SATS at 11 correlation to GCSC'S ?

[Gotabookaboutit]

Any teachers know -is there a strong correlation between SATS at 11 and later exams?
or indeed from levels at 5 - Thanks

SATS are complete bollocks. Many schools waste enormous amounts of time on teaching to the test when there are far more interesting and productive things to do. There may be some correlation but I personally know of a primary school who "influenced" results so they were meaningless. Parents obsess about SATS because they like the idea of validating their kid's success, teachers know them for what they are, a hoop jumping exercise.

IFS research, can find the link if you want it shows (I think) that performance at any level is strongly correlated with performance later on. So Sats at 11 do predict GCSEs, GSCES predict A levels and so on. In addition the chance of catching up is strongly related to social class so a lower achieving middle class child has a greater chance of doing better in the next set of test than a working class child with the same test score. These are of course averages and do not mean that you can predict with certainty 16+ results with 11+ results hth

The fact that some primary schools 'influence' results does not make sats wrong it makes the school wrong. I have never understood this complaint of 'teaching to the test' surely that is what all exams are? Surely it is teaching to the curriculum test?, and what is wrong with that! As for parents needing to validate their dcs success by SATS, again why is this said by teachers as a criticism of parents? What is wrong with parents having some validation of what their child has achieved in primary as a reflection of ability of the child and school? If you follow the flawed logic of teachers against SATs, why not get rid of gcses and a levels and beginning of term tests And entrance exams and and and all these could have the same label attached in terms of teaching to the test. there is so much defensive nonsense written about SATs!q

Personally, I didn't think the SATS was validation of what my child had achieved in primary. I felt there was a lot of wasted time in the last year what with the constant focus on the rather narrow SATS programme. and the Yr 2 SATS are even worse. I don't think this is at all the same as older students doing exams: they can thrive on focusing and revising for an exam in a way that small children should not have to do.

My dd is now doing GCSEs and I am very happy about that: I did not like the stress of SATS. And what I liked least about it was that in our primary at least it involved heads and teachers more or less lying to the children and parents: telling them that their SATS results were crucial for their future when the truth is that they are crucial for the headteacher's future, not for the child's.

This was the kind of reasoning that meant that my sick dd was pressurised into dictating her SATS to a TA at her bedside, being too ill to sit upright: because her friend who was also ill went hysterical at the thought that she might miss this vital exam- so the school sent TAs round to the houses of all the sick children. Or at least all the sick children in top set: I am not convinced they made the same effort with the low achievers.

Statistically of course, children who do well in SATS will usually tend to do well in later exams/at uni too, because they are that type of child. But that is correlation, not causation. Dd did not do herself justice in her SATS, but I expect her to do well in life.

And with all the levels and reports that you get anyway in Yr 6, I really didn't need the SATS to know how she was doing.

The idea is that children achieving level 4 in KS2 SATs should get 5 GCSEs at grade C.
If they have level 5 at KS2 they should get the top grades at GCSE.

You may have had that experience, but at our school we did not. the children hardly knew the tests were happening, particularly at year 2. At the end of the day, there needs to be some objective assessment on what they have learnt in primary compared to national stats. It seems that the difference in experiences are down to how the school handle it and this is what needs fixing not the test. Also, by no means was there any copious revision done to prep for SATs. It was good experience for the dcs in terms of sitting down to formal tests in preparation for senior school entrance exams and testing in year 7 which is done immediately they start senior school. why are they any less ready for this in May of year 6 to September of Year 7. It just means they are more prepared and it is not such a big deal for them when they have to do these tests for senior entrance or year 7 assessments.

Just because some primaries don't operate the tests effectively does not mean they should not exist.

I seem to remember reading that there was quite a large churn in the top performing children at any age based on SATs/GCSEs & maybe A levels too. So the top performing 10-20% at 11 had about a third that weren't in the top 10-20% at age 7 and again at GCSE the top 10-20% only overlapped the 11yo elite by around 2/3rds. I think overall only about a third stayed at the top consistently with others moving in and out.

Can't quite remember where I read this, could have been Sutton Trust but I'm not sure.

Snorkie - it could be this Sutton Trust Report. It looks at attrition rates. Children who are in the top 5th academically at some point - but drop out.

I think this tends to be social and quality of education factors related.

The Chairman of the Specialist Schools and Academics Trust (SSAT) in 2006 was convinced that 'bright eleven year olds' should achieve 3 As at A'level and wanted secondary school heads held 'accountable' if those students didn't make the grade.

Not sure if it did but the SSAT was going to build up a gifted and talented register so that these students were not 'let down' by their secondary schools.

I read that (at least around 2008) less than half of the children that came in top 5% in national tests at eleven went on to remain in the top 5% at GCSE. That isn't necessarily negative/performance given that spurts and dips in school performance are the rule rather than the exception.

Much of this Guy Claxon has explored at length and I am paraphrasing him here.

Sorry that should be that 'isn't negative/surprising' given that spurts and dips in school performance are the rule rather than the exception.

yes that was it, thanks jackstarb

Cortina, I read that too. All level 5's at 11 should mean 3 A's at A level and if not why not.

This was the purpose of the G&T register which started in secondary school to begin with. About a week after reading this we got a letter to say DD was being put forward to NAGTY by the school. NAGTY folded, G&T was never mentioned much. Not sure if she will get there at A level, yet.

Pupils might have been taught to the test for SATS, but they are important to secondary schools, because they will be judged on the progress pupils have made since SATs. Most secondary schools set individual pupil targets, known as FFT targets, which are basically what OFSTED uses to judge progress. There IS a strong correlation between SATs and GCSE results, but it's certainly not an exact prediction and many othger factors are also important.

Incidentally, the problem with teaching to the test for SATs is that, when they were first introduced, they were intended as a snapshot of what a pupil could do at a given time, so that teachers could plan based on what a pupil could do. This was before league tables were introduced and SATs became big sticks.

then abolish league tables for secondaries too - it is the same thing, both are judged as to how well the teaching and ability of pupils are

I find it really depressing that if a child isn't necessarily doing well at Y6 then that is them written off academically.

My cousin's Y9 girl has just achieved an A* in the first module of her Maths GCSE and the mum was over the moon and a bit overwhemed. Her teacher said that 'of course all of these things are decided by Y6 Sats' and the groupings that they get into in Senior school.

Is this right? Shall I write my child off if she doesn't achieve 3's in Y2?

No, but wouldnt you rather know how she was doing so you had choices than know nothing except subjective comments

Even GCSE is no great predictor of success in life. My db got 1B and 3C's in his GCSEs - he is now an Operations Director for a Blue Chip company. We get ourselves all tied up in knots - early success may indicate a great chance of later success but nothing is guaranteed and people of all grades will always surprise you!

In my opinion, SATS are of some use to see how your dc are getting on, compared to others of the same age. But I don't think they are the whole picture by any means.

As an example, my ds didn't achieve top grades in any of the Yr2, Yr6 or Yr9 SATs but has just received an offer from Oxford from a comprehensive.