SATS grades - Should I speak to the school?

[ohforfoxsake]

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure I understand the grading system, so I'd like another's perspective please.

DS1 left his last school at the end of May towards the end of Year 3. He joined a new school in an older Year 3/younger Year 4 class. He has just turned 9.

His final report at his old school gave test results as:
reading: 4c
writing:3a
Maths; 4c

His results today, 6 months later from his new school are:
reading:3b
writing: 3c
Maths: 3c

Now, I understand that it is common for children to drop one finer point over the summer holidays, but this, to me (and if I am reading them correctly) seems a significant drop.

According to his new school, these tell me he is average and achieving as he should, which is great. But his last school had him as G&T and his teachers were very enthusiastic about his abilities.

His new teacher is a NQT in his first job. I don't know if that makes a difference.

I try not to get hung up on SATs grades, but given the big shift in results, the move hundreds of miles away, I'd really like to understand what is going on before I speak to the teacher.

Thank you, again, Mumsnet

I know Feenie doesn't believe this but my DSs' school does teach beyond reported levels - it chooses however to report the minimum level that demonstrates good progress.

Perhaps if the CVA measure is removed, as the white paper suggests, this sort of thing won't be an issue.

Not suggesting necessarily, by the way, that this is what's happened at the OP's son's new school, but that could be part of it.

Schools that continually report low levels for the end of KS1 (in order to demonstrate good CVA) attract the attention of Ofsted so it is rather foolish to do so

Fortunately not an issue for us since the school was graded Outstanding in our most recent Ofsted. But we don't report low levels for the end of KS1. We have lots of level 3s, it's just we choose to interpret these as 3cs at the start of Y4. And we have lots of level 5s in Year 6. It's just in the interim, non-statutory years that the two sub-level progress thing seems to be used.

In our LEA we aren't allowed to report level 3s unless they are a 3b. 3cs don't exist. This has lots of implications - but we still get lots of very secure level 3 children and many level 5s.

But I'm , singersgirl - first you said your school "chooses however to report the minimum level that demonstrates good progress." and then you say that you "don't report low levels for the end of KS1."? What does that mean?

Sorry singergirl but if they are reporting level 3s to the Government at the end of Y2 then how are they reporting minimum levels? (interim years are internal levels and as long as children make the required progress over the KS the government doesn't worry greatly about levels in Y3,4 &5 so I'm not sure why a school goes to such trouble to lie )

Our school only goes from year 3 to 6, but the head of DS' infant school said in a "SATS meeting", that "we don't want to have too many L3's or the next school won't be happy".

The junior school does give levels ecery year, based in internal tests and assessments. Talking about maths, the Y4 teacher told me "we can't mark higher than a 4a in year 4" and the Yr 5 teacher said, "The highest we can mark in yr5 is a level 5"

I believe shools are doing this so that they can show charts to the governors showing that all children are making progress in each year. It would be better to be honest, and be prepared to explain that some children may plateau some of the time. Also, to recognise that some children really are working a couple of years ahead of the average, and should be challenged at that level.

ecery=every and based in = on (cold fingers)
OMG shools = schools

Choccp1g, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

MRZ, the school isn't going to a lot of trouble to lie - all it's doing, for the interim levels which are purely for the school, the SIP and OFSTED, is demonstrating that children are making good progress. We are very stringent about assessment for level 3s in Y2 but obviously like all schools our assessments are moderated and we don't artifically suppress them. However, in Ys 3, 4 and 5 the school occasionally records minimum levels showing good progress; typically this only affects a few highly achieving pupils (4b in Y4, 5c in Y5 and 5a in Y6).

MRZ, the school isn't going to a lot of trouble to lie - all it's doing is making up levels to look like progress is linear

Singersgirl, I am still confused!

You said that "my DSs' school does teach beyond reported levels - it chooses however to report the minimum level that demonstrates good progress.

Perhaps if the CVA measure is removed, as the white paper suggests, this sort of thing won't be an issue."

CVA measures refer to progress made between KS1 and KS2 assessments - so you are talking about artificially deflating your KS1 results, surely? Y3, Y4 and Y5 results won't make a difference to your CVA.

How does a 5a in Year 6 show good progress if you are teaching beyond that?

There's no artifical deflation of KS1 results. There can't be, because, as I'm sure is the case in all schools, our assessments are subject to scrutiny from our SIP and the LA.

I've obviously got it wrong about the CVA; the 'good progress' of 2 sub-levels must just be for internal school reporting. In our LA, there is no reporting of levels above 5, so 5a itself is internal teaching assessment. We don't assess anyone above level 5 since they removed the optional L6 tests. Maybe it's just policy in our LA. I have no idea how far beyond Level 5 they are teaching in Y6, but I know they're teaching beyond reported levels in other year groups.

I'm not particularly defending it, by the way, but reporting a minimum level is a bit like those reading tests that say 16+ or standardised scores that say 135+. The child is achieving at least that and may be achieving more. It's only children who are at the top level that this ever applies to anyway and on reports they're shown as achieving off the scale for their year group.

I'm sorry I ever posted about this; I have absolute confidence in the extremely high standard of teaching and learning at our school, and our assessment practices have been graded at the top level for the last 3 years both by OFSTEd and our SIP, so whatever the school's doing can't be as terrible as some posters seem to suggest.

No falsifying results to make the school look better to Ofsted isn't such a terrible thing not if it gets an outstanding label

I don't believe the school is falsifying results.

singersgirl Thu 25-Nov-10 20:38:45 I know Feenie doesn't believe this grin but my DSs' school does teach beyond reported levels - it chooses however to report the minimum level that demonstrates good progress.

no that's completely truthful

"In our LA, there is no reporting of levels above 5, so 5a itself is internal teaching assessment. We don't assess anyone above level 5 since they removed the optional L6 tests. Maybe it's just policy in our LA. I have no idea how far beyond Level 5 they are teaching in Y6, but I know they're teaching beyond reported levels in other year groups."

That can't be right. The ARA is a legal document - how can an LEA over-ride it and forbid level 6 teacher assessments? They wouldn't have the authority to do that. I think you are confusing teacher assessments with the tests perhaps?

OK, I'm backing away from this completely. I'm not a teacher and it's entirely possible that I've got it wrong. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting what a couple of teachers said. Perhaps they do assess children at Level 6 but I'm not aware of it. Perhaps I'm putting together 2 and 2 and making 5. Maths was never my strong point.