YR 6 SATS - what's the importance?

[ilovetomandjerry]

Being a bit dim here sorry! Obviously to see what stage they have reached, but what is the ongoing effect in secondary school?
#Thanks.

None usually!

Their results will be used to automatically generate targets for KS3 and GCSE but if the school is any good, they will set their own targets from actually knowing your child.

In my school for maths, we do not pay much attention to them. We do baseline assessments in the first term and set from these. If the set looks wildly different to what you would expect from the SATs result, we might look a bit more closely, but some of the primaries round my way really hothouse the kids and some don't, so they can't be used to make fair comparisons.

Webwiz - that's what I was thinking!

But Noblegiraffe thanks for the explanation.

There is one important thing about Y6 sats.

The child is meant to make 2 levels of progress in KS3 - from their KS2 results.

So if your child entered with a 5 they would need to get to a 7 by end of KS3 for the school to meet it's targets.

So if the child isn't likely to make 2 levels they are more likely to get extra support, booster clubs etc. Eg last year the govt gave out money for 1:1 tuition which had to be spent on children who looked like they weren't going to make 2 levels of progress.

So getting a 5 not a 4 can end up meaning you get extra help in KS3.

Er, I'm not sure I understand you there, IB. Why would getting a 5 make it less likely for a child to make 2 levels of progress? The targets are all decimalised so the difference between a 4.9 and a 5.1 doesn't mean one can scrape a 6 and meet their target and the other has to get a 7, it'd be 6.9 and 7.1.

Of course the target setting is more complicated than that as it isn't just a straightforward 'every kid should progress two levels'.

Govt Target setting isn't more complicated than that. It really is every child needs to make 2 levels.

There are other targets a school will set as well as the 2 levels of progress. But the 2 levels one is a very important one for the league tables, cva etc.

Levels aren't decimalised, a child who just scrapes a 4 has the same govt target for the end of KS3 as one who is almost a 5.

this doc clearly states that a child who makes a level 4 in KS2 needs to get a C at GCSE to have made expected progress, while a child who gets a level 5 needs to get a B.

And that data, how many children make expected progress, is reported here

So, KS3 data is not reported to the public (although it is reported to the LEA) but expected progress KS2 to KS4 is.

So if your child gets a level 5 school will push harder for them to get a B At GCSE than if they only got a 4.

Ah, you were talking about KS3 in your original post, where levels are decimalised. Of course GCSE results aren't decimalised so this is different.

I must say I don't like that table of expected progress where all kids are the same. Pretty much all schools use Fischer Family Trust data to inform their targets which is far more subtle than that.

For example, a kid who gets a high level 5 at KS2 in maths would probably be expected with FFTs to get a good level 8 at KS3 and go on to get an A*. That would be expected progress for them, and if they fail to meet it, that affects the school's value added. But this table just goes 'yeah, if they get a B that's fine.'

FFT targets also expect you to make less progress if you're black and male and poor than if you're White and rich and female, so I'm not sure that it's targets are any better than a blanket 2 levels for all kids.

I think those decimal levels are something your school does and not a national thing.

Certainly at my junior school we test the kids in Sep and measure progress from there - not from their KS1 results. Is it possible this is what your school does?

My original point stands. If your child gets a 5 at KS 2 and then a 6 at KS3 you could complain to school that you were worried he wasn't making adequate progress. Whereas if your child gets a 4 at KS2 and then a 6 at KS3 you couldn't complain. So a child who gets a 5 at KS 2 and then a 6 at KS3 is more likely to be given extra help then a child who got a 4 and then a 6.

I worry about the FFT targets; my DS (Y5) is mixed race, I am poor....but he has coasted through primary school so far. His school have a good little group working at similar levels.

I will be extremely p*ssed off, if he goes to secondary school with the same high level 5s as his mates, but is targetted to reach lower GCSEs. Especially if they share the targets with the individual children, which some schools do. It would give the school an excuse to let him be lazy.

Yes, FFT targets can be very dangerous things.

Sorry - kids need to make 1 level in KS3 not 2:

At Key Stage 3, the challenge is to ensure that all pupils achieving national expectations at the end of Key Stage 2 move on to reach the target levels for the end of Key Stage 3 and to accelerate progress for pupils below level 4.

? all pupils achieving level 4, and at least 40% of those with level 3, at
the end of Key Stage 2 should progress to level 5 or above

? all pupils achieving level 5 at the end of Key Stage 2 should progress to
level 6 or above

IB, the decimal levels are generated by the Fischer Family Trust who are used by every LA in the country. And it is certainly not just my school who sub-divide levels, look at all the posts on here saying 'what do 5a,b,c mean?'.

I never said that FFTs were perfect. But there are factors which influence a child's progress and to demand that every child makes the exact same progress without acknowledging that is undervaluing some kids and putting unnecessary pressure on others.

I disagree strongly, btw, with schools sharing FFT data with the kids, but they can be used to inform the targets set by the school.

But there are factors which influence a child's progress and to demand that every child makes the exact same progress without acknowledging that is undervaluing some kids and putting unnecessary pressure on others.

I strongly disagree. To look at outside factors, like race, and set expectations of student progress based on that makes the system less fair not more fair.

FFT data is based on statistics. So on average poor black males make less progress than rich white females. That is a fact. But to base targets on data like that is awful.

It is saying because on average poor black kids males less progress we expect you to make less progress, we will be satisfied if you make less progress than other children in your class.

It gives schools excuses to fail certain demographics.

ChoccyPig is right to be worried.

IB if you read the information provided with the data, you will know that caution is urged in that particular area. It is not intended to lower expectations for those groups, they should be fully challenged by the targets their school sets for them. BUT, it is certainly something to be aware of, and to inform judgements made about particular schools and how well they have done with their particular cohort.

To compare a leafy grammar and a tough inner city comp against the same measure and to judge one to be an outstanding school and one failing is just completely unfair.

Year 6 SATS results are often used to place the children in Year 7 sets.

Although do not usually say it, many schools place children in sets for Maths, English and Science solely based on previous SATS results.

This often can cause a problem later on if the child should be in a higher set, because in most cases there may not be enough places available to move them and they often languish in a class that is not suitable for them.

By the time they are moved they have lost out on important teaching and have the extra pressure of catching up.

I think that it is best to take every examination seriously as it is not just the results that matter, but the whole process of learning, revising, recalling, exam technique and things like that.

Quick q re KS1 targets and KS2 SATs. If a child gets level 3's at KS1, their targets would be 5's at KS2, yes? Would this be broken down into a, b or c, or is it assumed all targets would be a generic '5'? DS got targets of 5c, 5c and 5a, and I was wondering if the 5a was a type...
Ta

the sub levels say wether they have a strong level 5 or a weak level 5. a strong level 5 would be a 5a, medium level 5 a 5b and a weak level 5 being a 5c.

my post should have said 'I wonder whether the target of 5a was a typo.
Thanks BHOTP, I understand how the levels work, but wanted a specific response re target setting from KS1 to KS2 - are targets levelled with sub levels (and thus assumed to be 'c's, or can they be more specific?

In our authority a level 3 at KS1 is considered to be a 3B so a KS2 result of 5B is required to show 2 levels progress. SOme authorities however allow 3a,3b and 3c to be recorded which for 2 levels progress WOULD mean that a 5a,5b and 5c could be required

Ok, thanks sb3. I am a bit surprised as the 5a target was for Maths, which is/was DS's least favourite and strong subject. Very strange!