Advanced search

2016 SATS results - should I be worried?

(34 Posts)
Thomasina76 Sat 05-Nov-16 17:17:05

DS's primary school is Ofsted outstanding and I think last year 96% of kids got level 4 of above, with around 80/90% getting level 5 or above. Just seen the 2016 SATs results and it seems reading is 78%, writing 80% and maths 90%. Another school nearby with a much more Osted and which got much less good results last year seems to have done much better, getting scores all in the 90s. I know schools performed worse this year due to the changes in the curriculum but should I be worried? I have been worried for some time about how pushy/rigorous the school is and have always been reassured by their excellent results.

Thomasina76 Sat 05-Nov-16 17:17:51

Sorry, meant to say "much worse Ofsted".

irvineoneohone Sat 05-Nov-16 17:33:18

A bit confused about they still have them?
If 80/90% of children are getting old NC level5 or above, the school must be great...confused

irvineoneohone Sat 05-Nov-16 17:37:05

Sorry, I think I misread.
Still, those % seems way better than national average?

lljkk Sat 05-Nov-16 17:38:59

More likely lots of affluent families send their kids there.
Or hothousing torture chambres.
I'm not sure what OP is saying... she's unhappy her school is only 99.5thpercentile, not 99.7 like the school up the road?

Thomasina76 Sat 05-Nov-16 17:40:13

That was last year - the results have dropped this year. Wondering if this was the case for all schools or just this one.

exLtEveDallas Sat 05-Nov-16 17:42:42

DDs primary went from 84% to 47%. It was still a great school for her.

GraceGrape Sat 05-Nov-16 17:45:19

2016 was the first year of SATS for the new curriculum. They wouldn't have been given old -style levels, but judged as to whether children were working at the "expected" level. They were generally considered to be harder than previous SATS - especially reading. I don't have the national average levels to hand but you can google them.

spanieleyes Sat 05-Nov-16 17:47:07

Given the average combined percentage ( ie the percentage of children achieving the expected grade for reading, writing and maths ) was 53%, then any school in the 80-90's is doing rather well!

LemonRedwood Sat 05-Nov-16 17:57:03

No you should not be worried. In any other test that is standardised (eg 11+) a standardised score of 99 would fall within the "average" range. The government in its wisdom decided to create a cut-off point of 100 for "average". Therefore in 2016 there were lots of children who were meeting age related expectations perfectly well who did not get included in those percentages. The reported percentages are therefore massively skewed and really not worth paying attention to.

Of course when ofsted come calling I shall wheel out my 80% compared to national 53% because they, like Michael fucking Gove, expect every child to be above average and the whole system is a total fucking joke

<Quietly pushes soapbox back under table>

Witchend Sat 05-Nov-16 18:58:31

How many children per year?
Because if there's 30 children, then each child counts for around 3.3%, so three extra children who struggle can bring the percentage down quickly-10%. In comparison, some of the schools round here have about 150 per year, so each child is 0.67%, so would need 15 children to be struggling to bring it down by 10%.
<hopes she got the maths right there!>

With smaller year groups it is easier to have good/bad years. What you want to look at is the trend, not any year on its own.

admission Sat 05-Nov-16 21:18:52

I believe that the answer is difficult because basing anything on the one set of results is likely to be wrong. The figures are way above average for the year, so in that context there is no issue and the school might not be considered outstanding based on this one set of results but it is still a good school.

However you need to be looking at what the school has been doing. Have they been cramming their pupils for the whole of year 6 to get the previous very high results? If so then this year will have been a shock to them and they have probably not appreciated the level of the work now required to get the highest results. They need to be ensuring that all the new national curriculum is being taught and more importantly understood. Maybe this year they did not do that, because I know too many schools made no real attempt to ensure that they had taught all the curriculum when they realised the gaps that existed in pupil's knowledge.

The question is whether the school will see the same kind of results this year or whether they will take appropriate action and move upwards again. It is also the case that generally this year's cohort does not seem to be as strong as last years, so to expect a big increase is probably not realistic.

TeenAndTween Sat 05-Nov-16 22:14:58

The standards have been raised. Some people/teachers have suggested that to get the new '100' you now need to be more at old 4a/5c. I can't remember the detailed figures offhand but nationally only 53% of children reached expected standard in all 3 areas. If I recall correctly, nationally only 65% of children reached expected standard in Reading, I think Maths and SpaG were a bit higher ~70%.
So your school is still doing way above average. Results have got lower in absolute terms but I suspect not in real terms dipped, but standards were raised. I can't see any reason for you to worry.

RafaIsTheKingOfClay Sun 06-Nov-16 08:04:33

In any other test that is standardised (eg 11+) a standardised score of 99 would fall within the "average" range

The scaled scores aren't standardised scores though, so they are not going to be treated the same and don't mean the same thing. In this case 100 is just and arbitrary cut off point, like the level boundaries in the previous tests. Whether the standard needed to achieve 100 is a fair one is a different matter.

irvineoneohone Sun 06-Nov-16 08:24:43

I looked at my ds's school result. OP, your school is way better than my ds'.
If the standard is high, I don't think you need to worry about it so much.

I know the expected is 100, but I wondered what is the threshold score for getting exceeding? Anyone know?

Rainbowcolours1 Sun 06-Nov-16 08:45:07

Exceeding threshold, or greater depth within the standard (!), was set at 110 this year.

irvineoneohone Sun 06-Nov-16 08:48:39

Thank you, Rainbow.

BetweenTwoLungs Sun 06-Nov-16 08:55:23

This has nothing to do with 'cramming less' or any other reason than the tests changed. Do not compare this years scores with last years - they are different tests so not comparable at all.

Instead, compare how your school did this year with how other schools did nationally. OP I can reassure that your school did very well and you should not be concerned at all.

Bluebird23 Sun 06-Nov-16 09:16:36


I can't find the figures for DD's school, did your school send the details home?


irvineoneohone Sun 06-Nov-16 10:09:50

Bluebird23, I just used search function within the school website, typed in
"sats results 2016"
Done the same with other local schools, it came up as well.

Feenie Sun 06-Nov-16 10:43:55

Exceeding threshold, or greater depth within the standard (!), was set at 110 this year.

That's incorrect - it wasn't set at anything. Individual schools may have interpreted their scores internally and come back with a statement like that, but there was no national figure.

110 is quite low anyway, if you were going to start inventing a threshold!

Feenie Sun 06-Nov-16 10:48:05

spanieleyes Sun 06-Nov-16 10:53:42

Sorry Feenie but 110 WAS set as the exceeding score. clearly states that
"We have set the threshold for a high score in 2016
at 110. Achievement of a high score is highest in
grammar, punctuation and spelling at 23% and
lowest in mathematics at 17%. The percentage of
pupils working at greater depth in writing is 15%."

Feenie Sun 06-Nov-16 11:00:38

Blimey! shock I hadn't seen that before - thanks, spanieleyes (and apologies, rainbowcolours).

Does 110 seem low to you, spanieleyes - obviously within the context of that particular test it would have to be lowish, but looking at it generally?

spanieleyes Sun 06-Nov-16 11:37:40

well it does seem low but, if you look at the spread of scores in the document you can see that 110 roughly equates to the big drop in children achieving a particular score so it does seem that there was SOME reason for selecting 110!
If scaled scores had been used there might have been a statistical reason for selecting a higher standard, it just looks as if someone drew a line on a table and said "here will do"!

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now