Some more advice needed please.
So my son has always been a year ahead in terms of his "levels", under the old system. I.e. in Y2 he was performing at Y3 average, in Y3 at Y4 average, and in Y4 at Y5 average. This usually equates to 2 sub levels higher.
He's always been stronger in Maths, and for that he's always been 3 - 4 sub levels higher.
As I understand the material I've read, the panel are expecting level 5's (preferably high 5's) in Y5? Going by the old levels system, it'd be reasonable to assume he would have achieved this if he had continued to progress at the same rate. The problem is, the new system does not seem to correlate. Under the new system, we have 3 levels:
1 = Below Expectations
2 = Meeting Expectations
3 = Exceeding Expectations
It seems as though being 2 sub levels above the average under the old system (i.e. performing above age related expectations) seems to equate only to "Meeting Expectations". Whereas 3-4 sub levels above (i.e. performing well above age related expectations) equates to "Exceeding Expectations".
There's a post over on netmums which suggests similar (hope I'm allowed to link to it):http://www.netmums.com/coffeehouse/chil ... n-all.html
It therefore seems as if it is much harder now to go to an appeal panel and show evidence of being above age related expectations, as the marking scheme is not granular enough, and being just below age related expectations, meeting them, or exceeding them, are all shown as "meeting expectations". Will the appeal panels be aware of this? Is it even possible to convince them that a "meeting expectations" is good enough under the new system, or is it only "exceeding expectations" that would suffice?
I appreciate the system is new so nobody will have a precise answer, but any input would be appreciated.