Year 2 SATs. Is level 3 equivalent to year 3 or year 4?

[sandyballs]

I thought year 3, a friend has said today that it is year 4. I'm confused, although I am also aware that it's not hugely important at 7 years old.

Thanks for the long reply, Feenie.

ok - just for clarity - school did optional qca tests and dd got level 4's in english and maths - shes in yr 3 - is that the same as level 4s in yr 6 or is it different? thanks

Lots of children achieve Level 3 in Year 2 but when they take the optional SAT tests in Y3 appear not to have made progress or even to have fallen back. The government is now telling schools that a 2c is really only a good level 1 so I imagine in time they will be saying a 3c is only a good level 2 2 sub levels a year are seen as good progress.
Level 4 in Y1 would be highly unusual but as Feenie says the expectations in KS2 are different from KS1 (and in KS3 different from KS2)
Level 4 is considered the expected level in Y6 and many of the concepts children cover are things I learnt at Grammar school not primary.

Just to confirm what I said yesterday, I spoked to ds' teacher today. He is just finishing year 1. She said he is working at level 2, frequently level 3 and sometimes in Maths level 4. I am still confused about what that really means though tbh.

Yurtgirl- it means he is very good at maths; our most able year 1s are usually assessed as being consistently 2c/b at the end of year 1. Allowing for them to move up two sublevels during year 2, they would then be 3c/3b.
To say that a child has achieved a Level 4 in maths at the end of year 1 would suggest that they can do the KS2 SATs papers and get sufficient marks to achieve the Level 4.

Whilst I am sure that your ds is extremely capable and deals with numbers far larger than his peers, hence the teacher describing him as performing at L4 in some areas, it would really need a very individualised programme of teaching for a year 1 child to be a truly consolidated L4.

I'm clarifying only because there is so much confusion and the levels are often cited as evidence without there being the true understanding needed to interpret them accurately. Your ds has obviously got a real aptitude for maths.

If he's working at level 4 does he know his time tables to 12 x 12, & simple fraction operations, Yurt? That's what DS is doing & he's something like level 3b.

they aren't allowed to assess KS1 with KS2 papers, though, are they? we were told that there is no way a child could get higher than top 3s at KS1 because they don't test it. same at end of KS2, you can't come out with higher than a 5. because the question paper doesn't cover it. so even if you're working at a 4 in KS 1, and are expected to gain 2 levels, you won't come out with anything higher than a 5...
So yurtgirl's son must be doing some work that would normally be taught at level 4, but wouldn't get tested on it until the end of KS2?
dd1 was top 3s at end of KS1 last year, and would agree with alardi - now in y3 she finished the times tables thing in march and seems to know more about fractions and decimals and division than i can scrape together. ds1 (yr1) works with the yr 2s for maths but i haven't got a clue what they do - i assume he will come out next year with a 3... i have no real idea of quite what the level thing is supposed to achieve as our schools seem to differentiate quite happily, but i'm a little confused that a child can't be assessed as to the actual level they are working at, if the results are supposed to reflect their actual standard...?

In the past we were allowed to use KS2 papers for any children we considered to be working above expectations. Some children may be working within Level 4 but not in every area that has to be covered.

Expectations would be
Know all tables to 10 x 10, especially for division,
e.g. 63 &divid; 7 = 9, and quickly work out remainders.
Multiply and divide decimals by 10 or 100 in their heads,
e.g. 2.61 x 10, 53.2 &divid; 100.
Put numbers, including decimals, in order of size,
e.g. 1.06, 0.099, 0.25, 1.67.
Use pencil and paper to add and subtract decimals,
e.g. 3.91 + 8.04 + 24.56, or 13.3 ? 1.27.
Use pencil and paper to multiply and divide,
e.g. 387 x 46, 21.5 x 7, 539 &divid; 13, 307.6 &divid; 4.
Cancel fractions e.g. reduce 4/20 to 1/5,
and work out which of two fractions is bigger, e.g. 7/12 or 2/3.
Work out simple percentages of whole numbers,
e.g. 25% of £90 is £22.50.
Estimate angles and use a protractor to measure them.
Work out the perimeter and area of simple
shapes that can be split into rectangles, e.g.
Solve word problems and explain their methods.
Use co-ordinates to plot the position of points.
Understand and use information in graphs, charts and tables.

oh thanks mrz - really interesting to have an idea of what the level means! when you said 'in the past' does that mean that you aren't allowed to now? i don't actually want any of mine assessed differently - i'm fairly relaxed about the value of it until GCSEs tbh - but it always struck me as odd that you were curtailed by the norm... ie if you are working below expectations you could use P scales to get an accurate picture (or whatever they are now) but above you just get to wait until next time around... must look in their numeracy books next week and see what's in there lol!

Romy7 it's 10 years since I taught Year 2 and back then we were able to use KS2 papers for exceptional pupils. I'm not certain but I think since KS1 SATs were changed to teacher assessment rather than the formal testing this is no longer an option. I could be wrong a Year 2 teacher could probably clear it up.

Nope, you are right mrz (Year 2 teacher, here!)

Can anyone clarify what I have been told .My DD is in year 4 and in the optiinal sat tests she was marked as a level 4c her teacher told her she was working much higher then that but they are not allowed to give her a level any higher then that in year 4 .

the same was said to my DS who was marked at a 4a in yr 5 .

Why are teachers not allowed to give the true marks the child acheived ? I am totally confused

Does it matter, mjanet? As long as they get the right work 4 their ability?

I am just curious lljkk as I can't see the point in testing them and then not giving the true mark and wondered why that is or even if it's true ...
I want to ensure that they are actually reaching their full potential as they both are saying the maths work is easy and while I agree that they should find some of it easy so they gain confidence I also think that to reach their full potential they should also be stretched

it is apparently all related to what they were assessed at at the end of reception.

"Normal" is expected to improve 2 levels about that by the end of year 2, and then 2 more levels by the end of year 6. Each level is subdivided into a, b and c. In years 3-6 they are expected to go up 2 sub levels a year - so 3c to 3a or 3b to 4c in one year.

So if he gets a 2b at the end of year 2, he would be expected to get 4b at end of year 6.

Level 4 is average, level 5 is above average.

So level 3 is normal for year 3 (3c or 3b) and but also for year 4 (3a).

Schools are judged on the number getting level 4 and level 5 at end of year 6. Those getting level 5 are better than expected, those getting less than 4 are worse than expected (for normal kids - those with special needs are more likely to get less than level 4).

Schools are supposed to use these grades to track that kids are doing as well as should be expected, and if not, to put in intervention where it is needed to lift them up to their expected level.

(this as explained to us by our head at a governors meeting 2 days ago. If I understood it correctly ).

We don't take SATs and I'm bloody glad -it's all so confusing. The teacher assess the kids. Maths teacher last told me on eof mine was at level 4a ( he's in year five ) and I thought it meant he was a bit behind, but because it was lamost a five I didn't worry too much iyswim. Have I got it wrong then?

if he is 4a at 5 then he is way ahead of normal.

I would assume the teacher is using some other marking scheme - I would go back and ask what 4a actually means.

..in secondary school it is even MORE confusing....you get a whole great big table of 5a's..6b's etc etc......for every subject...they drop back and then go forward again....something to look forward to

I have a friend who is a primary head and she says even she can't work out what it means at secondary level. She told her DCs just to do their best

Most of this thread dates from last year, ladies. Just mjanet revived it today.

Mjanet, I've read that how a level 3 is assessed in Yr2 is different from how it's assessed in Yr3+. What I mean is, the techniques they expect children to use are different (not just the assessment procedure). This could be the same for other children who are further up the levels -- they can get right answers to Level X questions, but are they doing it using the techniques expected of children competent at Level X?

Anyway, that could be why teachers aren't allowed to give those quite high marks, sometimes; earning Level X is more than just getting right answers, it could be mastery of the relevant methodology that matters.

And usually the specific methodology isn't taught until later age than your child might be.

Thank you everyone for your replies I understand it much better now .

I have been told how confusing the secondry school levels are @ idobelieveinfairies and dreading it if I can't even grasp the primary ones

As for resurecting this 'old' thread so what ? it's an interesting thread that I found by googling my question also the subject is still relevant or people wouldn't bother of replying.

"Mjanet, I've read that how a level 3 is assessed in Yr2 is different from how it's assessed in Yr3+. What I mean is, the techniques they expect children to use are different (not just the assessment procedure)"
Actually, now that KS1 assessment is teacher assessment, this is no longer true, now. The same method of teacher assessing Y2s (i.e. the level descriptors) are used across the board. Level 3 at Y2 used to be dodgy because the result relied on test only, which was not timed. Achieving a level 3 in the Y3 optional SAT was harder because it was timed, and Y2 tests weren't.
Now, however, most schools assess most of their classes by using a built-up solid picture of teacher assessment using lots of evidence, not a 45 minute snapshot of one day. This follows the 'scrapping' of Y2 tests, although the teacher assessment still has to be supported by one test in each subject area (for most children). Even this test is just a tiny part of the evidence that Y2 teachers have to use to back up their judgements. Y6 will follow shortly, if pilots are successful (fingers crossed ).
Mjanet, to answer your question, the old Y4 optional SAT test did only go up to a 4c, yes. Which begs the question, why are your dd's school using an old paper to support their teacher assessment? I suspect over- testing might be the answer, particularly if your dd had to do them in February! I would ask why they need so many tests to support their judgement - especially when, as you say, they can't even measure your dd's attainment accurately.

I have written a guide to National Curriculum levels on my site: sats.highamstjohns.co.uk (Click on the Homework Helper option)

That may help you with your query.

I think the whole classification system of 2a, 2b, 2c should be taken with a pinch of salt. Here is my recent experience of the grading system. I have two DS's one in year 4 (8 years old) and the other in year 2 (6 years old). I became concerned that my elder DS was lagging behind in Maths so set about an intensive summer of home schooling. Although not for his benefit my younger DS took an interest and was soon exceeding the ability of his elder sibling. Bare in mind I was sitting with my DS's for and hour every day for over four months so had a very clear understanding of their ability , breadth of knowledge, and speed of calculation. I also used Stage 2 Sats Past Maths Papers to assess their progress. My younger DS consistantly outperformed my elder son.
Yesterday went to see their teachers for term 1 teacher assessment.
This is how the teachers had graded them in maths. Elder son 4c and younger son 2c.
Such a massive discrepancy with my own assesment (backed up by testing) is extremely alarming.