SATs results - how important when deciding re primary schools?

[smother]

I'm about to submit my DD's application for primary school (state). We had decided on our 3 choices of schools based on visits, ofsted reports, talking to other parents etc.

I was feeling fairly happy with our choices but looking at the Sats results that came out today, our first choice school has done really badly compared to the other two - would that put you off? How much importance did you place on Sats results when choosing your DCs schools?

Same as mentioned above. My husband is a teacher in a deprived area of london and about 85% of the children don't have English as a first language, and they are a school with many children with special needs. Their SATs are good considering, but low compared with schools that have less challenges with languages. For me, we didn't look at sats results when choosing a school for our kids but we spoke to a lot of people locally.

Sats results only tell you about the intake of the children.

You need to know how many levels each child is supposed to progress over the years.

Our school has poor sats results for a number of reasons (one being that there is a special school on the site whose results are included) but each child is monitored and is expected to make a certain amount of progress each year.

And, middle class schools that get above average sats results can often hide lack of progress.

space2010

I think you have misunderstood my post. In order to send my daughter to a school with a wider mix of children from different ethnic backgrounds I would have to do a 30 - 40 mile round trip. I am simply stating that my part of South Yorkshire has one of the lowest ethnic minorities in the UK at about 2%. That is merely a statement of fact. I send my daughter to the village school because it is a) within walking distance and b) it is a good school.

I grew up in South London and am used to mixing with people from all types of backgrounds. I agree that where we live is a bit of a bubble, but that's how it is round here.

"And, middle class schools that get above average sats results can often hide lack of progress."

But isn't that what the "added Value" statistic supposed to represent?

I'd rather have a polite child with good social skills who enjoys learning, than one who knows how to tick the right boxes/join up all letters when writing but can be rude and is bored with school.

"The reason for the good results? No children with English as a second language (our part of South Yorkshire has a very low ethnic minority), children with good social backgrounds, excellent teaching, good leadership and parents who support the school and the teachers"

Sorry it just sounds that you did..........

what are average stats results?

What % would be seen as OK?

Just wondering what the numbers are that people are talking about.

Prince Rogers Nelson, perhaps a teacher would be best to answer your question. I know one of our local schools has just had an outstanding ofsted inspection but only got 58% in their stats , this percentage is 58% of the expected national average, so 58% is not good. There are other schools who got 95% and the ofsted was good. I guess a worth while thing to look at would be to compare one school against another that is in the same area and is not geared at a particular religion.

Hope this helps.

Thanks for that.

The school my DS goes to (started today) seems to get broadly the same results as the other schools in the area.

Also looking at the BBC league tables it is pretty much in line with national averages.

An average school I would guess then!

I also believe in middle class school Good Sats can hide poor teaching - parents are often expectd to get their kids tutored to catch up OR provide very high levels of support at home.

IMO a good school will always produce decent SATs results in y6 but not at the expense of other areas of education.
I guess there are bad schools with good SATs - I haven't come across one so can't comment.
My kids' school hasn't got great SATs and isn't great at the other stuff either. Very little music or art, bare minimum of science, etc. It's not awfull, just a bit dull.

Vess - can I ask. When you say they don't get good results, what % are you talking? Hope I'm not being nosey, but one persons ok maybe another persons good.

The only real guide is to talk to families whose children are already at chosen schools and who you think are most like you. Not always easy the first time around, but you can usually find someone through local friends and contacts. SATs tell you nothing about whether a school provides the kind of environment that your child will flourish in and that you will be happy with.

As I mentioned the outstanding ofsted school in my area got 57%, that is not good. I would go more on their ofsted report if you had to, good management is critical, i feel. WIthout a good management team you would probably have a less motivated staff. As mentioned before it may also be worth contacting the school to find out what year 2 stats were.

My DC's go to an excellent school (if you go by the SAT results).

They are intelligent, sociable, well mannered, confident, polite and a whole handful of other complimentary adjectives.

As they work hard in school DP and I see it as our duty to have as much fun as possible outside of school. i.e. we don't do extra work or have them tutored and that is a very common attitude amoungst the parents at our school.

It is our school i.e. there is a lot of input from the parents. It is a very middle class school, however because it is a faith school there is a fantastic ethnic mix (we're close to a big city). There may not be a vast variation in back ground but that suits us!
That's not to say there isn't a huge variation in peoples circumstances (MC means a huge percentage of the population as other threads have discussed). However, there is a common attitude of being at school to learn, that learning is fun (and the teachers at our school are excellent so it genuinely is fun) and giving the children drive (which you need to achieve your goals in life whatever your background).

The school does not skimp on extra curricular activities. In fact they go out on a limb to provide additional activities and has strict code on how they treat themselves and other people (emphasised as it has a link to a church).

It is true to say that due to the middle class background of the school the parent helpers and TA's tend to be ex or highly qualified teachers and it is they who bump up the SAT values.

One of the TA's has introduced a workscheme that has seen the school rocket up the SAT's tables, this is not a coincidence. Prior to having children she was the deputy head at a well regarded senior school and was our head teacher's boss at one point prior to that.

Her input for a couple of hours a week makes a massive difference to every child in the school.

My gripe with all this 'shame on you for sending your child to a school with good SAT results' attitude that some posters perpetuate is that

a) it's a massive generalisation and doesn't take into account individual schools

b) it makes a link of good results=stilted social growth of children because they spend all of their time doing numeracy/literacy that I'm not sure is true.

c) it sneers at being middle class which is just rude.

d) it implies that you can't be middle class and not be white, which is both incorrect and slightly racist

e) it assumes that all of a childs social ability comes from school and so to be at a middle class school means you don't socilise with people from different social situations to themselves. It doesn't take into account the childs cultural heritage and family friends.

f) it assumes that parents absolve most of their parenting/education of their children to the teachers and the school. Sure they're there to teach my child, but I see myself and DP as the primary educators of my DC's

Our school may be the only school that is truly amazing and yet does so well in the SAT results, and in so being, is the exception that proves the rule, but I have to tell you, it is possible and our school is an example of it.

I don't think anyone said that good Sats mean a school is rubbish - I said don't assume that because a school can get good Sats results that they are a good school - the two things don't necessarily go hand in hand. There are many reasons why good Sats results may be a negative thing and many reasons why they may be a good thing.

For parents embarking on the choice of schools for the first time - they can see good Sats results and automatically think good inspired teaching and it is not always the case - you need to look closer and see where those results are coming from.

It's not about 'not sending your child to a school with good SAT results'. It's about understanding that a school with good SAT results may or may not be good. And definitely may be horrendous - even if it gets 100% pass rate and 50% level 5s.

This is a very important message to get out.

Of course schools can be good and get good SAT results. But the two facts and not related to each other.

The OP asked how much importance should be placed on SAT results - and the resounding answer is NOT MUCH.

The fact that my old school got 97% pass rate at KS1 was absolutely no consolation to me at all when my DD was the 3% that was failed.

OK tht's fine but I distinctly got the feeling that good SATS results were a bad thing from reading this thread.

It seems that this is one of those areas where the precise wording makes a difference. I'm now on 'none of has an HR team to ensure we say exactly what we mean and don't stray into implying anything else' mode.

Incidently, at our school, the children who are deemed SEN have a lot of 1 on 1 time spent on them. I did wonder what this meant for children (like my DC's who are neither genius' or SEN) but was amazed to see tht in each and every class the teacher is teching about 6 different groups, each one working to their level so tht they are challenged and don't become bored. This can only happen if there are enough helpers be they TA's or parents to support the teacher.

Anyway, as you pointed out the OP's question was slightly different to the bee I trapped in my bonnet! You are right, SAT's aren't everything.
(I refer you to my 'playgrounds' comments, I did understand the question at one point .

MarniesMummy - Your DC's school sounds very similar to DD's school in many ways. Yes, it has excellent SATS results and outstanding ofsted reports, but it also offers loads of extra curricular activities that are not in any way academic - mainly sport and music related. I would describe DD's schoolas offering a very rounded education.

PrinceRogerNelson - to answer your question - the results are mostly below 70%, some years even below 60%. Usually below the national average and below the LEA average. Not good!
It's the general attitude of not bothering with things that seem too much like hard work or are seen as non-essential - and it applies both to SATS and other areas of the curriculum.

This is what you should remember when judging a school based on it's SAT results....

I can't understand why there is such a fuss about SATS. After all it isn't a new thing for children to sit tests at primary school.

I went to primary school in the 1960s - just a bog standard state primary school. We had end of year tests every June when I was in the juniors and then we had the eleven plus which was compulsory.

The children and teachers didn't suffer for it and we weren't "hothoused" for it either.

What is different from then is the amount of admin and non teaching work that teachers have to do these days.

Children will have to sit exams for GCSE and A levels and also degrees or professional exams, so perhaps sitting tests at 11 is just preparation for the future.

Incidentally because several schools in our LEA have opted out of SATS at 11 the local high school is making children sit more tests in year 7 so that they can put the children into the right sets. So our kids have to sit two lots of tests in one year.

They can't "opt out of SATs at 11" if they are state schools. I expect they boycotted them last year - the boycott is not in place for 2011 because the coalition have promised to review KS2 testing for next year.

Yes you are right, I used the wrong terminology. Apparently our local high school uses the SATS results to place children in the right sets in year 7. They weren't able to do this last year so all the children in year 7 had to sit tests in October regardless of whether they did KS2 SATS at primary school.