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)?

My DS was L4 end KS1(teacher assessment), but doing normal YR3 work.
I have spoken to teacher, but I've given up. They said DS needs deepening.

My DS attends a non selective yet quite academic state school. Half get level threes/fours. The other half got mostly 2b 2a. The children are extremely naturally mathematical.

I can see that an academic selective prep could have lots of 3s 4s and some 2a's

However my friends child attends an independent school and I find the grades very odd. I think it's used to keep parents happy

Not a lot of confidentiality at this school.
They say that private schools hype levels a lot to their advantage. Maybe this is an example of that.

DS got L3 in maths last May. Which is a big deal at our school (not private, not high achieving) so the math curriculum OP describes would be just about perfect for him. Maybe OP's kids are really L5s.

It depends on the work that followed those LOs, tbh.

• How challenging was the actual work set?
• Did your child get all of it right?
• Was there rapid progression through the lesson / series of lessons - as in, can you see in the book that e.g. once your child demonstrated that they could tell the time to a certain degree of accuracy, they were moved on to the next step, and the next (which could take many forms e.g. increased accuracy e.g. nearest minute, or digital / analogue clocks or calculating elapsed time between two clock faces or interpreting timetables)

If there was evidence that your child learned something / made progress in each lesson, then the precise LOs are less important ...

Although, if you feel that they genuinely learned something when those LOs were taught at a 'face value' level (IYSWIM), then there is a mismatch between what the child is learning in day to day lessons and the stated level of the child in a test. I know which I would take as more reliable AS LONG AS there is clear evidence that the child is learning something (improving, making progress through increasingly hard and varied problems etc) within each lesson. If there is an endless series of ticks against pages and pages of identical-level work, then it may indeed be that the level being taught may be too easy for your particular child, and also that the lack of progression in each lesson is a sign of poor teaching practice.

One of my children did ks1 sats last year and got 100% in the level 3 paper (or papers? Can't remember exactly). There was no question of her taking level 3-5 papers or being marked as a 4. She was a 3 and that's absolutely fine. I'd be very surprised if any school had a whole raft of children way more able than her.

I think you're right OP about vanity levels, especially since they seem to be so quick to publicise them (infringing pupils' privacy). Are they used in marketing? Is it part of the private schools' much vaunted 'we work two years ahead of state schools' line?

(to answer your actual question)
Those sound like part of the "standard" Y3 curriculum. And as others have said, the emphasis is now on deepening skills rather than moving on to the next thing. I might clarify with the teacher what they are using to extend more able children.

From your point of view though, it seems exceedingly odd that a private school (that doesn't have to follow NC) should obviously teach children way beyond the NC in Year 2 (yes, I know last year for Y2 was officially "old" curriculum, and then pull them back in Year 3. Is Year 3 a main entry point for state school children and they can't make themselves inaccessible to these children?

My DC got 3a in her SATS last year. (Not a boast, they are one of the oldest & were in a mixed Y2/3 class).

In a straight Y3 class this year she is working on her understanding of the maths she can do, if that makes sense. Looking for patterns between numbers, links between multiplying & dividing. Also applying her knowledge practically, ie adding up a shopping receipt & then working out the change.

Kippersmum - that sounds much more like the sort of thing I'd expect DD to be doing.

Teacher - the LOs were followed by a page of that work. So for time there's a list of times to the quarter hour and then to 5 minutes. Nearly every answer is correct, there's the odd silly mistake but that's about checking work rather than a misunderstanding of the principles.

It's not for external marketing because externally only L3 results are published. If the school believed these results themselves (and could evidence them) why wouldn't they publish them?

It will be interesting to see what happens next year given there is no bench mark available.

There will be a bench mark next year. The government have introduced seven new national test in Y2. There won't be levels but there will be scores.

Brambled, in that case i think you might sensibly have a discussion with school along the lines of 'are you challenging my child sufficiently in Maths lessons' IF this level of work accompanied by very high levels of accuracy continues, and you know that your child consistently demonstrated last year that they could do more.

The 'levels' thing is really an irrelevance, what matters is whether her everyday work last year was at a higher and more challenging level than this, but now the work has returned to a much easier level so she is not learning anything. Do you have her Maths book from last year that you could take in as a comparison?

The teacher MAY be doing a few weeks of consolidation, making sure that the foundation stones are secure before moving on rapidly for the remainder of the year, but it's worth a check.