Has anyone got their Y6's SATS results from school yet?

[hillyhilly]

Just that really, no word from school as to whether or when these will be shared, I don't give them huge importance and the school was v low key about them but I'd like to know all the same

They were available to schools last Tuesday.

I'm a year 6 teacher and would say a score of 100 is about 4b level in old money. A scaled score of 110/111 or more is what I would say as working above (completely rough estimate, absolutely NO official grounding, but the children I would teacher assess as working above have generally got around this). Anything above 115 is very very good indeed. It's almost impossible to compare these scores to levels - the tests really aren't comparable. Even my 4b estimate is dodgy.

Happy to help/explain scores to anyone who would like, can post here/PM.

For those with the raw scores, maths was out of 110, grammar and spelling out of 70 and reading out of 50. My best reader who is very good got 43/50 (scaled score of 118).

So, when they talk about the average score nationally as being say 103, I assume they mean the median I wonder whether we have enough information to do any statistical analysis of the bell curve.Taking maths for example, we know that 50% scored 104 or more (and 50% scored less) . We know 70% passed and therefore achieved 100 or more , and therefore 20% of candidates scored between 100 and 104.
I wonder if anyone who knows about statistics can Are there any statistical measures we can derive from this little information?

The scaling is just odd. Especially after 100. DS got 69/70 for the SPAG, scaled up to 120. 43/50 for the reading which scaled up to 119; the two just can't be that close.

And it isn't fair to say to simply state a child did or did not reach a standard. The child has either passed or failed. Nothing says that they have made bloody good progress over the course of KS2 and that they are either working towards or working above. Unbelievably annoyed by this.

Sorry Chicken and Spare - been out of connection rather than not replying.

Our decision is based on our opinion that they're the children's results. Essentially they've done the work all year and been party to regular discussions about their own strengths and areas to develop so they get the summative information first.

We talk about the fact that the tests are primarily about judging school; what the test results means practically for them (ie how little impact they have at our secondary) as well as what the teacher assessment and their performance throughout the year also shows. This year, we're planning to use the scaled scores as a big part of the decision so HMM/WTS/children below expected standard will know that doesn't mean they're failures.
Throughout the year, we do half termly tests - old papers, new curriculum assessment materials etc - which are marked and given back to the children after marking with annotations on specific questions that we'd have expected them to get right. The children use a coloured pen to have another go at them and we remark together.
Whether they share their pre- or post- correction mark with anyone else is always up to them so by the time we get to SATs, it's an established routine so doesn't seem to be a big deal. We've never had a child or parent object either before or afterward the results are shared (although obviously we've had disappointed children) but I hope we'd be open for discussion (and they'd feel happy to talk to us) if they did.
It's something the school has always done - since long before I joined - but it seems to work for us, our children and our parents.

Snowy, I'm the maths lead in my school and was trying to do this this afternoon.
I think the mean average scaled score for maths as 103. As there ere 4 raw score marks that gave a scaled score of 103, I chose the mid point of 13 to represent the 50th centile (ie 50% of kids scored this Mark or higher. As we know 70% got 100 or more, as you say 20% must have got 100, 101, 102 and lower 103. If we assume the distribution of scaled scores is a symmetrical bell curve, then 20% of kids scored higher 103, 104, 105 and 106. A scaled score of 107 and above should therefore represent the top 30% nationally. I can only make a best guess as to where the top 10% might lie but my best estimate would be about 111 and over. So
Scaled score 80 -99 represents lowest scoring 30%
Scaled score 100 to lower 103 represents 30 -50 centile
Scaled score higher 103 to 106 represents 50 - 70 centile
Scaled score 107 - 110 roughly represents 70 -90 centile (top 10 to 30%)
Scaled score 111 plus represents top performing 10%
These centiles seem to fit well with the scaled scors at my school. Reading .will be similar

Should read mid point of 103 not 13

picInAttic - thank you for taking the time to explain. Actual, from the way you have described it, your school sound very sane and I can see that a one to one discussion wouldn't seem a particularly big deal if that's how you always do it. At DDs school she would definitely take it as a sign that the result was hugely significant and she'd done something "bad". So there would be fallout after school that would catch me on the hop.

Our school will give our children's percentage scores in each test if they were asked for them. Much easier to understand!

100 was the expected standard, whereas in old money a 4b was considered the standard. When SATs were introduced 4b was supposed to be the average score but it rapidly became expected standard - Gove was ridiculed in the House of Commons for suggesting that all children should be above average. The DfE said that the scaled score of 100 would be equal to a 4b, but it's not - the content is harder and standard higher. People are divided as to whether the new standard is more like a 4a or a Level 5. It's hard to properly compare as the content is different. I'm not sure why anyone would want to see where their child ranked in comparison with others at this stage - there are way too many variables at play and personally I think it's a bit damaging to bring competitive parenting into play in the first year of a new and clearly flawed test. It's not really clear yet how the data will be used. If Ofsted and secondaries accept that 100 is the same as an old 4b, then 110-120 will be equivalent to 5 or higher which will mean a child on more than 110 will be expected to achieve very highly at GCSE. Again it's a very blunt tool because the GCSE grades have also changed. No longer A-G but now 9-1 and no-one really knows what a 9 is - like a super duper A - even though they're being taught from September, the boards are yet to produce sample materials. The danger is secondaries look at the results and set lower targets for pupils who, under the old system would have really had Level 5s but are now considered to be Level 4. But who knows - it's all completely up in the air and few have any idea what is going on.

www.gov.uk/guidance/scaled-scores-at-key-stage-2

Just a quick thank you to all who contributed to this thread and helped explain. Our son's results came home today and I sat there thinking, "huh?"

Searched for more information online, read it, and thought, "okay."

But the mumsnet input is clear as a bell, and gratefully received.