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 professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

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

    Dismiss Notice

Year 3 - 'average levels' ????

Discussion in 'Primary' started by takethatno1fan, Mar 24, 2008.

  1. takethatno1fan

    takethatno1fan New commenter

    Please could someone tell me what the 'expected' levels are at the end of Y3 in Literacy & Numeracy.

    It is my first year teaching Y3 and feeling stressed with SATs coming up.

    Are they expected to move on 2 sub-levels from KS1 SAT levels? A little confused as I have heard staff say that KS1 level 3 is different to a KS2 level 3?????

    Really confused - please help :(
  2. I was always told that if a child achieved a 2b then they should be a 3c at least at end of Y3, if 2a then at least a 3b. But in my old school I was always expected to move them on 3 sub levels.
  3. tafkam

    tafkam Occasional commenter

    It depends on who you listen to.

    In the terms of the original National Curriculum, if they reach level 2 in Y2 - which is what is expected - then they should reach level 3 in Y4.

    However, no-one pays much attention to that any more, and much higher targets are set, to fit in with the way in which primary education has been narrowed so precisely!

    SO... in theory yes, 2 sub-levels would be expected. And yes, level 3 in KS1 assessments is definitely not comparable to level 3 achieved in KS2 assessments, but that's not to say that folks won't try to pretend they're the same.

    All in all... who'd be a Y3 teacher. You're damned either way. If it's any consolation -and I know it won't be - we have the same problem in Y7!
  4. takethatno1fan

    takethatno1fan New commenter

    thanks for your replies.

    I don't know whether I feel any better though!!!! lol
  5. It's a hard one. KS1 levels do not exactly match those of KS2 and are dependant on what descriptors used.
    If you use end KS1 levels as a base line and up a child 1.5 sublevels, or 3 points you're doing well.
    To ensure a child is to reach L4b at end KS2 children entering year 4 should be on or about 2a/3c.
    A 100 CVA should be looking at 12 points advancement per child through KS2, 1.5 sub levels per year, 2 sub levels should ensure a school is nwell up the tables(not if all children enter at L 3, as there is no L6 to prove this advancement).
    However, poor leadership/teaching/performance management normally means year 6 staff have to make up 3-4 sub levels in a year. Hence the use of booster and cramming to ensure the eagle ofsted eye is diverted for another year or confused upon inspection.
  6. Oh yes, L4/5 is the same in KS2 as KS3. Often there is a skill shortage at KS3 in understanding what makes a level!
  7. tafkam

    tafkam Occasional commenter

    A skill shortage?
  8. Try telling my OH that who is a middle school HT. No skill shortage in his school who knows exactly what levelling is all about - probably like Tafkam's school!
  9. jog_on

    jog_on New commenter

    "Often there is a skill shortage at KS3 in understanding what makes a level!"

    Where's your evidence for this?
  10. Thought I was the only one who got the "3 sub levels" talk - I was told not to bother applying for threshold unless the majority of my class achieved 3 sublevels every year (so I didn't bother). Last year, by some miracle, I did manage to get a few of my class through 3 sub levels (in Y4) and was told to reduce their levels as they were "too high" going into Y5(!). I agree - damned if you do and damned if you don't. 2 sub-levels is definitely what is expecte by my LA. Having said that, the amount of training that is going on for Y3 teachers at the moment I think the "Y3 problem" has finally been recognised (although not admitted to!)
  11. As I said, "often?! This is generally not the case in middle schools where KS2/3 is covered.
    The issue lies with secondary KS3 staff.

    Evidence: Having worked on three transition projects and now leading two, all focus group work has highlighted a very pronounced gap, in terms of understanding and executing levelling, between primary/junior and secondary staff. English being the most problematic, Maths next and Science a total joke, as Science KS2 sats results tend to be really wide of the mark when tested against ability, due to their high knowledge based content taught parrot fashion.

    The main issue is that 1 or 2 days in May produce a one off score, which, in most children, cannot be said to be reflective of their performance over the year. TA's do not tend to reflect av. performance, but mimic test results.
    The same could be said of GCSEs of course, as they are hot house too.

    I think the real evidence lies within KS3 results, which are poor, government floor targets reflect expectations being set at 50%.

    Of course this lower performance is due to the secondary system and lack of training for staff. Heaven forbid that I would claim that Primary staff are better teachers than their secondary colleagues!
  12. wicked witch

    wicked witch New commenter

    Three sub levels in a year is ridiculous. That means that all children who achieve level 2 in year 2 would be expected to be level 6 by the time they left primary school. Even 2 sub levels is high. The children are expected to make a whole level every 2 years so it should be 1 and a half levels every year. More able should make between 2 and 3 sub levels. To have that around your neck for threshold sounds impossible.
  13. I disagree tafkam - NC age appropriate levels are exactly what we are aiming at and tracking against.
  14. I agree with wicked witch. The expectation for 'mythical average child' who achieves 2b at Year 2 is to achieve 4b at Year 6, therefore the assumption would be 3b in Year 4. Therefore this 'average child' would either be a 2a or 3c at the end of Year 3.
  15. So remind me again - why are councils getting rid of middle schools?
  16. tafkam

    tafkam Occasional commenter


    That implies that there was once a reason which you knew. I believe that no such thing exists.

    Unless you count "because they're ******"?
  17. If it's possible I think you are correct on both counts!!

Share This Page