How much would you set store by SATs results as indicator of good education?

[jasperc163]

DD is in a very small (mixed year group in class) village school. Good pastoral care and in the list of schools achieving 100% level 4 SATS thats just come out (on BBC website). However I still feel concerned about the lack of breath in the education she is getting (probably due to a mix of national curriculum restrictions, lack of resources in a small school, not enough emphasis on aspiring to be the best you can).

Is the curriculum focused on SATS really much more restrictive than what is offered in the independent sector? Is a good SATs score indicative of anything other than the fact that the school has decent teaching geared towards getting the children through the tests? Or am I being too negative?

Views appreciated?
thanks
Jasper

PS I notice that 25% of state primary schools chose to boycott the tests this year - is this higher than usual and is does this mean they don't have to do them at all?

I think the whole sats concept stifles primary schools.

None. dd1 out performed the 11 yo's when she was 6 (they gave her the Y6 SATS just to see) and the school was still shit with a poorly taught curriculum. That was years ago. dd2 is at a school that boycotts and its just a fantatsic school.
So I think SATS results tell you nothing. Its best to go and visit a school and get afeel for the place.

thanks throckenholt. It seems the NAHT organised a boycott by Heads last year -arguing that SATs did not give a true picture of pupils' attainment, encouraged teaching to the test and put pupils under pressure.

To what extent do people feel that teaching to SATS means that the rest of the curriculum is much more restricted than in schools that don't adhere to the NC?

I wouldn't necessarily be swayed by brilliant SATS results( we have a SATS factory near us) but I would be swayed by a combination of poor SATS and poor VA.

At the end of the day the kids will be judged and sorted by exam results. It's just the way our society is set up. My view of primaries is that they do a huge range of interesting things with children - this week is a prime example of music, baking, games etc which have nothing to do with sats. I think the parents/family also need to provide any perceived shortfall - eg hobbies or helping a child explore a subject in more detail - if they into space, take them to space centres etc

I have a son who is in Y6 and started at a new school in September.

His last school starts Y5 booster classes for SATs once the Y6 ones are over and admit to spending most of Y6 teaching for the SATs exam. Once they are over they do fun things but the children basically spend the year drilling for SATs (especially the ones who are borderline)

At his current school he goes to a special booster class to get the low level 5s to secure level 5s and the secure level 5s to level 6. He has just had this term's assessment and had his teacher personally explain things - he even knows which criteria in his sub level that he lacks.

I suspect that teaching to a test involves a lot of repetition that wouldn't happen in a normal learning environment and that Y6 is a consolidation year rather than a proper learning year.

Most private schools gear for exams- 7+,8+,11+, 13+ etc so I don't think that you can necessarily escape learning specifically for exams.

you can't tell one way or another I think - alot of SATs results are going to come down to intake - eg its much easier to get good SATs results with some children's backgrounds/starting points than others. many schools do quite restricted work in y6 because of SATs but I have not come across places that restrict what they do before then - and also I do want my DCs to be able to read, write and do maths which is what SATs covers and what should be in my view the emphasis of primary schools

I think also small schools can have rather distorted results. My sister-in-law's teaches secondary and the children from the tiny village schools (i.e. three or 4 children taking sats) often come in with inflated level 5s and she finds they're not that level necessarily. If they let one child not meet level 4 then suddenly they've terrible results with for instance only 66.6% getting level 4. Sil believes that there is some additional 'help' in one school along the lines that is being investigate among gsces now...

he even knows which criteria in his sub level that he lacks.

It is this bit that really irritates me. SATS are supposed to measure the school performance - and yet the kids are being told you have to x, y and z to get level 5 on this that and the other.

Constant going over certain bits until they can perform like trained monkeys on a given few days in May does not mean they have necessarily learnt anything longterm; it doesn't mean the stuff they supposedly learnt was actually particularly useful; it doesn't mean they enjoyed the process.

Bottom line is it doesn't train them to think for themselves. It doesn't teach them to have enquiring minds. It doesn't teach them to eant to learn something because it is interesting in it's own right. It trains them to aspire to reaching some preconceived standard, and if they do then they have succeeded.

It permeates our whole system. They come out of school or university with "better than ever" results and yet are still not equipped to handle the actual jobs that need doing.

.

Sats results are a good indicator of how good a school is at getting children to pass sats.

oops

eant to learn - needs translating - and should be want to learn

Throckenholt - yes this is partly what concerns me. DD is quiet and bright enough but I think likely to coast and not push herself as she will be 'meeting expectations' (or exceeding them in some cases) but not necessarily doing what she is capable of.

IMO SATS tell you mostly about the demographic of the school.

My DS's school (high % SEN, high % FSM) is never going to get the highest SATs results in the world.

The school 2 miles away in a very affluent middle class area has 100% getting L4 and 40% (or something similar) getting L5.

My mother is constantly telling me that the school 2 miles away must be "better". I am getting sick of arguing about it.

I don't think the NC stops your child getting a broad education! My kids spend all afternoon learning about a billion things. (Art, music, pe, geography, history, science, RE, PSHE.....)

Many schools may be better than the one your DC is in - but whether or not they're independent won't be the crucial difference.

redskyatnight - why shouldn't children on FSM or with SEN do well in their SATS? Perhaps the teaching and discipline aren't that great in the school or there are lower expectations for them.
In my experience lotas of middle class parents get tutors for their children from year 4 onwards or specifically to get them through the SATS.
Most state schools just concentrate on getting all kids their level 4.
ANOTHERNAME - totally agree primary schools should focus more on reading, writing and maths than they do now.

Because FSM is an indicator of economic disadvantage. And poverty is the single most reliable indicator for low academic achievement. Depressing,mbut true.

There is absolutely no reason why individual children on FSM or with SEN shouldn't do well in KS2 tests. However a school with high levels of FSM or SEN tends to have a certain demographic which doesn't value education so much. And I don't mean hiring tutors so much as making sure their children attend school regularly.

The league tables out today show a depressingly high correlation between FSM and KS2 SATS figures.

Obviously they shouldn't - but at the moment they do. :(

The relationship is much stronger between FSM and SATS then between SEN and SATS.

Can be because the parents don't value education, or because the parents don't speak English and can't help with their education, or because they're not getting enough sleep (due to overcrowding), or because they're not getting enough to eat, or because they're spending a lot of time looking after younger siblings, or because their parents are ill, or because they don't have money to do all the normal things in the holidays that middle class kids do, or because they don't have money for books and pens and paper and computers - or even the bus fare to the library......

Think how much middle class kids learn at swimming / scouts / ballet / karate / music lessons etc, etc that FSM kids don't get.

It's complicated :)

But magdalene, why would parents get tutors to get kids through the sats? It doesn't have any benefit for them, does it - just the school? Of course if they are being tutored anyway for 11+ etc it will have a knock on effect.
Note also that the 'top' school with 100% level 5s only has six kids in year 6 so hardly comparable with most.

Whoops just realised I was looking at 2010 results! school in question got 100% L4 last year and 71% this year! Shows how easily the figs are swayed in smalls schools.

The relationship is much stronger between FSM and SATS then between SEN and SATS

That might be because FSM is definite and measurable, whereas SEN is a woolly term that is used for a multitude of different things. In deprived areas, I think poor attendance is the main contributory factor to low, and very low, achievement. In certain areas, EAL will be factor for children not achieving level 4; for while the newly arrived are excluded from the figures those who have been here a little longer but are still learning English will be included.

Is the curriculum focused on SATS really much more restrictive than what is offered in the independent sector?

I think the pressure to go that way is very severe. :(
I happen to have a DC in private too, and I can confidently say that his curriculum is not any more varied, though.

You mentioned good pastoral care, OP, which is why we went private for DC1. It's something I highly value.

The trend in SATs scores for my individual child is important to me, but the SATs scores for a big group in any one year... meh. So much they don't tell you.

SATS tell you more about the school's intake than it's performance IMO

Indigobell - I am aware of all of that but there sre schools with 'difficult intakes' achieving great things with their pupils. After all, children spend more of their waking time in school, so teachers can make a difference.
trifling - why wouldn't parents hire tutors? It happens from year3 or 4 at my DD's school and goes right the way through. Parents want their children prepared for secondary school. Nothing wrong with that.
I know a school where there is 80% of children with EAL and it achieves better than the one with more British born kids. Why? Strong leadership, outstanding teachers and high expectations. It can be done. We can't give up on these kids.
Good pastoral care is so important and the private sector seems better equipped (probably due to smaller class sizes). Some of what goes on in the state sector is so victorian!
CecilyP - not all kids from deprived backgrounds have parents who don't send their kids to school - in fatc, the ones I've spoken to want high levels of discipline and traditional teaching. It's the bleeding middle classes who can be so complacent and smug.