Practice Sats Year 6 - what score should children in top groups be getting at this stage?

[hereagain1]

Just that really, what score should children in top groups be getting at this stage in practice sats? What score is expected to be on track for a high score in May?

Whether you take me seriously is of Absolutely no interest to me.

No idea. Maybe start a thread about that?

Well, hopefully everyone else will realise that you deputy is talking rot. I think you're too far gone, tbh.

I think there is a confusion between 'accountability for the school' based on progress from KS2 - ie the calculated Progress 8, which MUST use KS2 data - and the target setting internal to the school, which can use different tests and different measures, but which essentially will be how the school thinks they can best motivate their current pupils and teachers so that they get good Progress 8 results and thus put them safely in a decent position in the DfE data.

So, say, in future 100 at KS2, to get a Progress 8 of zero (ie the national average), should convert to a 5 in the new GCSE [not saying that s what will happen, just for illustration].

The school will know that some children who got 100 won't get 5s - through terrible family circumstances, through over-assessment at KS2, whatever. So to compensate for that, and if possible push their prgress8 above zero, they internally target many children who got 100 to get 6s instead of 5s and set teachers' appraisal targets etc to achieve that.

On results day, they hope that enough children made their 'internal' target of 6 to compensate for those who don't get their 'external' target of 5.

So there are two things going on here - as an overall school, the school will be held to account for all children who got 100 getting 5s. However, in order to maximise their chances of achieving that, they actually set internal targets of more than 5 (and in a few cases might set targets of 4, to recognise the impossiblity of the 5 target).

At least, that's how I understand that it works.

It's such a shame that so many threads in primary education are always derailed by the same couple of aggressive posters.

Yes, that's accountability. This is how primary schools are set targets too, from KS1 to KS2.

Offsetting one pupil's failure against another's isn't actually how it works, and is a dangerous game. Schools would be more likely to set aspirational targets for all children.

Offthepaul I'm entirely on thread, it's not derailed in the least. Some posters stated that SAYs meant nothing at secondary school - obviously it's sensible to point out that that's not entirely the case.

Then another poster claimed it absolutely was the case, because her deputy said so. This was, quite reasonably, put straight, it being complete bollocks - but at first, politely.

Several other posters have attempted to explain why the deputy wasn't at all right. All of it entirely on the thread subject of KS2 test results (apart from the poster who said no, what about private schools.)

There's some derailing from your post, definitely, since you've used it to make a random personal dig.

Lol feenie

I didn't name names Feenie but I see you've managed to recognise yourself in my random dig

Dd's secondary do set the children in year 7 based on ks2 sats, but after that they move them up or down depending on end of year tests.

God knows how, it being so thickly veiled, and all...

I asked the question, if the sats results matter in secondary or not, and got responses from secondary teachers.

here's the link if you are interested.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/secondary/2854951-KS2-SATs-and-secondary-school

or at the children

Neither. And bingo!

Do keep ganging up though - the derailing and personal attacks are making you look like marvellous clever posters that are clearly superior to anyone actually not derailing or personally attacking other posters and actually discussing the subject of the thread.

My Dc's secondary doesn't set until year 9 and that's only for Maths English and Science.

Thanks for the thread link, Irvine. The very first secondary teacher on it says 'Theyre used to set target grades', which is exactly what was pointed out here before it got ridiculous.

My son’s test obsessed school tested with Y6 tests (not the actual paper but a commercial version) right at the end of Y5 and he got the equivalent of 100 - is that the expected result? (they told us at parents eve.) I think he would be in the top group but they don’t group them at all. Then they tested them the 1st week back - I don’t know what he got in those. God know why they tested them again so soon - it’s not like he had been on some 6 wk intensive maths and English course over the holidays.

On visiting secondary schools he asked the teachers how many tests they have in Y7. I think he’d forgotten that there used to be more teaching and learning rather than the constant testing that goes on where he is. They even moved the Y6 trip to after the sats because obviously a week off in November had meant the Y6 SATs results had been terrible(!). Now they can only go for 2 days because July prices are so prohibitively expensive. I really really hate what is happening to our children in so many schools.

Dd's sets for maths, eng and french after the first month of year 7 and science and spanish in year 8. Not sure about other subjects.

In charge of school data and everything Feenie says is entirely correct.

My DS's school had a new year6 teacher last year so she gave them a test SAT in the September so she knew what she had ahead. Not meaning to boast but DS was the top score in maths at 65 (unscaled). By June he was getting 110+. It was a whole year focussed on SATS which noone enjoyed, but she really did pull the school out of a hole the school had fallen (maybe actively jumped!) into.

I don't think I'm clever or superior, I'm not a teacher, I know my place

Thanks, ourkidmolly - it was getting a bit Twilight Zone here for a while!

Offthepaul, I have no idea what your problem is. I haven't derailed the thread, been venomous, or done anything you have accused me of. I've just pointed out a relevant fact, and quite reasonably disagreed with another poster who insisted some misinformation her deputy fed her was correct. Multiple posters have also now confirmed this information to be correct. This apparently makes you even more bitter - if possible

Feenie,

I appreciate that 1:1 offsetting isn't how it works - I am sorry that my example got too simplistic.

I was trying to explain why a school's 'internal target / predicted grades' aren't necessarily exactly correlated with the external Progress8 target grades, even though the latter are what the school is accountable for - if the school uses 'predicted grades / targets' that are exactly identical to the pupil's external targets, this may not work as well in terms of getting the final results as setting as many people as possible high / aspirational targets.