KS1 sats. How to interpret scores?

[hibbledibble]

We got given ours dd's sats scores in her report: she got 110/111 scaled scores for Maths and English. I'm obviously proud of her!

I have looked online and there is very little data available as to how to interpret these scores. I understand that a score of 100 means a child has met the expected standard, but no statistics available as to what percentage reach a certain score. Does anyone know where to find this data, or have any other wisdom to share?

[LetItGoToRuin]

conversion table for KS1 SATs 2018

[DiamondAge]

As I understand things, KS1 results, unlike KS2 results (bar writing), are a combination of teacher assessment and SAT test result (KS2 writing is purely teacher assessed).

So the KS1 test result only informs the teacher assessment regarding whether or not a child reaches greater depth, unlike in KS2 where a scaled score of 110 or more (out of 120) equals greater depth.

For KS1 there is less data. In 2017 for reading 25% achieved greater depth (22% boys and 29% girls). For maths 21% achieved greater depth (22% boys and 19% girls). But these figures relate to teacher assessments not the SATs test results.

Looking at the KS1 raw score conversion chart for 2018 shows your dd achieved 36/40 for reading and 56/60 for maths!

Well done to your dd!!

[brilliotic]

hibbledibble,
this data does not exist.

Children sit the KS1 tests, their teachers mark them, and if parents ask (in some schools automatically), they tell the parents how the child scored. They furthermore use the results to inform their assessment of the child's attainment (along with their observations throughout the year). They do not, however, send the tests or even the test results to anyone. Nobody collects the test results. So nobody can possibly create any statistics as to how many/which percentage of children achieved how many points on the tests.
Your child's teacher (if they do the maths) is the only one who will know how the children in his/her class did statistically (e.g. 10% of the class achieved a score of 110 or more) but no one collects the data beyond the school so no-one can say how they did statistically across the nation.

[hibbledibble]

Thank you all, it's really interesting to hear.

We were given her raw scores too, and she was disappointed she didn't get full marks, though I've told her she has done very well. There is absolutely no pressure from me. I genuinely just curious as to what the mark distribution is.

Brilliotic for how long have the results of the assessments not been collected nationally? I ask as I'm sure ks1 to KS2 progress was part of league tables until recently. The school used to publish their ks1 results on their website but have stopped doing so now.

[LetItGoToRuin]

If I understand it correctly, KS1 teacher assessments (which take into account SATs results as one small part of the year's worth of evidence) are reported. The actual SATs marks are not.

[brilliotic]

I ask as I'm sure ks1 to KS2 progress was part of league tables until recently.

It still is.

But end of KS1 SATS test results are not end of KS1 results.

End of KS1 results come in the form of 'meets expected standard' 'working at greater depth within the expected standard' and 'working towards expected standard' in Maths, Reading, and Writing and there is also a grade for Science. This is reported and collected and available statistically (not for 2018 yet). Progress is calculated from these grades.

KS1 SATS test results come in the form of a scaled score in the range of 85-115 for Maths, Reading, and SPAG. Sometimes the raw score is given too. These results are not reported (except to parents) or collected and so there are no national statistics on them.

Even our results-crazy school publishes end of KS1 outcomes on its webpage but not the test results.

[Feenie]

Brilliotic for how long have the results of the assessments not been collected nationally

As others have said, the teacher assessments are collected nationally, the test results are not - and haven't been since 2005.

They are due to be scrapped in any case in 2020.

[hibbledibble]

Thank you for the clarification. It's pretty confusing due to all the changes, plus I didn't attend an English primary school, so the education system here is very different. It's good to know the context of the results.

I'm surprised the school took the sats tests so seriously if the statistics aren't collected.

[LetItGoToRuin]

Hibbledibble: “I'm surprised the school took the sats tests so seriously if the statistics aren't collected.”

Totally agree. Thinking about it now, I’m baffled as to why the SATs were such a source of stress for the teacher, given that the test results go nowhere and the teacher has so much other evidence to call upon when assessing end of KS1 levels for the children.

What are we missing? Pressure from headteacher, governers, comparison with other schools in cluster?

[hibbledibble]

I wonder too.

The school did lots of past papers and practise for the sats. It seemed like a big source of stress for the teachers.

I'm not sure if it is because it is an 'ofsted outstanding' school, that they feel they have high standards to meet.

[brilliotic]

The Y2 teachers are likely to be performance assessed (and possibly their wages depend on this) with regards to the KS1 outcomes (the teacher assessment outcomes).
If they give a child e.g. greater depth when the child didn't do particularly well on the tests, or 'meets expected standard' when the child didn't reach 100 scaled score, they need to have a lot of other evidence to support their teacher assessment. If they do not have such plentiful evidence, their teacher assessments might fail moderation, or might be questioned by their SLT.

So really from a teacher's perspective, I suppose you need your children to achieve the test scores you think them capable of and that are in line with their usual performance. If children underperform on the tests (for whatever reason), it can create all sorts of difficulties for the teacher.

So it makes sense that you familiarise the children with the test format. And I understand that teachers feel stressed, especially if the school's SLT is very results-focused.

However there is also a problem (I think - not sure about this one) in that the teacher assessments, whilst being highly regulated/specified as in what exactly needs to be evidenced, cover more/different skills than the tests alone. So the test results only reflect a part of all the skills that are being assessed. But this part, the part that is tested, gains additional weight compared to the other parts, due to being included in the tests. So in the running up to the testing dates, teachers who already have plenty of evidence for abilities in non-tested areas will naturally focus on the tests and the content covered by the tests, so as not to end up with a disjunction between the teacher assessment and the test results.

[hibbledibble]

brilliotic thank you for the insight. I have great sympathy for the teachers, I'm sure it's not easy.

Am I correct in understanding that a score of 110 or more is 'greater depth'?

[Feenie]

No, there is no greater depth test score at KS1 - it’s assessed through teacher assessment only.

[brilliotic]

The way I understand it, the tests aren't designed to evidence greater depth. None of the questions require 'greater depth' type of understanding to answer correctly. So if you get a high score, it just means you are very good at the 'expected' stuff but does not give any indication as to if you have reached 'greater depth' kind of understanding or not.
That is why there is no test score that indicates 'greater depth'.

[sirfredfredgeorge]

If you look at the tests, and the exemplification materials you can see that brillotic must be right, the tests don't go into the same depth at all.

It would seem to me though that if you were working at greater depth, you'd have to be pretty careless with the questions to get enough wrong to go below 110. That is more than 5 wrong on every paper, when there are a good range of difficulties

[hibbledibble]

Surely, if the test does not measure 'greater depth', then it is a pretty poor test?

[sirfredfredgeorge]

Not at all hibbledibble the purpose of the test is to test if they've met the expected standard - we don't complain that the driving test is rubbish because it doesn't contain advanced driving skills.

Importantly too, it's already a shame that ~20% of kids are stuck with a test where a lot of the questions are just unattainable, introduce greater depth questions and there'd be ~80% of kids completely not knowing where to start. That's just unnecessary.

[sirfredfredgeorge]

Incidentally, our school report actually says it was compiled before the SATs were even taken (a snapshot @), so I'm not sure the SATs were even used as a guide, although maybe they did update some kids if the SATs results showed up any surprises.

[brilliotic]

hibbledibble, if the tests included a good number of questions that could only really be attempted by a minority of children, that could be pretty demotivating for the majority (who after all are still very small kids - 6 and 7).

As it is, the test only really asks 'does the child meet the expected standard' - but does not ask 'how good is the child at x'. So for its purpose, I suppose it is adequate. (Although I would agree in principle that it is a pretty poor approach...)

sirfred, I agree with what you are saying. Though curiously DS last year 'only' scored 109 in maths despite being strong in maths and getting greater depth. Looking at the details, he got full marks on the arithmetics paper but only a little over half on the reasoning paper. This did give me pause! I had thought that he was 'average' in arithmetics but really good at reasoning...
Looking back I realised that they had been practising arithmetics day in day out in the run up to the tests. And I also realised that when DS had done the previous year's tests when he was still in Y1 (for fun - he enjoys that kind of thing), he scored the same in reasoning as a year later in Y2, but the arithmetics had much improved from Y1 to Y2. That particular Y2 teacher was incredible in fostering enthusiasm and passion for reading and books but not into maths at all, and the focus over the school year was entirely on arithmetics. Since we didn't do any maths at home, the reasoning and problem solving aspect was much neglected. I do wonder though on what basis the teacher decided to award him 'greater depth'. I would have thought that the reasoning paper would be the one where deep understanding of the maths concepts would most likely be demonstrated.
Or maybe he was indeed just careless and inattentive during that part of the test - he does get distracted easily when the work in front of him isn't really engaging his mind.

[brilliotic]

oops x-posted, I think we agree SirFred ;)

[Feenie]

Since we didn't do any maths at home, the reasoning and problem solving aspect was much neglected. I do wonder though on what basis the teacher decided to award him 'greater depth'

The criteria for awarding 'expected' or 'greater depth'' is dependent on a child meeting the statements in the Teacher Assessment Framework in their work. If there is good evidence for every single statement at a standard, that's what the child is awarded, whether or not they demonstrated it in one test on one occasion. They are only 6/7 years old, after all.

The whole thing is to be scrapped in two years anyway. It's not a great system.

[brilliotic]

I think I do understand that, Feenie. The thing I wonder about is that as they did very little work (at least not in their maths books that we got home at the end of the year) during the year that would allow the child to demonstrate greater depth if they were already there, nor work that would challenge them to get there, how come did the teacher find enough evidence for him meeting all the statements in the Teacher Assessment Framework? The maths they did throughout the year seemed to be nearly exclusively arithmetic. I don't see how there could have been enough evidence for the non-arithmetic statements.

I suspect the teacher (who was lovely, just not strong in maths teaching, but superb in other areas) rated him higher than would have survived moderation. But in line with progress expectations from previous years. And she definitely got his arithmetic skills /fluency up!

[Lisaquin01]

I have a SATS related question..

My DD has got a great report and has been given a score of Greater Depth for the KS1 assessments.. I dont actually know her actual scores. Does this mean she did well on the actual tests or could she have underperformed on the day and the teachers have "marked her up" due to classroom assessment

[sirfredfredgeorge]

Yes either of those, does she not know how she did on the tests? If you or her are interested, ask the teacher!

[Lisaquin01]

She has no idea!

I was just interested as to how it was all worked out is all.