Key Stage 1 conversion table for Key Stage 1 Sats are out

[Hulababy]

www.gov.uk/guidance/scaled-scores-at-key-stage-1#calculating-raw-scores

Not sure if of any use on here, but this has been updates today.

Using the raw scores from English and Maths you can convert to the standardised score, between 85-115. To be age expected the child needs to score 100.

Maths looks to be 37/60
English looks to be 22/40

Basically we have a statutory national curriculum and it would seem reasonable to assume that children would be assessed on the content ...wouldn't it 🤔
Then this year the government published exemplification materials giving the criteria for children working at, below and above the expected standard ... Seems reasonable that the assessments would reflect the expected standards ... Wouldn't it 🤔

I thought that the maths was from the curriculum. The reading seemed fine for paper one and what I would have expect for the stretch paper.
Which bits were not from the curriculum?

There were definitely a couple of so questions in the maths that are not in the curriculum for key stage 1.

The reading paper has a reading age of much higher than 6/7 years with many more inference type questions on there.

I have taught in year 2 this year and it has been the final straw for me.

I'm leaving mainstream teaching this year.

Hulubaby, do you mean paper two reading was hard? It was a bit mean to roll in the marks for that one. (Only a few children per class usually sit that one.) I thought it was just a stretch paper though so expected it to be a bit more challenging. I'm wondering now though as combining the marks will leave a lot failing I guess.

I thought the maths was ok, didn't see any difficult questions, nothing like the stupid people on a bus questions. The aritmatic was pretty straightforward and lots of easy marks on the reasoning.

The children could have got every question right on reading paper 1 but still needed 2 marks from reading paper 2 to get the expected 100. There isn't enough hours in the day for interventions on that basis! I think it would have been fairer to have e.g. 2 marks per question on reading paper 1 and 1 mark per question on reading paper 2 to show a more fairer expected standard.

The expected standard in the interim framework for teacher assessment allows children to use mathematical equipment - the expected standard in the tests demands that children do not.

The expected standard in the reading test allows children to answer questions in an untimed test. The expected standard for teacher assessment demands that they read fluently at 90 words per minute.

Those are only a couple of the important differences between the tests and the teacher assessment. They do not measure the same things at all.

It would have been reasonable to expect equipment to be allowed, given the content of the curriculum allows it at the expected level. Given there were two papers, they could have considered not allowing equipment in the arithmetic test but allowing the use of other resources in the reasoning if they wanted.

At 28 pages, the Maths reasoning was ridiculously long - many of my v able mathematicians scored highly on the arithmetic but just didn't have the attention span required to perform highly on a paper which often required a full page of reading just to get one mark.

They are only six and seven years old.

Reading - the info on castles was so, so boring. The practice question was a joke - how many 7 year olds are familiar with King Arthur? If it had been in italics, or quotation marks, as it should have, they may have got it. Including a third piece made it much harder than the sample - and a poem! How mean. I have some very able readers who had no idea what a parcel is - why would they?

'I have some very able readers who had no idea what a parcel is - why would they?'

Is that an autocorrect? Do able readers (or children in general!) really not know what parcels are? Surely in a world of Internet shopping most families at some point will say 'oh a parcel came for you today' or 'i sold some stuff on ebay, so need to post some parcels'.

Are the test papers now available online? I'm interested to see them. Ds happily recounted the story about birds /farmers/ pumpkin seeds, it sounded lovely - and very age appropriate.

A Hermes slip through the door states 'package', not parcel. They understand parcel now, post test, but it just wasn't within their experience before. A package sent to them is a present, not a parcel, likewise something they send to someone else.

A parcel is v Enid Blyton.

That would be the one with a reading age of 10-11 years-hardly age appropriate for 6 year olds!

I might be a bit old fashioned but I use the word parcel. To be honest I'm not sure that it matters if you don't know.
It's just fact retrieval isn't it?
the test says,
Today I'm like a parcel, wrapped up from head to toe.

I haven't looked at the marking scheme but " all wrapped up" or "wrapped up from head to toe " would do it wouldn't it?

I think my ds went to a birthday party when he was 4, and played "pass the parcel" game.

FEenie.
The expected standard in the reading test allows children to answer questions in an untimed test. The expected standard for teacher assessment demands that they read fluently at 90 words per minute
-----

I don't think that the SAT reading test is not a test of reading speed is it? children are being asked to answer questions, consider the answers, write the answers.
Therefore you would give more time surely. You can only test reading speed one to one can't you?

Exactly - the two measure totally different things, that was my point.

Ratty, a child can't explain why the child in the poem was like a parcel if they don't know what a parcel is in the first place. Understanding of the poem and therefore answering all the questions hinged on that word.

I know I'm going to get shot down in flames here.
DS1s international school didn't do SATS. Are the papers available for me and DS to look through? Not because I'll be able to make and assess, just because I'd like to see if he canon make a stab at half of it.
I can find samples, but not the actual papers. Do I need to look harder?

My DC have played pass the parcel at pretty much every birthday party since the age of 2. Is this not a thing where you live feenie?

I don't see a problem with that though... Children need to be tested in lots of different ways to gather a true assessment.

I'm not interested in my child's reading speed, I am interested in how he retrieves info, comprehends text and if he can draw inference. The test is a good indicator of that.
To read well is to be able to pick up the paper and answer it, to not need spoon feeding. It's not difficult to work out what a parcel is if you read the text for example. It's something all wrapped up. You would use your skills to work it out. Failing that you can retrieve enough info to still get a mark.

I'm ok with testing, I'm not loving the marking across the papers, it not fair on the less able readers.

It is, admittedly. It was too.much of a leap for even my able readers to link a party game to a child in a poem though.

Again, they are only six and seven.

In the sand pit

They are on government website, along with marking schemes.

Slips on flame proof suit😀

I think what makes able is that you make the link... and absorb info from everything around you. It's quite unbelievable none in 30(?) children in the class made link to parcel = present = package = something wrapped up.

I teach year 2 and paper 2 was much more difficult. There was a lot of vocabulary that my more able readers did not understand and they have probably not heard. Children that live in more affluent households are definitely at an advantage but this does not mean they are better readers or better at comprehension. The maths reasoning paper was okay although I do think the pass score was too high. You had to have nearly 2/3 of the papers correct to pass.

Quite a lot of my readers managed to make the link. In the class we have been practising completing inference questions with poetry. Hate having to teach to test and no longer enjoying teaching year 2.