How many levels/sub-levels progress in KS1?

[MissAnneThropy]

Hello. Hopefully someone can give me a definitive answer on this - I've looked around the 'net and I can't seem to find one!

What would be the expected number of levels/sub-levels of progress to make over the course of KS1 - or is there no expected range of progress because levels are not assessed on entry to year 1? (Or are they now?)

I've seen something that suggests 4 'steps' e.g. 1a->2c->2b->2a from end of the first term of year 1 to the end of year 2 would be 'satisfactory' , 5 would be 'good' and 6 would be 'very good'.

Does that sound about right? Also, what would be the 'norm' level expected at the end of year 2? I always thought it was 2c ->2a, but having tried to find the answer to the question of acceptable progress I'm not so sure any more!

We were told by our la advisors that children were expected to make a full national curriculum level per year in ks1. I've always thought that was a bit of a stretch. I assume this is accelerated progress.

Hi usually 1 jump 1a- 2a so 3 sub levels - 3c being great for year 2 end. U ask school for the levels at anytime and you can ask for copies of what they need to do to reach those levels - its just a list - like tell.time to hour write all numbers to 100 - recount a story etc

Under the old level system it was expected that children made 2 (whole) levels progress across each key stage.

6 sub levels would be expected more than 6 would be good

Thank you.

mrz - could you just clarify if 6 sub-levels is what is expected now, or was expected under the old system (although I appreciate that 6 sub-levels and 2 whole levels are the same thing - was it just that in the old system there were no sub-levels?)

Is the same level of progress expected if the pupil is significantly below or above the norm?

Levels were scrapped from September so there is no national system now. This year Y2 and Y6 will be assessed under the old system but for other year groups it is up to the school how they measure progress. Next year there will be new end of key stage tests which will have standard scores rather than levels

Oh my - it's completely different than I thought!

My child is in year 1 now, so will be assessed with the new system then.

How does the new system measure progress over year 1 if there is no 'start' level? Or is that something that is assessed by the staff - or is it simply a case of schools getting above the norm are doing well and those below are doing badly? (Obviously the latter idea is ridiculous, but I suspect these changes are the work of Michael Gove, so the ridiculous becomes plausible)

There is an assessed start level or you would never know what progress has been made over KS1. Progress is the key, not just end results. A child could start school with very high prior attainment but cruise due to poor teaching from that point onwards. If a child starts school with low attainment, they could, with brilliant teaching, make outstanding progress. If you do not measure the starting point, it would impossible for any school with lots of low ability children, to ever be any good. Clearly this cannot be the case because the school where children make outstanding progress is the better school. There will be new ways of measuring progress, as I understand it. (Possibly I don't of course!).

From 2016 children will be assessed when they start reception and this will be used to measure progress over the primary phase (obviously this won't be possible until 2023) . Schools are free to choose the assessment programme they will use on entry to reception from a list of government approved progs (so no national standard).

What form would this start of year 1 assessment have taken for those who started year 1 in September 2014? I presume it's a judgement of the teacher, but it turns out I know very little about this!

I feel theres a bigger issue you`re worried about?

No it isn't a judgement of the teacher ... It's an assessment of the child.
The school is free to use any assessment system they choose.

Not really, momofthree - I'm just trying to get a handle on how much progress my child is expected to make compared to how much is actually being made. I guess it's obvious I think there is some issue - I'm just trying to understand the system so when I talk to school about it I can at least pretend to know what I'm talking about!

but cruise due to poor teaching from that point onwards. If a child starts school with low attainment, they could, with brilliant teaching, make outstanding progress.

This comment made me think about this article

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/17/great-teacher-results-wrong-david-cameron-children-learn

Learning is more than child + good teacher = outstanding results and child + poor teacher = poor results.

Sorry mrz, I meant 'a judgement made by the teacher' rather than a judgement of the teacher - Does the level they are given at the start of y1 come from some sort of test, or the reports from EYFS in combination with informal assessment by the teacher?

They aren't given a level.

There isn't a simple answer as each school could be using a different system.
I know some are using bought in tests others are using criteria from the new curriculum and some using a combination

It will be part assessement - like words they know maths etc and part teacher and in some classes how they are with peers. U can ask the gov for copies as a parent u are entitled to a copy. Will see if i have a contact number - school should give u info if u ask.

They aren't necessarily given a level at the start of year 1...The only way that would happen would be if the school has elected to use that way to assess children. I think the point a few posters are trying to make is that there isn't really a "common ground" amongst schools any more. We probably won't be able to say how your school is assessing your child - you will need to ask this question yourself, as schools can now use a variety of assessment methods...The one rule for all does not apply any more.

There aren't any levels to give. They ceased to exist last September (Y2 & Y6 will be given a level this year only)

Thanks all - a lack of a common policy or any levels would explain why I found searching for an answer so confusing!

Forgive my cynicism, but why was this change made? Mr Gove seemed to be quite keen on making state schools jump through as many hoops as he could dream up and expecting them to meet ever higher targets. It seems odd that he would also replace the KS1 system with what sounds like a load of local solutions that will make gathering and comparing data more difficult.

It isn't just in KS1 there are no levels in any Key Stage.
The old levels don't correspond to the new curriculum introduced in September but rather than provide new levels the government decided that it would be better if schools develop their own assessment systems.
Gove argued that this would be better as parents confused by levels. I do have some sympathy with that view in that there were so many misconceptions around levels (sub levels don't technically exist in the old national curriculum yet everyone thinks they know what ABC equates to - levels were only ever intended for end of Key Stage assessment yet we routinely use them for other year groups) .

Ah I see. Thanks mrz.

I'm struggling to see any advantages of the new system (apart from it providing lots of opportunities for private companies to come in and provide a grading system which will help schools prove to OFSTED that pupils are making progress in the same way as the old system did, except in the old system there was no way of making a profit ...)

I think the argument that the old levels were 'confusing' (how confusing can a number and a letter be?) is poor, especially as the replacement appears to be 'we now have a system where you can't compare any school or any child with anything else'

Politicians, eh?!

Oh there were plenty of companies making money by providing assessment materials to please Ofsted under the old system ... Where do you think most of the misconceptions about levels originated

Aha.

And on a side note, who would have possibly foreseen that having exam boards run for profit would lead to them competing for entries by making the exams every so slightly less demanding year-on-year?