SATs Expectations and Progress

[drsimonlee]

My bright daughter (IQ 140-50) received a 3a for reading, 3b for Maths and a 3C for Science at the end of Year 2. That was a little disappointing, especially the Reading side of things, given she can already cope well with the Lord of the Rings etc. However, I've been told the SATs test involves reading aloud, so she's working on that this year. Nevermind.

She improved from an assessment of 1b in Maths to 3c (5 sub-levels) from Year 1 to Year 2. This was good news. Her Science improved by a similar extent.

I have a meeting with the Head/class teacher next week to discuss expectations and progress (a meeting I initiated) and I wonder what I will ask them to achieve with my daughter this year? If the average child is improving two sub-levels a year on average (from what others say on this site) then is a whole level of progress a reasonable expectation? Obviously more would be desirable and I'm already thinking that 4 sub-levels would be great. It's pretty obvious that children will improve more in the early years so academic progress isn't linear (I understand this a former Uni. lecturer) but I'd still like to see progress commensurate with her general intelligence level.

Last time I looked level 7 is above level 5 so is included in those stats but as so few achieve level 6 never mind level 7 the levels are lumped together. If your child achieves level 6 or 7 this information is included in the end of KS2 results that must be provided to parents.

There's no point in "assessing" if you don't or won't use the information from the assessment to teach the child concerned. By saying teach I mean impart fresh knowledge not just go over something again that they mastered long ago.

Before anyone jumps on me.. I do not mean ability-appropriate lessons or tasks every day or every week or even every month, but just once in a blue moon would have been nice. Just something that meant that I did not have to try to find a way to explain to my (upset, crying, etc) children why their need to be challenged was always less important than everyone else's need.

Why wouldn't you use the information to plan for the child's needs?

Well they didn't. So I suppose the word is "don't", although I am not sure whether they chose not to make the extra effort or felt unable.

2 separate class teachers did note that DS2 was well ahead at the start of the year and did warn me that this meant they would not be teaching him those years for that subject. I thought I'd misheard at first but they both assured me I had heard correctly and they followed through. So, I am not making this up. It really happens.

mrz I was talking about the most able not the level 4 expected. As spaniel says the teacher can assess if they wish above level 6. The system itself though has no allowance for it. If a child gets level 5 in teachers assessment, there is an opportunity to gain a level 5 in the sats. If a child was assessed at above level 6, they can't.
My Dds primary experience was different to var123 ds purely because her primary decided to choose to do it. In vars case it's clear they didn't choose to do it, and the point is there is nothing in the system to force their hand. Once your child hits that ceiling you have no further defined rights to demand more. It's around 5% that get level 6 in maths and spag. Probably more. That's a big range of ability that's completely ignored by the 'every child matters' claptrap

And you kept your child at such a school? Why?

I'm really not sure why a test which shows what a child is capable of answering correctly on a particular day with a specific set of questions that cover some but not all of the curriculum content is so important and evidence of achievement over a whole year on the whole curriculum content is so easily dismissed .

@spanieleyes, fair enough (it was a sincere query). Here L6 was a definite primary teaching & assesment cap, in part because primary believed anything from a higher level would definitely be repeated at the upstream secondary. Thus DD trod quite a lot of upper-KS2 water in maths.

Her Y7 entry assessment for maths was also L6-capped and matched the end Y6 teacher assessment of 6A. Her end Y7 target was based on the SAT result (L6= 6B) plus one level, so 7B which she hit in an L7-capped assessment, the first with L7, not long after that first autumn half-term at secondary. There was a run of three 7As in L7-capped assessments after that, however at the end of the year they apparently 'accidently' recorded her final level as 7B.

Secondary maths is the sunniest spot despite the Kafka-esque level nonsense. I won't say much about the secondary English because it will make me too cross, except they were babied and patronised and it would have been much more valuable to go back to primary Y5 or Y6 for those lessons.

@mrz, 9% achieved an L6 in maths in 2014 which is a significant percentage, not a "few. L6 Reading is the only one really qualifies for "few, especially in 2014 when the previous year's pass rate was mysteriously cut in half.

Your L5+ point is a interesting one. I wonder why they don't publish data for L5-only. That means I can't figure out above L6 and since some exist, why hide them from the official story?

Mrz - of course not! Well at least I didn't just put up with it the first time. First of all I tried to convince the teacher to change her mind, and then the HT to intervene. I looked up complaints procedure, learned how governing bodies worked, investigated the meaning of "every child counts", found out what substance there is to G&T - none btw - etc etc. Then when that failed, i tried to change schools (but it was Y2 and class size restrictions etc)
So we moved that summer. Really moved. New house. New area. New school with places for both children. And eligible for a highly rated secondary. I must've taken years off my life trying to put it all together - begging hundreds of primary schools, most within 100 miles but some up to 400 miles away) to tell me if they might have 2 places.
All was fine for a year. Then at the start of Y4, it happened again. This time I asked the HT for help. Offered endless solutions. Tried to be cooperative. eventually he suggested i just teach Ds in the evenings and gave me a G&T book of worksheets to photocopy.

Maybe some will say that we were just unlucky and it wouldn't happen in your school, or most schools. However, ask on the G&T threads and you'll see plenty of parents who are desperate to work out how to get the schools to just teach their children.

My son achieved level 6 science, maths, reading in primary and was taught level 3 content in secondary (as was every child in Y7) they repeated everything taught in primary over the next two years despite their own tests confirming SAT levels ??

It's much easier to achieve highly in maths (think about how many young children appear in the news having passed GCSE maths compared to number who pass English - I can't recall a single English pass).

tbh mrz I agree sats exams aren't that important and the assessment is. The point remains though that it demonstrates the system isn't set up to allow for the most able. Hence the l6 and as. And I think vars* experience is more common than mine. Certainly it is round here. And I had the same experience trying to find any grounds I could force dds likely state secondary, or the lea to meet her needs. The answer was I couldn't. Thank god she got another option, however most don't.

"It's much easier to achieve highly in maths"

Yes, more than a few appear to do that. I think part of the reason they don't in English is because it's long been steeped in a bit too much literary-luvvie guild-speak and hand-wringing morality. Bright children essentially have to spend a lot of time learning what they are supposed to think in order to please the grown-ups.

its less than 1/10 who do achieve level 6 so I wouldn't say that suggests coasting

No, some kids won't have coasted. Others will, and yet their progress can still be culled for convenience.

The ones who would coast are the same children capable of passing a GCSE at an early age ...very unusual and few in numbers.

I disagree about that, almost any child can be pushed through any Gcse at any age, the question is why would you want to?

But Lurchedforever didn't say pushed she said coasting through level 6/7 which is equivalent to a GCSE pass.

There is no equivalence, they are different courses. They can be plugged into a formula to give grade predications, but it isn't reliable. In fact, it's pretty much a load of drivel, but many of these formula are.

In maths I don't think coasting l6, or being able sit a maths gcse early is that unusual, or indicative of a super genius. And don't forget that top 5% or so getting l6 or a* has a much bigger difference in ability than 5% does anywhere else in the ability range.
As for putting kids in for gcse early, some really will be those really unusual kids that are genuinely ready to do university level work at 15 or even 10 etc.
I also think some will be kids whose parents are sick of arguing with schools about their childs needs and therefore do it to get proof their child really doesn't need to be repeating the same work ad finitum. I've read a post on here from a parent that did it because school couldn't argue with an a*. I considered it myself after being informed at an open evening no y7s are ever properly l6, let alone beyond, and regardless of whether it was Dds primary, not me, stating her current level and ability, and years of relatively linear progress, primary maths challenges etc, she would actually need to 'consolidate' and 'master' work below l6. A conversation started because dd had picked up the highest tier textbook and was eagerly looking through, only to have it taken off her and be informed she didn't understand it.
I think some kids just like the challenge too. Plus the fact able kids achievements aren't usually recognised at primary age because they haven't put in the same effort to get them, and the level of work that would be worthy of effort related praise isn't available. And yet able primary kids still like recognition as much as any other. So that may well be part of it too.

Yes of course there will be pushy parents in some cases, but I certainly don't think that should be the assumption in all cases.

"after being informed at an open evening no y7s are ever properly l6"

DD was taught all her maths at middling primary school and that was not extended at home on the "would make school even less challenging" principle. Her end-Y6 maths teacher assessment (capped at L6) was 6A and so was her Y7 entry assessment. She wasn't the only exception to their rule and they came from some different primary feeders.

Some KS2 SATs L6 results will have been scraped/boosted/whatever. It's also worth noting that the spec for that national test was for a mix of difficult L5 content alongside purer L6-stuff.

But any secondary treating all primary maths L6s as sub-standard is simply taking the piss. If you haven't seen it with your own eyes, then this Ofsted survey report published yesterday tells the tale quite well: www.gov.uk/government/publications/key-stage-3-the-wasted-years

Speaking as a mother of two sons who could easily sit some of their GCSEs early, I find I don't want them to. The only two advantages would be:-

1. give them something to do to fill the time
2. Challenge the school to stop talking in levels and progress and generally remove their ability to lie to themselves that the work they give represents a challenge to my DC. (This one would give me some satisfaction, but its not about me, nor the teachers).

However there are lots of reasons not to let them do it:-

1. What would it do to their self-confidence if they didn't get the top grade?
2. How would they fill their time waiting for the A level courses to start?
3. No way would I want them to go to university early (I did it and you miss out on some social stuff, which you'll never have a chance to experience again. My uni photo ID had "Not 18 until ..." stamped on it, which I found highly embarrassing.)
4. Its more cohesive to just take exams at the same time as every one else in your year group.
5. Neither child likes to stand out.
6. The criticism that I'd face for having hot-housed or failure to let them enjoy their youth or something equally ignorant of what's actually going on.

The answer has to be to find a way to get the secondary school to broaden what they offer children like my two, so that its not all focused on a narrow curriculum. Plus, obviously, doing my bit out of school to encourage them to find things that hold their interest.

I am finding the school's mind is closed though. They have decided that as a good school they challenge all students, and that fixed mindset is stopping them actually finding out that they aren't doing it and then fixing it.

pique I know l6 isn't always accurate. And we honestly weren't there in autumn insisting a likely 6 in the sats was indicative of ability. Dd herself thought the range of textbooks were just the range for y7. Out of dds earshot I did explain dds actual stage, which wasn't l6, and was informed her primary and I were wrong.
This school is a piss taker in general though, they ignore detailed statements and using the funding for the reason it's allocated when they can get away with it, so it's not a massive suprise they ignore all l6.
Yy re report. Just a shame all the reports are never acted on.

var123 However there are lots of reasons not to let them do it:-

Some interesting points. However:

1. What would it do to their self-confidence if they didn't get the top grade?

How will this be any different to dealing with their self-confidence if they didn??t get the top grade when sitting it with their peers?

The outcome could be the same whether they sit it earlier or later. However, by not sitting it earlier could result in period of real boredom which can reduce their enjoyment and passion for the subject area resulting in a reluctance to carry it on to a higher level.

If the outcome was not the desired or top mark it could also suggest that the early prep. challenged them more than they were ready for so over challenging them?

If you are suggesting that waiting to do the exam with their peers would more likely result in the highest mark, then surely this would suggest that, in fact, the child did not actually need to be challenged further?

To give an example:

I was subjected to a 10 minute rant from a parent with a DS at a local private prep. She was fuming that the school had refused to put her DS in for his maths GCSE. She entered him for it herself and paid a tutor for two hours a week and "he did really, really well and got a D so he was obviously ready for it".

2. How would they fill their time waiting for the A level courses to start?
Why would they have to wait, surely they could move directly on to it?

3. No way would I want them to go to university early (I did it and you miss out on some social stuff, which you'll never have a chance to experience again. My uni photo ID had "Not 18 until ..." stamped on it, which I found highly embarrassing.)

Why would they have to go to university early. Why could they not look at other additional GCSEs or A levels (unless they had a fairly narrow subject interest range). Bear in mind state secondary schools vary in terms of the number of GCSEs that students take.

I have school friends who did 5 A levels (and got top grades in all of them).

They could do iGCSEs (assuming they are not already) or IB

4. Its more cohesive to just take exams at the same time as every one else in your year group.

This is one way to look at it. However, I see it as more challenging. If a child spends a year focusing on 1 GCSE, they will find it far easier than focusing on 10-14 GCSE at the same time. What??s more the pressure of sitting 1 GCSE exam on one day will be significantly less than sitting 10-14 GCSE exams over a period of a few weeks.

5. Neither child likes to stand out.

Which would surely reinforce the argument for not awarding higher than a level 6, surely?

6. The criticism that I'd face for having hot-housed or failure to let them enjoy their youth or something equally ignorant of what's actually going on.

You don??t strike me as putting your own hurt feelings above the best academic interests of the children TBH.

My own concern about a child sitting such important exams as GCSEs and A levels early is their level of emotional maturity in dealing with the stress etc. However, I have the same concern over a child always being pushed to the very top end of their ability range. Children need to be able to focus on the boring easy task as much as the harder, more challenging task if they are going to be prepared for adult life.

1. They can do it again getting the grade they missed and then we can all fashionably talk of resilience and growth mindsets, Duckworth and Dweck. Schools apparently had plenty of time/money/excuses for retakes before the change re. league tables and there's even a potential benefit to their misplaced rason d'etre here because...

1. You could fill some of the time with AS levels in subjects they're not going to pursue at A-level or more GCSEs in close relatives of mainstream subjects, which delivers more points for the league tables to help fill the void left by the removal of all those corrupt "equivalents". Hurrah!

3, 4 & 5. Agreed. Get around to reading the very readable The Nurture Assumption one day because although that's well over a decade old now it's still standing and covers a lot of these areas.

1. ::meh:: They already do that and it can't get much worse. One thing that has helped a little here is DD having one significant extra-curricular interest that has no levels/stages/certificates/grades/whatever attached i.e. the implicit message is that it's something she enjoys doing, not that we're pushing her up a competitive ladder.