KS1 'levels'

[marge2]

Hi,

DS1 is in Y2, will be 7 in the summer. We have had 3 really disrupted years, with Reception and Y1 teachers both going 'off sick long term', replaced by supply teachers galore. Y2 has a job share with 2 teachers but other teachers in the school have gone on maternity leave during the year, so the job share has changed, and changed again. TA's teaching instead of teachers the whole time due to staff 'off sick', training, whatever.

Was told that the kids going into Y3 this year were re-assesed by the Y3 teacher and were judged to be at much lower than the Y2 teacher(s) had put them at.

I reckon DS1 is now worse at Maths than he was when he was in Y1, yet told by teacher at parents evening last week that he is at level 2a which is apparently quite good for mid Y2.

Can someone please let me know what these levels actually mean and what he is meant to be able to do in Maths to be at level 2a? Can I get him independantly assessed?

I am not a complainer or a pushy mum, but I am having doubts and want to do what is best. He only gets one chance at education after all.

So confused and have no confidence in the school at the moment.

How would you know if the school are "growing curiosity, resilience, imagination and reflection" or is the fact that I don't know suggest that they aren't.

It's coming up to the end of term in a few weeks, before we break for Easter so I think current progress assessments are being carried out. This may be giving me a false impression of the classroom.

Which is why testing is notoriously a less reliable method of assessment compared to solid teacher assessment, cat64.

In the example you describe, if rapid recall was there in the first place, it wouldn't take long to revise a times table. But no - I wouldn't declare a 4b child in my class no longer a 4b because they slipped up on 8 x 9. That would be poor teacher assessment, cat64. The skills which enable the child to learn the table in the first place would still be there.

Kids definitely can go backwards, as you can learn by rote and forget at any age. For example DS at two knew his alphabet, numbers, etc and everyone coo-ed about how bright he was and the more people coo-ed the more he learnt and we thought wow he must be a genius. But then what mattered to him/ interested him switched, so at 4 I realised he'd forgotten whole chunks and had not a clue about what comes after 'p' and couldn't count past 10 whereas he could easily when he was two.. It still makes me smile when I see people posting about their absurdly bright two year olds because of that. Kids forget information, we all do. A good teacher finds ways to make information stick. So Feenie's right, testing's far from reliable.

Okay, yes, I get what you are saying and I accept it, and could also think of a child who matches each of those circumstances you mention, but it would have to be one of the very extreme circumstances - and they are extreme (albeit more common in certain areas).

I guess maybe we could agree that if a child does go backwards, then it's a sign that something is seriously wrong, then?