National average SAT score year 6

[ReallyTired]

I know that the expected standard for a year 6 child is 4B in key stage 2 SAT. The majority of children easily achieve this level.

www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/sep/20/primary-school-pupils-sats-targets

80% of children achieve this standard in both Maths and English. (I think the guardian sees 4C as a pass rather than 4B)

What is the mean average score natonally as lots of children do better than 4B.

I also would be interested to know.

Based on my experience in schools the average level would be level 4, no such things as sub-levels officially when it coma to end of key stages.

It used to be that the government expected average children to reach level 4, now they all must, this is not achievable unless longterm nthey come up with some way of altering the gene pool to weed out the people at the lower end of the intelligence distribution!

the mean score would be meaningless as the scale is ordinal not cardinal. I think a better picture would be given by the median score, what SAT score would put you in the top half of the distribution? We know that 80% get at least a 4C and 30% get at lesst a 5C, so the median must be somewhere in the 4s

It used to be that the government expected average children to reach level 4, now they all must, this is not achievable unless longterm nthey come up with some way of altering the gene pool to weed out the people at the lower end of the intelligence distribution!

I think that SAT scores could be improved dramatirically without altering the gene pool or shooting children with special needs. In particular early intervention to detect glue ear, help for children in challenging circumstances and all children starting school in september.

In dd's nursery there is a little girl whose mother is blind. She is well looked after and a lovely little girl.She will need to practice her reading at school otherwise she will fall behind. Prehaps identificaton of parents with disablites or learning difficulties would help schools to target help. It is hopeless having an illerate parent listen to a child read.

GCSE results have improved dramatically. Have key stage 2 SATs. Or does grade inflation only apply to public exams.

Year on year rise

But I don't think that the tests have become any easier. More that expectations are higher (trinity is correct - level 4 was average; it was David Blunkett who then decreed it was to become the 'expected' level).

Even with minor tweaks you are never going to get all 11 year olds to level 4, that is just impossible! What about those who can't communicate? All yr 6 children are expected to get to level 4 even those with profound disabilities.

I was reading the other day how wondrous it was that more premature children were surviving. I also had a conversation with a child at school who is massively behind his peers saying he 'was born in an incubator', many children who are premature also have some form of special educational needs. Obviously am not saying the all SEN children were premature, or that all premature children have SEN, but there does seem in the schools I've worked in to be a big link, this would actually go to skewing the usual normal distribution of intelligence that you would expect in a population.

Children with profound disablities are only less than 2% of children. Even then half of them are in special schools. Special schools don't care about SATs and OFSTED don't worry that the majority of special schools completely ignore SATS.

I think there are a lot of children who under achieve because of social issues rather than being stupid. I think that policies like the pupil premium and nursery from two for low income families will help to raise standards.

I know lots of children who are behind and have no health issues. They are sharp mentally but can not get their ideas down on paper. Prehaps better identification of dyslexia would help them.

It would be interesting to know what level of IQ is needed to get a 4B

Around about 100 will get you a level 4 in most cases.

Do you know what IQ for level 5?

IQ is not relevant in education. It is skewed to white western world and you can practice tests to improve your score.

Surely hardwork, parenting and decent teaching makes a greater difference than any so called innate intelligence.

With practice you can improve SAT test scores. However true learning of concepts is far harder.

Key stage 2 SATs tend to be inflated to show primary school in a good light.

The English level is now more commonly by teacher assessment than test which is at least, IMO, a step in the right direction

The thing that makes the most difference is parental involvement and interest

The English level is now more commonly by teacher assessment than test

That's not quite right. Reading is still reported as separate test and teacher assessments, and no one knows what they will do with writing this year - yes the writing assessment is teacher assessment, but a test in grammar, punctuation and spelling will somehow be added to that.

All that will still lead to a heavily test weighted English level.

Also, you make it sound like schools differ in their approach, but all state schools are bound to follow exactly the same procedures by law - there's no 'commonly' about it.

Key stage 2 SATs tend to be inflated to show primary school in a good light.

Really? And how do the external markers do that, exactly?

FWIW, I am not sure that primary levels are inflated. My DS1 got a 5B for reading at the end of year 6, which I was surprised about as his comprehension etc skills are very, very well developed. Since starting Secondary, all his reading assessments have come back as 7's. In his case, I think the tests weren't able to reflect his ability, because they were a bit prescriptive. Now at Secondary, his 'true' abilities are more apparent.
His writing however, is another story...

As to OP, at DS's school, about 60% get 5's at the end of Year 6, with 90% getting 4's. So in that cohort, I imagine the mean, mode and median are all higher than 'average'. From what the Head suggested last term, 5B was the 'average' for maths.

"As to OP, at DS's school, about 60% get 5's at the end of Year 6, with 90% getting 4's. So in that cohort, I imagine the mean, mode and median are all higher than 'average'. From what the Head suggested last term, 5B was the 'average' for maths. "

Good grief only 66% of kids at ds's school get level 4 or above and 13% get levels 5s in English and maths. It is in a deprived area though.

ReallyTired it just goes to show how much it can vary, doesn't it? Mine is a very MC cohort, with (and I'm guessing here), prob about 70% of parents at the school with degrees, which must make a difference. Because it is seen as a high achieving school, I suspect parents self select to some extent. The next nearest school doesn't have the same reputation nor results, but is seen as better for children who aren't exam fodder...

Teaching to test inflates scores

You can only teach to the test if you actually teach what the children are supposed to be learning to access said test.

You mean constant drilling, and it's debatable whether that inflates scores or just puts children off altogether. In my experience, it's usually the latter.

If teaching to the test is best way to achieve highest results, then why shouldn't schools teach to the test?

I'm not convinced that good teaching ever didn't mean teaching to the test. Some schools may have done different, but they were known as the schools that didn't have such good results.

Here's a thought. DON'T publish the results. And don't have Ofsted consider results when rating schools. Might be interesting to see what schools could do instead, if they didn't feel that had to make teaching to the test a very top priority.

And if you don't like results rising year on year, then revert to standardised scoring. It's the only way.

BoundandRebound, FWIW, DS's school played down the SATs. The children did one test paper at school for practice. We heard nothing about them aside from one letter a couple of days before recommending that children all got to bed early that week, had breakfast before they came in etc. DS certainly didn't complain about being drilled. I was very pleased with how low-key it was. I think the school scores just reflect that the children DO know their stuff, so practice after practice isn't necessary (certainly for the majority. I don't know if those who were close to level boundaries got more 'input').

"If teaching to the test is best way to achieve highest results, then why shouldn't schools teach to the test? "

I worked at a school for 6 months that didn't teach to the test and had really good results. They had lots of middle class parents who were very supportive of education. The school went well beyond the curriculum and the children found SATS easy.

Ds's school is a SATs factory in year 6 and its awful. Ds has had a fab time up to the end of year 5 but hates year 6. I think making children miserable with excessive revision is damaging. Children like mental challenge and learning new stuff.

I am glad there are so many schools who don't teach to test. My experience is different. Education in its broadest sense being replaced by drilling and mock tests and more revision.

And year on year improvement being the goal due to league tables.

Hear hear!!

What would the repercussions be if SATs results weren't made public? I've not thought about it really, but would it be a good idea for the children/broader educational values do you think?