Are these the LOs you'd expect for the top set in year 3?

[brambledscrains]

DD is in the top maths set for year 3. At the end of year 2 most of the top set were L4c, a few in the top set, including DD, were 3a.

I have started to wonder if either: a) these are vanity levels or b) achievements are down to parental or external tutoring rather than the school's teaching. Or possibly both.

Why? Because these are the LO in DDs maths book so far for this half term. Given the more challenging expectations of the new curriculum they seem beyond basic for children given these levels at the end of year 2 and in the top set of a self-proclaimed academic school.

I am confident:
Using number facts to solve problems (2 digit + 2 digit addition)
Doubling and halving numbers to 40
Number bonds to 10, 20 and doubles
Place value of 3 digit numbers
Telling the time to the quarter hour and 5 minutes
Roman Numerals to 1000
Identifying the number of faces, vertices and edges of [simple] 3d shapes
Rounding to the nearest 10 and 100

Plus a timed test of 30 multiplication questions in 3 minutes each week.

So are my musings unreasonable or am I onto something (vanity levels and or tutoring)?

YABU. Teachers in the new national curriculum are taught to challenge students by going deeper in a subject not introducting new subjects. If your child is able, they will be given more difficult work within the LO of the class. For instance: word problems using number bonds. All class is doing the same topic but utilising differentiated skills. Look at the work, not the LOS, is your child being challenged?

At the end of year 2 most of the top set were L4c, a few in the top set, including DD, were 3a.

How can you KNOW all that?

I don't understand what OP is asking.

Year 2 didn't assess to Level 4 last year and the level 3 test would just be level 3, not 3a. Where are you getting these levels from OP?

Year 2 didn't assess to Level 4 last year

Sorry, that's duff info - last year, as in all previous years, Year 2 were teacher assessed and the assessment could indeed be level 4 if the teachers saw fit.

That said, I am also thoroughly confused as to how the OP could know all that.

Sorry, what I meant was the assessments, what used to be SATS, would only test up to level 3 in year 2. Teacher assessments could, of course, be higher but would not be published anywhere.

Some of those are directly from the Y3 programme of study others I imagine are areas identified during lessons /assessment.
Awarding level 4C would be unusual in Y2 as sub levels are only required for level 2.

And NC tests (SATs) don't give sub levels for level 3 and the level reported would not include a sub level.

My DS's school, like all other state schools, will be adopting this deeper not higher strategy of teaching maths. But I have reservations on how it will work for the top sets. I understand they can do word problems but I fear that will be all and the more able children will just be parked.

I can't see a school inflating levels at ks1, more likely to underestimate them if the school aren't being honest, because by end of ks2 they'll be expected to show progress. So assessing children as being further ahead than they are wouldn't make sense.

Bit confused about your knowledge of levels and sub levels, but yes, I agree it's pretty basic. Do you think perhaps your school are yet another who have bought into the mistaken idea about the new curriculum that all children should work at the same level? It's beyond me how you can go deep or broad enough into such basic concepts to challenge an able y3 child.

Sorry, what I meant was the assessments, what used to be SATS, would only test up to level 3 in year 2. Teacher assessments could, of course, be higher but would not be published anywhere.

That's not right either. The only "published" results were teacher assessments - and went beyond level 3 if a child was working beyond.

I didn't want to make my post overly long, though I knew I'd be asked, so I should have left this info in...

I know because the school publishes internal info setting out the amount of L2, 3 & 4s awarded. I've also seen the class maths set list, which had the levels for each set, so top set 4c / 3a middle 3b / 3c etc. Parents talk about the levels given to their DC in the end of year report.

Sets are taught separately in different classrooms.

It's private, and L3 SATs were sat in yr 1, other assessments were used in year 2, hence my scepticism and wondering of vanity levels. Class work is set at this low level but tests have harder questions or topics seemingly not covered, hence wondering if the results are due to tutoring.

I understand this might be irritating and unreasonable, I don't mean it to be, and I know it's a can of worms so I'm not sure I'd be brave enough to ever question the school.

Mrz you've mentioned these are year 3 LOs but would you expect children that were assessed at 3a or above in year 2 to be working on these LOs?

please go beyond the poxy LO. They are the death of creativity. Also agree with the nonsense about all top set L4. Really? Honestly? No. Not unless the school is bonkers. For problem solving? I speak as a teacher with g and t children. Honestly - oldest is nearly 22 and aced all exams so I'm not doing silly stealth boasting. I can practically guarantee you are begging up the achievements of the y2 top set or else the teachers are deluded.

Wonder how they moderate? Certainly wouldn't be any LEA moderation in a private school. I agree a group of level 4 children would be very unusual at Year 2.

Why don't you ask the school, OP?

Really. Question it, and check against what children in a state school can do. Can they really do those 2 step word problems that are level 4 at their age? If so, then great. I just have lots of experience of private school children being spoonfed and coming up against it when they have to think for themselves, whether in the first year at Durham or in the 1st year at 6th form at local grammars when they obviously don't have the thinking for themselves skills that the kids who've been to grammar all the time have learnt. Great if your child can happily do a l4 paper independently. You do know I assume that levels no longer exist? I'm really not anti private school - went to more than one myself.

Unlikely to have a group of l4 at end of y2 in a mixed ability class, but if it's a very academically selective prep then while it wouldn't be common it's certainly possible.

For an award of level 4, a state school child would have had to do a lot more than just scrape a level 4 on a test. There would need to be plenty of evidence of day to day work (for all levels).

Now of course, we are back to flash in the pan testing

Roman Numerals to 1000

Christ, that's a 21st century skill with wide applicability.

Out of interest, do they think that 999 is CMXCIX or DCCCCLXXXXVIIII? Historians and Lisp users who are puzzled about the difference between ~@R and ~@:R in format statements gather around for the answer...

Personally I think the end of year 2 tests did not test at L4, far from it. I know the tests they used but I'm worried I will out myself before long if I give more details (to people working in the school if they happen to be MNs).

I still feel this is incredibly easy maths for bright year 3s, are DC that achieved secure L3 and L3as at the end of KS1 really doing maths like this right now?

Private schools do have to be moderated if they publish SATs results as part of their marketing. I can't remember how often, every few years I think. Unsurprisingly the school's website only publishes L3 results for KS1.

Then no children were awarded a level 4

The only way state school children could have been awarded any level would have been using a wealth of evidence, a small part of which is the test. It is irrelevant, therefore, whether a Y6 test was used, if that's what you're hinting at.

Sod off with your stupid spam posts, findingschools.

Feenie, not a year 6 test, a test that has a L4c ceiling but no or extremely few L4 questions

And no they couldn't evidence L4 from class work, look at the work they're doing now, it doesn't look like the sort of work children at 3b would be doing unless their's something really wrong with this 'harder' new curriculum.

I know what you are saying. In y5 maths book is more advanced than DD in y8 - 30 years difference....
I think maths is more wide spread as they have to teach time measure thinking skills, rather than pure maths calculations.

To award 4 in Year 2, there would have to be substantial year 2 day to day evidence - one test does not make a level 4!

It wasn't published on their website either.

Ergo...

A one off test is not a reliable measure of a child's ability so id be inclined to think "vanity levels" (as you describe inflating ability to impress )