SATS results KS2

[atiredmum]

Hi all,

Could someone explain to me the importance of ks2 results. I understand that the national average is level 4 and around 25-35% get 5's. How important are they? Do they use them to set children in secondary school. If they use them to predict future grades what would say a level 4 or 5 be predicted etc.

Thanks in advance.

They are important to the school and their place in the league table.
For your DC they are a guide.At 11yrs they should achieve level 4, if they haven't they may need extra help.
Secondary schools may use them for setting, but they will quickly change them according to performance and many like to do their own tests. They might be a crude, early prediction of future grades, but it is the perfomance at secondary school that matters.

So is it there for possible for children that are achieving levels 4 to still shine at GCSE's or is there too much ground to catch up? My children are at a school that in one subject only 25% get 5's etc. Other schools in the area are getting up to 40% achieving 5's.

Of course it's possible for them to shine later on. In the same way that - guess what - scoring L5 at the age of 10 or 11 doesn't guarantee a garland of A* GCSEs in 5 years time.

KS2 SATS are a record of how a child did in a test one day in May. This may or may not coincide with the teacher's own assessment.

Children develop at different rates. The NC levels are meant to be a measure of a school, not some label to stick to a child which determines their next 5 year of academic progression.

Good gracious yes atiredmum!! They all do it at their own rate, some are simply late developers. My brother went from 11+ failure to passing it at 12 and was in the express stream of the grammar school (for the real high flyers) at 13.
My DS was in the lower maths group all through junior school and got an A in the subject at A level (out performing many of the top group).
The SATs are a very crude test-as Rosebud says they may not even coincide with the teacher assessment and many schools 'teach to the test' anyway.
They are far more important to the school than the child.

Also remember it doesn't matter what the school gets - it only matters what your child gets.

If 95% of children get a level 4, and your child is the one child that doesn't - you won't care one bit that everyone else does.

Your child is likely to get whatever he is capable of, regardless of which school he goes to.

The national targets for primary schools are based on the no. of children achieving level 4 there is no such target for level 5s. Level 4 is needed for children to be able to access the secondary curriculum. If a child achieves level 4c at the end of KS2 (Y6) then this is supposed to predict a grade C at GCSE in Y11.
My child is now Y7 and to sort out the Sets they didn't just use the SATs results but also they tested the children when they started year 7 using NFER and CATs tests. HTH

"Your child is likely to get whatever he is capable of, regardless of which school he goes to."

Really? Then why all the talk of 'under performing' schools and teacher bashing that goes on on MN then?

Because that is the likely option - not the only option.

There are bad teachers and good teachers, same as any other profession. Don't know why you think there wouldn't be.

And there are worse schools and better schools. But your child going to a worse school doesn't necessarily mean they'll come out with a worse result - just the process of getting there and their life for the last 7 years will be worse.

I moved from a bad school to a better school. My 3 kids have SEN so I really needed a school that was good with SEN. But most of the kids at the bad school will do perfectly fine. It's still a crap school.

And, god, have my kids had some bad teachers. And some absolutely fantastic teachers. DS1s Y6 teacher is absolutely amazing. I'm in awe of her.

His Y3 teacher though was absolutely awful. I put in a complaint against her - but I should have made it more formal. That was at his old bad school.

So why all the hysteria about 'under performing' schools, if it's likely that most children achieve whatever they are capable of?

In my area, the range of schools who got E & M L4 ranged from 100% - 36% - is the difference in capable children in particular schools really that pronounced?

So why all the hysteria about 'under performing' schools, if it's likely that most children achieve whatever they are capable of?

of course not it's the teacher's fault!

It depends on the intake. I have a friend who is a Head of a very good school, but most of the pupils have English at a second language and they arrive at the school with no English, from an Eastern European country. The school is great with them but they are not going to have wonderful SATs results whatever they do. I really don't think that your average UK DC could go and live in Poland aged 8 yrs and have caught up with the native speakers by 11yrs-however intelligent!

There can be a huge difference in the average intake from one school to another - a school can take in a high ratio of bright children with loads of home support, get high SATS and still actually be a crap school, or it can take in a high ratio of children with low home support, low ability, be a great school with excellent ethos and teaching, and have an 'average' outcome from a below average cohort. Many parents wiloll flock to school 1, even though school 2 has pushed children further.

And within all that the statstic that tells you most about how an individual child will perform is perhaps the Value Added.

Within any of the averages, there may well be a couple of children fulfilling high potential to a spectacular level, or a few who are well below average.

Have a look at the level of free school meals in different schools - it varies wildly - and is an indicator of economic disadvantage. However, two of the highest performing kids in DS's class are eligible for FSM. Shrug.

IMO the hysteria about underperforming schools is overblown. We should instead be concerned about the specific underperforming children due to unsupported dyslexia, or parents who never get them to school on time, or those being bullied.

There can be a huge difference between one intake and the next that's why the results fluctuate but it doesn't alter government expectations and VA is set to be scrapped ...

It's the instruction mainly, tracking instruction, headteacher, ethos, expectations ...

just fill your house with children's books, make sure that your child can decode-through-the--word. 2p.worth!

So is it there for possible for children that are achieving levels 4 to still shine at GCSE's or is there too much ground to catch up? My children are at a school that in one subject only 25% get 5's etc. Other schools in the area are getting up to 40% achieving 5's

I saw a report -see below link with that kind of information you might be looking for which tracks GCSE grades achieved based on KS2 levels. Its mainly focused on early entrance for GCSEs but also goes into detail regarding achievement for those who sit their GCSEs in the normal entry. There is wider difference in terms of A and A grades. There is a about 5% chance of a child achieving A/ A in Maths if there were level 4 and it goes up to nearly 50% if they achieved level 5. Its pretty much the same in English too.

DCSF Early Entries

I am so confused by all these figures. Dc's school obtained 63% level 4 eng and maths and only 13% achieved level 5. The VA is also only 98. Feel a little disappointed.

Head seems to blame cohort, but i'm not sure i understand that. If it was the cohort then surely the VA would be greater as it shows progress.

Also the stats show that only 50% of high achievers in the school reached level 5 and only 75% of middle achievers reached level 4, should i be worried? (although i don't quite understand what middle and high achievers means?)

On the face of it those stats aren't good.

You're quite right that if it was a cohort problem the VA would be higher.

Are you happy with the progress your child is making? Is he happy? etc?

My two children are the average, they seem happy although have their off days, DD year 2 (autumn born) is coasting but doesn't seem to be stretched i.e she gets all her spellings correct every week without much practice, reads well but never seems to read with teacher (she is on orange and reads fluently and reads anything she likes at home) etc etc. She loves work, in fact through her own choice she is sat doing crosswords as i type this. She doesn't get any homework from school only spellings and reading.

DS has just started reception and is sailing along, reading well and writing well the same as DD did when she started. As the teacher puts it, they are just 'easy' children who do what they are asked. So i suppose i am worried about them being the middle or maybe high attainers that are not achieving.

I would really like DD to be more confident with speaking and i feel this is hampered by her cohort as they do not seem to speak well at all. She is very quiet in her class. DS has also become very quiet in class, eventhough he is quite a confident boy.

I really don't want to rock the boat as the teachers seem nice and my DC's are doing what they are asked but i'm sure they can do more.

I think it's safe to assume that you're school's not brilliant, but that your kids will do OK there.

As I see it, these are your options:

1. Do nothing. Kids are doing fine now, and will probably continue to.
2. Do extra work with them at home - especially when they're older to ensure they get a level 5 not 4.
3. Move school.
4. Talk to school regularly and become a PITA mum.

It's really important to put it all in perspective. Your kids are highly likely to get a L4 in maths and English, and might get a L5.

Does it matter if they get a L5 or L4?

Could they stay at this school and you help them at hope when they're in Y5 or Y6 if you're still concerned?

Personally, if the OFSTED report was damning, I'd move school. But then I'm a huge 'risk taker' and not somebody who would ever say 'I don't want to rock the boat' :)

I have considered moving schools several times, DD even asked once.

I suppose it's better the devil you know, i am terrified they would be unhappy with a move. I hear horror stories of friends with children in little village schools who get bullied terribly and i would hate that for them.(obviously i wouldn't choose to send them to that school!). But then of course they could be fine and it be the best thing for them.

Recent ofsted is good with outstanding. Improved from satisfactory. New head two years ago, lots of NQT staff. sats were always very high until old year 6 teacher was moved swiftly from his class as soon as new head arrived. Which makes me wonder?

I am involved with the school as much as i can, not many parents do and so i am welcomed with open arms. The school is very friendly and open. We don't have many playdates, most children live on the estate but we are further out and not in walking distance.

I can and will always help them, so that is not a problem. But i have a big doubt in my mind as to whether this is the 'best' for them.

I don't know!!!! but these sats have just brought it home to me. Maybe too much information is a bad thing.

Sorry to gatecrash but I too am a bit about SAT results.

My DD is in Yr 2 and we have been told that she'll have no problem getting Level 3 in the SATS she'll take before the end of the school year.

If she's only expected (as per the average) to reach Level 4 by the age of 11 - i.e. 4 years away - that doesn't seem to me like much progress. Or is the gap between levels 2 & 3 much smaller than that between 3 & 4?

No, if she gets a 3 at Yr 2 she's expected to get a 5 at Y6.

But if she achieves level 3 at the end of year 2 she will be expected to achieve level 5 ( rather than 4) by the end of year 6.

Snap!

In addition, the curriculum broadens in KS2 so there is more to cover at the same level IYSWIM

You mean they study more subjects during the week?