Poor SATS results

[nat73]

I just read the KS2 SATS results for our school. 25% meeting expected standard overall :-(. National average is something like 50%.... reading was good something like 83% but writing and maths 'well below average'. I had guessed there was an.issue with maths because 2 parents had asked me to tutor their kids in maths last year and they both seemed pretty poor compared to expectations.
On paper our school.has many advantages.. small, small classes, no EAL, low FSM. We are heavily white working class. DCs are happy at the school and school always says they are doing well but maybe school's expectations are low? So what to do? What's the problem here? Crap teachers? Parents with low expectations? All schools around here seem to have equally low results so no pointerest moving to another school only alternayive would be to go private..

Anyone else in a similar position? Where can I find KS1 results for the school?

MarytheCanary hits the nail on the head.. 'Reading your posts, the overall impression one gets is of a school that is basically "nice" and and has no major dysfunctions or horrors... but which does not have very high expectations and is not pushing the kids an awful lot in terms of academics.'
For an experiment I tried DD yesterday doing a sample 7+ paper for a highly selective school in London. Despite allegedly being working above the expected level in her school she got less than 50% on the maths (to be fair some of it she had not seen before but some just careless so we can work on that) and her english comprehension was pretty dire. We have tried practising her hand writing - its still pretty enormous and messy. In the exam they give 2 lines to copy an answer and she needs 3... :-(
I just feel like she is already 'behind' we were hoping she could move to a private school at 11 but my fear has always been it will be too late and now at age 7 it already feels too late. I know its not too late its just depressing...

If your child's school is following the National Curriculum then it's not surprising they found the 7+ difficult as its testing a whole different set of skills

Sloe...
10 is an unviable cohort. But there can't be 10 as the figures at 17% and 33%

17% is 1 in 6 rounded to the nearest percent, likewise 33% is 1 in 3 rounded to the nearest percent.

Where I live 10 in one year is bulge year.

Stats for small schools show much more variation. 100% could mean that the single child in the year did well. 25% could mean that of the four, one just missed, one was good and two had significant SEN. etc ad infinitum

tbh I know if I speak to the head about it what she will say - e.g. it was a cohort of 12 of those (x say 3 were dyslexic) and the rest were average... words to these effect. Therefore say of the 12 e.g. 4 passed => 25%? Something to this effect.

My concern is of the 11 nearest schools to us only 1 had met/exceeded the national average of fifty whatever percent. And no kids met the exceeding standard (the top 5%?). So am I to believe these schools all have a higher than average SEN (in our schools case double) but no top 5% kids? How can it be that we only have 1 end of the spectrum?