Quick question about SATs and Value Added - is this another example of school being a SATs factory?

[Vicky13]

Just a query really. My daughter is in Y6 and today the year group were put into work groups (sets) for maths which they will be in until May. She is in a small group of 8 working with the HT, and she has been told that they are the ones who will be put in for the L6 paper.

I was asking which of her friends were with her (nosy mum!) and she said one friend who is normally on the top table with her wasn't in the group, but the HT explained that only those who got L3 in Y2 were in that group. This means DD's friend, who is now working with the top table, is not because she apparently didn't get L3 in Y2.

I appreciate that I've had this from an 11 year old so it might not be true, and in any case it's another mum's battle, but would I be right in thinking that they are worrying more about their VA than who is capable of receiving extra help and an enhanced syllabus? Anyone come across this before?

If that is the true reason they've chosen those children it's very odd. They should be entered for the level 6 paper on current attainment not their attainment at the end of Year 2.

I'm not sure it's to do with value added though. If anything, a child going from L2 in year 2 to L6 at the end of KS2 would be better for their value added than children going from L3 to L6.

Put simply, it's all to do with progress. A child going from L3 in Y2 to L5 in Y6 makes 'expected' progress (i.e. the expected 2 levels' progress in KS2 - in this case levels 3-5). The school is pushing those children to L6, so that they will be seen to make 'good' progress.

I am really surprised they are not including the child who got L2 in Y2 and is working in the same high ability group. If that child managed to get L6, then that would be 'outstanding' progress.

This is a hottie for Ofsted inspectors at the moment!

To only enter these children is odd and frankly unlikely if there are other children who would achieve a 6. Your DD may have understood this.

Otherwise I think this is fine; these children have been identified as needing to make certain progress and are perhaps not making it fully. The HT has been drafted in to push the progress up. Good practice.

I dont like the pressure on the kids or the teaching to test but you cant really critise schools for 'only caring about SATs' - results are published and our ofsted grading is based on them. It is now the case that if progress is good, teaching can be deemed good even if no good teaching is actually seen during inspection. We have no choice but to care about them.

'I dont like the pressure on the kids or the teaching to test but you cant really critise schools for 'only caring about SATs' - results are published and our ofsted grading is based on them'

well yes I can and do criticise !!Teaching is a vocation and the theachers should put the children's best interests first.
My younger ones go to a primary school which was one of the first to be 'outstanding' and they do not pressure the children.

I would suspect that's an interpretation from your dd.
I can't imagine that would effect them. Maybe the other child is slightly struggling on the top table, or there's something else in play. Or maybe if they'd been rearranging them this child would have moved down a table anyway. Some children relish the challange of harder maths, others get frightened by it and panic.

Thanks everyone for your comments. A good point about the value added actually being very good for a child making that much progress. I suspect as you say that they've probably been told this as a way of avoiding going into any more detail with the children.

Incidentally I don't blame schools for caring about SATs and if that means teaching to the test for a couple of terms then fair enough but I do think it would be in their interests as well as the children's if they reduced the pressure on the kids a bit. My daughter can't be the only 10/11 yr old whose performance gets worse the more pressure they pile on.