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.

There are plenty of other tests out there that teachers could use instead of SATs.

Depends on your experience, and that if your Head's, I guess.

I'm lucky that my head trusts me to assess properly and know the procedures.

But you have to thoroughly teacher assess every day in order to plan what to teach next, isitfriday.

I don't need a test to tell me that - it's my job to know exactly what each and every child can or can't do.

It may all change. Our HT left at Easter so a new HT begins in September.

I'm not saying testing is correct. I am a long-standing Year 2 teacher who loathes the SATs themselves (as a waste of my teaching time, let alone the marking time). I was stating that instead of breaking regulations and testing with SATs papers more than once other tests are available if that is the route teachers or schools feel forced to go down.

Our Y2 teacher walked the class through a past paper so the children would be familiar with the format. I'm not sure what more needs to be done.

If you Google search KS1 SATs, testing for L2 and L3 there are a whole host of sites stating all Y2 sit the L2 paper and a number go on to sit L3, therefore taking two tests. There's even a Maths education site which has some info on SATs papers and this site has also stated the same!

If this site is anything to go by it seems the majority of schools are doing the same!

I'm obviously doing something wrong because google hasn't managed to produce one site that says that MotleyCoup.

If the requirement was that all year children had to sit the level 2 paper and a few then went on to sit the level 3 paper it would very clearly and very explicitly be spelt out in the ARA. Probably in bold.

The fact that it isn't mentioned at all is a pretty in 30 odd pages is a huge clue that it isn't the correct procedure.

Here's one

And another Maths education site

I have found more but don't know if you can read the ones I've found. I'm on my iphone so small screen!

The first site states that those children gaining a level 2a in maths will take a level 3 paper!

It also states that those children assessed as level 3 will take the yr 3 optional SAT as well as the level 3. They are making their policy up as they go it would seem. It doesn't say that all children sit the level 2 paper though. Those assessed at level 3 aren't sitting it.

The education site states that all children must take level 2 and those achieving level 2A will take level 3. So those sites are out there with this information,Mrz!

Dipping in and out as trying to get ds to bed!

Which education site?

The sites are out there, that doesn't mean they are right though and schools should not be taking their information from them. I've just found one that says that there are no tests in KS1 just teacher assessment.

It's mathstar.com - site above.

One badly informed commercial site I'm afraid MotleyCroup.

The teachers guide for administering the tests that comes with the SATs papers says a child can do both. I had always assumed that the ARA guidelines means that they can only do one assessment, but that may consist of 2 papers.

The ARA isn't guidance it's statutory

The instruction that children should only be tested once a year sounds rather ambiguous. It's clear that teachers on this thread have interpreted it in different ways - some as meaning that children should only be asked to sit a L2 OR a L3 test, others that they can sit both, but that they shouldn't be tested in, e.g. both Jan and May. Is it spelled out more clearly anywhere else? I can't seem to get into the teachers' guidance for administering the papers without a password, but if what jazz45 says is right, that these say a child can do both, then this sounds like a correct interpretation of the 'test only once' instruction, doesn't it?

There used to be a table in the ARA that set out which tests children at different levels should do. I don't know if it is still in there

For level 3, children only need to sit the level 3 papers and if they don't achieve the level 3, they should not be asked to sit the level 2 paper. So the OP's school and any school insisting all children sit the level 2, then the high scoring ones sit level 3 are very clearly in beach of the statutory requirements.

There might be a slight grey area for children assessed at level 2 who sore highly on the paper. In order not to put a ceiling on attainment teachers are asked to consider whether there is evidence that the child is level 3. I've seen guidance from NAA saying 'consider giving level 3 test'. Although that document is on our LA web page it is from 2004 and I have no idea if it has been updated.

I do agree that 'should be tested once in each subject' is slightly more ambiguous than 'children should only sit one test in each subject'. There is a bit more room to interpret it incorrectly.

It does seem open to interpretation. I do think that teacher assessment is far more important and the information from the tests only plays a very small part (if any) of that.

This instruction seems pretty clear

Which tasks and tests to use

Schools should select tasks and tests appropriate to the level at which each child is judged to be working.

If the teacher assesses the child as level 3 they select a level 3 test if they assess the child as level 1 they select the level 1 task ... teachers using both are clearly not confident in their own assessments which is the level that has to be reported (not the test results).