (summative assessment ) to inform the teacher assessment or they may choose other assessments (there are wide range commonly used in schools). Whichever they choose there will be both ongoing formative and end of key stage summative assessments suitable for all ability levels.
As there will be no levels in Year3 whatever level a child leaves Year2 with is to some degree pointless.

There is no upper level that a child can attain in Year 2 neither are there pros or cons in attaining level 3 or level 6 in Y2 this year as the system will not exist next year

As mrz has said there is no upper level a child can achieve in Year 2.
My eldest DS achieved a level 4 in year 2. His teacher I believe used a level 3-5 paper.

I agree with taeglass.

Both my dc achieved a level 4 in year 2.

Afaik there is no ceiling on the levels that can be achieved in year 2 (or any year).

Oh great! That sounds really good. Thanks for sharing your own experiences. Will definitely help me, moving forward, in seeking the right support for my DCs

Why do you think your child needs support?

From level 3b now to a level 4c in May is a huge jump anyway and unlikely to be achieved. I cannot see what the problem is.

Afaik there is no ceiling on the levels that can be achieved in year 2

Apart from the posters who have stated on various MN threads that they were told by their schools that no child would be awarded higher than a L3 in year 2. Or the teachers who have admitted they were pressured to keep levels down in case progress couldn't be maintained in KS2. Obviously I've no idea how frequently this has occurred, but as I tend to believe rather than disbelieve posters I do believe it has happened at least occasionally.

From level 3b now to a level 4c in May is a huge jump anyway and unlikely to be achieved. I cannot see what the problem is.

If a child has achieved a 3b and 3a by the first term of year 2 (so after 4 terms being taught the National Curriculum) then it is at least possible that they will sustain the accelerated progress they've already been demonstrating and succeed in achieving 1 to 2 further sublevels in another term.

Achieving L4 in year 2 remains exceptional, however many people post on this thread to attest to their own DCs results - see here.

There is no upper level that a child can attain in Year 2 neither are there pros or cons in attaining level 3 or level 6 in Y2 this year as the system will not exist next year

I would think the pro would be that the school has accurately recorded the child's level in year 2 and that there should be some system in place for transferring achievement under the old system to the new system. Even if there is no mechanism to manage this and every child has to be reassessed in year 3 as if from a blank slate then there is still a benefit to accurate assessment as it should inform next steps, even in year 3. And that's without even mentioning that some schools are still sticking to levels for the time being.

I like the idea of being given a L3-5 task and then assessed accordingly. Would there be any cons than pros to this approach?

Well the 'con' with the L3-5 paper is you either achieve L4 or you don't - the paper's L4 is equivalent to a 4b, not a 4c. There is no banding of sublevels with the paper (which teacher assessment provides), therefore it depends on a child's performance on the day and whether the L4 questions are at least familiar to the child if they are 'only' a 4c.

Teacher assessment, on the other hand, allows the teacher to assess at L4c. So a child could be working at 4c (perhaps better to say they are working within L4 but are not secure at that level) and fail the paper but still be recorded at L4 via teacher assessment. The 'con' of teacher assessment is that it requires the teacher to have gathered the evidence over time and with maths in particular to provide appropriately differentiated work at L4.

Out of interest is it the current school that has assessed 3a/3b or the previous school? If the latter then you may find it a struggle as the current school won't have had as much time to gather their own evidence - in which case the 3-5 paper might be worth requesting.

The level 3-5 test level 4 is not equivalent to a 4B it could be anywhere from just scrapped into the level 4 threshold to just missed level 5 by a mark. This year the results will record percentage of level 4s and percentage of 4Bs and above.

I agree with MMM moving from 3B to 4C (or above) in 3 months is a huge challenge even for Y6 pupils.

Given the submission dates for KS1 I wouldn't submit at KS1 child at L4 unless they had completed 2015 KS2 paper (not in the same test conditions at Y6). At that point thresholds wouldn't be known but you would have a pretty good idea.

So what point score would be entered for a KS1 child gaining L4? I assumed the same contraints applied at L4 as apply at L3 with recording point scores. It seems strange that L3 children's recorded point score must equate to 3b but any L4 point score can be recorded - my mistake if so.

A year 6 pupil trying to move from 3b to 4c is likely to have some sort of additional needs, a year 2 pupil is either exceptionally bright, receiving some form of tutoring or both. Why would they progress at the same rate?

There is no link between scores and the old levels ...

A Year 6 working to move from level 3B to 4C is highly unlikely
to have any SEN ... What an odd idea!

Apart from the posters who have stated on various MN threads that they were told by their schools that no child would be awarded higher than a L3 in year 2. Or the teachers who have admitted they were pressured to keep levels down in case progress couldn't be maintained in KS2. Obviously I've no idea how frequently this has occurred, but as I tend to believe rather than disbelieve posters I do believe it has happened at least occasionally.

This definitely happen to my eldest two children. They were both assessed as L3 in maths and English and having had them independently assessed, I knew full well they were not. DD1 was L3 in English but L4 in maths, as we were teaching her at home due to the school not stretching her, and DS1 was L5 in English. DS2 was also L3 in both but was way behind the other two children at the same time of the year.

Luckily all our fears were confirmed when they moved to a different school and they were assessed in line with what we thought.

The school adopts this mechanism as they do not do L6 so need to show progress for all up until year 6 and couldn't do it successfully if they had L4s and 5s in Year 2. Or at least they choose not to want to.

We had to remove our children as they were bored and disengaged after years of this.

The highest my DD can be recorded at at the end of yr2 (her current year) is a 3A.

Tbh I cannot be bothered to argue, the school are not going to budge.

However, DD is happy & being stretched (although it could be more IMO).

AFAIK the new curriculum is all about 'age related' expectations, and the 'mastery' those expectations. So a deeper understanding, rather than constantly pushing the child to the next level. They cannot be at the next level if they have not studied it, surely it's more beneficial for the child to have a deeper understanding or 'mastery' of skills at one level before moving on.

Also the expectations of the new curriculum are much higher than the levels under the old curriculum, so a Y2 child would probably be expected to be working at the equivalent of the old L3 under the new curriculum.