Apologies to Cambridge matmos.

Her EYFS profile will similarly have been based on continuous observation.

Sorry, X-posts - as she is currently in Year 6, the paper she took in Year 2 had absolutely no bearing on her KS1 SATs results, as those will have been based on teacher assessment.

(For example, all KS1 'SATS' levels have been teacher assessments, not based on tests, since 2005, so unless your DD is currently in Year 11 or above, the test paper she took had no bearing on her KS1 results.)

Russians - what don't I get?

Yr6

pugs is this your eldest DC?

Pugs - you clearly don't get it. What a relief you don't teach my kids.

Ok- you're not prepared to admit even a little bit that you might have been wrong. I do so hope other people read whqt people who know what they are talking about are saying. But I worry that they won't- scare stories are so much more interesting than facts.

old - sorry

Pugs - how od is your DD? The arrangements I describe have been in place for some time....

As I said before, I am very glad systems have been put into place to stop this from happening in the future. I think it would be foolish to believe that there are not other children of dd's age who have been similarly overlooked by the system as well though. When I meet teenagers that have been in trouble at school I think it would be irresponsible to flatly refuse that any of them have been failed by the system & are just bored!

In addition pugs it's sometimes good to take some of what's said by HTs at private schools with a pinch of salt. Sometimes a little cynicism is good. This particular school may be great and any scholarship to it a fabulous accolade but many schools out there are in dire need of custom.

Loss of confidence may be all the answer that you need - your child had little confidence in that environment (in the same way, my DS became a selective mute in an uncongenial environment) an therefore her daily performance in class did not reflect her possible ability. A function of that school and that teacher, but definitely not a function of 'the state sector' or 'not being given the right test'.

Pugs, you have misunderstood the nature of the KS1 tests. The levels reported are TEACHER ASSESSMENT LEVELS, from a whole range of work across the year. Children do also take 'a test', but if there is a discrepancy between the two levels, then the teacher assessment result is the one that is reported.

So it would make no difference which test your child took. If the teacher assessed her, on her everyday work, as a level 2, then she would be reported as a level 2, regardless of what test she happened to sit on one day during the year.

You can argue that the teacher mis-assessed her during the year, but to suggest that 'had she been able to access the higher level test she would have done better' is misleading at best - had her teacher assessment been a level 2, a level 2 she would have remained.

Teacher assessment levels are tied to what a child can actually do, over a period of time. DS was assessed as level 3 in maths in Year 1, for example, without ever sitting a test.

It is indeed an interesting question why her daily performance in class was so out of line with her performance in a different school - but it will NOT be due to some conspiracy related to tests and levels, just perhaps that she did not perform well day to day in that environment for some reason.

"Are you assuming that the majority of EFL children are Asian? Where I live the majority are Polish "

Not at grammar school they are not.

Here's a document from a Chelmsford grammar

www.kegs.org.uk/assets/files/admissions/KEGS%20Admissions%20Provisional%20Equality%20Impact%20Assessment.pdf

Chelmsford is largely white and British, and the school introduced a priority area to preserve this, rather than admit increasing numbers of Asians from outer London.

Ethnic stats for the school:

White British: 338
Asian: 130
Black: 23
White Eastern European and White Other: 4
(Others 65)

Essex is 96.8% White.

Most EFL children at grammar schools are South Asian.

Well, obviously it was a crap primary school. But I hope you can accept that your dd was failed by the school, not the system. Because what you describe is not "the system"

The boredom & associated behaviour was what really worried me! & obvious lack of confidence

What seeker said (and yellowtip) - crap primary school not "state system"

Nor have I ever cared much about tables. Just how career stultifying is Table 2?

I tend to agree with seeker that you most likely misunderstood what the HT was saying to you pugs. Also, how badly was your DD failed if she did so well aged 7 in the private school test (depends on the quality of the latter school I suppose, or whether it's under-subscribed).

I'm so glad I never gave more than a passing glance at levels for my older DC. I've only really been aware of them for DD4. It's much more relaxing that way.

It's not that I have faith in the system. And I am perfectly prepared to believe that they primary school your dd attended was crap.

But if it did happen the way you say, then the school was not following "the system". And the Head must have been sleeping with the OFSTED inspector if the school was rated outstanding while doing this.

Russians - of course I use instruments in my initial audition assessments! & motor skills tests are appropriate to the instrument not just picked out of thin air!

As I have said before, even if we had moved dd to a different lower school she still had 0% chance of getting into anything other than our consigned middle & upper. Nobody in our village has ever managed to get in anywhere else, so it was private or stay there.

Seeker - how could dd have possibly jumped from table 2 & average sats straight to top set everything at a top 30 private school & then on to an academic scholarship? It shouldn't be possible & wouldn't have happened if she had been allowed to take the higher level papers! I wish I had your faith in the system I really do!!!

I realise that your statements are no longer important to you, as you have moved your daughter, but I am bothering to refute them because if left to stand as 'statements about state education' then they present a wholly false picture to another MN reader, who might be worried by them.

Absolutely agree with seeker (and as I understand that your DD left the school after a couple of years, it seems very likely that your misunderstanding would have been cleared up had she stayed in the system longer)

"I just can't that an initial assessment taken when a September born is a whole 5th older than an August should be able to set the fate of them both for their whole education. Completely unfair in my opinion & my biggest gripe with the state system! No opportunities."

It can't. As I said, you have misunderstood. What you state could not possibly have happened the way you say in a "outstanding" school, either under the old or the new framework.