curious - those who DIDN'T think the reading SATs was difficult this year

[nonicknameseemsavailable]

did this come across in the results? my DD thought one of the sections was a bit odd and didn't make a lot of sense with at least 1 question being next to impossible according to her and her teacher but she wouldn't have said it was easy or difficult. I saw on here though some people saying it was really hard and others saying it was very straightforward. I am just curious whether results reflected this. DD did very well, not as well as she has in previous years reading papers they did in preparation at school but still over 110 so that ties in with her saying it seemed harder than previous ones.

My twins both thought it was really hard. However, both did really well on it. Ds got 113 and dd got 120. Completely shocked by dd’s score as she came home distraught after the reading test, spent the rest of the week in tears and unable to sleep. Her raw score was 49/50 so only dropped one mark which is the exact score she got on the 2017 and 2018 papers they did at school - so the paper must have been a similar level of difficulty really.

The word count was significantly different, which made it more of a test of reading speed as well as comprehension, and that affected some children negatively. If that wasn't an issue for your child, that will be the reason they thought it was similar in difficulty.

The results won't reflect whether or not it was more difficult than previous tests. The scaled scores are decided after the raw scores have all been submitted by markers so that the powers that be can make the results say anything they want. So if the paper was harder this year, all pupils nationally would have got lower scores- therefore a 'pass'/ 100 scale score may have been achieved by getting 27 marks last year on an easier test, but 25 this year on a harder test - so overall roughly the same number of children will pass this year as passed last year.

Ds considered it hard and was prepared for a lower result than normal; his raw mark was 50 so clearly went well. His HT observed that it was not harder per se in terms of what was being asked in the questions but that there was more to read and answer so children who usually have time at the end to read over and double check answers were working right to the very end which made it seem harder.

Just checked - the pass mark last year was 27 marks, this year it was 28. I can guarantee that the nation average pass rate will not have gone down (no government would do that).

So roughly the same number of children got 28 marks this year as got 27 marks last year, therefore it would follow that the test was slightly easier this year.

(Or teachers are just getting better at teaching to the test each year. Or all the money going into training teachers and supporting children who are behind is working and standards are improving dramatically so the threshold has to be raised because we can't have everyone passing can we?) --> but that's all for another debate

The percentage of children passing went down nationally this year from 75% to 73% - and reading is high on the agenda for Ofsted's new orders in September, so they will want to prove both that reading needs improving and that they are having an impact. So watch this space for new and improved results next year, by whatever means. It's all very cynical. Really makes me angry.

No, Pandemos - the pass mark remained the same this year. For a reason. More difficult test, same pass mark, Reading down nationally.

I can guarantee that the nation average pass rate will not have gone down (no government would do that).

Hahahahahahaha!

Sorry - yes, pass mark the same- was 28 in 2018.

Where are this year's results published?

Very shocked there is a lower pass rate this year then.

They're not, but I can see them on Perspective Lite, so they're reliable and unlikely to change.

I'm not surprised at all - the word count and pass mark have been deliberately calculated to show the drop so that Ofsted can justify their new agenda.

On a separate note, I'm hearing some deeply unpleasant stories about our new education Secretary on social media this morning. Same old then.

Thanks Freebie- have found them. That's so unusual (but understandable if it suits the agenda - and I was very wrong
except for: the powers that be can make the test results say whatever they want.

Got that right! Seriously though, it’s appalling that children’s results are manipulated in this way. They will have targets set from those results.

thank you - I was just curious. Doesn't surprise me in the slightest, I still remember the last year of OLevels versus the first year of GCSEs....

Even worse, their GCSEs are manipulated in the same way, roughly the same percentage will pass every year, even if standards are getting higher.

It's a craptastic system.

Feenie is that your own word count doc? V. interesting.

I haven’t been through my top children’s papers yet (been focusing on those missing a boundary by one mark...) but I had quite a few on 49 - I wonder if it was all the same question. Must set some time to look next week.

And talking about targets, we thought that the reason why the music box text was SO long and SO complex was in order to identify the potential level 9ers for GCSE targets.

good Kingscote - my daughters 113 won't put her in the level 9 predictions then which is a relief!

interestingly in the past SATS papers they did under test conditions she always got between 116 and 119 for reading so this was lower for her but if it takes some pressure of GCSEs then that is a definite positive in my opinion. I am not sure she would handle the pressure of high predictions very well.

No, someone put them into Word just to see. Sparked a big debate about just what is being tested here.

Interesting point about length. My dd (who is a fast and voracious reader) found she hadn’t less time than she expected to check and double check, and did less well than in her mocks (though probably within the margin of error).

I think you’ll find it is generally accepted that this was a lot harder this year, especially the third section of the paper... quite unusual language used. We didn’t think our children would have known what some of the things were.

I agree Feenie. I despair that year on year the data is manipulated to suit the government's agenda.

I also despair that approx 1/3 children are leaving primary school being told that they haven't met the required standard, or whatever the current terminology is. Loads of children 'miss' the magic 100 score by 1 or 2 marks.

I also despair that other children are leaving primary school to face a secondary school experience of being told that they're 'not meeting targets' ahead of them, because they've spent the last year doing little more than SATS papers and practicing 'exam technique' and were intellectually/emotionally/practically 'ready' to sit these tests on those days.

I also despair that this education system is becoming less and less fit for purpose in terms of preparing children for life and the world of work.

I also despair of these threads discussing the minutiae of what 'my child' got in various 'practice tests' because they uphold the phoney merit/validity of these tests.

And, yes, another out-of-touch, hasn't-been-in-a-classroom for years Ed secretary.

I also despair of why I click on these threads, just to feel more depressed!