Barrowford school's KS2 'proud' letter

[Ilelo]

Is it just me or does this letter feel wrong on the back of SAT results? Mine are still in Infants but if the head teacher sent this with their exam results, I dont think I would be happy.

It is a great letter but for another time. It suggests the exams are not important and I know they are considered so by a fair few here but surely not for the head teacher to say/imply.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-28319907

I think the sentiment is fine. But the head is clearly being political which, for me, makes it disingenuous. Also, I think he/she was very lazy to plagiarise someone else's letter AND not even bother to change the obvious americanisms eg "smart" and "neat". In fact, as a parent, I would see that as sneaky and dishonest.

Ks2 SATs are important for schools not the children. Exams are not important until GCSE age. It is good to study for tests but nobody asks for ks2 SATs results when it comes to job or university applications. If schools opt out of SATs I bet many would and the children would benefit from learning "normally" rather than revising for a test that makes politicians look good and becomes a stuck to hit teachers with.

I think it's great that the school are saying that the children should be proud of their non-SATs achievements.

I read that on someone's FB page - is it plagiarised? The word 'neat' really stood out to me and that would explain it!

It's from here: seedsforlearning.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/a-day-at-park-multiple-intelligences.html?m=1

The sentiment is nice. The timing is ok. Some kids may have poor results. But copying or a letter and passing it off as her own.... really poor.

She should have either linked to it, quoted or wish get own

Hi Ilelo:

We had something as well from St. Mediocre - is there a HT edict or something?

Ours was about how the children had all performed outstandingly well and the school was very proud of every one of them. We weren't actually given any figures (so x%scored NC L4/ X% scored NC L5/ etc... were NOT provided at all).

Then the letter concluded with:

Although we have many pupils regularly working into NC L3 at KS1, we as a school have decided not to award them NC L3 unless they are securely working at that level.

------

Although as a parent I can sympathise with borderline cases - if a kid has full attained NC L2 and is now working at a low NC L3 it seems to me they should be scored as such.

Interestingly it does rather mean that a school doesn't quite have to get the full 2 NC Levels between KS1/ KS2 if you opt to just not record your low level 3s as Level 3/ but as Level 2 instead.

-------

I find the 'we don't like the outcomes/ pressure to achieve' so we'll just change the rules undertones of this edict a bit troubling in a CofE school - but maybe that's just me being deeply old fashioned.

Does anyone know out there - should schools be providing parents (maybe just Y6 parents) with their overall results at this stage?

Our school seems to go in for announcing immediately & posting scores on website/ in correspondence to parents - if it is good news.

Saying it was wonderful in print (but no data) if it's bad news and hoping that next December parents don't really look into KS2 results from the previous Y6 cohort too deeply.

As a year 6 parent of a high achieving child in an outstanding school, I think the letter is absolutely appropriate!

Year 6 is so much about SATs, even in the best of schools, that the children can be fooled into thinking that it is the only judgement worth taking seriously. Children at age 11 have so much more to offer than a few random numbers and percentages. I would have been more than happy for that letter to come home with my child.

The Americanisms didn't jar to me - primary aged children do use smart and neat in those contexts. The spelling was changed which is the important part.

It's a definite "oops" not to have attributed the source but I guess they didn't expect it to go viral! A source attribution would look out of place on a school letter (I suppose they could have introduced it with "Let me share with you the words of XXXX")

I think it's a great letter.

I mean, even if it is political, so what? It's a great message for the children to hear and they are the ones who matter. The political context goes over their head and being given results, all they get is "I'm good at X, but bad at Y. I'm not as good as my friend. My friend didn't get as good a mark as me." Of course they're going to compare them. At their level, it's damage control. And while making it a letter makes it political (they could have asked the Y6 teachers to read this out in class or give a speech to the effect, or do a little in-class awards ceremony celebrating every child) at the child's level this is the same, so why not add a political factor if that is what the head wants to do.

Yes the sentiment is superb but what is she saying to the children that passed the exams? It is not ok to imply every other thing listed there in her letter are more important that the academics. Im struggling to express myself here but the first reason for kids going to school is the academics and I know the rounded child and all is important too but 1st I am probably just as old fashioned as Pastsellbydate.

Returning, I would have been happy to have had the letter before the exams were written and with words like, all these other things (as listed in her letter) are great and important but try your best in the SATs etc. but not after results are out!

And, I rest my case if the letter wasnt even original!

I think the sentiment is fine BUT I don't think a standard letter will actually cut it for them. Much better (but more time consuming) would have been an individual letter naming something that each pupil is fantastic at, like helping friends, good sense of humour, etc.

I suspect those with confidence will look at it and think "yep, not only did I do well at the exams, but I'm also fantastic in all those other ways" those without confidence will go "X is good at dancing, Y is good at... (etc. That letter wasn't really about me, I don't do anything well".

Ds is starting year 3 next year. At the induction day they sent them out with a generalised letter saying "your schools tell us that you're fantastic at " Well ds looked at it, and said (quite truthfully) "Why on earth has my school said I'm good at X? I'm not good at it, most people are better than me! If they've said that I'm good at it, then they're telling lies..." (continued at length)
So a 6yo hasn't been fooled and boisted up by a generic letter, so I suspect the year 6s can see through it just as much.

Guys -

Just to put this into a 'reality' context:

Barrowfield school according to today's Guardian typically is floating at around 70% of pupils achieving L4 Englihs/ Maths GCSE.

DofE Performance tables report that in 2012 75% of pupils achieved NC L4+ in Maths/ English (so 1 in 4 didn't) and 70% achieved NCL4+ in Maths/ English in 2013 so 3 out of 10 puils are failing to achieve NC L4.

It's about where St. Mediocre is sitting.

OFSTED rated them as 'GOOD' in 2012 and a year before in 2011 they were rated 'GOOD' with only a 'SATISFACTORY' for management to drive improvements and for teaching quality. In terms of FSM (18%) they are slightly below the national average. And ofsted reports: "Most pupils are from a White British background and the majority speak English as their first language"

I'm sure there are all sorts of reasons why about 1 in 4 pupils don't achieve the government baseline of NC L4 at the end of primary (as parents we know that in technicolor) - and I suspect that is what the letter is trying to say - and I think most reasonable parents appreciate that sentiment...

but...

The question is how did that school handle the run-up to SATs?

Was it lessons as normal?

Were pupils well prepared through KS2 lower and Y5 of KS2 Upper?

Was it constant testing/ re-testing up unitl the NCT (KS2 SATs) week?

I agree with the sentiment - nobody can be summed up by one exam. But examination: driving tests/ typing speeds/ vision tests/ pregnancy tests/ diabetes tests/ etc... are part of life.

The point is that the school system in England is badly skewed to these tests in some places (and I have posted separately about St. Mediocre of Birmingham splitting a single cohort Y6 into upper/ lower ability and leaving upper ability with substitutes/ then a KS1 teacher whilst they focused on getting Level 3s to Level 4s in the low ability cohort with the main teacher.

Do I blame the school for taking this decision - no it was the 11th hour what could they do? But do I feel this was entirely avoidable if the school had focused on ye olde 3 Rs - a bit less time on prayer/ assemblies/ 'golden time' and a bit more time on maths/ writing/ reading - and heaven forfend - maybe a bit of homework/ reading books coming home now and then?

and the question I'm asking - is why applaud this school - with a largely white English catchment/ low FSM who is struggling (for whatever reasons) to get 1 out of 4 pupils over the NC L4 threshold.

I realise on MN there is always a debate about whether NC L4 is a high threshold or not - but with nearly 50% of English pupils achieving NC L5 in English and just over 40% achieving NCL5 in Maths - perhaps we need to step back and ask - NOW WHY WOULD A HEAD TEACHER FEEL THE NEED TO SEND A LETTER LIKE THAT?

I don't know if Barrowfold School parents were given the actual figures for the 2014 KS2 SATs (as I said above - we got a very similar letter but no results ourselves) - but although I totally agree no single test can ever completely/ accurately sum up a child's achievement/ potential/ ability - I think we also have to ask ourselves about the purpose of these test and the NC L4 boundary - which is that at core (as parents/ as prospective secondary schools/ as a nation) that we NEED (not just desire) children to be able to complete primary able to read at their chronological age (10/11 year old reading age) and able to add/ subtract/ multiply/ divide.

I do agree that not all children can make that threshold - there can be many reasons - learning disabilities/ physical disabilities/ illness/ home life issues/ bereavement/ panic on test day/ etc....

...however, sometimes testing is about shining a bit of light on what's been going on.

Interesting PSBD. Very good points.

Mind you, I suspect the head is slightly wincing as she didn't expect to come under so much spot light for a copied letter.

Yes, well said.