Year 1 expectations...

Discussion in 'Primary' started by Clairemcn, Feb 10, 2011.

1. Clairemcn

In a staff meeting this week, myself and partner teacher were told that the government has raised the expectations for Year 1 so in the Spring term children are expected to be a 1a/2c! We were shocked to say the least as this was previously what we took as end of year average. Anyone else heard this? Very confusing in terms of amount of progress from EYFS to Year 1 expected and how this links to progress in year 2!

Our average y1 child is expected to achieve a level 1a by the end of the year. Presuming they then progress by 2 sub-levels in y2, this then puts them at 2b, which is the expectation for an average y2 child at the end of the year.

3. skellig1182Established commenter

I think 1b is the average. 1a/2C is top ability.

4. Clairemcn

That's what I had always thought until this week but apparently new government wants to raise the bar in Year 1 although I personally think Year 1 is a very tough year due to the sheer amount of progress children are expected to make. Idea of 1a/2c by Spring seems so ridculous!

5. impulce

Absolutely STUPID.
The "people at the top" need to realise that during FS/KS1 children are making the first steps to becoming readers, writers and mathematicians. Once they have those building blocks in place, then enhancing and developing those skills is easier for them.
It may not seem a "lot" to be able to write 1 sentence, but the process of learning that goes on to get there is huge - lets not expect anymore from the poor little mites or theres an increasing chance that more children will be left behind.
If children finish Spring at a 2C, and are a 2B by the time they finish Year 1 they are already 1 year above their age expected level. If you imagine going from the first NC level (1c to a 2b) that is 4 sub levels per year. To keep up this level of progress, it would mean they'd leave Y6 as a level 9c. Does that even exist!?

6. mystery10Occasional commenter

OP, can someone in your school say which document this information comes from? It would be very interesting to know. And you might find out that there is no basis to this, that it's just something that someone said to someone sometime somewhere and it all got a bit confused!
I guess that if there were clearer expectations for the outcomes at the end of reception (for older and more able children at least) there would not quite be so far to go in year 1. I know this will not be the case for all children in all schools, but certainly I know of some schools where more could be "achieved" in reception which would make year 1 less of the steep learning curve it seems to be.
I don't think that you can do the calculation which says this is ridiculuous because this would mean children could be level 9 by end KS2. You could already say it shouldn't be possible to get a level 3 at end KS1 because this means too many sublevels of progress during years 1 and 2, and would result in an impossibly high level at end KS2. But in reality in the past when KS1 was externally SATs tested many schools did achieve a reasonable percentage of children attaining Level 3. If 2b is supposed to be the norm at end KS1, there should be a reasonable percentage getting 3s at this point .......... and it doesn't lead to impossibly high levels at KS2!!!

7. strictlyschoolwork

I work in a year 1 class and the majority of my children will leave me at a 1a/2c with a group of children in 2b. (I already have 2c/2b in my setted maths group) This is because the FS practice in our school is outstanding and they are coming up with excellent knowledge, understanding and skills and we continue to build upon it. We do not believe in teaching to the end of year expectations and feel that if children can go on then they should. We are an infant only school and send a large number of our children onto the juniors at level 3. Which they are not impressed with!!

8. chubbyoneOccasional commenter

I am a year 1 teacher in a school that standards are below average. In September I had a class which when I baselined them I had in writing for instance only 3 children who were eyfs 6. The majority of others could write their names and strings of letters but no phonetically plausible words. We have a head who had meetings every half term to check progress. I have now got in my class my AA group who are 2c / 1a, I even have a 2b child, my A group is 1b/1a, my BA are ranging between being 1c with me' sat constantly just saying "you are brilliant" and my SEN group are just realising if I want them to write a word they only write what they hear not the whole alphabet!!!! This has been done down to constant high expectations, RWI being introduced and basically outstanding teachers. We are in a no one situation as yes ideally my head wants them all to be 1a by the end if the year so that that they will be secure 2 in year 2 and then because they are robots level 4 in year 6!!!! Our year 6 staff cry if we say level 3 are high as then they have to get lots of 5's. My problem is our head likes to see progress and aps of the children and sublevels etc. I say to him till I am blue in the face there is no link between the eyfs and levels in ks1 but ge wants me' to work them out. Example, if child A is eyfs 3 at the beginning if rec and then a 6 at the end the head is happy but if I get a eyfs 4 to a 1b well that ain't good enough!!!!! I always thought nationally it was a 1a at the end so you are going up get some 2c and naturally the sweetheart children who may get a 1a when they are 25!!!! We had a discussion as year 1 is a hard year group as not only go we gave children who have to start a new curriculum, transition, and then make them get good levels so year 2 get good ones!!!! Bahhhhh

9. whodbeateacher

Why not? If they surely are genuine Level 3s (ie having been taught from the Year 3 curriculum) then why would they not be pleased?

10. pisces77New commenter

I want to know where the document about being 2c/2b by the end of year 1 came from I was shown it along with average point scores i have argued about eyfs not linking to national curriculum levels as such. I asked gsearl on this site if he knew where it had come from or an electronic copy of it which i don't it seems that year 1 teachers have so many elements to tackle to get children to where they need to be so year 2 teachers only in theory have to move the children through 2 sub levels to get to nationally set expecation of secure level 2 it just seems majorly unfair to put this amount of pressure on such young children how are children meant to enjoy their learning through a range of quality learning experiences if the government are making a year 1 preparation for year 2 just like many people still think reception is to prepare children for year 1 sorry rant over.

11. HappyPixie

Probably because in the main they are not a genuine level 3. A level 3 on the KS1 NCTs is not a level 3 on KS2 NCTs, a scraped level 3 in KS1 NCTs are not a 3b on an APP grid, and thats what the figures generally are from, plus factor in the huge change in teaching approaches and expectations from KS1 to KS2 why oh why can we not just let the children be exactly that and stop focussing on a stupid letter and number.
Apologies if Strictly School Work your school are not assessing in this manner and not using this as your KS1 data, but every school I've been in has used this, and as a Year 3 teacher being told I need to get 4c's out of 8 of my 20 year 3's (I have a mixed age class, 12 year 4s), when I can probably only hand on heart say 2 are capable of this it is driving me round the bend. I wish SMT could appreciate the steps and progress they are making as individuals rather than bleeding numbers on a spreadsheet. grrrr. Sorry. rant over

12. giraffe77

This problem of Level 3s in Yr2 happens everywhere! , but I imagine is even more annoying in a Junior School. It's because of value-added. A child at Level 3 in Yr2 would be required to get a Level 5 in Yr6 to show the appropriate rate of progress - anything less won't do! This is all fine, until you take into the equation that sometimes the average amount of progress is not enough, and makes a school's value-added less remarkable. A child getting a Level 3 in Yr2 would have to get more than a level 5 to show above-average progress - which, of course, they can't get!! So even though they are achieving really well, they are not showing an above-average rate of progression, and are plain-old average!
As a reception teacher, I always level children at the end of reception if they are ready for it, and have reached point 6 on the profile or more - there are usually parts of level 1 they are fulfilling, where the Yr1 teacher can carry on from, making their job slightly easier!

13. LuluFergalNew commenter

They seem to have mixed the message up a bit from the Ofsted report 'Reading by 6 - How the best schools do it'

"All children should be reading at standards appropriate to Level 1A/2C when they are six, that is, by the end of Year 1."

14. MszEstablished commenter

some children will still be six at the end of Y2

15. clematis

Apologies as this is off topic but are you a teacher? Where the *** is your punctuation?

16. pisces77New commenter

Sorry Sorry
I have to apologise for actually bothering to post. I was reading the previous posts on this topic that my thoughts and the keyboard got carried away. Next time I will remember to check my punctuation and grammar before posting ever again.

I want to know where the document about being 2c/2b by the end of year 1 came from. I was shown it along with average point scores i have argued about eyfs not linking to national curriculum levels as such. I asked gsearl on this site if he knew where it had come from or an electronic copy of it which i don't. It seems that year 1 teachers have so many elements to tackle to get children to where they need to be so year 2 teachers only in theory have to move the children through 2 sub levels to get to the nationally set expecation of secure level 2 it just seems majorly unfair to put this amount of pressure on such young children, how are children mean't to enjoy their learning through a range of quality learning experiences if the government are making year 1 preparation for year 2. Just like many people still think reception is to prepare children for year 1 sorry rant over

17. Munchkinballerina

I don't usually contribute to forums, but this thread and particularly this post makes me so sad.

Never
mind about official expectations and value added ****; if we only allow
our 'poor little mites to write 1 sentence' by the end of Year 1, we
are doing them a huge dis-service!

It is so true that they
are 'sponges' at this age and I believe that each child has a different
point at which they are ready to take each step. All we can do is give
them the resources, the inspiration and the information they need, to be
able to take that step, whenever that might be. And if it is their own
choice to do so, freely and without judgement or an iron fist as a
prompt, the more successful and regular those leaps will be.

I
work in an inner London school and this is my second year in Year 1. My
children have dictated their own pace, as I believe they should, and
their current 'labels' range from p8, through a lot of 1as to a number
of very comfortable 2cs. I have had to start making A3 proformas to
accommodate what two thirds of my class are 'choosing' to write in half
an hour, and many still demand a 'Challenge' after that. They regularly
declare how much they love writing (and how good they are at it!), and
even my very BAs are proud of the shared writing that they do, pride
which will, I am sure, also result in them taking huge leaps, when they
decide they are ready for them.

I don't mean to preach, but I
vehemently believe that if we merely strive to meet a supposed 'average
expectation', whatever that might be, rather than any given child's
individual and often surprising potential; far from sheilding them from
pressure, we are actually sabotaging what is one of the most important
times in their life; the time when they are constructing their views on
learning and education. If we sell them short at this point, regardless
of any expectation for attainment or value added..., we are surely
making the rest of their school careers that little bit harder and more
of a drudge.

Thanks for listening...!