To feel quite sceptical whenever someone asks to explain their children's SAT levels

[megapixels]

especially since they almost always seem to be top levels for that stage? There's been so many threads of the sort and yet people keep asking.

Kind of like those "Please help, my 6 month old ds is doing my 18 year old ds's algebra homework, does this sound about average for his age?" posts. Obviously not everyone has an ulterior motive (i.e. bragging) when posting something like that, but AIBU to think that a lot do?

YANBU!!!
I wanted to start a jokey thread in Chat the other day with the title:
"My child got all 3s in Yr6 SATs, what does that mean?"

Message content="Any other thread titles you know that you'll never see on MN?"

(Has anybody posted about their child's Y2 SAT results this yr? How strange not to see any threads about "3s across the board, what does that mean?" etc.)

ROFL at bronze. I too assumed that the levels corresponded with the years - so Level 4 in year 4, level 6 in year 6 etc. That would be logical.

Also this thing of the levels go up by number so 1 is followed by 2 etc. But the sublevels go down the alphabet. So a is higher than b. And who knew there were three sublevels?

In fact why don't the levels tally with the years? Why isn't level 6 what you would expect in year six? It's totally illogical.

The explanation above is wrong.

SATS scores are;

(for example)
3* (3a)
3** (3b)
3* (3c)

3a being the lowest score and 3c being the highest score. A child scoring a 3c would be classed as working very comfortably within that level having achieved most of the milestones and will shortly move to a level 4*.

In years 5-6 the levels are around 4 to 5* with only a few children achieving a 6 if they have a very high aptitude for a particular subject.
Progress through the levels is generally slower in years 4-6 as the criteria for each level becomes more wide-ranging and therefore harder to achieve in a short space of time. So a child could be working at a 4 at the beginning of y5 and only have progressed to a 4* by the end of yr 5 but that would still be classed as good progress.

I went to a party on Friday night and it was hellish, lots of alpha mummies coming out with dross such as "oh yah, straight 5's here, of course he should be a 6 but the school let him down."

OP YANBU.

What I don't understand are the SATS type grades they stick on DSs school reports. Knowing what the grades mean at the end of Y4 & Y6 is no use when they are in Y3 & 6. Just grade them 1 2 3, where 1 is good and 3 below average for the school year they've just finished.

Idranktheteaatwork, that is completely wrong!

The first explanation was correct.

My dd1's school report says that 2a is the highest grade, then 2b,2c. Last year she got 1b's and 1c's so i was pleased she got 2a's this year.

I don't tell people DSs grades. I can't imagine anything worse than standing in the playground comparing marks. I let DSs know whether I'm proud of them (or not )

Not according to the letter that i have accompanying my dd's report. Took the explanation straight from that. So ner!

4andnotout - your dd got 2a's this year because she has worked through from a 1b to a 1c then up a stage to 2a.

The "explanatory notes" accompanying DSs reports say that
a = achieving all aspects of that level
b = achieving most of the aspects
c = achieving some aspects

Then clearly we all have a different letter......

These are "National Curriculum Level Description Statements"

idrankthetea you school unfortunately have it wrong
3a is the highest not the lowest level

Sorry idranktheteaatwork but in that case the school are wrong a 2a progresses to a 3c, then 3b, 3a then 4c

imho

YANBU.

The thing is if the school is telling you that your child is on target why does it matter what the numbers are.

Idrank - you're wrong according to Lockets' site.

But see - confusion reigns with these blardy things.

fully agree with the OP. Think most of the posts are a bit of a brag. SATs are a load of rubbish in any case. I just do not get the hysteria with it all.

fully agree with the OP. Think most of the posts are a bit of a brag. SATs are a load of rubbish in any case. I just do not get the hysteria with it all.

I wasn't bragging about my DS, I can assure you. I like to think of MN being a resource and other more competent knowledgeable parents being on hand to advise. And SATS are a case in point where MN has been invaluable.

Yep, school is wrong, Idranktheteaatwork. I have been a Literacy and Assessment co-ordinator for 12 years, and a teacher long before that, so I probably know the system by now!