Why would my DD and 2 other children have to sit an extra maths test on their own?

[Campaspe]

DD is in year 2 and has just done her SATS. Just before half-term, when they were doing their SATS, she told me she had to complete a maths booklet with a cat on it, which she found very difficult. Today, DD and 2 other children from her class had to go and sit another maths booklet that apparently had a cat on the front of it. I assume this is because she struggled with the first one - the second one was much easier apparently - so they wanted to see if she could do an easier paper. But why? Can any teachers shed any light on this? DD didn't mind doing it, she was just puzzled.

But what ever the guide nice is, parents are going to be much happier with test results why? a test is a snapshot of what a child can do on a particular day with a particular set of questions ... on a different day with different questions the results could be completely different. The test for practical purposes doesn't cover the whole of the curriculum so a child could have huge gaps in their knowledge and still achieve enough marks to obtain the level. It's a very crude way to assess, nocomet

Agree with Mrz. Before 2005, the test was the only assessment in Y2, and was the be all and end all. Children were often sent up to Y3 with the wrong level - either because they just scraped it, so weren't secure at all, or because they didn't do as well as they could, so went up as a lower level. No other evidence was admissible, and there was nothing teachers could do about it.

The ‘Assessment and reporting arrangements’ (ARA) explains the statutory requirements for national curriculum assessment and reporting arrangements at key stage 1, including the phonics screening check, in 2014.

Teachers must comply with the provisions of this ARA when carrying out assessment and reporting functions.

Governing bodies of maintained schools must carry out their functions so that the requirements in this document are implemented in their school.

Teachers must summarise their judgements on children’s attainment in relation to the national curriculum level descriptions for each eligible child. They should reach a rounded judgement that:

is based on knowledge of how a child has performed over time and across a range of contexts; and

takes into account strengths and weaknesses of a child’s performance through the key stage.

The key stage 1 tasks and tests are designed to test children’s knowledge and understanding of the key stage 1 programmes of study in English and mathematics. They provide a snapshot of children’s attainment.

The teacher should decide which level of tasks or tests should be used for each child, taking into account their knowledge of the level at which the child is working.

The tasks and tests make up one piece of evidence for the overall teacher assessment.

and most importantly

The tasks and tests can be administered at any time during the year but children are not to be tested more than once during the year in each subject or attainment target.

At county level moderation meetings, it is stressed to teachers that children must achieve L2a on a L2 paper, before sitting the L3 paper. They used to ask us to bring both papers for moderation. I know that as I used to teach Y2 and attend these meetings. They should only be tested in one batch of testings per year, yes, but some subjects involve more than one thing (e.g. two writing tasks and a spelling task).

Yep, some LEAs and advisors are shit - we had this evidenced on here many times, with one telling parents that the tests weren't even statutory, when they are as statutory as you can get! Lots of LEAs cap KS1 assessments at a 3, when there is no ceiling and the ARA has always referred to a level 4 at KS1.

It's no wonder, then, that Gove wants rid, really - they only have themselves to blame.

Mrz, why are so many schools turning a blind eye to that final point? and more so, how can they get away with such a blatant disregard for the rules?

Because lots of LEA moderation is poor - and lots of LEAs break the rules themselves.

Schools do it because their assessment is so poor that they have no choice but to teach to the test.

Can I just ask a question about TA? How many times over a year do you get to check progress on individual criteria. Say, for example, L2 telling the time to 1/4 past and to the hour. Over a year, how many times would you revisit this subject to gather the evidence?

My reason for asking is that I've noticed DD both gaining an understanding of a subject after not touching it at all for a while (and seemingly with no input - she just seems to have processed it and understood), and conversely forgetting things that she seemed to have down pat.

I thought the reasons tests could be useful is because they do test a range of different things (it's a shallow but broad assessment if that makes sense).

For TA to work, do you need to essentially cover the full level that the child is working at or towards each and every term, or do some criteria only get looked at once or maybe twice in a year?

Apologies if my questions are daft, but I feel that as a parent having some understanding of APP grids has really helped me to support DD. It has also made me have some inkling of the amount of work involved for teachers given they are doing this for 30 children and not just one!

Feenie, this makes me quite sad for DS and others in the same position. Half of me wishes I was blissfully unaware of practises going on within Primary

I'll be helping as much at home as my dinosaur brain will allow.

Could you explain what APP grids are and how I can use them to help DS?

He has a good understanding of Maths. Funny enough we've just been completing the Carol Vorderman 'telling the time' section from one of her workbooks. Think they're just broaching this subject at scool now.

I thought the reasons tests could be useful is because they do test a range of different things (it's a shallow but broad assessment if that makes sense). As I said earlier the tests can only contain a fraction of the content of the curriculum so rather than a broad assessment they are in fact quite narrow in actual level content

Diamondage, we would teacher assess constantly day to day, and revisit a subject once a term, building on previous knowledge each time.

It makes me sad too, motleycroup - the testing system changed in 2005 but some schools stood still or even went backwards.

There is another side to why teachers test more than once a year; people just refuse to believe their teacher assessments. They would rather have a test score with marks out of 30 or 40 and know that and the level it equates to, rather than trust that level that the teacher has awarded.

I come from an area where parents use past test papers a lot, then use them to tell the teacher their child is X level. We spend many meetings and information leaflets explaining the snapshot Vs broad assessment approaches of the two methods. We explain about in-school, local group and whole LA moderation. But parent feel more comfortable with test paper result.

Yes, lots of truth in that. Look at Y6 - tests and teacher assessments supposedly equally weighted, but which do the government and parents take more notice of?

I think people believe tests are more objective rather than teacher assessment. Which they might be if it only tested expected knowledge for the end of the KS and left it as a percentage (although there are some obvious issues with that theory). Once you start giving criterion based levels based on a test score the whole objectivity thing falls apart.

Aren't some of the Optional SATS tests for KS2 supposed to be particularly bad for giving inaccurate levels?

They are all shocking ime.

The year 5 reading one seems to be the one I've heard several people saying up-levels badly and gives a completely different level to the same child sitting an old yr 6 past paper.

Feenie - our school has been formally externally moderated and all procedures examined. No issue with children having done both papers any time so far, including the moderation process were currently in the middle off.

Interesting though - may mention it at tomorrow's meeting.

All the schools I know of locally do the same thing - all do level 2, selected ones do level 3.

Then all your local schools are in breach of their statutory duty hulababy and your moderators and heads need to familiarise themselves with the law.

That aside, the results we give out are most definitely teacher assessment with full documented evidence and the test only a very small aspect.

I just find the rules interesting - I've never read them as I'm not in charge of all that so never been relevant for me to do so. One of our y2 teachers is involved in nationwide moderation/training so will be interesting to talk with her about it.

I can understand why you haven't read it, hulababy, but for teachers/head teachers it's madness, given their legal responsibilities - plus the procedures have been much the same for 9 years, so they definitely should know it by now!

This isn't just our local schools but schools in other authorities. And looking in here, not just a handful or so either. Interesting that this has been missed by so many schools. Clearly there is an awful lot of bad advice going on at local and national level from leas and advisors.

No wonder so many schools are getting it wrong when those employed to tell schools what to do are giving out in accurately information.

I've known some terrible advisors, bet every teacher has here. Those who can, teach, etc!

To be fair, I have known/do know a few excellent ones too.

With the flouting of the rules that has gone on, dictated in many cases by LEAs, it's really no wonder we're witnessing their demise.

The trouble is if a class teacher reads it, they are still obliged to follow the procedures their HT, advised by the advisors and LEA, set.

As I said, I've found this interesting and enlightening, so will bring up with my colleague whose quite heavily involved with some moderation training this month and next.