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.

[ ^ "raison d'etre" ]

Neither child likes to stand out. -> Which would surely reinforce the argument for not awarding higher than a level 6, surely?

An argument against comps and for getting such children in a [super-]selective where they're not so unusual?

In my reserved DD's case it doesn't work quite like that because all her mixed-ability peers know what's-what and she stands out regardless. Yet her modesty means resentment from them is very thin on the ground and I've seen some signs that they're proud of her. All she would really need is to be in a credible position to start an apologetic sentence with "I can't help it, they made me...", where "they" are that peer-bonding common enemy called grown-ups. I'm not theorizing and have overheard her successfully use that approach for better-at-X-than-them scenarios a few times when the children didn't realise I was in earshot.

Early days, perhaps it's quite different for boys and not all schools have the same culture being passed down the years, but I think it is possible for children to manage the stand out conflict if the school takes a little care.

No one suggested taking GCSEs at age 11 but you seem to want level 6 and 7 which is the same level as a GCSE (yes a different course Charis but an equivalent NC level nonetheless)

If a c is what is expected of the average y11, then surely it's obvious that able y6s can also be this level and beyond? And yet the actual educational system itself doesn't allow them to be.

There has only ever been one National Curriculum "system" which allowed children to work to their own level the fact being few 11 year old children are actually capable of displaying the maturity or had the same life experiences of young adults.

Lurkedforever1 And yet the actual educational system itself doesn't allow them to be.

Education is not restricted to the classroom.

Very true

I didn't say it was limited to the classroom. Funny how that line only gets trotted out for the most able though, never any other groups state right to appropriate education. However I've got no idea why life experiences and maturity have anything to do with the ability to achieve an academic level several years early, especially in maths or logic based subjects. Luckily neither did dds very average state primary. But that doesn't change the fact able provision shouldn't be reliant purely on whether the school wants to do it, the system itself should have built in access.

It applies equally to all children.

Actually probably more important to stress for those children who struggle in school.

I agree mrz

Lurkedforever1 I didn't say it was limited to the classroom. Funny how that line only gets trotted out for the most able though

It was the use of the word "allow" that the comment was aimed at. Schools cannot stop a child from learning.

I don't think that this line is only used for the most able. My DCs school does Pips intervention in the infant school. Those children identified as requiring extra help and support are given additional work to do at home. Parents of those children are urged to help as much as possible using what is available e.g. read off cereal boxes, packaging and signs on days out etc.

The school has stressed at every group parent meeting that "Learning doesn't only take place in the classroom". They have asked parents to support their child as much as possible at home.

At The beginning of each year we have a curriculum meeting where the teachers outline core areas of learning for that year group and suggest ways that parents can help their child learn at home. Phonics is explained to parents in the infant school, along with a run through of all the sounds, the need to know number bonds, times tables, the meaning of words in context (rather than just reading the word), the need to understand punctuation and grammar is highlighted and the need to fully comprehend the meaning behind what they are reading.

What I find most interesting is (this is not aimed at you Lurkedforever) that the vast majority of comments I see about a G&T child (my DCs school use the term academically able) seem to be heavily/exclusively focused on maths ability. I have seen many comments from people who are not happy because their DC flew through their maths lesson, got everything 100% correct (which tends not to be the case for a bored under challenged child from my experience), finished well before everyone else and was then asked to read. Reading between the lines, granted I could be wrong here, many of these children are not also G&T at literacy/English. Where this is the case, surely that is where the school and parent should be focusing. When my DC is asked to read to fill in the time waiting for other children to finish I see it as a good thing as, although my DC is very strong in Literacy/English, maths is by far his strongest subject. What??s more my DC chose some maths books to read for the reading challenge last year. These books contained interesting maths facts and theory. There is nothing stopping a child from taking books like this in to read when filling time. This will likely benefit them when they get to higher levels of education and are expected to direct their own learning much more.

Wow and ds's school thought we were being pushy parents for asking why DS hasn't been read with at school for 2 months!

The thing is, you don't get to storm in, demanding that the school get your DD to make X sub levels progress in a year (and as you know levels are no longer being used anyway so it's irrelevant). Imagine 30 parents all going in expecting to set their children's target grades for the year with the head teacher. It just wouldn't work. Why does your DD deserve special treatment? Also, by going straight to the head, you are undermining your dd's class teacher. Do you even know what targets she/he has set for your dd this year? Oh and by the way, you do realise you will be laughed at it the staff room don't you?!

mum in that case I apologise, it's just I'm so used to hearing it as a stock line when parents say their child is bored from spending their classroom time doing work way below ability level.
I wouldn't have been happy if dd had spent maths lessons doing the same as everyone else and reading when she finished as normal procedure. Her English isn't as far ahead as her maths, but reading isn't the solution to that. Firstly because she just isn't made that way, secondly the interest isn't the same, and thirdly her actual reading isn't either something she'd particularly benefit from doing more of. And tailoring an individual literacy lesson to fill in is more impractical than doing different maths.
Dd doesn't enjoy maths from the point of view of getting it all correct first go with ease, or getting the best score, finishing first etc. She likes the actual challenge of figuring it out and having to think. Around sats time she got hold of an old o'level textbook. A fair bit was beyond her, some because of the language, some because it was new to her, and she absolutely loved it, with all the enthusiasm when she did figure out things. Getting something wrong and then working out why and trying again was right up her street.
Getting the only level 6's in her class was barely worth a mention. She already knew she would do easily, so she just wasn't bothered as it wasn't challenging. And that's not what I want her attitude to learning in the classroom to be.

Lurkedforever1 it as a stock line when parents say their child is bored from spending their classroom time doing work way below ability level.

From my experience, they are the parents who ignorantly think that responsibility of educating their child is the sole responsibility of the school. They appear more focused on SATs levels, reading levels and ability tables then identifying areas of weakness and addressing them.

Lurkedforever1 Dd doesn't enjoy maths from the point of view of getting it all correct first go with ease

This would be her downfall in my local 11 plus exam. The maths paper is not particularly challenging whereas the CEM VR is. Those who make silly mistakes in the maths paper loose out on a school place at the top ranked schools to those who are upper average at maths but very strong in literacy/English.

Lurkedforever1 Around sats time she got hold of an old o'level textbook. So why doesn't she take books like that in to read during time fillers at school?

Does she really have no other academic interest areas than maths?

Lurkedforever1 Getting the only level 6's in her class was barely worth a mention.

So your DC got 6s in all her SATs subjects? That's very impressive.

My DC was working at level

Opps, missed some off.

My DC was working at level 6 last year in maths but he needed to be for the 11 plus.

I'm not talking about people who are focused on levels etc. I'm talking about the experiences of people I know who just care about the fact their child is being put of education, isn't learning how to learn and are bored.

Re 11+. It wouldn't be. I didn't say she can't or won't do stuff that she finds very easy. Just that it isn't her primary motivation. She'll do it when she needs to. However in every lesson isn't an actual need. And has the reverse effect because it encourages children they don't need to try or concentrate.
Nor did I indicate her English would let her down. Its just not anywhere near on the same level as her maths. More than good enough not to let her down in any entrance test though. I supplied her with the materials, one set of papers to look through and the nvr/vr guide booklet for her to look through. A quick 5 minute chat on exam technique. And I timed a practice exam. We also did the same for the different papers used in another exam. So hardly tutored and hot housed to succeed in 11+. She got the hens tooth fully funded place at a top independent off the back of it, so I'm quietly confident she wouldn't let herself down elsewhere.

She didn't need to take anything in as a filler. As I've said her primary did teach her at the level that she needed, or at least as far as was practically possible, without me needing to ask or push. That doesn't mean I don't realise not everyone has a school like that. And don't forget, not every able child has parents that are involved. So it's doubly unfair that the most underprivileged but able childs needs can easily be ignored if they haven't got either the school or a parent to meet their needs.

I didn't say she got all level 6's. I said the only level 6's in her class. The next high ability group after her got a few level 5's. It's not a high achieving primary on average, or one interested in teaching for the sake of bumping up the league tables. It teaches what's best for the individual.
She hasn't got either the maturity or in my opinion the actual ability to have got a level 6 in reading. Her primary thought so too. She was doing some of the past papers in normal lessons as class work, but not with any intention of even sitting l6 reading. With a hell of a lot of hot housing, teaching to the test and a lucky paper she just might have had a chance. But that isn't how either I or her school think. Fluking a l6 reading wouldn't have been in anyones interests, most of all hers.

L6 maths however is a different matter. She didn't learn it for entrance exams, or just the stuff on the sats papers. She'd already passed beyond that point. Not my assessment, school told me where she was up to and what she was doing.

Her literacy in general got the same attention as her maths, she just happens to be better at the latter and enjoys it more, hence doing more out of school that advances it further.
The main thing is though, that while I'm aware my dd is far end of the bell curve, but I'm also aware she's certainly not in the super rare genius category. There's plenty of other kids just as naturally able, or slightly above or below, being cheerfully ignored by the state system. Some have parents doing what they can, some won't. Nor do I have a personal axe to grind, her primary was great and she's escaped the doom of our catchment school. Again though, suitable education for the most able shouldn't be reliant on the luck of finding a school or teacher who wants to do it, the system itself should have some provision.
The most failed able kids are those from underprivileged backgrounds with parents unable or unwilling to help them. They are well and truly fucked over by the biggest possible chance they have in life.

Lurkedforever1 The most failed able kids are those from underprivileged backgrounds with parents unable or unwilling to help them. They are well and truly fucked over by the biggest possible chance they have in life.

Personally I don't think any child will ever be able to meet their full academic potential without the learning process moving beyond the classroom. trying to put the onus on schools to achieve this is simply not feasible. There isn't enough hours in the day or monetary support for schools to enable this.

No not full potential from school alone. But considering the majority of underprivileged able kids will be in receipt of fsm, and therefore funding that is supposed to help them exclusively, I think they have an equal right to productive teaching in school time as less able underprivileged classmates. But they don't. I bet there's plenty of cases of high ability fsm kids having their funding diverted to lower achieving class mates, both fsm and otherwise.

Lurkedforever1 No not full potential from school alone. But considering the majority of underprivileged able kids will be in receipt of fsm, and therefore funding that is supposed to help them exclusively, I think they have an equal right to productive teaching in school time as less able underprivileged classmates.

Underprivileged kids of any academic ability level are being disadvantaged.

Lurkedforever1 But they don't.

Care to elaborate?

Lurkedforever1 I bet there's plenty of cases of high ability fsm kids having their funding diverted to lower achieving class mates, both fsm and otherwise.

I'm also sure there are plenty of cases where under performing children with SEN are having their funding diverted to support other children who need extra support but can't procure it because they are not far enough below the academic benchmark. In fact this latter group is the one that suffers the most as many, with the correct level of support, could actually be one of those academic high achievers. However, the root of this problem is not with the schools but the entities from which the funding comes from and the heavily restricted pots from which the funds are drawn from.

As I've already said I don't believe the state system itself has adequate provision for able kids of any background. If the averagely able child doesn't hit say level 4, when they have the potential, questions are asked by authorities. With very able kids, the system itself has no way to even know their potential because it's capped. Therefore there is no way of knowing if the child has made progress for them. There is no recourse to complain if your child hits the capped targets even if the parents are involved. Who's going to come down hard on a crap school because a fsm dc got level 6, or 5, or even l4? Nobody whatsoever, even if that dc is off the scale in terms of ability. Complaining might not always get results for any group, but at least the educational system allows for it in other areas.
I don't disagree underprivileged kids of all abilities are being failed, but as I said, the able ones go unnoticed. You can't have the potential l4 fsm kids all getting l2 and get away with it, but you can certainly do it with potential l6 fsm kids getting l4. How long do you think a school would last persistently failing the average range? Whereas they can persistently fail the most able and even the inbetween group without any comeback.

I'll start believing the state system isn't failing the most able when the majority of comprehensive top ability pupils start having the same outcomes as those at selectives. If the system is so great for able students, then why bother with your ds doing the 11+? I suspect because you felt the alternative wouldn't meet his needs/ability as well as a grammar. Which kind of proves my point.

The best hope of any social mobility though is getting the most able kids from the average or better still deprived backgrounds into decision making positions, and that won't happen as long as schools are allowed to get away with putting their needs in second place, when it should be equal.

No argument from me the Sen funding is a joke too, but that's a whole different argument. From personal observations though I'd say the schools ignoring the most able are often the same ones that ignore the least able, because their sole aim is chasing as many pass grades as possible. And the only kids who's needs they bother to meet are the ones naturally around that pass mark.

But it isn't capped ... There has been no upper limit to what level children could achieve.

I'll start believing the state system isn't failing the most able when the majority of comprehensive top ability pupils start having the same outcomes as those at selectives .

the key word is selective

schoolsimprovement.net/state-schools-outperforming-average-private-schools/
www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/stateeducated-students-achieve-better-degree-passes-at-university-9219867.html
yes 164 of the top 500 state schools are grammar schools (selective) but the other 336 aren't

I read Lord of the Rings at 6yo. My older dsis read it and recommended it to me.

I can tell you that I'm no great shakes at English, despite being pushed fairly hard. Dh, who wasn't into reading particularly is naturally much better than me.

Haven't Ofsted stated that the more able do better in selectives?

The sad fact is it doesn't make a difference as regards getting into the best unis. Private pupils stand more chance than state whether it be selective or not.

I'll wager that most of those 336 non selectives select by postcode- Grey Coats anyone?