Level 6 SATS

[Girlyheaven38]

Hi was just wondering if any pupils gained a level 6 in the sats reading test this year..? Apparently many pupils who were consistently gaining level 6 in the teacher assessment did not gain it in the actual test and national results suggest the overall results were less than 0.5%!

What benefit is there for a child getting level 6 in year 6? Serious question.

"@ SeagullsAndSand, letting high attainers attain more highly apparently makes lower attaining children feel like failures. Or the high attainers might decide they're Bright[tm] and that absolutely always ends in fixed mindsets, unrealised potentials and tears. Or [insert Kafka-esque excuse here]."

Has anyone actually said anything like that at all???

What benefit is there for some children to not be pushed to achieve their full potential when others are?

Surely kids shouldn't get used to just coasting into secondary.

But there is more to yewr 6 than SATS. Everybody's always saying that. If people want their kids to get 6s there will be even more teaching to the test and less time for all the other stuff. And I repeat. What is the advantage to a child of getting 6s in Primary school?

Erm they continue to be stretched and go into secondary used to working hard.

Literacy and numeracy lessons are a part of a school day not the total,there is plenty of time outside of both to do other things.

What should such children be doing in their literacy and numeracy lessons out of interest?

They should be doing work suitable to their level. But that does not necessarily mean silting level 6 SATS.

@Hakluyt: "Has anyone actually said anything like that at all???"

Yes.

I didn't suggest you had. It was a response to someone else who mentioned 'tendencies' and those tendencies are quite real in some schools, especially amongst the ones with the credulous management types.

It's not typically pragmatic front-line teachers saying that, but it is part of this season's set of fashionable memes amongst some of the 'blobbier' members of the 'education establishment'. It's clearly a reaction to what Gove/Wilshaw have done to give brighter children a slightly fairer (but not that much fairer) return from the state education system. It might be happening now because their confidence is returning as we get closer to the election.. and most recently because Gove lost the job.

"letting high attainers attain more highly apparently makes lower attaining children feel like failures. Or the high attainers might decide they're Bright[tm] and that absolutely always ends in fixed mindsets, unrealised potentials and tears."

Go on, link me to anything that anyone in any part of the education establishment has said that suggests any thinking even remotely like that? I double dare and challenge you! And I won't accept some obscure paper written by a batty academic in the 1960s.

What I'm not sure I see the point of is a timed test... yes, get capable children to do work at "level 6," but why does a 10 year old child need to pass a timed test in it? Why is the timing so bl**dy important? It's not the work that's stressful for them, it's the format - even if you can answer the questions, you have to answer them in a particular way within a particular time limit for a silly little test. I fail to see the merit in that - yes, they need practice in exam technique, but you really don't need THAT much practice, from primary school onwards, to have a reasonable technique by the time you hit the age of 16...

I'm not stupid, tiggytape. I know they all have to take a timed test... I still fail to see the point.

If level 6 is the normal standard for a 14-year old, then I fully understand the arguments of those who ask why so many children are being asked to sit that level 6 reading paper... or are less than 1% of children trying for it in the first place?... It's not as if less than 1% get levels 3-5, so at least there is a bit more point in that. At such a low hit rate, I agree with those who argue it's time better spent to work on level 6 in the classroom, rather than working on level 6 exam technique.

In other words, I think more progress might be made for more children at that higher level if it isn't in the context of taking a test, which focuses the mind in a particularly unhelpful way when it comes to higher level thinking in a very young child, imo. Being able to assess how many marks something is worth and how much time is worth spending on it on that basis does not encourage a child to stretch themselves and keep perservering, it just teaches them how to be strategic when there is a limited amount of time on offer. Better to let them spend time thinking about things, they learn more that way.

But tiggytape - as you've said yourself, level 6 maths has a far higher success rate in the test. So there's a point to doing that. The level 6 reading test really IS limited to less than 1% of children. So, what's the point of it? Do we need children to be able to answer those sorts of questions in a test at age 10/11? Is it necessary for the future success of our nation? If it doesn't help improve the teaching in the less good schools, but instead makes teachers and children more stressed and gets them teaching to the test, what exactly is its point?

ps I don't see how the higher level interpretation of someone else's writing can avoid being subjective, tbh.

But surely that means the test IS subjective, tiggytape? It is the subjective opinion of the "person" who set the original exam paper. Clearly, that "person" not only doesn't trust teachers to teach adequately unless the children they have taught are then tested, but also doesn't trust the people who mark the exam papers, so tells them what counts as correct and what doesn't, even when that in actual fact doesn't give leeway for genuinely intelligent and well thought out responses to questions which might just get the examiner himself thinking. It's not testing whether a child is a level 6 reader, at best it's testing whether they are predictable and can trot out a stock response and at worst, is just testing to see whether they think like the person who set the exam paper, who sometimes is a bit of an idiot.

@ Hakluyt, I think I'm through bothering with you, but here's a few that are "remotely like that". Have fun explaining why there are not.

Extending opportunities to participate in learning
berarespectingchildren.wordpress.com/2014/07/31/extending-opportunities-to-participate-in-learning/

Is this the end for gifted and talented?
www.hertsforlearning.co.uk/news/end-gifted-and-talented

Let’s ban Gifted and Talented readers
readingeducator.wordpress.com/2014/06/25/lets-ban-gifted-and-talented-readers/

The other thing that must be remembered is that there are no longer KS3 SATs, secondary pupils who are awarded L6 gain it because of their class work, HW and marks in internal topic tests. They never see or do a L6 paper.

How you set and moderate a paper that tests skills expected of a 14y when that cohort never see it, I don't know.

PiqueABoo that last link is one of the most depressing things I've read for a very long time.

Did you read it all the way through and not just the title? Because it seemed to me to be saying that g and t children are held back by the label. Not that children shouldn't be given challenges and not helped to work to their potential, but that the g and t label puts the emphasis too much on natural talent and not enough on the hard work needed to make progress whatever your academic ability. I think that's very interesting. He talks about g&t children sometimes not making the progress they should and suggests that the emphasis on their g&tness might be damaging for them. And also that the label being bandied about might make non g&t kids think that they can't achieve because talent is what you need not hard work.

Yes, and I do agree with all the Dweck mindset stuff. But here it seems to be getting quite problematically misinterpreted and misused. Because what he did say very clearly was that they shouldn't be running book groups for g&t children. Quite often extension groups like that are the only teaching that a bright/gifted child will get at their level and so these things are needed.

What seems to be going on, and in the link above that one too, is that the Dweck ideas are being used in pursuit of what Picque describes so well above
letting high attainers attain more highly apparently makes lower attaining children feel like failures. Or the high attainers might decide they're Bright[tm] and that absolutely always ends in fixed mindsets, unrealised potentials and tears.

Sorry, I have a blinding headache so that's not as well articulated as I would like.

"Because what he did say very clearly was that they shouldn't be running book groups for g&t children. Quite often extension groups like that are the only teaching that a bright/gifted child will get at their level and so these things are needed"

I didn't read it like that. I read it that children should be encouraged to work to their ability but that the term g&t shouldn't be used as it's damaging both for them and for the rest.

As far as I know the DDs primary never gave out G&T labels and personally I'm not sure they are helpful.

I think extension work and special opportunities should go to children who are capable and willing to enjoy them on a case by case basis, not have some label hung round their neck for all time.

Re G&T I'm not so keen.

One of mine has the label and one doesn't.The expectations for the one without it are woeful.He's in the unfortunate state of easily on track for level 5s however with pushing could get 5as and a 6.There is no pushing though.He doesn't fit into any priority group.

I have no fixation on 6s for 6s sake just the higher 5s/6s work level and aim.Doing the work without the test would suit me fine.I doubt however whether said child will do either.Said dc had a pretty dire KS1 so data wise (thanks largely to us)has made good progress since his KS1 Sats.Another nail in the coffin.