to be disappointed that school is only interested in getting students up to level 4 or 5 in sats.

[angeleyes72]

Not a stealth boast but ds is quite able in one subject. Just ordinary in the rest. Anyway the school is running extra lessons to get people up to level 4 or 5. However, they are not doing anything to prepare students to sit a level 6 paper. He is already bored in class as they sre rightly covering level 5 work.
Aibu to be disappointed

He shouldn't be bored. Go in and talk to them. The actual SATs level is irrelevant- but he should be being given challenging work.

IMO, YANBU.

Getting a state school to give a rats arse about it is the main reason my two went private for secondary. YMMV, of course - I hope your son gets the education he deserves.

They focus on what they get measured/scrutinised on so with GCSES they want people to get a C, don't give a monkeys about Cs getting a B or Bs getting an A. So the measuring system is to blame but YANBU to want the school to stretch the able in the areas they are strongest.

don't give a monkeys about Cs getting a B or Bs getting an A.
Oh FFS..... really????

It's only my experience in my local education area but yes there are schools local to me who run workshops to bring Es/Ds up to Cs but don't run workshops for the more able children.

YANBU.

I had this same issue with my ds, and my worry was that I knew how the secondary school worked and used the SATs results for setting, and for creating predicted GCSE grades. I didn't want ds to be predicted a lower grade than he was potentially capable of, and then for it to be missed if he isn't reaching his potential in Y9 because his predicted grade was lower than it should have been.

I sorted it out in the end, but I was made to feel incredibly pushy and unreasonable at the time. I just didn't think it was fair that a child of equal ability had the opportunity to reach a level 6 at a different school, but children at our school didn't.

It was great when the SATs were over, they finally got to do some properly challenging investigation projects and business plans and such like. The way it should have been all along IMO.

"They focus on what they get measured/scrutinised on so with GCSES they want people to get a C, don't give a monkeys about Cs getting a B or Bs getting an A." Absolute rubbish. Schools
Are judged on the progress their children make. They would be severely marked down if a child coming in on 5s got C's at GCSE.

Come to our school. We're under constant pressure to get children to level 6.

It's awful!

YABU to think levels in sats matter to your child, they're a school measure. The school is BU to put on extra sessions- this shows a poor school, as they should achieve these measures in normal school time. YANBU to expect the school to differentiate work, and help your child to reach their potential, I would phrase it that way, rather than 'I want my child pushed to level 6'. Level 6 is meaningless in the long term.

"Getting a state school to give a rats arse about it "

Yeah yeah yeah- state schools are all rubbish and don't give a flying fuck ....purhlease

oh FFS dd1 went to state primary and sat L6 papers and they took the kids out to do L6 prep so it's bollox that they don't

OP talk to the school

YANBU but a lot of parents also place a lot of emphasis on the reported SATs levels at the end of KS2 and there's no measure for level 6. Iirc the table only shows up to level 5.

FreeWee IBU about schools not caring about getting higher than Cs. DH attends a course once a month about how to get an A/A* out of a B and gets very excited when someone predicted a C gets a B. But then he might be accused of not caring about the borderline D/Cs (which he does).

although it IS meaningless first thing they do in year 7 is new tests that they use to organise sets etc

Sats are a pain. The problem is that from my experience the school year becomes centered around the sats and the school getting the best out of their children.

If the school aren't doing level 6 then I can see this could hold back the most able children. Ds1 did level 6 in maths last year and really enjoyed the challenge. He had booster lessons every morning before school and if they'd only gone up to level 5, he really wouldn't have learned much.

Ds2 is in year 6 this year and it's the same frustration at everything being focused toward the sats. Can't wait until we are done with year 6 for good.

Sats are for schools not children. When they where introduced my mother (a teacher) was seriously talking about taking me out for the week as she said it was unnescessary stress on young children, especially competitive high achievers like me (at the time!! Haha!) . I did them, got all 5s which meant exactly nothing except I was put in the top sets, where I knew I would end up anyway. Just follow the drill, get them over with and save your exam angst for gcse/as/a level/degree. Plenty more where they came from. If you don't think he is being challenged at school, that's a different conversation.

Well, it depends really. I don't mean to sound like I'm criticising your judgement, you do know your DS better than the teachers - but, the issue with the sats isn't so much the level of difficulty per se. It's more the technique to answer the questions that become a problem for the more able students - your DS might be already at a level 5 from a teacher assessment p.o.v but addressing a sats paper is completely different. If the teacher isn't confident in his technique then they probably won't risk it.

You could always make an appointment to see the teacher to see if this is the issue, or to see if actually they are being quite negligent to his needs. I would just be aware of this being an issue.

FWIW for this reason alone I despise sats papers. As a secondary English teacher it's very frustrating to see so many children who have come through the sats system at a level 5 because they have been 'trained' to respond to those particular style of questions, when we give them more open ended work they don't reach the 5 and the parents want to know why (understandably). I agree with the standardised testing but it needs to be done in a different way.

Sorry this is long - basically YANBU for looking into it but don't assume that the teachers are ignoring him, it could be the style of the paper itself. I hope you get to the bottom of it soon and that your DS sits the correct level paper.

Ds's primary school was like this. I was uncomfortable complaining about it though...
The year ds left it went into special measures and key to that was their abject failure to bring on average and above average students- (although they did v well with below average students)

"state schools are all rubbish and don't give a flying fuck ....purhlease"

Would you like to do any more random, ignorant generalising?

I was state educated myself. I tried very, very hard to make state education work for my kids - for seven years.

If your local state schools are great, lucky you.

They would be severely marked down if a child coming in on 5s got C's at GCSE .
and how many schools are rubbish and are marked down!

Not absolute rubbish in my local area Hakluyt. The local comparisons focus on numbers achieving minimum expected level of attainment (5 A*-C grades including English and Maths) NOT children's progress. Yes they may be measured on progress, and schools with good progress scores will try and promote them. BUT the local reporting is on those achieving the minimum standard NOT progress. So that's what the schools focus on and then in a cyclical argument that's what parents look for in a school. I know Gove wanted more of a focus on progress and for everything he screwed up in education I actually agree each child should be measured against themselves not against an arbitrary bar which is a pass/fail in essence (achieve minimum expectd level? Tick or cross) BUT schools and their reporting systems are not there yet. I know this is GCSEs not SATs but ultimately schools will focus on what the reporting systems measure (be it progress which we're moving towards) not necessarily what is in the best interests of all its pupils. That's why National Indicators were such a ball ache to report on. Because a lot of them were meaningless box ticking exercise that didn't make children happier, healthier or better educated. On the other hand some of them are vital to setting benchmark expectations.

If he can sit a level 4 / 5 SAT then he will know what a level 6 paper is like.

Schools aim for Level 4's or 5's because then children will have a better chance at understanding when at high school. And as most if not all high school test year 7's anyway and go from their own results.

Not to mention this is the last year where SATS will be given levels, as of next year there are no level.

Yeah yeah yeah- state schools are all rubbish and don't give a flying fuck ....purhlease

Umm, quite an un acceptable number of state schools are rubbish.

The whole thing about schools being measured on progress just leads to teachers giving children lower levels than they could be given so that they can continue to show progression as the child moves on.

It does not ensure that they push children to achieve the most they are capable of.

It's farcical.

Knitted Your comment is ambiguous but.......taking it as a criticism that schools are NOT generally marked down, you clearly have no idea about the new Ofsted inspection framework

" BUT the local reporting is on those achieving the minimum standard NOT progress. So that's what the schools focus on "

So they're not bothered about OFSTED then?