Someone help me decipher end yr-2 report...

[fromheretomaternity]

DS just brought home his report. He has one 2A and three 3Cs. Any idea what the numbers mean??

Also will those be his actual SAT results or will they come later?

Great results - above national expectations. But next year you'll get the 'emerging, expected, exceeding' statements instead as this has been the final year of 'old curriculum' y2 & y6 SATs.

It's yet another statutory requirement that some schools are ignorant of.

My y2 DS's report had a very good explanation which I don't have in front of me. They were prepared to score W (P levels), 1, 2c, 2b, 2a, 3, 4 - ie only giving sublevels for level 2 to show how secure. Then we had a big complicated table with scores across the top and subjects down the side, split out by sex and school v national - eg we'd get writing boys school then writing boys national then writing girls school etc. The percentages of each showed how the school performed compared with the country (presumably 2014 figures) and then I could compare my child with the rest of his class.

We also had a leaflet explaining in plain English what the different levels mean, ie W and 1 are below expected levels for Y2, 2 are expected (emerging, confident, exceeding) and 3 is solidly exceeding.

Meh. IMHO it's more a measure of the school than the child.

Until you remember that your child's individual targets for Year 6 are set from them.

I may have missed something but why does that matter, unless the y2 levels are inaccurate?

I'm sure this MN myth about levels being meaningless for the child wouldn't be quite so prevalent if all MNers children weren't above average.

If they were all getting level 1s at ks1 I'm not sure people would be sitting back going, it doesn't matter it's just a measure of the school.

Is there any chance that the tests can ba accurate for 100% of children? And by that I mean they would have to represent not only an exact accurate measure of the child's entire ability, but also progress from that point would have to be a linear progression to y6. If either of those two things are not true, then the tests are a seriously problematic way of predicting anything. These tests are used as achievement benchmarks. So, if a child scores on the lower end, for the school to show they have added 'value' to the child, they only need to increase achievement at the same level. I am not at all saying that is what all teachers and schools would aim for, but that is all that is needed. So it could potentially create low expectations for a child and mean they are not motivated or developed to reach their true potential (if, God forbid, the tests at 7 didn't reflect their 'true' potential). Testing to check what people can do is one thing, but using those tests as a bench mark for linearly defined future achievement is another entirely. Disclaimer - I am only a parent so may not have all that entirely right, but that is my understanding of it.

Well it's not the reporting that matters in that case but the attainment. League tables and constant measuring risk missing the point that we're talking about actual children. A child who is measured at level 1 doesn't gain anything from that measurement unless the school uses that information to guide its teaching, but it's not more meaningful than saying the child needs more help or isn't yet able to do what his peers can.

This is in direct comparison to GCSE and AS/A Level (etc) tests which result in a score that the child takes with him and qualifies (or disqualifies) him for (from) future opportunities.

That's what I mean when I say the SATs testing is for the school.

But SATs can qualify or disqualify from future attainment because they are used for the official basis for GCSE grade predictions, and as such they can be used to determine if a child can take a subject. The predictions of ability that result from them are key for the schools in them reaching their targets. So, I would say they are very significant for the child. Depressingly so.

It is more helpful if your school are not as good as they should be at helping children to catch up and close the gap. It allows a parent to do it themselves or put pressure on the school to help.

There used to be a poster on here who had been told all through ks1 her child was doing well and meeting all her targets. It wasn't until the school had to report a level in year 2 that the school would admit to her that at level 1 she was behind, and even then I'm not sure they were that bothered. It's all very well if your school are honest but if they are not, you don't really want the first time you get an official national comparison to be in an exam that might set the course of their future.

I agree it's depressing, Itshould. Not sure whether it's the fault of the testing or the system though. Probably the latter.

DD1 has 3's across the board and yes I'm having a quiet fist pumping boast here as I feel very proud of her - but it's not the done thing to shout it out in the playground :). Sometimes I wonder where she get's it from?

We didn't get any comparison figures though so I'm unsure how the rest of her class did. I get the feeling that there will be lot of 3's around, but really I've just learned everything I know about SAT scores from this thread.

Well done LovelyFriend's Dd

Hi, I'm a bit confused - what is the order?

2C, 2B, 2A from low to high, I got that one.

What is 2 then, with no letter attached to it? Is it 2B? 2C?

My DD got 2As and one "2" in Science. She's the youngest in the class, August born.

Thanks!

It could be 2c, 2b or 2a. A straight level just means a child is working within level 2 somewhere. The sublevel just breaks it down a little bit to clarify how much of the description for a level a child is able to do.

Officially, in ks1, a sublevel is only reported for reading, writing and maths at level 2. Everything else is reported as just the level.

Thanks, that makes sense then.

Technically there were no sub levels in the national curriculum so when teachers report levels the DfE ask for teachers to record whole levels for science and speaking and listening