Comparing primary KS2 SATS

[commuters30]

Hi everyone!

I am so confused and wondered if anyone can help.

In comparing results (for now assuming pastoral, facilities etc being equal), which of the numbers matter most when looking at a primary?

1. The average scores for maths and english and their total (e.g. 114 English, 112 Grammar, 110 Maths = 336)

1. % children achieving greater depth/higher standard in either maths, writing, grammar or reading

1. % children achieving greater depth/higher standard in all 4 areas.

These are the info avaliable for schools but no idea which matters more...

Assuming you’re now looking for a 2022 admission, all stats available will be very old given they won’t have been published in 2020 or 2021.

They are also for the very top end of the school, which is 7 years older than your child, so maybe not the only important thing.

Also, the sample size is so small that a good or bad intake can have massive effects. In a 30 pupil intake, each pupil is over 3% of the year!

But, looking at your question of face value, I’d say all the attainment indicators are important in their own way.

When we were looking at schools I was nerdy enough to spreadsheet them to compare. Very generally, either all the indicators were broadly similar, either above or below average.

The indicator that I liked was the % at higher depth. I’ve got the feeling my son will be pretty academic and I’d like to know he’s likely to be educated in a class that won’t hold him back because he’s the only higher achiever. In some schools there was only one child every three years in this category and in another over a third of the class was ‘greater depth’.

I would largely discount sats tbh.

I would look for a nice school with robust behaviour management and a sense of really caring for the children.

The school my youngest child went to had moderate SATS outcomes, the results were impacted for an identified reason that did not apply to and would not impact on my child. The SATS scores of the other children didn't affect my child's ability.

In short, I think SATS are a bad way to choose a school, other than telling you if the school is going drastically wrong. So I would check there is nothing anomalous and then focus on what really matters.

The single biggest influence on a child's attainment is parental input.

@RachelSq yes i agree i was also focussed on % greater depth too, and thought i had it figured out until i realise there is also the standardised score itself...

School 1

• 114 standardised scores across the areas
• super high % greater depth in reading, maths, grammar
• low/average % students managing greater depth in ALL areas because of low % for writing

School 2

• 109 standardised scores
• average / decent % greater depth
• but same % students greater depth in ALL area as school 1 because their writing doesnt drag them down

And there is my dilemma. Is school 1 better because of overall higher average attainment scores? Or no better off?

Completely agree though @beginningoftheend about parental inpur. Just little confidence of my own success so want to give my DD the best chance at a good academic school...

I think you’re overthinking it massively. Both of the above are obviously great schools academically and exceed in academic areas.

Are you likely to get in either? Which feels right to you?

[quote commuters30]@RachelSq yes i agree i was also focussed on % greater depth too, and thought i had it figured out until i realise there is also the standardised score itself...

School 1

• 114 standardised scores across the areas
• super high % greater depth in reading, maths, grammar
• low/average % students managing greater depth in ALL areas because of low % for writing

School 2

• 109 standardised scores
• average / decent % greater depth
• but same % students greater depth in ALL area as school 1 because their writing doesnt drag them down

And there is my dilemma. Is school 1 better because of overall higher average attainment scores? Or no better off?

Completely agree though @beginningoftheend about parental inpur. Just little confidence of my own success so want to give my DD the best chance at a good academic school...[/quote]
Writing is teacher assessed, with some schools moderates each year by the LA. GD in writing is really quite hard for children to achieve. My guess is the school with a high % of children achieving GD in writing weren’t moderated, the school with a low percentage of GD writing were

Do they publish progress measures? These are more useful in my opinion...a weak cohort will have a low percentage reaching GD but if they’ve made great progress, that’s more indicative of good teaching than a naturally bright cohort coasting and doing ok.

@beginningoftheend

I would largely discount sats tbh.

I would look for a nice school with robust behaviour management and a sense of really caring for the children.

The school my youngest child went to had moderate SATS outcomes, the results were impacted for an identified reason that did not apply to and would not impact on my child. The SATS scores of the other children didn't affect my child's ability.

In short, I think SATS are a bad way to choose a school, other than telling you if the school is going drastically wrong. So I would check there is nothing anomalous and then focus on what really matters.

The single biggest influence on a child's attainment is parental input.

^^ Yes to this. I’ve also realised, as my children have progressed through their primary which has a good academic reputation and excellent KS2 SATs, that the results might well be down to the amount private tutoring that goes on KS2. DS is in y5 and I’d say that at least 50% of his class have private tutors; either for 11 plus prep or because the child needs extra help keeping up. It’s a lovely school and I’m glad my children are there, but I think the results are influenced as much by the affluent and ambitious parents as much as the excellent teaching.

Hi @modgepodge thank you i had no idea writing was a bit different in terms of how it is assessed. Makes sense...

I know i am overthinking 100%. We are looking to move so thought as we have a choice, might as well move close to whatever school we prefer. One is state (great results) the other is prep (great results). Sadly virtual tours are not quite the same as visiting in person.

It is scary how much tutoring takes place. I went to a grammar without tutoring back in the day so this is a shock... had no plans to tutor my DS but lets see...

If one is state and one is private then that’s surely a bigger choice than slight differences in results!

I would take SATS with many pinches of salt. By and large they will tell you the quality of the intake. If School A takes children that are mostly from educated professional families then it's likely to get better results than a school that has a more mixed intake. Does this really mean the school is better?

As a PP said, in some areas you will see a large amount of tutoring either for grammar schools, private school or just because parents think there children are falling behind (or not staying ahead ) - this has an effect on school results without the school actually having done anything.

And as a final point, we haven't had SATS for a couple of years, but in years we do, there is always a flurry of posts from parents complaining that their school has turned into a "SATS factory" in Year 6 and has done nothing except SATS revision all year. Probably at least some of these parents picked the school for the great SATS results, and now realise the downside of doing this.

Personally I think the most important indicator is the progress 8 score. This tells you how well the children have done compared to how well that particularly cohort were expected to do. This shows up some (minor) discrepancies in our local schools - very middle class high attaining kids not doing q as well as they should, for instance - despite overall great scores.

And I also agree with the greater depth being useful - my kids are both q able so there was a school I ruled out on the basis it didn’t stretch the most able (according to both oftsed and the demographically-broken down results).

You can see how well a school does by particular groups if you go on
The gov site ie by sex, by prior attainment, by most disadvantaged etc. It was important to me to choose a school that did well for everyone.

The exact figures don't matter..

SATs haven't been done for two years. And the stats don't tell you if a child has special needs or didn't perform well on the day because of what was happening at home for example.

@wtftodo

Personally I think the most important indicator is the progress 8 score. This tells you how well the children have done compared to how well that particularly cohort were expected to do. This shows up some (minor) discrepancies in our local schools - very middle class high attaining kids not doing q as well as they should, for instance - despite overall great scores.

And I also agree with the greater depth being useful - my kids are both q able so there was a school I ruled out on the basis it didn’t stretch the most able (according to both oftsed and the demographically-broken down results).

You can see how well a school does by particular groups if you go on
The gov site ie by sex, by prior attainment, by most disadvantaged etc. It was important to me to choose a school that did well for everyone.

I think ‘progress’ scores are really useful but need to be looked at with other supporting figures too.

A school near me has progress scores of over 5 (insanely good!) but when I looked into this it was because most kids were starting without knowing their colours or being able to do very basic counting according to Ofsted reports. The end attainment was very average, which is incredible given the starting point.

However, that is the last place I would want to send my 3 year old who can already read!

We opted for (and were lucky enough to get) a school with the second best results locally but where I was really happy with the ethos and extra curriculars available.

I’ll tell you about the primary school my dd went to. She left 2 years ago but because of covid the sats results are the ones that are still published. They are very very good and so people looking at them I’m sure will think the school is very good. But in reality it was an anomaly year. Most of the kids were from high achieving families whose parents either spent a lot of time helping their kids - or got tutors in. The school saw this so did nothing to extend those kids as they knew they would get good results. Instead they spent all their time on the ones at the lower end. Which although was good for those children, means that the sats results have no bearing on the school. The school has gone massively down hill over the last few years but the excellent sats results are still there and completely misleading

Have you looked at the schools websites? A lot of the schools near is also put their KS1 and year 1 phonics screening results on their websites even though they aren't published nationally. As PP have said they will be old as there weren't any last year, and you have to be careful if they only have one year's data not several - but they do give you a bit of an idea of the intake / where the teaching is pitched in the infant school.

The data you're looking at is only useful alongside the progress data. That's the level of progress made by children from KS1.

Basically speaking, schools fall into four groups:

High Attainment and High Progress: the children at these schools achieve really well and it is, in large part, because of the quality of teaching and learning in the school.

High Attainment but Low Progress: the children in these schools do well but that's because they started high. The school has actually progressed them less than they should have and there may be issues with teaching and learning here.

Low Attainment and High Progress: the children here don't attain as well, usually because of lower starting points, but the quality of the teaching is really good.

Low Attainment and Low Progress: the children do not achieve well and the schools don't address it or progress them like they should. Avoid.

Thanks very much everyone. Appreciate it! So my takeaway is that the schools are pretty much the same and particularly the point that its years away so it could all change anyway. Luckily both schools are consistently good...

As a novelty pick a school where the ethos is on being kind and nurturing. Use primary to ensure your child is a well rounded individual. You have no idea at this moment in time exactly academic your child is going to be. Before you even take into account the vast majority of kids will catch up at some point in time. My daughter started in the English system in year 3 she’s now overtaking the children who started in receptions. My adhd(inattentive)/dyslexic boy is expected gold gcse results and is high potential even though he spent most of primary working below his year group

Progress scores are what you compare. That is, the amount of progress the pupils have made from KS1 to KS2. If all pupils were at GD in Reading in KS1, but only 50% at KS2, the progress score will be very poor.

@Soontobe60

Progress scores are what you compare. That is, the amount of progress the pupils have made from KS1 to KS2. If all pupils were at GD in Reading in KS1, but only 50% at KS2, the progress score will be very poor.

To be honest assuming the end results are similar, I’d rather a school that makes an average amount of academic progress but evenly over all the school years than one that has better progress scores.

Whilst progress is probably the most valuable indicator of how good a school is helping the pupils’ academic growth, the best school near me by progress is the one that has a terrible base level and most kids go into reception without knowing their colours or how to hold a book.

There’s not a chance I’d want to send my already reading 3 year old there, I want somewhere where I’d expect some other kids to be attaining at a similar level going in so he doesn’t get too bored, even if the end result was the same academic wise at the end of year 6.

@RachelSq
even if the end result was the same academic wise at the end of year 6.

If the end result is broadly the same, that means it'd be a school with good attainment but low progress. That means, essentially, that the school isn't challenging or developing higher attaining pupils. They are just relying on their positive starting points and ability to follow a basic curriculum. Your child would definitely be bored there.

For goodness sake please do not make SATs results the marker by which you choose a primary school.
There is a very good chance that a school with very high SATs results narrows the curriculum in KS2. Look at whether they teach a broad and balanced curriculum - what is the provision like for sport? Art? Music? What feel do you get - does it look warm, friendly and busy? Do the staff / pupils look happy?
Also, don't underestimate the importance of location. Will your child be able to walk to school? Meet friends at the park?
All these things are far more important than SATS results.

I think when choosing primary, KS2 SATS score can be quite misleading.
It can change dramatically over the years. It can depend on cohorts. Great results may mean great teaching, or could be a result of endless sats practice.
If both school have better than average scores, I wouldn't worry too much about academics, I would be looking into extras they offer, and what the school is like generally.

[quote Iamnotthe1]@RachelSq
even if the end result was the same academic wise at the end of year 6.

If the end result is broadly the same, that means it'd be a school with good attainment but low progress. That means, essentially, that the school isn't challenging or developing higher attaining pupils. They are just relying on their positive starting points and ability to follow a basic curriculum. Your child would definitely be bored there.[/quote]
Neither measure is perfect, but a high progress score isn’t the be all and end all.

My child would no doubt be bored for years in the school with the above 5 progress measure, while the school has no choice but to cater for the majority of the other children.

I also agree that he’d be bored sometimes in a school with less progress, but at least it wouldn’t be so front loaded.

As it happens, he’s going to a school with a decent progress score (3.1 average) and pretty good attainment (87% meet and 28% greater depth) and the other school has a much higher progress score (6.8 average) and lower attainment (56% meet and 2% greater depth).

It comes down to the fact that to have high progress there needs to be a low starting point, so the learning for the class needs to be adjusted throughout to cater for this.

And just to add, progress is absolutely the most important measure in my mind about how well a school is performing in an academic sense. The ‘worse’ school above has a huge amount of respect from me as they are doing an excellent job with the cohort they have, it’s just not the right place at all for my child.

@RachelSq
As it happens, he’s going to a school with a decent progress score (3.1 average) and pretty good attainment (87% meet and 28% greater depth)

That's great - that school is (arguably) in the most desireable quadrant: good attainment and good progress.

The schools I'm talking about are those that post similar end attainment but progress scores of between -2 and -5. There are several in my area like this but are seen as good schools because of their attainment.