Have the Y2 SATs started already then?

[violetbloom]

I'm not making a big deal of it. Just dd mentioned today that they did a 'very hard' maths test at school and I wondered if this was a SAT? I kind of thought they'd do them after Easter.

TE, thanks, that's great to know!

Tbh I don't think any of it matters anyway the SATs are for the school. DD1 only got 2's in her year 2 SAT's, but now she's in year 6 she's getting 5's in her KS2 mocks and has a place in a super selective grammar. They change so much in KS2. My ds will be doing them in May and I don't plan to do anything with him in preparation for them.

There are a couple of problems in giving a Level 3

1. a Level 3 given in Yr 2 translates on education authority trackers and assessment information into a 3B. So if a child is assessed/tests as working at a 3c level it is very difficult to give them that level because it converts into a 3B! Teachers have to therefore be VERY careful when awarding a 3 in Yr 2 that the child is actually working at 3B level

2. Children in Yr 2 are unlikely to have covered all the curriculum required of those working at Level 3B. So whilst they may be working at a high level in the topics they have covered, they still have a lot to go!

It's no wonder that Yr 2 teachers err on the side of caution!

"Maths is a bit different because to even get to do the level 3 test they have to have done really well on the L2 test."

Team dward, please tell me you do not make your level 3 children do two tests! That is totally unnecessary.

ToffeeMuffin Achieving Level 3 in a Maths paper is only a small part of being a level 3 worker everyday in the classroom. Obviously it would be an good indicator of the child's ability, and the teacher would cetainly know where to go next with the child, but a level 3 in one test doesn't make a complete level 3, iyswim.

We used to have to pass that child up as a level 3 though, a few years ago, even if they'd just squeaked it by one mark. Y3 teachers would get cross, and we knew they weren't working at level 3 really. Using several methods of teacher assessment is much more valid - the judgements are now sound.

But what would be the point? Your possible level 3 judgement would not be at all sound - at best that child would have edged into 3c just once. The whole point of teacher assessment is that we are now so assured in our judgement of levels that we don't have to over-test, as in the old style SATs.

I'm sorry, but I think it's poor practice to give children two tests - it's most definitely against current guidelines - and only serves to highlight a lack of robustness in teacher assessment.

As you yourself say 'the moderations done by each LEA mean that if Billy gets a L3 in his writing task but the teacher cannot produce enough evidence of L3 writing in Billy's work, then Billy will be graded according to the teacher assessment, not the task/test." You are absolutely right - but the same goes for Maths and reading.

How does assessments work in terms of Maths progression, as assessment level taken a Xmas would be different (you'd hope) to assessment level taken at Easter - do you have an expected increase in your head or do you take something like the gradient of a graph, refer to a chart.

How often would you do an assessment, what form does it take?

You do an assessment every lesson! You note which children achieved an objective, which children didn't, which ones need to try a different approach, which ones are confident and can be extended onto a further objective activity or objective, which ones need some consolidation before moving on and which ones neeed to backtrack to reinforce their understanding. Assessment does not ( or should not!) mean a formal test or exam. Each child is different, I've never seen a graph which could plot the progress of a group of children! of course there are "guidelines" in progression, eg children should make 2 sub levels progress in y terms but you tend to find that some children achieve these, some children exceed them, some children improve in fits and starts, some have an almost linear progression and some don't. If all children made exactly the same progress at exactly the same time, teaching woulod be a very boring occupation!

That's very interesting Primarymum.
My dd has been finding Maths very easy all term - she told me that she gets 10/10 in all her worksheets - I checked them before our parent consultation and my dd had been telling the truth. We were given her Sats grading during the consultation & I was rather surprised by how low her scoring was but given how you have described the assessment process it now makes sense - not only is she not being challenged but her grading is not representitive of her ability.
We did ask for her to be given more challenging work and we were told that if she was moved to a higher ability group it would leave too few children in the lower ability group. They are apparently going to sort it after Easter but for too long my dd has been saying that Maths was easy - I just assumed the process at the school was a little more in tune with the children's progress than it is.

I have just posted on another thread about changing groups. Certainly, in my opinion, the groups should fit the children, rather than shoe-horn children into a group because it is convenient. So "there will be too few in the lower group" is a poor excuse! My aim is to move as many children out of the Lower ability group as I can during the year, effort should be put into moving these individuals at, where possible, an accelerated pace to aim to catch up. Of course, there are some children who, for whatever reason, don't catch up, but it shouldn't be through want of trying! If there is the continual "assessment" of children in the broadest sense rather than the narrower "test" type assessment, groups should be fluid and geared towards the children's needs, not the teacher's!

Agree totally with primarymum - look to your LEA moderation process; some LEAs don't even want to look at test results, they want to see all sorts of evidence as to how Y2 teachers arrive at their judgements. They would take a very dim view of 2 tests being administered to ascertain levels. In the old days - pre 2005 - we HAD to do this. The freedom of the 'new' style (5 years old now!) should mean that no child is ever asked to do this.

Makeitwhiskey, your dd's teacher's comments are appalling - the size of a group should never ever determine the rate of progression.

I'm learning so much!

So with this issue of not taking two tests. At my last parent's meeting dd's teacher mentioned a level 3 test for literacy and a level 2 for numeracy for dd. If she does take the harder test for literacy and 'fails' it, how would you know what level 2 she was? Would she have to take the level 2 as well? Or would the teacher estimate where she is?

Hi Feenie, you said:

the size of a group should never ever determine the rate of progression.

Most primary schools seem to have a set number of children that work at each ability table? In our school there are 6 at each table. Not much room for movement, it seems, as parents cause a stink of children are moved down for any reason.

Teachers say the groups are fluid, but it seems that only one or two at the most are moved at the beginning of a term in most schools? To move more would be disruptive. To my mind that's not really fluid (?)

As the top tables pull further and further away - in terms of extension work set and covered - my concern is any able children that spurt in the lower half of the class are unlikely to get 'promoted'.

My groups are compeltely fluid! I decide on groups each day, depending on how children have responded during the whole class teaching session, whether it is an individual or group task, how a certain child's behaviour is, whether it is an independent or supported task etc.

Some groups might have 12 in, some might have 4, I simply move the tables!

I almost never use worksheets which means that I don't run out of copies for any group.

Violetbloom - it would depend on the teacher assessment. If all other pieces of evidence pointed towards a 3, then she would still be a 3, whether she achieved the mark required to award the level 3 or not.

If she didn't achieve it, and all other evidence pointed towards a 2a, then there would be a huge question mark over why the teacher chose the wrong test in the first place.

TeamEdward, I'm sorry, but I think you've got this wrong. I woul ring an assessment advisor to check - children should statutorily sit one test only, and your teacher assessment could be called into question if you give two. As you yourself said, if the child achieved the level 3, it wouldn't be admissable anyway, since the evidence wouldn't be there to back it up. And if you did have level 3 evidence to back it up, why give them the level 2 test in the first place? It flies in the face of the whole point of teacher assessment at key stage 1.

Cortina, I have spoken to you many times regarding this issue. I have no idea where your notion of "Most primary schools seem to have a set number of children that work at each ability table?" comes from - it isn't true, and you won't find any teachers on here who work like that. Primary school furniture usually lends itself to being pushed around and together, and it's easy to make bigger tabes.

I have also suggested to you since the teacher doesn't seem to work with the top group ever, that the worksheets they are given and left to get on with are not extension work, as you describe, but work to keep them occupied - this isn't teaching, and as such I doubt there will be any 'pulling away' in your dc's class. (Especially if they are all in neat groups of 6.)

My advice would be to move your dc and to stop telling me what happens in 'most schools'!

From the Assessment and Reporting arrangements 2010 booklet:

The following table may help teachers decide which task or test materials are most appropriate:

Reaading at level 3: Use the level 3 test.

No need to use the level 2 task or test if level 3 not achieved.

It says the same for Maths. So if a child is level 3, you use the level 3 test first; you don't use the level 2 before or afterwards.

And in "5.2 How many tasks or tests should be used?", it clearly states 'children are not to be tested more than once during the year.

I would be quoting this central guidance (which is by no means new) at my LEA.

So if the teacher continues to underestimate my child's ability and my child does better in the Sats paper than the assessments then they assume the teacher's assessments are correct, even though they have been applied in a very limiting way?
Is it possible this is all about the value added score in 4 years time? We have lots of kids in our class who are very good at Maths it's going to be tough for the school to prove they have added value to the kids who get a 2A or level 3 so why not keep a few artifically down?
If Infant Schools are known to be generous with scoring then is it not the case that primary schools would go the other way?
Has anyone got details of studies showing how KS1 levels among primary schools have changed since they stopped being published?

It's up to LEA modearation to check assessment is sound, and Ofsted to check teacher assessment procedures are robust.

Levels HAVE changed since 2005 - in the old days, we had to send up a child who got the exact mark required as a level 3, without any other evidence, knowing they were a 2a. And vice versa.

Your child shouldn't be sitting a test that isn't right for their current attainment, and I would raise the issue of underassessment both with the school and Ofsted when they come. You could also speak to someone at the LEA.

However, the tests are designed to reflect everyday classroom activities. Wouldn't your dc be able to do just the same in classswork?

Also, the test result wouldn't be reported to you, unless you specifically asked.

She would be able to do the same in class if the work she was being set provided ant sort of challenge but if the work she is being set is below her current attainment then the assessment cannot reflect her current position.

Then that's a separate (and very serious) issue, makeitawhiskey. It's an issue with poor teaching, not necessarily poor assessment. You are right to be concerned.

Hi Feenie You say: have no idea where your notion of "Most primary schools seem to have a set number of children that work at each ability table?" comes from - it isn't true, and you won't find any teachers on here who work like that.

Our teacher would say that he mixed things up but for literacy, maths etc they sit at the ability tables.

The bottom group thread has quite a few that say their primary is arranged like this. Is it really that unusual? Is it really that unusual to have just a couple moved at the beginning of every term if that?

I suppose what I am driving at is that I fear what makeitawhisky says isn't as uncommon as I'd hope:

She would be able to do the same in class if the work she was being set provided ant sort of challenge but if the work she is being set is below her current attainment then the assessment cannot reflect her current position.

Don't mean to come across as a know it all. I think being kept very much in the dark about things makes me/others I know nervous. I do have a meeting booked with teacher soon to try and thrash a few things out. I sense he is very nervous about changing the tables, he told me he's said to those at the top table they will have to really pull their socks up. (Sounds like I am joking with that last part but unfortunately, serious).