1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Level 3 writing- it's so different school to school

Discussion in 'Primary' started by athomeincomfort, Jun 7, 2007.

  1. missied

    missied New commenter

    Thank you Mrs Peel for that comment re the 3B. My head came back with the same message recently but no-one else seemed to have heard this. When I told the infant feeder school this they were shocked and hadn't been told this at all. They said they marked chn at level 3 if they were working at some of the objectives of level 3 and were a secure level 2a.

     
  2. Hi Mrs Peel

    Do you know where I can find "official" documentation about it standing for 3b! I know Level 3 at KS1 is given 21 points on the APS but does this really mean that the child would start at 3b when looking at sub-level progression at KS2?

    If this is the case, then no wonder Year 3 teachers are up in arms about trying to show sub-level improvement! I have seen examples of Level 3 work from KS1 and it certainly doesn't match up to work at KS2 which scores the same level.

    Why isn?t there a progressive levelling system which is accurate and fair!
     
  3. we have used ros wilson criterion scale for the last couple of years, from reception to y6, that has made things much easier :O)
     
  4. nmason

    nmason New commenter

    I thought the whole idea of the new SATS is teacher assessment. In our school we do the SATs because we have to but then use the agreed school's levelling grids to decide on what we know they are working at. For example I had one child who got a 3 in her writing but isn't a 3 so I will TA as a 2a as I have plenty of evidence to prove she is working at that level. The majority of those who got a 3 in their writing and I have evidence to support the fact they are a 3 will be given a level 3c. I have one child who is very able and I have lots of evidence to prove she is working above this level so will be giving her a 3b.

    I know there will be people out there who are getting too much pressure to do this but isn't that the reason why it has moved to TA and is nolonger tests?
     
  5. missied

    missied New commenter

    KS1 don't say 3c on the transfer info, it is level 3 and therefore not sub levelled. My head was saying they were told that it should be assumed if KS1 say it's level 3 it is a secure level 3 and therefore 3b!!
    as I have stuggled to get my year 3s to move 1 sub level I am not hopeful for next year as I don't think they'll make any progress now the goal posts have been moved!
     
  6. One of the reasons I was asked to get my children to redo their QCA3 writing tests was that I didn't have enough level 3s. I was told quite categorically that the tests should have matched with my TA of the children but I couldn't record the TA, I had to record the test result!

    It drives me nutty as a Y3 teacher I don't feel it is right to give them a L3 if they haven't hit the criteria of a L3 according to the optional QCA marking scheme. Trying to discuss this with KS1 staff met with a stony silence as they couldn't see how a L3 in KS2 was different to a L3 in KS1. The question is how do we address this and ensure that what is a L3 is a L3 at both key stages and that the criteria should be the same.
     
  7. becktonboy

    becktonboy New commenter

    Is the thought not bubbling up in anybody's mind that we are all scurrying around servicing this completely artificial system, trying to make it work when the very foundations are all wrong?

    We should not be assessing to a level and discussing whether it's a 3a, b or c, rather than what children can confidently and consistently do. As soon as we discuss end of KS reporting, added value (that's what you do to a raw material such as a piece of wood or burger meat, by the way), annual sub-level advancement etc etc etc we are no longer talking about what children can do, just the output values in a spreadsheet.

    The reasons we do all of this rubbish is so that government, LEAs and heads can exert control through fear.
     
  8. Sorry but if you look at the nconline site I would question there pieces of work. I looked at the piece that tehy have down as a 1a and sorry but we use Ros Wilson and the way I look at it is for it to be a 1a you have to be able to read it without any pupil mediation. Sorry but i can not read the whole passage so why do they say taht it is a level 1a.

    we were told not to get any level 3s in writin unless we were sure tehy would be 3a. Anything lower than that put as a level 2 as otherwise teh value added will not be there. Also it is commonly known what we see as a level 3 in key stage 1 is not in year 3 when they get there in september. Agree as well they are not sub levels. So a chidl could get 3c and get a level 3 and a 3a and get a level 3 and there is a world of difference.
     
  9. Previous poster said "http://www.ncaction.org.uk

    has some examples of levelled work"

    Yes, it does, but only 4 examples of level 3 writing across the whole of KS2, in several different genres and zero examples of level 2 writing - and they aren't sublevelled. To get a real feel for a sublevel it helps to have several examples of the same genre at the same sublevel. The ncaction site doesn't help new teachers with low attainers in KS2 very much at all.
    I couldn't agree more with those who have commented on the level 3 meaning 3b issue: it really puts scary pressure on yr 6 teachers, especially if progress in yr 3/4 hasn't been so good. It's all very well wanting schools to make good progress overall, but I'm not sure it's really in the interests of children if it just means that year 6 teachers start to crack under the strain of being expected to get leaps of progress on the final straight (mixed metaphors, hmm).
     
  10. High expectations don't just give upper KS2 teachers marking problems.

    Apparently 90% of my incoming year 5's are already level 4's in writing... I suspect a sub-conscious desire to show progress on quite strong KS1 scores is at work there. It's the toughest test to mark - and the easiest one to fudge.

    However, having had a look at what I gave my current (mostly level 5's) Year 6 group when they were in Year 4, only two of them made it to a 4.

    Pressure to demonstrate progression is getting out of hand.

    That's why I don't even look at the previous grades when I start marking, nor the value added 'expectations'. If I can avoid it I don't even check the name on the front of the paper... and I'd be very reluctant to re-evaluate any score in the face of 'unsatisfactory progress' - that's what teaching's for. :)
     
  11. I agree with many of the points raised here but I would also like to suggest the idea that the mystery of what a level 3 piece of work looks like at KS1 and KS2 has even more ramifications when placed into a separate infant and junior school system.

    In our case, the number of level 3 children joining us has rapidly increased over the last few years and I have found it difficult to see how and why so many of these children have reached level 3 when compared to the level 3 abilities demonstrated by the children who reached a level 3 in the old system.

    It would appear, in my humble opinion, that it is very tempting for a primary school to under assess at KS1 to ensure that KS2 results for VA are fantastic and for an infant school to over assess because the infant school is under immense pressure to score high value added numbers.

    From the messages on this forum, it would appear that there are even differences of opinions about what a level 3 at just KS1 looks like and I am so annoyed about this because this whole stupid system then becomes unachievable when KS2 teachers are given the problem of making a level 3 child (who possibly in some schools wouldn?t even be a level 3) into a guaranteed level 5 child, possibly at 5c or even 5b! If this child doesn?t get there at the end of KS2, suddenly the school and KS2 teachers are investigated about the apparent ?poor? progress because the child has not reached the average six sub-levels of progression.

    Isn?t this just a stupid, crazy system! Why do we do it and why do we put up with it?
     
  12. Well, thanks all for your replies!!

    Didn't realise it would get such attention!

    nmason- thankyou for your offer of sharing L3 moderated work, my email is vinylworm@yahoo.co.uk

    Anybody else willing to share L3 examples????

    I think it's important to remember that the only statutory assessment criteria are from the National Curriculum level descriptors, not from sublevels that seem to muddy the process. I know that LEAs have sublevel documents, but that vary wildly (certainly by comparing my LEAs to others!), but they are not statutory (even though LEA wants them to be!!)

    missied- if it is the case that L3 in ks1 is converted to an assumed 3b, then we weren't informed this. And then, why should ks1 put a cap on what can be reported? All that's required is L3 at end of ks1, not whether it is a, b or c. However, at moderation, I felt there was a hidden agdenda with the L3, in so much as 'L3' work looked (in my opinion) to be L3b and L3c work was being awarded 2a. Hence, the hidden agenda- all aimed for value added at ks2.

    Glad to know other people feel this an issue worth resolving- but other that everyone using only 1 statutory criteria, what can we do?
     

Share This Page