Would you predict your child's future based on their KS1 results?

[proudmama2772]

It would be completely daft to put together an academic plan for a child based on where they were at the age 6/7!

In my own experience, ds was rated as average for maths at old school. Just found out new school rates her as above average and she just got a 2a and has achieved this on practice SATs. Old school had grouped her as average an targeted her for 2b, but were skeptical she would achieve because they said she had concentration problems. New schools sees no concentration issues, but says she uses distraction techniques when things are a little challenging. It isn't an issue for a her new teacher at all.

I think it is impossible for anyone to assess a child this young perfectly. So why do Offsted and schools use the results to determine who to put into boosters or put in for a Level 5,6 by KS2. I know they need some system of measuring the value add, but the way students are streamed and targeted

so early seems completely lacking in understanding of child development. Am I the only one who would moan about this?

*I think you can predict with quite a high degree of accuracy how your child will turn out academically, on the basis of their KS 1 results?

My friend is a very experienced primary school teacher, and she can very accurately predict which children will pass the 11+, while they're still in Yr 1/2.*

Isn't that because in the same primary school they are targeted based on KS1 results?

LaQueenLovesSummer I think you have misunderstood me slightly. I don't really give much thought to "being PC"...quite the opposite,...I'm a bit too honest at times. (I'm not British, so the whole politeness thing annoys me horrendously...takes forever to get a point across in this country,..or people feel offended.)
However, I don't believe that giving up on children when they are 7 years old is the way forward. So, yes, my pupils, who ended KS1 on a level 1 won't make it to the level 5 at the end of KS2. They will make the best progress possible, though, and get the support to get as close to their aspirational targets as possible. Generally, their parents aren't deluded and know full well what their children are capable of. That's the same for my pupils, who ended KS1 on a level 3. Yes, children have different levels of academic ability. However, these aren't set in stone by the time they are 7. Children usually don't develop in a linear fashion. So the ones, who were "clever" when they were in Y1, might be just average by the time they get to UKS2. I've got someone, who could clearly talk the talk when he was little...and can still talk for England. Getting anything coherent on paper is a real struggle. He doesn't listen, rushes his work and thinks he knows everything already anyway, because everyone always appears to have told him what a clever little boy he is. He's eloquent enough to blag his way through most things. That doesn't work in UKS2, though.
In other countries, you don't even start school until you are 7. Millions of children, who would all fail to even reach a level 2. I know I couldn't read at that age. I still went to grammar school, got four decent A-Levels (including English and Maths), got a postgraduate degree and speak four languages. What you can or cannot do at 7 doesn't define who you will turn out to be.
The thing is, I don't make assumptions about my pupils' possible performance based on their KS1 levels - I actually largely ignore them, tbh. By the time I get these children, they have had two more years to develop...and two more years (with me) to get to the end of their primary schooling.

ThatSoFunny
I guess what's scary is that not all educators think like you. You do not seem at all arrogant (I'm sure most teachers aren't) and do not have an inherit self-belief in your ability to assess 'potential' human intelligence minus a PHD in neurological brain development.

They are still finding out and discovering so much about human intellectual development. The first IQ test wasn't developed until 1905 The cortex still continues to change at around age 13. Recent studies show that intelligence may be due less to genetic factors and more to responses to stimuli and environmental factors and continues to develop into the teenage years.

Yet our education regulatory authority has a system in place that expects level ks1-3s to be KS2- 5s. They seem pretty sure of their understanding of academic progress based on teacher assessed levels which have a high standard deviation. I'm beginning to think that they're the ones who have only 2 brain cells to knock against each other and are limited in their potential for abstract thought

"However, I don't believe that giving up on children when they are 7 years old is the way forward. So, yes, my pupils, who ended KS1 on a level 1 won't make it to the level 5 at the end of KS2."

We've pupils who finished KS1 on W & Level 1 (children with identified SEN) who have gone onto achieve level 4 and level 5 in the KS2 tests with lots of hard work from pupils and staff ... schools should never give up on any child.
Making predictions at age 5 or 7 can be very dangerous if those predictions lead to lower expectations for some pupils.

proudmama/ jewelfairies:

first off KS1 SATs (end Y2) isn't about 'writing your child off' - it's a stock taking exercise.

It's about asking where is this DC at:

NC L1 (gosh they're behind - in an ideal world a school should be thinking - we'll need to intervene & talking this through with you/ maybe suggesting what you can do at home to help - I totally accept that this may flag up issues: learning difficulties/ maturity/ etc... - but again that's no bad thing).

NC L2 (gosh they're about where they should be) - good - let's keep this ticking over and improve on that.

NC L3 (gosh they're ahead of where they should be) - excellent - but let's not sit on our laurels folks.

------

In effect the 'deal' made is that a school is expected to raise each pupil at least 2 full NC Levels from the KS1 SATs results (which are teacher assessments - partly informed by test but also by work over the year) to their KS2 SATs results (you may have seen those CVA scores where roughly 100 = making expected improvement/ 100 means making more improvement than expected) - all in a system easily interpretable to parents (NOT!). (more info here: www.education.gov.uk/schools/performance/archive/primary_10/p3.shtml)

-----
So stepping back a minute - the KS1 SATs results (which again are a teacher's assessment of your child's progress at this stage - and will include observation of preformance on standardised tests but also work in class) - are a 'base-line' from which the school is required to get every pupil at least 2 full NC Levels above.

If an entire cohort were to score NC L1 (or less) - well that should in theory raise alarm bells (whether it actually does or not I've no idea).

If a school has systems in place where those pupils who are a bit behind get extra help/ support to catch them up to the main group - that's ideal.

If a school has systems in place to stretch more able pupils - and not leave them to tread water in KS2 lower whilst they focus on middle/ low ability pupils achievement - even better.

------

it's not a perfect system - but in there is potential to use these outcomes to identify the bright sparks and ensure that their enthusiasm and high levels of achievement are met.

There is potential to identify pupils who are struggling early on - and turn that around over KS2 lower.

There is potential to identify pupils that are doing o.k. but could do even better.

The reality is that it depends on how your school handles delivery of this NCT testing (KS1/ KS2 SATs) and how they respond to the outcomes.

I think there is the risk that once labelled NC L1 - a school can just write off your child as dim. But that is the sign of mediocrity.

Personally as a parent whose DD1 got NC L1 on KS1 SATs - I found it useful (confirmed our concerns) and highly motivating. DH and I had busy working lives - and DD1 was camped in before/ after school clubs to accommodate that and we really weren't able to put in much time when I got home >7:30/ 8 p.m. (frequently after she'd gone to bed) because of long commute. We decided things needed to change. I went part-time, I was around to help with homework, listen to reading, push at the maths, support her desire to go for 11+, etc... DD1 went on to achieve NC L6 in maths/ L5s in all the result.

I am very grateful to a TA who ran a reading recovery group DD1 joined in Y4 (that was a huge help - up until then she was still reading picture books) - but other than that the school wasn't a lot of help - and felt the need to scold me for signing my child up to Mathsfactor.

Of course, I miss the salary - but I actually have enjoyed this time helping my DD1 with core subjects - and seeing her improve as a student beyond recognition and gain so much confidence because of it.

For me it was deeply important she left primary able to read at her chronological age & add/subtract/ multiply/ divide - I knew there were no 'learning disability' issues - it was quite simply that for whatever reason she got off to an incredibly slow start - but I knew (coming from the US) - you could start the year you turn 7 and get to that place too (happens all the time there because that's the year you start grade school there) - so we just kept plugging away at it at home.

HTH

Ds finished ks1 on level W but got 5,5,4 at ks2 and dd got 1a,1a, 2c but got 5,5,5 at ks2 and 7,7,8 at ks3 (ds got 6,6,7 narrowly missed level 8 in maths)
Reason for ds getting level W was probably that he couldn't talk until he was seven and wouldn't comply either (ASD) for dd she was a summer born and it took time for her to catch up but she flew when she did.
Thankfully their teachers never wrote them off at seven although I would never have expected them to as my experience has been that teachers want their pupils to achieve the very best they can rather than pigeon holing them from their earliest days.
FWIW a girl who dd went to school with dd who spent the first three years in learning support at secondary as she could barely read or write entered uni only a year after her peers (she's studying to be a physiotherapist)

NC L1 (gosh they're behind - in an ideal world a school should be thinking - we'll need to intervene & talking this through with you/ maybe suggesting what you can do at home to help

schools should be doing that long before KS1 SATs

We invite "target" parents in from the first half term (even in reception) in an attempt to address issues before they become a problem.

mrz

as I've repeatedly said - your Durham school is a world away from St. Mediocre of Birmingham

There are no interventions in KS1

There is no explanation of how the pupil premium is spent on FSM STILL!

folks - I'd be pushing hard for primaries like mrz's -

Am I right you once said that you have them all reading the Hobbit & Macbeth in Y2? www.mumsnet.com/Talk/primary/a1321573-whole-books-or-extracts-in-English-lessons

Maybe it's me folks - but does this sound like what's happening in your school?

(Don't get me wrong mrz I think it's wonderful - but maddening to hear it's happening in Durham but not around here - I hope you can see it's a bit frustrating for a parent to learn The Hobbit is no problem for Y2 pupils when a Birmingham school - no a million miles from Sarehol where Tolkein spent his childhood - doesn't even have a copy in their library).

We review every 10 weeks moving children on and off interventions as necessary. Catch difficulties early and address them quickly and effectively.

I do think some schools have low expectations based on age, (I've been told by enough teachers on TES ) but I recall a wise man saying if you put Noddy in Toyland in don't expect to get Great Expectations out... and I'm not suggesting that a 7 year old understands Shakespeare to the same depth an 11 or 14 year old will ... but with each revisit more is revealed and literature begins to feel like an old friend.

I do think it is becoming more common for primary schools to use whole books and teach both reading and writing using quality texts.

A child's ability in a subject will depend on two things: Their natural ability to learn and the education they receive.

Nothing can be done about the former, but lots can be done to alter the latter; it is why people pay for private schools. Putting in practice and learning at home will also improve a child's ability. Not everyone, but quite a few of those in the top groups will be doing this already. Just a quick look on eleven plus websites will confirm this.

Even KS1 is not a level playing field and it is next to impossible to determine what extra educational input the children have received before even starting school as well as in early years as people are inclined to not admit they have taught their child.

mrsz re your opinion on using more ambitious texts with Y2 children, I think it's absolutely brilliant and opens their minds that bit more.

I've just started reading Greek Myths to my Year 2 (soon to be Year 3) DS and he's enthralled. Got into this via Percy Jackson, which I'm not entirely sure about

Re the 11+ and KS1 results. I teach in an 11+ area and when I used to teach Year 2 I had many children achieve Level 3s but then go on to fail their 11+. Equally, some of the children that passed hadn't achieved Level 3s. IMO passing the 11+ can be a combination of good educational standards and good tutoring!

Suggest you read Carol Dweck and Growth Mindset JustRichmal

Thank you for that suggestion mrz. Though I still think (and recent research backs up) natural ability plays a part, a lot of what she says does fit in with my thinking (Just skim read an interview with her). I particularly like her comment:

Too many students think effort is only for the inept. Yet sustained effort over time is the key to outstanding achievement.

but natural ability/intelligence isn't fixed and can change depending on external influences

"So, yes, my pupils, who ended KS1 on a level 1 won't make it to the level 5 at the end of KS2."

We've pupils who finished KS1 on W & Level 1 (children with identified SEN) who have gone onto achieve level 4 and level 5 in the KS2 tests with lots of hard work from pupils and staff ... schools should never give up on any child.

I was actually talking about "my" pupils...and no, they won't make it to the Level 5. That's not giving up on them, that's just being realistic. They both entered Y5 on a 2c (I think I had a few more on a L1 in KS1,...but they aren't so far behind)...I managed to get one to a 3b and the other remains on the 2a. Both have received every intervention programme going since they were in Y1. The first one gets a lot of support at home and together with his parents, we have managed to get him up to speed this year. However, there are medical issues, which have been holding him back and will continue to do so. The other one is never in school, so it's really hard to get anything going...an attendance rate of 50% for every single year in primary just blows any intervention out of the water. Parents don't feel it's their job to get their child to school and resist any attempt to improve their child's attendance.

My husband works in a special school. He was so happy about some of his pupils actually getting a level 3 in their KS2 tests. His pupils have had small classes, lots and lots of intervention and support...

Too many students think effort is only for the inept. Yet sustained effort over time is the key to outstanding achievement.
I agree with that. The children, who make most progress in my class are the ones, who actually try and work hard. Those, who listen, try to implement suggestions for improvement and take responsibility for their own learning. This last thing is one I try to instill in my classes as soon as they walk through the door. I'm there to help, guide and teach...they are the ones, who need to do the learning. "Learning is not a spectator sport."

Mrz: I was listening to a recent radio 4 program on it. I think they said intelligence was 50% genetic and 50% external influences, though I did not understand exactly what they were measuring to get 50%. I know it was based on an identical and non identical twin study.

Where was the twin study carried out? I'd imagine that it's going to be difficult to totally get rid of societal beliefs and attitudes even in a twin study? I'm guessing that the same twin study done in the UK and repeated in Singapore or China, might give very different results.

www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-math-reading-genes-20140711-story.html

www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140708/ncomms5204/full/ncomms5204.html

RafaIsTheKingOfClay, It may have been in: Intelligence: Born Smart, Born Equal, Born Different, presented by Adam Rutherford, where I heard it.
It is three half hour programmes on the subject of intelligence.

What I would find very interesting is the Offsted rating of the Durham school compared to the Birmingham St. Mediocre.

I have had some experiences similar to PSBD, - but not near as bad in an Offsted Outstanding school. 'Outstnanding' school do a good deal of interventions just not very effective ones. 2 1/2 terms did not turn around a great improvement in my daughters phonics as a new school working with us - to help us teach our daughter at home - and passing us the information - exactly which list of sounds she didn't get consistently. I will tell you her new teacher is awesome and I am in awe of this fantastic individual-I would like for the system to reward this teacher with a higher salary.

In effect the 'deal' made is that a school is expected to raise each pupil at least 2 full NC Levels from the KS1 SATs results (which are teacher assessments - partly informed by test but also by work over the year) to their KS2 SATs results (you may have seen those CVA scores where roughly 100 = making expected improvement/ 100 means making more improvement than expected) - all in a system easily interpretable to parents (NOT!). (more info here: www.education.gov.uk/schools/performance/archive/primary_10/p3.shtml)

I think 'deal' should be done more on collective basis rather that the individual student target basis. The KS1 SAT and teacher assessment, not sure why you call the SAT a teacher assessment other than the teachers chooses which students will take a higher level test, shouldn't be used to write a child off definitely , but also not target achievement in 4 years time. The SAT test is good at picking out kids that both have a BOTH solid foundation and are developmentally ready to go onto the next level. some of the questions are unnecessarily tricky.

it's not a horrible test and levels are not completely useless, but they way the data resulting from these assessments are being used is dangerous. The assessment process in general is really due for an upgrade.

We need some system of measuring the value-add of school based on their intake group attainment, but somewhere in the attempt to do this things have gone horribly wrong.

We aren't rated Outstanding by Ofsted

Ofsted are made up of fully grown-up individuals. They've had their chance to grow and develop their maximum intellect.

Based on some of their chosen policies I would like to assess them as

not having outstanding natural intelligence

and would therefore like to

'limit their future potential'

to impose policies that are not well thought out as to their possible implications.