2 thirds can read at 11

[robingood19]

It is interesting to seem how different media reported this

After 6 years compulsory schooling it is a bit suprising that one third cannot read properly or do sums.

Boys less capable than girls as usual

I understand that a L3 means that you can read and write.

And I understand that the govt moved the goal posts, so that what used to be average (L4) is now expected.

What I don't know, is is the govt right? Should almost all kids in mainstream schools, who have been in the country at least 2 years, be able to get a L4 or not?

Most kids do make a level 4 in reading. Is there any reason why 95%+ shouldn't be able to?

Why does writing lag behind reading? Does a L4 in writing require more advanced skills than a L4 in reading? Is there any reason why you it is reasonable to get a L4 in reading but only a L3 in writing? (Not counting weird marking - so let's say teacher assessment) Would EAL be a reason?

And the same for maths. Is it reasonable for almost all kids to get a L4 in maths? Certainly EAL shouldn't be as much of a handicap as it is for reading and writing.....

Why aren't kids making L4s? Is it because it's an unreasonable expectation for some kids? Or because schools aren't funded well enough?

IB,

I would say that it is a unreasonable expectation for some kids, the argument is what proportion of all children those 'some' are IYSWIM?

To take an example, I should imagine that everyone would agree that it is an unreasonable expectation for a child born with severe multiple disabilities.

However, there is then a continuum from that, through children with moderate disabilities, to those with mild disabilities, to those with specific emotional or learning needs that put them on school SEN registers etc. The question you are asking is where that magic 'Level 4' line should go, and I don't think that there is a simple answer to that. There are some children on that continuum for whom more money could make a difference - for example funding exclusive 1 to 1 work, or funding more expensive treatments such as the one whoich has made a huge difference to yourchild. There are also children for whom more money outside school could make a difference in changing some aspects of their home lives that interfere with their learning (though the practicalities and ethics of that are .... interesting ...). However, there is a point in that spectrum where money is not going to make a difference.

Apologies, missed the line about mainstream schools.

The mainstream school I teach in has no children with severe multiple disabilities, but it does have children with moderate disabilities, mild disabilities and then specific needs that put them on the SEN register. There is a very strong presumption of inclusion, so the level of special educational need expected before a special school is considered is really quite high.

I would say that even in my very mainstream school, the 'magic Level 4 line' lies within, rather than outside, the range of children within our cohort, so there ARE some children for whom level 4 is an unreasonable expectation.

A different take on this is to look at it mathematically.

To a first approximation (and however it is measured), 'academic ability' shows a normal distribution, giving the well-known bell-shaped curve.

KS2 SATs results give an imperfect picture of this curve - for one thing, because those of the highest ability cannot show their exceptional ability as the test has a 'ceiling', so the high end of the spectrum has a hard cut off line rather than tailing away.

Imagine the 'magic level 4 line' as a vertical line lower down the spectrum. For all children to obtain Level 4 and above, then the whole bell curve, including the whole 'tail', needs to be above this line.

As this is mathematically impossible, the question you are posing becomes 'where in the bell curve could the Level 4 line be, if all children achieve to their maximum potential' - and as I said before, it becomes a question of 'for how many children [where on the bell curve] does it become an unreasonable expectation' rather than 'is it an unreasonable expectation', as in the absolute sense it is mathematically ludicrous as well as practically unreasonable (unless the point on the bell curve at which children are directed towards special schools becomes exactly the same as the point on the bell curve set as Level 4...).

Money can ensure that children meet their maximum potential, and it can to an extent change the results by allowing 'coaching to the test' which will skew the distribution of results, but it cannot e.g. undo the meningitis-induced brain damage that affects the attainment of a child in my class.

Indigo I would expect most children to be capable of achieving a Level 4 but even excluding SEN there are are reasons why some children won't. I have a child in my Y2 class who has had SEVENTEEN schools!
Children who don't attend regularly, children who are always late ...

My unable to read accurately, but brilliant at extracting meaning from the muddle DD1 can get level 5 for reading ( with a scribe to write her answers, because her dyslexic spelling is beyond comprehension)
So I'm not sure what that tells you either?

EAL will have an impact on a child's maths level simply because of the way the test paper is structured. It is not just page after page of sums, rather, it is page after page of 'wordy problems', you know the sort, telling a story about the children going on a school trip to the zoo and 56 children can fit on a coach, if there are 114 people going on the trip how many coaches do they need? Followed up with,'if it costs £x per child and £y per adult and the whole trip is costing £a, how many adults and how many children are going on the trip, type of questions. The ability to do the calculations will not be affected by EAL issues, but the ability to read and understand the question most certainly will.

So basically - there is no way to use SAT results (or even teacher assessment results) to tell if a school is doing a good job or not?

There is no way, as a governor, I can use the results to learn anything useful about the school?

Or is that also too cycnical?

It helps to know each individual cohort and child! Not much help, I know.

For example, we had one child in Y6 on the autistic spectrum this year, and he's going on to a special school now. He reads at a level 2a, and has made 2 levels progress in the 3 years he has been at our school, but was never going to get a level 4 in Y6. Knowing all the other children, I think that everyone else should have attained level 4, and they did, including a couple who were level 1 in Y2. Given different circumstances, some of those children could easily have attained just level 3 - as mrz says, poor attendance would do it, persistent lateness, swapping schools regularly and of course poor teaching.

I would say that looking at PROGRESS in teacher assessment levels - particularly at an individual child level - is a way of learning something about the school as a governor. Every child should be making progress. Where progress falls below targeted levels for an individual there should be a very clear explanation, not just 'they're on the SEN register' - my SEN children have the same progress targets as the rest of the children in the class, even though their absolute levels are much lower.

Equally, I would say that looking at CVA (or whatever value-added score becomes available) is an adequate way for an 'outsider' looking at a school to see what the school is doing as opposed to the relative advantage of the children they take in (raw SATs scores tell you more about the intake of the school than they tell you about what the school does with those children). It should be approached with some caution - it only measure end KS1 - end KS2 levels, for example, and it can be a bit ropey for exceptionally able cohorts as if they get a lot of Level 3s at KS1, the maximum score at KS2 is a 5, whereas a school that gets more 2s and then lots of 5s the value added will seem to be higher, because the CVA does not show that some of those Level 3 children COULD have got a 6 if such a thing could be reported.

However, if you know that several schools are in similar areas, comparing their CVA will give you a better feel for how they are performing than the 'raw' SATs results will. For example, I chose for my own children a school with slightly lower 'raw' SATs results but MUCH higher CVA than the supposedly 'better' school down the road.

Things like progress and CVA are only as accurate as the teacher assessments ...

Well, CVA is based on SATs results at present... unless you are suggesting that KS1 SATs aren't reliable because they are predominantly teacher assessed?

And we are all externally as well as internally moderated on our APP each year (school policy) so the progress is as robust as we can make it.

It depends on the teacher and how effective moderation is ...

mrz, what would you suggest for Indigo's very reasonable question then?

Do you think that final KS2 SATs, in their current 'written one-off test' form is the only way that a governor can keep tabs on how well a school is doing?

I would say that robust, continuous, moderated teacher assessment to keep track of progress (as well as a robust, moderated system of teacher observation and mentoring) is a better way of examining how well a school is doing throughout the school, as finding out when children leave that they could have done better is perhaps a little late...but are you of the opinion that KS2 SATs is the only and best way? [Should point out that I teach in a first school, so children leave before they take KS2 SATs - no way of keeping track of our progress EXCEPT teacher moderation, which is perhaps why we try so hard to make that robust including county moderation etc]

Poor English there, apologies.

I would be honest and say that SATs in their present form tell no one anything useful. I would also say that teacher assessment can be wildly inaccurate and moderation is only as good as the "evidence" provided.

Most middle schools and junior schools complain about the levels of children from first/infant schools just as most secondary schools moan about Y6 levels.

A governor can't really do anything - apart from ask questions.

As a parent governor I have lots of info about how well the school is doing. (I'm really not sure how community governors can tell........)

And I know by and large it's a good school.

I get loads of data as well as SATs. Loads. I get targets for each cohort, and how many kids made the target, and average scores broken down by year, and gender, and sen, eal, fsm, ethnicity....... All the raise online stuff.

And I know the staff are committed and caring and good and all that stuff (at least all the staff I've had dealings with.....)

But we certainly haven't got all L4s....... And as a governor I don't know the individual kids or their scores. So I have no way of telling why some kids didn't get L4, or why some kids didn't make 2 levels of progress.

And at that level it's not really my business.

So really all I know is that our intake has above average numbers of EAL and SEN students and average results - which is not bad. They enter with below average results and leave with average results.

And most importantly, it's a caring school, where children thrive.

"And as a governor I don't know the individual kids or their scores"
and that's the problem for anyone governor, Ofsted, moderator, subject coordinator, SMT.

But the teacher who does know the individual kid could be biased by that.... I mean they could expect less of them because they know them (or their circumstances or whatever)

So I think there is a place for looking at stats, as well as looking at individual kids....... Just in case the stats show you a worrying trend (a whole group of kids doing worse than expected)

So, maybe, that is what SATS tell you?

Next year we have a whole class moving up with inflated levels (moderated externally) totally worthless stats

But the teacher who does know the individual kid could be biased by that.... I mean they could expect less of them because they know them (or their circumstances or whatever)

I think the opposite can happen - with the two kids this year I was talking about who were level 1 at Year 2, as a governor/OFSTED then level 3 at Y6 would be satisfactory fro them, 2 levels progress. Whereas, as a teacher, I know the TA was accurate at Year 2 (because I was the Y2 teacher at the time ), but I also knew that they were very immature for their age group in Y2 and had little parental involvement at that time - I knew that they could attain level 4 in Y6 once everything fell into place, and if the teaching remained good or better.

Which year group, mrz?

Reception moving into Y1

Over 50% obtaining point 9 across the board

Blimey! And externally moderated? Our LEA argue vociferously about any 9s - which is just as bad.