level 6 in primary???

no wonder FFT data is so ducked fup!

I think if you have a primary child who is *genuinely* working at Level 6 (and you can count me in with the truly awe-struck on that), you shouldn't need to sub-level them. If such a child is so far beyond every other child in the school, which must presumably be the case unless you teach at the Burnes Hunter School For The Abnormally Gifted, levelling simply doesn't make sense.

I agree with all that has been said.  It's just another thing thrown at us in primary schools.  KS2 SATs are by their nature not a true reflection of the ability of the child.  But the government has brought back level 6 testing in primary schools and the pressure is on to identify these 'level 6 children'.

I'm amazed that people are amazed at there being children in primary schools who can work at level 6! My daughter is being considered for the level 6 reading paper currently (year 6 obviously) and as an English teacher in secondary I can confidently say that she is definitely showing aspects of level 6 in her reading work. Why is this such a shock? I've been frustrated in the past at her being 'limited' to thinking of level 5 as the highest she can achieve in primary school. Surely ability is not age-limited? We have plenty of level 3 work in our year 8 cohort!!!! Sadly...

The reason that it amazes me is that pretty much every level that I have received from Primary schools seems to have been created in La La land (i.e. the levels are way above where the children actually are), especially those at levels 6.

AwakeDreamingUK

The reason that it amazes me is that pretty much every level that I have received from Primary schools seems to have been created in La La land (i.e. the levels are way above where the children actually are), especially those at levels 6.

Having taught both Year 6 and 7 in a middle school I know where you are coming from. Children who are secure 4 or 5 at the end of year 6 can sometimes only be achieving the same level by the end of Year 7. I think it is because the assessment and level descriptors are so different. We tend to ignore the SATs results and use teacher assessment as this is usually more reliable, although I assume in a 2 tier education system the TA is not as reliable than in a school which keeps the children into KS3. Despite this we are still entering some of our children into the level 6 paper as they have a chance of achieving it. This does not neccessarily mean they are a L6 teacher assessed child.

Which assessment and level descriptors are different? Aren't the APP criteria used throughout KS1, 2 and 3? It makes no sense to call something the same thing (i.e. level 6) but have a different set of criteria for it...I am intrigued as to how the level descriptors are different as I just assumed they would be the same ones we use in secondary for level 2 - 8 children.

BASILIUS

I'm amazed that people are amazed at there being children in primary schools who can work at level 6!

We're not amazed, it's simply a case of judgement. If you give primary teachers a level 6 option, they'll use it to bump up stats wherever possible. There are some children working at L6 in primary but these are very few and the decision to put them on a level 6 should not be taken lightly and should really be considered in conjunction with the secondary school to make sure that everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet. That of course is in an ideal world. We don't live in an ideal world and any system open to abuse will be abused.

We have to re-assess students when they join in year 7 because of the inflated grades given by well-meaning primary school teachers. We've had claims that a student is L5 but they've tested out at L3.

With increasing emphasis from schools on FFT data e.t.c. the whole system works against the students and the schools and its a vicious circle of blame.

The losers in the end are the students.

bigpedro

If you give primary teachers a level 6 option, they'll use it to bump up stats wherever possible.

 

Inevitably. Consider the high-achieving primary where many children get L3 at KS2. To show above average progress (and thus be considered anything other than failing by Ofsted and HM Government) they will need the L6s. So regardless of whether teachers believe it, or think it right, they will be compelled to drill for and then enter the tests!

BASILIUS

Which assessment and level descriptors are different? Aren't the APP criteria used throughout KS1, 2 and 3? It makes no sense to call something the same thing (i.e. level 6) but have a different set of criteria for it...I am intrigued as to how the level descriptors are different as I just assumed they would be the same ones we use in secondary for level 2 - 8 children.

We use the national curriculum level descriptors from Curriculum 2000. They are the only statutory ones that primaries have to use. We do however use APP with KS3 which is very different.For example KS2 science ones don't marry up at all as they are SC1-4, in KS3 they are AF1-5. I agree it makes no sense, but even in a school that keeps the children into KS3 we still get judged on Year 6 results, so although we don't shoot ourselves in the foot, they still have to be as good as possible.

Although a little old now, when I was researching "level 5ness" at KS2 and KS3, I got the following response from the then QCA when I asked how they ensured consistency between the two sets of tests:

QCA, 2005

The differences in the programmes of study for key stage 2 and 3
make across key stage comparisons difficult. No direct comparisons are therefore made.

If they didn't even bother trying, what hope does the average classroom teacher (or student for that matter) have?

 

This whole conversation saddens me and cements my opinion that league tables and Ofsted are evil destroyers of teachers' and children's lives!

A little dramatic perhaps but there is certainly no 'joined-up' thinking from the government when these things happen is there. You shouldn't be able to call a child level 5 in primary and say that's a different level in secondary because the criteria are different! Whether you take an A level at 18 or 80 the criteria for an A grade are the same!

tafkam

Although a little old now, when I was researching "level 5ness" at KS2 and KS3, I got the following response from the then QCA when I asked how they ensured consistency between the two sets of tests:

QCA, 2005

The differences in the programmes of study for key stage 2 and 3
make across key stage comparisons difficult. No direct comparisons are therefore made.

If they didn't even bother trying, what hope does the average classroom teacher (or student for that matter) have?

 

That's only tests, though, tafkam and tests only ever give an estimated level.  It's only the TA that puts bodies of eveidence against the same descriptors.

markuss

That's only tests, though, tafkam and tests only ever give an estimated level.  It's only the TA that puts bodies of eveidence against the same descriptors.

 

And in an ideal world, markuss, someone like Ofsted would pay some heed to TA. But the reality is that if the two don't match, then the tests have always trumped the TA.

Quite. At key stage 3 we have to set our targets by what was achieved in KS2 SATs (if they were sat) and ignore the TA.