giving home school books (text books etc...)

[rrbrigi]

Hi,
I would like to start a discussion to find out opinions for parents and teachers about giving home school books (I mean the books which the children work in each lesson).

As a parent I think it would help me a lot if I could see what my child learnt in the school each day. Specially from math, English and science.

My child is ready to learn with me at home around 60 mins a day. But the problem is I do not know what to practice.

I think it is useless to practice the fractions at home (because I think he needs practice on that bit) when they learn the long division in the classroom. I think if I could practice the same thing with him at home as he does in the school, it could help him to improve his math way better than just random practices every day. But just practicing something on mymaths won’t deepen his knowledge, in fact it could make him confused, because they did not learn that in the school yet, or the work is too easy or hard. They got homework once a week from math (1 A4 paper maximum), but it does not reflect the whole week maths lessons. We do random practices know, but I do not think it benefited him at all, just took the time from him to do something else.

It also would help me to see what he does in school for English. For example, if he needs to write a story at home seeing his English book I would know the quality of writing he would be capable of and I also would see his teacher comments, so I would know what should he include in his story. Or I could see which part of the grammar they are learning in the school, so we can practice that at home. I think there is no point of practicing the power verbs at home when they are learning about adverbs in the school.

From Science is the same. If I would know what they do each lesson, we could see videos from the same thing, or reading pages on the internet about the same thing, it would help him to catch his interest in Science and deepen his knowledge.

It would be better for the teachers as well, because I do not think I am the only one who would help her kids to learn. Parents could spend the daily learning time with their kids more effectively and as a result kids would have better understanding about the things they learn.

I just feel that without his school books I do not even get the possibility to support his learning on the way he deserves. If I could see what he learnt in the school each day I strongly think as the time goes I could even improve his GCSE mark as he would get without this support.

So my question is:
Teacher why do not give the school books home?
Parents what do you think, would you like to see your children school books every day to help them in their learning journey?

Thanks for reading it.

rrbrigi,

just as a question - if your child doesn't understand something at school, why do you see it as your job, rather than the teacher's, to explain it again?

That is different from routine practice. As I have said repeatedly, repetitive routine practice of already-mastered methods until they are fluent and automatic is an entirely reasonable thing to practice at home - find out the school's calculation policy (website or ask school) to check that you are using the right methods, and which level your child has reached, and then go for it.

However, if a child has not understood e.g. a new method, or a new application of a method, or a specific point in grammar, or e.g. how to structure a character description, why is it that you feel that you should step in to re-teach it? As a teacher, I see that as my job - I mark the books, see the problem, and adjust either individual or class tasks and teaching to address the problem.

I know that is not the same everywhere in the world - colleagues who have been involved with exchanges with Shanghai maths teachers noted that it was normal for pupils, if they had not understood the lesson in the morning, to get further help both from the teacher in the afternoon AND an out of school tutor / parent at night, so that they arrived in class the next morning ready to move on to the next lesson.

However, that just isn't the way English education is set up to work - certainly at primary, it works on a tight teach / do / assess what has been understood / re-teach if needed / do more if needed / reassess circle in school.

sirfred,

"Mostly though, whilst I agree practice is important, it's the idea that knowing what is in the school books is useful to enable that practice as a parent. Particularly because practicing what you did today is probably less useful than practicing the things you did a month ago, even more so when you don't know what the teacher is going to do over the next days - where they might too be revisiting the subject due to kids struggling."

Well I'm not sure I agree with this.

On the one hand, what you describe is the approach which I describe as 'spiralling' method. You touch on something, then you revisit it a month later, and again at the end of term in a whole-term review, etc. Each time gaining a little more understanding/depth. If that were the ideal way to learn, I agree that practising/revising something that was covered a little while ago in school would be most efficient. However IMO (and in the opinion of the mastery curriculum) that is NOT the best way to learn. Instead, you work on the thing you are working on until you have grasped it, have a secure understanding of it, and only then move on to the next thing. Some children will need more practice, some less, to achieve this. There is often not much need to revisit the first thing, because application of it will be incorporated in the next thing, so you won't forget how to do it due to lack of practice. If this were the best way to learn, then indeed practising the same thing that has been done at school that day, but clearly not properly understood yet, seems much more efficient. And although I do believe that this is a better way of learning than spiralling around the topic, not having the work books home stops me from doing this efficiently.

But yes, given the situation as it is, we find other ways to support DS (DD is not yet at school). He has a much shallower grasp of the curriculum topics than he could have, as school fail to provide him with 'depth' challenging work, and I cannot supply this at home, not knowing what he is working on at the moment. But instead we do loads of other things which, in the long term, might give him the breadth that is equally somewhat missing at school, and hopefully having that breadth as a basis will allow him to go into depth where he desires to, at a later stage.

On the other hand, wouldn't you be pleased, as a teacher, when most children who were struggling with something one day had actually practised that thing at home, and moved forward, without you having to have done anything? So the next day you could focus on the children who hadn't, or who need more than just more practising.Or if the child who really needs more depth challenge has been provided exactly that at home?

a) BigWeald, have you used nrich for interesting Maths enrichment? I use it a LOT in school, but if it's not something that yours does, i can recommend it.

b) The practising at home thing for a child has been struggling is an interesting one. It can be fine, if the parent has a really good understanding of the method / approach used in school 89that's why we run training sessions). On the other hand, the mastery curriculum aims to build understanding, and it can be difficult if e.g. a parent focuses with a child on 'you do this process and you get the answer', without the child having underpinning understanding of what is going on. (A classic example is the 'to multiply by 10 you just add a 0 to the end of the number' one - yes, it's an easy trick that gets the right answer ... until the question is 0.89 x 10)

Gosh, I am away for a little while and I get back to three more pages worth of messages...

BigW: I have come to realize that "different" is good. The school does what it does and that's fine (well... to a point :D), but at home there is SO much you can do to cover the same ground differently that in the long run I am quite sure that actually "different" is actually "better", not just "good".
Little anecdote: when my DD1 was in P1 we got the report card with the usual nonsense on it. One detail stuck though: we were told that she didn't know "money" and she had to practice it. "WHAT???" Said I... Ok, she doesn't know money and she needs to practice it, but 1) is that really relevant info to give out on a end of year report card, but more importantly 2) if it was SO important, why didn't you tell me before?? At the end of P2 something similar happened (I have the card somewhere but now I cannot find it) and we were told that she should practice her spelling ("hangman" for example). D'oh!! Said I... I think that was part in because I had mentioned to the school that she wasn't spelling well and I took great exception to the fact that it was implied that it was kind of our fault for not having her practice enough (and I told them so). So, long story short... in P3 I have understood that we might as well do our things at home marrying the little that the school asks us to do (next to nothing), plus other stuff that covers more or less the same ground, but probably (who knows...) differently. I dare say, the results show.

Irvine (I think): I know that some kids are not equipped to do multiplication in Y1 (or P2), but I put the blame for that squarely on the school, their teaching methods and their way to approach early maths. That is true from at least two perspectives: 1) mastery is not achieved, exactly as some posters said (and I see this in my school where they touch upon a subject, never to be seen again for weeks or months); 2) the approach itself is probably too old fashion. In my country some schools have started using a different approach to maths in primary school, and while I don't know what the long term implications might be as I don't think there is any research as yet, I have seen with my own eyes that in the short and media term it works wonders.

cant,
"just as a question - if your child doesn't understand something at school, why do you see it as your job, rather than the teacher's, to explain it again?"

I think we're homing in to one of the fundamental cultural differences.

Where I'm from, the teacher teaches, and the child does or does not adequately learn what has been taught (some needing more and some less practice to adequately learn, other not learning adequately despite lots of practice), and at the end of the teaching unit the child is assessed as having 'passed' or not, or having done well, or having excelled.
Of course teachers do try to support those who they see are not 'getting' it, but within limits. And of course they adapt the speed at which they proceed according to how well the class as a whole is ‘getting it’. But if they’re doing multiplication and a child cannot really access the learning because they haven’t properly got to grips with addition yet, then the child will have to repeat a year unless parental support helps them to fill the gap. The teacher won’t attempt to teach them addition while the rest of the class does multiplication, nor will they attempt to teach them ‘multiplication at their level’ e.g. counting in twos. (But as children start school so late there are few who don’t manage to grasp addition in their first year of school, allowing them to move on to multiplication in their second year with a secure grounding.)
So those kids who aren't learning enough from the teacher's teaching, are supported at home with more practice/parental teaching/tutoring. Ideally, BEFORE they have failed their end-of-unit assessment and the class moves on to the next topic! Unless of course the parents for whatever reason can’t/won’t provide that support. Then it’s just ‘bad luck’ for the child.

Whereas what you describe Cant, is more of a 'levels' type of teaching, where each child is taught at the level they are at (in theory anyway). Parents don't need to supplement teaching at home to get their child to 'pass' as there is no pass/fail as such, but the child will simply be taught at a lower level if they haven't grasped it yet. However I'd say that if a child is lagging further and further behind, then unless there is some kind of intervention (at school - which may not be forthcoming due to funding cuts - or from home) the child will never be able to 'catch up'. They may always be taught at their level, which may always be a year behind the rest of their class... but allowing them to repeat a year, so that they could learn alongside children at the same level, is very rarely seen as an appropriate option.

I hate certain aspects of both ways, and like aspects of both too.

But I'd say it is also an expression of the idea here that you hand over the child to school, and that school knows best, and you must not concern yourself with how your child is doing, except behaviour wise... Which I find quite patronising tbh. And not developmentally right for 4 year olds.

Cant, I wish our school would use nrich. I have used it before but not for a while. Sometimes I look at NCETM material. But mostly we've given up on supporting DS specifically with the curriculum. We are lucky that he is doing well, and as he would not yet be at school at all in our home country (he would be expected to recognise his name, and be able to count to 20, when he started school this August - instead he's en route to achieve 'mastered at greater depth' in maths and reading papers this month) we're pretty relaxed about things. Just because he would be able to learn more/go deeper/progress faster, doesn't mean that he should/needs to! He's young still and his ability allows us to spend less time worrying about school, and more time having fun doing other stuff.
(I do feel sorry for children who struggle more, particularly at our school; and am quite concerned for DD who is, for now, superb at cycling but not so good at distinguishing letters (or numbers) from each other despite being very keen and interested. (You know, on street signs and such; I don't make her do workbooks!)

BigW, what happened to spelling and grammar?

BigWeald,

I think you are right about the cultural differences.

Could you explain something that I have never understood about the ''repeating a year' thing?

The children i have taught who are well behind often have SEN - a specific or general learning difficulty that makes their learning much harder than for other pupils. So for example a Y4 aged child with vision, physical and cognitive difficulties that led them to be performing at around the level of an average 2-3 year old, but a much slower acquisition of new knowledge and skills. Less extremely, an upper primary child who though of normal ability in all other subjects, has specific difficulty with arithmetic (dyscalculia), leading to a need to use concrete materials to support even e.g. adding or taking 1 from a 2 digit number, or having to use objects to 'count all' to add two small numbers. Although the first could possibly have been educated at a Special school, the second definitely could not.

How does 'keeping a child back a year' work when the child does not progress by a year in each year, if you see what i mean? In both the above cases, the child was more than a year behind AND acquired new knowledge at an extremely slow rate in 1 area or in all. After repeating a year, do they go down ANOTHER year, and so on ad infinitum? Or do they simply go down a single year and then progress with the year below? or do special Schools educate a much larger number of children, including those who, like my second example, was perfectly up with their own year group in all subjects but one, but in that one area had very great difficulty?

In terms of interventions, one child had a 1:1 TA to support them in all lessons, and very significant expert involvement. The other had 1:1 support in Maths, and extra Maths 1:1 every day, using specific programmes designed for those with dyscalculia. One had a supportive home life, the other did not, but in neither case was the level of expertise in the family sufficient to enable those children to progress at a '1 year per year' rate, if that makes sense?

Arkadia, what do you mean?

Cant, well I'm no expert and it's been a while since I was at school and all that.

I think there's a general acceptance of the idea that some children just are ready for learning a little bit later than others. So already at school entry, it's up to the parents when the child starts school. They've just got to be at least 6.2 at school start in August. Generally it is said that as a rule of thumb, boys 'mature' a year later than girls, so the majority of boys is 7 by the time they start. So it is a very standard thing to have quite an age range within a 'year-group'. Kind of 'stages, not ages'.

Then there are kids that 'started school too soon' so once it is noted that they can't keep up, repeating a year corrects this mistake.

And some kids are ok at school until e.g. things turn more abstract/analytical/theoretical so e.g. they were ok with arithmetics but can't (yet) cope with algebra. Again it is thought that this may be a developmental thing, so giving them that extra year can solve the problem. Or it would allow them to be ahead in many subjects, freeing their mental and time resources to cope with the subject they were struggling with.

Children used to be made to repeat another year if need be, the maximum I heard of was three. I don't know how it is now.

With regards to 'spiky' profiles, 'failing' in one subject (e.g. maths) would not trigger repetition of the school year. This may have changed but there used to be complex rules e.g. the child's average score across all subjects must be 'pass' or more, there can only be one 'fail' in key subjects (literacy/maths/and was it science?) and this 'fail' must not be a bad 'fail' but only a 'narrowly missed' fail, and there can be maximum three 'fails' overall so including things like PE/handwriting/arts&crafts etc. My DSis surfed around those boundaries during her entire secondary school time... so if a child was quite able overall but with a specific difficulty, and was perhaps able to compensate a bit of that difficulty with extra work/coping mechanisms, they would remain in their original cohort even if they 'failed' in maths. But if their difficulty was so severe that they went below 'just missed passing' to 'abmissally failing', then yes they would be made to repeat a year, and potentially again. At which point they should be so much ahead of their class mates in all but one subject that they could concentrate all their resources on that one subject and hopefully scratch a 'narrowly missed'...

It is a similar thing with selection at age 11, where a child with a spiky profile may well not pass despite being very able in some subjects. (Anti-grammar schools here...). My country has largely moved away from selection (there are however huge regional differences), towards comprehensive style schools with subject-specific streaming, whereas here the government wants to go the other direction...

But yes, provision for SEN is a lot worse in my country than here, and it is a lot less inclusive. More children attend special schools. Some of my older generation relatives like to moan that 'every child who doesn't get perfect scores is diagnosed with some learning disorder which probably doesn't even exist, and every child who misbehaves is diagnosed with ADHS, rather than being disciplined'. Gah. It's quite sad really, and one of the aspects that I really like about schools here, their inclusiveness. And yet I am seeing this deteriorate before my very eyes - this kind of inclusiveness requires adequate funding for mainstream schools that takes into account the requirements such as extra staff, extra material, extra training. I fear for the future where I forsee teachers struggling to teach classes of 30 with no TA despite several kids who really need 1-1 support. What will happen then?

Thanks. I've always wondered about repeating a year.

IME children who are 'behind' at a specific age are those who not only have failed to meet the expectations of each of the previous school years but also learn more slowly during each year, so going down a year would not help.

It's a bit like being accelerated a year doesn't help an able pupil as they rapidly, or even immediately, rise to the top of the age group above, because they not only are ahead of the norm but also learn more quickly. (I was moved up a year with exactly this consequence - I was still embarrassingly ahead but ALSO embarrassingly young)

BigW, I mean the paper is made of three parts: reading, maths, and spelling and punctuation.
You mention the first two, but not the third (I assume you are referring to the SATS as you mention "mastered at greater depth")

Talking about expectations that we (and the State) have towards our DC.
Out of curiosity I have just had a look at the KS2 SATS that more than once have been branded as awfully difficult.
Well, what a disappointment... OK, the kids might find them difficult, but isn't that a reflection on the poor expectations that the system has in the kids in their care, rather than the difficulty of the test itself?
OK, I admit, I do not know what "antonym" means, but out of the maths, and spelling and punctuation tests, that was the ONLY question that I wouldn't have be able to answer blindfolded and with my hands tied behind my back.
That level of grammar would be done in my country pretty much in Y2-3 (starting 2 years later, admittedly). Is it possible that a Y6 pupil would find it difficult to spell "disorder", "knock" or "vision"? (These are the only three I happen to remember). The arithmetic quiz was really only a matter of recognizing the difference between the decimal point and a comma, plus dealing with large numbers, so no big deal.
I haven't looked at the reading paper, but I would expect more of the same.
So, OK, the paper for the standard being taught was difficult, but where does the problem lie? Is the paper the problem? Or is it perhaps a matter of priorities in earlier years that then get carried over and spill into secondary school and beyond?
I understand that English is a difficult language, but is that all what the state thinks that a child should achieve in SIX years of primary, i.e. just over half of those questions correct? Can we really be surprised if people can't spell if the state says it is ok if you can't spell perfectly ordinary words after SIX years of school?
Not to mention a viral Facebook post from some "celebrity" tart that I saw some weeks ago: she was saying that children shouldn't have to know about subordinate clauses or adverbial clauses or whatever it was (I recognized the quotation from the question. At the time I didn't know where it was from) because you have to follow your passion or similar X-Factor nonsense. Dear me!!

Arkadia,

Again, have you looked at the full set (including Maths reasoning, and also the reading), looked at the expectations of writing (remembering that a child must show ALL to be at the expected standard) and considered the role of time pressure?

The fact that you as an adult can do the most straightforward papers under no time pressure is perhaps not indicative of what a 10 year old can do across all papers under time pressure, and in their writing. this page is good for writing exemplification.

Ok the kids might find them difficult, but isn't that a reflection on the poor expectations that the system has in the kids in their care, rather than the difficulty of the test itself?

No.

"but out of the maths, and spelling and punctuation tests, that was the ONLY question that I wouldn't have be able to answer blindfolded and with my hands tied behind my back." Presumably you are an adult who has completed many more years education that children in Y6?

It again seems odd for the parent of a child who finds it very hard to encode even simple phonically regular words to belittle the standard of spelling required for children only a couple of years older? I hope that this is again a matter of the 'tone' of a post nor transferring meaning well.

Do you, even as an adult, write pieces of work that:

• use passive and modal verbs mostly appropriately
• use a wide range of clause structures, sometimes varying their position within

the sentence

• use adverbs, preposition phrases and expanded noun phrases effectively to add detail, qualification and precision
• make correct use of semi-colons, dashes, colons and hyphens?

(Plus a whole range of other things that must simultaneously also be correct)

It is required that 10-11 year olds do to reach expected standards.

However, that said, once children have bee taught the new curriculum throughout their schooling, things like the grammar will become much more straightforward. It was the fact that last year's year 6s were tested ion a curriculum that had only come into force for the final year of their schooling that seemed so unfair - like being prepared for a driving test in a car, and then being told at the last minute that you must be tested in an articulated lorry in order to pass.

StarUtopia Honestly do you really think that you have enough time and you practice enough addition, subtraction, multiplication and division in your class? If you say yes, it means all of your students knows these by the time they leave primary.
If this is the case why secondary teachers needs to go through and explain and teach e.g.: subtraction again?

Honestly? Yes, I do and yes, my pupils do. To be honest, I bang my head in frustration only when I bump into my old pupils a year or so later and they tell me how bored they are in Maths in High School. When they start in Year 7, they go right back to basics, regardless (seemingly) of what they've been doing in Year 6..

Secondary teachers don't need to go through it all again. The secondary syllabus demands that they do. Complete lack of unity between primary and secondary. Bright kids are bored and less able children could have waited until secondary to have covered it then.

Seriously though OP. You sound obsessed. You really need to back off and just let your child be taught.

I glanced only at those 4 papers.
Cant, let's not confuse issues. True, my DD1 has BIG problems decoding words, but most certainly I would not think of blaming the test that shows it. (And anyway she scored between 85 and 95% in all the others, while my DD2, aged 5.5, currently in P1 achieved the required standard in all three sections despite all the gaps in her knowledge.)

This is quite an eye opener for me. If I understand you (that is plural"you") correctly you are saying that it is deemed normal that a child goes to secondary school and when he writes an essay a good percentage of the words (say 10-40%) is misspelt? Ok coming from a country were you learn to read and write in a few weeks because of the nature of the language I might be biased, however this explains A LOT.
Really, the school, MY school, should do a much better job at explaining how things work and what expectations one should have, especially to people coming from afar.

Arkadia, the Y2 SPaG paper is not compulsory and our school aren't taking it.

I've never even looked at last year's paper tbh. The teacher said at last parents evening that she thinks DS may reach 'greater depth' stage for writing but isn't there yet.

One thing I like about our school is that they don't do spelling tests, despite many parents asking for them. As DS doesn't write much at home (and I don't see the books) I don't really know how good his SPaG, and his writing in general, is; or rather what he would need to improve to be solidly 'greater depth'. Regarding spelling, we were given the list of HFWs at the beginning of the school year but haven't looked at it since... but I can tell (from brief perusals of his books at parents evening) that his spelling is improving (in a very broad sense, more correctly spelled words now than last year in his writing) and that's good enough for me. I am for now relying on his good memory, the fact that he loves reading, and we have fun with 'words' together sometimes, and that his bilingualism will serve him well. I wouldn't know where to look for it now but I once read that bilingual people find spelling the English language easier than monolinguals. Maybe because in comparing the two languages, our brains pick out word and meaning structures, and if the other language is at all related to English, we will be able to determine common word roots etc, which helps us to determine which grapheme to use to encode a certain phoneme. E.g. yacht, very tricky for English speakers, super easy for German/English bilinguals (to spell, not to read) as it only requires determining if the 'y' sound should be encoded by y or j (which also makes y sound in German), which seeing as it is an English word is more likely to be y, and for the rest applying simple German 'phonics' as would be taught in the first year of school.

So yeah, I'm chilled about spelling.

Arkadia, I don't think you can equate seven years of school from age 4 to 11 with seven years from age 6 to 13. I think the learning at the younger age will (on average) be so much slower that the head start gained compared to later starters, is balanced out by a number of children at age 6 already having incorporated the mindset that school is boring, hard, not for them, through two years of having to go to school when they weren't developmentally ready yet. So by 11 on average they will be roughly at the same place as those who started two (or three) years later.

In my language grammar is rather complex, and spelling, though much more straightforward than English, does have a few quirks to deal with. 11 year olds would not be expected to know many grammar terms at all; the KS2 SPaG requirements would shock teachers there. You would not fail in 'writing' if you misspelled some of the words that are not straightforward.
We started abstracting language in earnest when we started studying Latin and our second MFL at age 13 (third year of secondary school). What happened to creativity and exploring language and all that? IMO you can use subordinate clauses but you don't need to be able to identify them at age 11. It seems that on this point, our two 'home' countries are quite different!

I don't really know anything about differences in grammatical structures between languages, but I wonder if this may have an effect on what is taught and when. In English, reasons for knowing what a subordinate clause is include: identifying and avoiding sentence fragments, making sure nouns and verbs match up, e.g. plural or not, and knowing where to use commas. I had to teach these things myself to older DD (now 26), who struggled with coherent writing due to spld, because they were never addressed throughout her schooling.

I suspect some of the new grammar teaching may well be not age-appropriate, but in my view, this is what happens when educational 'experts' decide children don't need to know grammar at all (this is decades back, now). You lose expertise about how to teach the subject.

I'm an older Mum, so the primary school I went to in the US still used old-fashioned curriculum and teaching methods. We didn't do grammar until age 8-9, but we learned a great deal of useful stuff, which I have always been grateful to know. I don't think it needs to inhibit creativity, either!

Arkadia, I find it difficult to understand your logic.
Different country do things differently.
It's our choice to live in a different country.
We can't force our logic just because we think our country do things better or not, at least that's what I think.

Arkadia,

i think you are confusing this here.

In the writing assessment, it is required, for a child to reach the expected standard, that the vast majority of words (up to the Year 6 spelling requirements, which tbh comprises the patterns used in the huge majority of the spellings in the English language except for highly technical specific words) MUST be spelled correctly.

That is separate from the requirements of the spelling component of the SPaG test, which is what you have referred to.

I also think you are confusing readers - i know what you mean, as i have followed both your threads. You have confused the KS1 tests, which your DDs tried, with the KS2 ones. Your DD1 would, i think, from your description of her age, have taken the KS1 tests last year, and be in Y3 now if she were to be educated in England (deferral v. rare in England). I suppose the best way of looking at it is: if you DD had not been taught any of the sopecific curriculum for these tests until she turned 10, would she be able to take the KS2 tests and pass them well in 3 years' time?

I agree with the previous poster that 'years in 'school'' is not a useful measure here. Partly because what different countries call 'school' is not comparable - when my friends lived in Scandinavia, they noted that although 'the institution called school' starrted late, virtually all babies were in structured childcare settings from a very early age, and that in the years leading up to 'school' these were highly educational. Same in France - school starts later, educational settings actually start very early indeed.

Age is by far the more useful measure in comparison (even PISA, for all its faults, uses age not years in education). Would the average 11 year ol in your country, writing in a very phonetically complex - and grammatically irregular - language like English, be able to score highly in these papers? I also can't remember what the 'pass' mark was - ie the mark for 100. I'll have a look later - it won't be the same as for the KS1 ones.

Marks for 100 (remember that these are combined marks - so not for arithmetic alone but for all Maths papers, for example - the mark scheme documents tell you how to combine them)

• Reading: 21 (nationally 66% got this figure or above)
• Maths: 60 (70% got this figure or above)
• SPaG: 43 (72% got this figure or above)

The average scaled score was 103-104 across all 3 subjects.

(If it is of relevance, at the school I teach in, 85-95% of children got 100 or above in each of these tests.)