How will SATs be marked in 2015, if there are no NC levels with the new curriculum?

[Hulababy]

Again, just curious.

Although I work in primary eucation this isnt something I have actually consdiered until today.

The new curriculum has no levels attached.
But I assume there will still be Y2 and Y6 SATs in the summer of 2015 onwards.

Is this when they start getting given a numerical grade instead? And what will that number related to?

I know what you mean, PottyLottie, and have sympathy for lots of what you're saying, but I don't think focusing just on literacy, maths and ICT is the answer. Children need a broad and balanced curriculum, and research has shown that, in schools that provide this, children do better in the 'basics', not worse.

So yes, I agree that the curriculum in some schools has become rather bloated, but I don't think the answer to that is to narrow children's experiences.

This has been a really interesting thread. I'm not a teacher (at school level) and am not remotely up on what is going on with SATs, NC levels etc. I'm a parent with a DD in YR. What I want is for the power to return to the teachers, and for the requirements for so much 'learning' to be scrapped. I really want my children to have my 70s ILEA primary education where we were allowed to explore ideas, work for terms on projects totally unrelated to any NC, and develop a passion for learning and thinking. Children are born with a natural interest, and teachers should be allowed to use their creativity to find ways of harnessing and encouraging that. One size fits all is just rubbish. I think that the competitive academic culture is likely to be detrimental to a very many children. I like what one of the posters said above about knowing how your child is doing relative to what they themselves can achieve.
Stepping off my soap box now.

Sorry, Amberthecat, I wasn't clear enough. I never meant it to read as that was all they should do! Obviously they should have a broad and balanced curriculum and not "narrow experiences", but I am an old bugger, so I know that when the National Curriculum first came in, it was pretty clear that each folder for each subject had been written from the top down by experts in individual committee meetings, with not one thought for how primary teachers were supposed to squeeze it all in or link it together.

It was great for individual subject teaching, but the content increase per subject for primary school teachers who cover everything, produced traffic jams of content overload which lessened the time for Maths and English and impacted on numeracy and literacy standards. (With the help of a few new loopy learning to read strategies that happily have now disappeared, granted!)

Sooooo...... hey ho in came the literacy and numeracy hours to the rescue (ie let's put the emphasis kind of back where it was in the first place before we overloaded you with at least 9 folders of subject content) because they thought we weren't doing enough Maths and English any more!!!!!! ARGHHH!! (Caveat: Although it was nice to have the emphasis back, the literacy and numeracy hours in their original form would have been comedy if they hadn't cost so much taxpayer's money.)

Having worked with both systems in all sorts of schools, I had more time for numeracy and literacy before the national curriculum came out, delivered mostly through exciting topic work with oodles of time for visits, Science, Art, Music, DT etc. etc. because it was not massively PRESCRIBED or STATUTORY. If we needed to spend longer on a particular maths topic, for example, we could, without worrying that we still had this or that to fit in come Hell or high water. So, children could progress at their own rate and have time to consolidate and put into practice their new learning.

Sorry for the confusion, don't think anyone would seriously advocate doing English and Maths all day.....or would they? Hope Mr. Gove doesn't read this, don't want him getting any mad ideas now, do we?

Forgot to say allyFe, that's sort of what I meant! Hasten to add that whilst I am an old bugger, I was educated in the '70's, not educating!!

Sorry, Amberthecat, I wasn't clear enough. I never meant it to read as that was all they should do! Obviously they should have a broad and balanced curriculum and not "narrow experiences", but I am an old bugger, so I know that when the National Curriculum first came in, it was pretty clear that each folder for each subject had been written from the top down by experts in individual committee meetings, with not one thought for how primary teachers were supposed to squeeze it all in or link it together.

It was great for individual subject teaching, but the content increase per subject for primary school teachers who cover everything, produced traffic jams of content overload which lessened the time for Maths and English and impacted on numeracy and literacy standards. (With the help of a few new loopy learning to read strategies that happily have now disappeared, granted!)

Sooooo...... hey ho in came the literacy and numeracy hours to the rescue (ie let's put the emphasis kind of back where it was in the first place before we overloaded you with at least 9 folders of subject content) because they thought we weren't doing enough Maths and English any more!!!!!! ARGHHH!! (Caveat: Although it was nice to have the emphasis back, the literacy and numeracy hours in their original form would have been comedy if they hadn't cost so much taxpayer's money.)

Having worked with both systems in all sorts of schools, I had more time for numeracy and literacy before the national curriculum came out, delivered mostly through exciting topic work with oodles of time for visits, Science, Art, Music, DT etc. etc. because it was not massively PRESCRIBED or STATUTORY. If we needed to spend longer on a particular maths topic, for example, we could, without worrying that we still had this or that to fit in come Hell or high water. So, children could progress at their own rate and have time to consolidate and put into practice their new learning.

Sorry for the confusion, don't think anyone would seriously advocate doing English and Maths all day.....or would they? Hope Mr. Gove doesn't read this, don't want him getting any mad ideas now, do we?

Oh poop it re-posted!! /emo/te/8.gif

With a standardised score like VR tests. So 100 will be average - and thus a pass 'secondary ready'. They are then going to have a reception baseline test (I know I know - we all know apart from the numpty in charge) and then measure progress from there but relative to everyone else so this is how they envisage scoring and reporting to parents. Examples:

"Child A has a standardised score of 115. This means she is above average when compared to other children her age" (they were also then going to rank them in deciles eg this means she is in the top 30% but there was uproar and it looks like they have dropped this) "the average standardised score for other children with the same starting point as child x is 117 so she has made less progress than her peers nationally"

Child b has a standardised score of 100. This means he is in line with national average when compared to other children his age. The average standardised score for children with the same starting point as him is 96 so he has made more progress than her peers nationally

Etc etc

No one has said though what the range is that would constitute above or below average - is 101 above and 99 classes as below?? Etc

This system apparently makes it far less confusing for parents?

My daughter has come home today and been told by her teacher she will loose marks in her SATS if she does not write nearly in cursive writing. I can't find anything on the 2013/4 marking schemes to support this....is it true or is she simply trying to coax her onto being neater.....her writing is legible so I would prefer her to focus on content, grammar and spelling!!!