2014 SATs Level 6 percentages

[PiqueABoo]

The DfE relased some 2014 SATs results data today which for the most part mysteriously shows significant improvements in the last set we'll see before the general election. I worked out some percentages for 2013 which looked like this:

Reading: 0.4%
Maths: 6.5%
SPaG: 1.6%

I haven't taken as much care to remove this and that handful of children from the total eligible in 2014, but they look like this:

Reading: 0.15%
Maths: 8.9%
SPaG: 3.8%

I expected them all to go up but although there were more pupils the tiny number passing L6 Reading got significantly tinier (851 this year, 2178 last year).

I'm not sure that these stats have much to do with the next general election. More likely it's an increase in the number of pupils being coached (and entered) by their schools for the Level 6 Maths and SPaG tests which are not that much of a step up from Level 5. Not to mention the proliferation of "How To Pass Level 6 SATs" workbooks on the market this year (pushy parents etc). On the other hand there might perhaps be a decrease in the number of pupils entered for the Reading Test as it's now known to be notoriously difficult for eleven year olds to pass and therefore a wasted effort in attempting it.

It covers all the levels, but the DfE press release is definitely trying to give that 'we improved it' impression.

I very much doubt any L6 entry levels have decreased because they were threatening to have them published at school level this year (not sure if that will still happen).

My DD took them all so I know what the differences are and I think all of them are a step up from L5.

L5 and L6 Reading are different creatures, with L5 recently getting easier and very difficult to pass L6 apparently getting harder. They also increased the pass threshold this year.

L6 maths does include a proportion of difficult L5 material, but there are quite a few new topics. They decreased the pass threshold this year.

L6 SPaG is also more evil (and more worthless) than the L5. They significantly decreased the pass threshold this year.

Blimey heaven forbid that pushing the above more able should ever be a focus.Pushing kids to get level 4 is always the focus whether it be Ofsted,schools or in the media.Don't both count?

And we wonder why the brightest privately educated kids get all the top jobs.

Both

Of course both count, which is why tiggytape said that the focus is is on VALUE added data, satisfactory progress for a child on level 3 at KS1 would be a 5B, but satisfactory isn't good enough so a minimum of a 5A is expected, for outstanding progress a level 6 is required. Raiseonline measures progress of different cohorts of children, including more able, Heaven help you if any group , whether able or not, falls below good!

Oh, and most people expect a decent education for their children, whatever their academic profile, it's only Mumsnetters who expect a level 6

Heaven forbid anybody should aim higher.What about the kids who would find 5B or 5A easier to obtain?

Not sure anybody "expect" anything bar a bit of pushing and high expectations for all.

"Blimey heaven forbid that pushing the above more able should ever be a focus.Pushing kids to get level 4 is always the focus whether it be Ofsted,schools or in the media.Don'th count?"

It isn't, you know. But you carry on thinking that if you like.

Yup I will thanks.

@tiggytape

Mea culpa for ambiguity, but my first sentence was aimed at the overall SATs results not just the L6 and they are spinning increased small percentages (including for L4+) as a consequence of government policy.

What I'm not convinced we're getting with the L6 tests is reliable, comparable, criterion based results and it's only a short hop from those to questioning the reliability of L3-L5 thresholds which have those very narrow band problems. The crockiness is quite exposed with the murky L6 Reading where this year we should have seen slightly more passes if their comparable outcome magic were working, but we got less than half last year's number so it clearly isn't working. At the very least an honest system would age adjust and ensure margins of error, significance got some prominence.

I'm also not enchanted by the choice of the phrase "extra coaching" in such close proximity to "givens" for "clever children", because it's straight off the blobby, progressive, anti-intellectual hymn sheet. Although odious Gove made a bit of a mess of his case about this I don't think he was fundamentally wrong, because these ideological memes are quite pervasive and quite pernicious. Failing that it's a convenient but weak smokescreen around resources and state education being systematically rubbish for both ability extremes.

It was a school year overdue and significantly below an appropriate level but my DD got some differentiated teaching in her normal school day and only for the L6 maths curriculum i.e. was taught and learnt something new, as opposed to peeing away yet more time doing what she could already do very, very well with no help from us or anyone else. They can't teach L6 Reading and I don't care about L6 SPaG which is a bit useless. No extra school-stuff at (quite modest) home, she was simply born bright and determined. Determined is good because she's got seven more years to compensate for the hypocritical hand-wringing crap where every child matters unless they're her type.

@Hakluyt: "It isn't, you know."

--

At a national level it very clearly is, because the results distributions around L4 and GCSE grade C are very distorted. Even Fiona Millar approves of the new 'progress 8' metric on the grounds that it will help make the distribution of resources more balanced, as opposed to the old metrics encouraging schools to focus on those specific ability levels for the good of the league tables etc.

What I'm not convinced we're getting with the L6 tests is reliable, comparable, criterion based results perhaps you could explain your doubts rather than talk about "crockiness"

Given that SATS as they currently stand, are being scrapped after the soon-to-be-year-6 have taken them next year, I think this years results are pretty much academic.

(See what I did there)

"Determined is good because she's got seven more years to compensate for the hypocritical hand-wringing crap where every child matters unless they're her type."

I have a daughter of the same type as your DD - very bright, all round very high ability, determined - who has been very well catered for indeed in her state primary, as has her brighter-in-some-areas but spikier elder brother. Given how well DS has succeeded in his excellent comp, I expect that to continue for her.

I do absolutely appreciate that it depends on the school, and to an extent on its intake. DS's first primary - which DD never attended as we moved before she started school - was much less good for an able child, partly becauise it wasn't a great school but als because he was such a statistical outlier there. The primary they then both attended was larger and had a wider range of abilities, and as a result there was a group of peers for them. It also had excellent teachers who taught in completely mixed abiliy classes, and really, really worked for the progress of every child [with 1 notable exception, who was managed out by the new head] I can't remember the L6 percentages offhand, but I know the Maths one was in the 20%s somewhere and has been since it was reintroduced.

Equally, the comp has an intake skewed to the middle / higher ability - I wouldn't choose it for an SEN child (because of the statistical outlier factor as much as for the provision), but it is very good indeed at stretching the most able.

I am always amused at the "state schools are all about testing and teaching to the test, no time for proper education / waaaah it's not fair little Jocasta didn't get to try the level 6 test- she needs to be stretched" dichotomy.

You have a strange sense of humour then.

No- just a well developed sense of irony.............

Seagulls,

I appreciate from this and from other posts that you feel that your able child hasn't been well-taught in their current primary, and in particular you feel they have not been well-prepared for the 11+, even for those 'non 11+ specific' areas that are also in the national curriculum and therefore allowed to be taught in state schools.

I can absolutely see how you might see this as a problem with a particular school, exactly as I saw DS's problems in his first primary as a problem with that school. Why do you see it to be a problem with the state sector as a whole - many, many thousands more schools? I mean, you and I could trade anecdote all day 'my DC's state primary does not do this / my DC's school does', but of themselves they are simpkly anecdotes, they simply illustrate that within a sector, some schools are better than others - some privates are lousy, some state schools are fab, and the other way round.

(Within the private sector in my town, there are highly academic private primaries, one that specialises in those with mild learning difficulties, and those that offer 'social' but no educational advantages over the most middle-ranking of state schools [though they play more cricket]. Equally within the state sector there are highly academic through covert selection, highly inclusive, outstanding with SEN, outstanding for those with behavioural difficulties, trying hard in areas of great deprivation but finding it a struggle and lots of middle-of-the-road schools doing well by their intake. I would hesitate to make a sweeping judgement, on that basis, about the sectors even in 1 town, let alone across the country)

Erm I haven't made a sweeping judgement thanks.

I was a primary teacher myself for several years having taught in several types of schools(inner city,town and rural,excellent,good and bad).

I also have friends with kids in shite private schools that are a world away from the best.So I'm well aware that there are differences in both sectors.

That said I do think there is a tendency to view pushing kids in the state sector as tantamount to child abuse(unless you're an immigrant or an ethnic minority and then it's seen as worthy and admirable).

The fact is as was widely reported yesterday kids in the private sector are getting all the best jobs.The scathing attitude towards anybody who so much as mentions level 6,aims high or wants to push their state educated kids I find incredibly patronising and damaging.State educated kids have enough barriers as it is.Parents wanting to push,get more info and compete should be applauded and encouraged.

We have as a nation a bit of a shit attitude as regards aiming high in the non wealthy classes and frankly in the global arena it shows.Re the top job gap between state and private just maybe this attitude is as much to blame as the contacts,old boys club and financial resources enjoyed by kids in the private sector.I do wonder at times.

As an ex primary teacher you will no doubt be aware that level 5 was the expected level at the end of KS3 yet now it seems that it isn't good enough for 11 year olds who generally lack the maturity even if not the ability.

"That said I do think there is a tendency to view pushing kids in the state sector as tantamount to child abuse"

I am sorry that it seems to be a tendency where you live / amongst the people you mix with.

Ensuring that every child makes the best progress that they can is the norm round here - and it is interesting that you are no longer in teaching, because it is very, very much what is expected by Ofsted et al these days. It is as much expected that DD will get her Level 6s, and DS level 8s in Year 8 and 9 (because of their starting points) as it is that the child who came into my class on P levels will make progress against his own targets.

'Level 6' does not equal 'pushing'. It represented good, but not outstanding, progress for DD given her KS1 levels and her rate of progress, and is no more 'pushing' than ensuring that a child gets from level 2 to level 4a or 5, or from a 1b to a 3a over KS2.

However inconvenient it may be to some there will be a number of 11 year olds won't find it much of a stretch to get a 5 in key stage 2.All kids deserve to be stretched all of the time.

Out of interest why is maturity needed in Spag and maths? Kids differ,some mature early maybe even early enough to manage the infamous level 6 in reading.

"That said I do think there is a tendency to view pushing kids in the state sector as tantamount to child abuse(unless you're an immigrant or an ethnic minority and then it's seen as worthy and admirable)."

Where do you see this attitude manifested?