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 think the changes to OFSTED inspections and grAdings are a move in the right direction and are a long awaited acceptance that high ability children underachieving is indeed a problem. The notion thAt these changes will or has already solved the problem is pretty naive.

No one has suggested that the problem has been solved but there is a clear message being sent to "coasting" schools one off dream lessons don't fool anyone! And with "the call" coming in the afternoon before the inspection or no notice inspections it's very difficult for schools to hide poor practice

I don't think it will or has solved everything. But I think the rating given to Dover Grammar is a clear signal that coasting is no longer going to be accepted.

However, I do think that it's only on Mumsnet and among similar demographics that what happens to high ability children is considered the most important challenge facing state schools..........

We'll that's a fair point hak state education serves far more middle ability children than any other demographic, so should that be where the focus of energy and resources should primarily be aimed? Perhaps so. Though my gut instinct tells me that we will find out next generation of scientists, economists, law makers amongst the high ability cohort so we allow them to under achieve at our peril!

Absolutely. We neglect the able at our peril.

But, at a risk of a flaming, we neglect the lower ability kids at our peril too. A badly educated disaffected underclass is a very damaging prospect for society as a whole.

hak I completely agree. And it is the perennial problem of how to slice the pie. And I have seen it said mAny times on here that there are much worse things than bright children coasting eg pupils not receiving resources to even access the curriculum.

That's lovely and I'm sure everyone feels better. Meanwhile here's a teacher's recent post from elsewhere:

A bright student in my school will be taught in a class of about 32 with one teacher. They will not have the best teachers available as they are needed for the C/D border students. They will go on to achieve B's or better but could do better with extra funding.

A middle ability student will be taught in a class of about 22 and will have the most experienced teachers available. They will also have a subject specific teaching assistant to support the class for all their lessons. Most of these students will get C's but a few might get D's.

A weak student will be taught in a class of about 10 and will have at least 1 (usually 2) learning support assistants to support the class for every lesson. Most will get F's or G's but a few might get a U.

If you shift the focus to one of the sadly increasingly more expensive rare special schools for MLD children (sad because the one I've spent a little time is the most uplifting place I've ever spent a little time in) then the maximum you might get aged 18 is an NC Level 4.

That didn't work: special schools are increasingly rare because they are expensive.

I don't get your point?

Hello all - Just back from our summer holiday - enjoying this interesting discussion...

Now toward the end of this discussion there seemed to be the suggestion that state schools do their best for middle ability - with some questions about low and high ability pupils. The debate about whether NC L4 or NC L5 is middle ability remains open - and is complex....

Certainly the guardian's tracking of KS2 English/ Maths SATs results is an interesting read www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/sep/19/sats-results-key-stage-two -

In 1997 - 20% achieved NC L5+

• with 67% of pupils achieved NC L4+ in Reading (English).

by 2013 the figures were: 48% achieving NC L5+

• with 74% achieving NC L4.

For Maths - in 1995 - 13% achieved NC L5+

• with 45% achieved NC L4+

by 2013 the figures were: 41% achieved NC L5+
with 84% achieved NC L4+.

Call me crazy but it seems to me that 'middle ability' is now on the L4/ L5 boarder (somwhere around 4a/ 5c) - and it looks like just scraping NC Level 4c no longer 'cuts it'. Indeed the government is asking for schools to report 'good' level 4 data (top 2/3rds of mark range): www.gov.uk/government/news/package-of-primary-school-measures-will-raise-ambition-and-standards

Now all sorts of questions crop up with this continuous improvement on end KS2 standardised examinations.

1. Is the standard of the exam being maintained and therefore the improvement is due to 'teaching to the test'

1. Is the standard of the test being 'relaxed' and therefore the threshold for achieving these levels is effectively lower.

As a parent it is confusing. Oddly enough - in a world full of 'research' - nobody seems too keen to review these exams and ascertain whether pupil achievment is improving or whether it is other factors (better prediction of exam coverage/ better preparation of pupils for exam situation/ easier examination standards).

As discussed above - the thresholds are altered each year after the results for all pupils are known. Some have suggested that this can be 'political' with governments lowering thresholds in the run-up to elections (here and on other discussions on MN).

I don't have any answers and indeed now have moved on as I am embarking on learning what KS3 and senior school is all about.

But... with some uncertainty whether my hindsight is 20:20 or not...If schools were thinking let's get them all (or vast majority) to NC L4 and at least 50% to NC L5 as 'standard' - then yes - I think the state system would be serving the next generation, and ultimately all of us, much better.

My son achieved L6 for writing - but this teacher assessed? Does that make it less worthy?

Welcome back PSBD,glad to see you're still dropping by.

"If schools were thinking let's get them all (or vast majority) to NC L4 and at least 50% to NC L5 as 'standard' - then yes - I think the state system would be serving the next generation, and ultimately all of us, much better."

Those are pretty much my DC's primary school's aim and achievements - though their Level 5 percentages are rather higher (between 50 and 75% depending on subject) and 20% get Level 6 maths. The only child not to get L4+ arrived at the school 4 weeks before the exams with no English.

The intake is OK, but not a complete explanation for the results - the children arrive at school at levels 'broadly as expected for their age' according to Ofsted.

@Hakluyt, That happens a lot and I just can't think why. You were talking about the risk of low ability being neglected, I just pointed out where the resources actually go and what return we get on the investment.

@PSBD

You are not crazy.

1. I haven't done this since the 2012 results, but I got Excel to make graphs of the national KS2 SATs data which you can get indirectly via RAISE Online transition matrices (they are available to the public). The overall graph looks more like a bumpy mountain than a bell curve, however two observations:

• The peak is around 4a/5c, so yes that's approximately the mean now.

• There is a high bump, a distortion at 4c which clearly represents children being boosted to that floor standard (in some cases fiddled).

2. Although a SATs 4 was the floor standard the current government believe the previous governments gradually massaged (relaxed) the results in order to show that their policies were improving education i.e. a SATs 4 doesn't really indicate a child is competent at NC level 4. Hence they have said that instead of 4c, the competence that will currently get you a SATs 4b will be the threshold in the new primary accountability tests.

Perhaps you could explain how this is "fiddled" ?
Schools do not see the tests prior to the day.
They do not know how many marks are required for each level.
KS2 tests are externally marked.
The markers do not know the thresholds for each level when they enter their marks.
The tests vary slightly in difficulty and this is reflected in the number of marks required to reach the threshold.

Yes there are some schools who teach to the test, and children spend all of Y6 doing practice test after practice test.
Yes there are parents who buy every practice test from WHS and on line to do at home.

Which is why teachers say Teacher Assessment is a more accurate way of levelling but I suspect there are too many "conspiracy theorists" to ever be happy with that idea!

@mrz, what is The Emperor wearing this morning?

Example: At my closest primary school the HT and DHT took a couple of children to their office to rewrite some of their SATs answers after they had done the test.

If someone in the business can't work out the number of marks that will very likely ensure a given level regardless of a potential L3-L5 threshold change then they're a bit useless: L3-L5 has to accommodate those three levels and behind the scenes all the sub-levels in a limited range of marks, so you can't have the kind of big change we have sometime seen with L6. Most of the time fiddling a bit more than the typical threshold will work.

There are other ways of fiddling and although it's likely not endemic, it does happen and that school above got away with it i.e. it's obviously more than just the ones that get caught and make the press.

Interesting, intelligent, recent read with an angle on this from the US:

www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2014/08/another-lesson-from-america/

A US primary teacher stayed with me a couple of years ago and they were remarkably like an English one, except perhaps a little bit more serious. Given all the religion over their do you think they are more or less likely to cheat under pressure from bean-counters?

over their->over there. :(

"Example: At my closest primary school the HT and DHT took a couple of children to their office to rewrite some of their SATs answers after they had done the test."

If you know this, why didn't you report it, rather than simply saying 'the tests are unfair because some people cheat'? It's like standing by while someone steals someone's handbag and saying 'the country is going to the dogs, why don't the police arrest anyone these days?'

Just a couple of weeks ago we have a report of an HT who apparently got caught for lack of subtlety (31 of 50 papers!):

www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/11395197.Head_teacher_banned_for_changing_SAT_tests_at_Poole_school/?ref=rss

What happened when you reported your primary school for cheating?

A Maladministration Investigation

IsItFriday - are you Pique, pointing out what DID happen when you reported it? Or pointing out to Pique the correct way of doing so?

The "correct way" of posting anything is how I choose to post it, give or take some SPaG: it weren't me

My closest school wasn't DD's primary. I had no inkling of anything like that at her school, but one of the children might have done a little copying in L6 maths: they apparently did that a lot and the children weren't spaced out for the official SATs. That was a bit odd given that they had ample space to separate a small subset, but I do trust that Y6 teacher and their TA levels.

"My closest school wasn't DD's primary. "

So you didn't report the malpractice, then?