Year 6 Sats and Year 7 impact?

[slipperyslopez]

So I remember someone telling me that the SATS results a child in Year 6 obtains is used to set GCSE targets at secondary?

Did that really happen? Surely a secondary school would undertake their own assessments when new starters join Secondary in Year 7? So I don't really understand this, maybe it is just some kind of baseline measure?

Also if Year 6 Sats do have some form of consequence for Year 7 and / or Secondary School then what is happening now? I just wonder if any teachers can help me out? What is happening if their are not formal sats?

My son was told he needed to sit a number of assessments for his secondary school and that they would form a report? I will ask the teacher after half term? My son is worried as the tests were crammed in just before the half term and they didn't seem well organised so he doesn't want to come across as unprepared for secondary. I told him not to worry at all, but he said his teacher said the assessments would count for secondary and they were important?

I will ask his teacher after half term too.

Also his teacher apparently told my son and others that they would not know the results of the assessments they sat nor would they see their report.

My child is a good kid and it just seems to have unduly worried him.

For what it is worth he has got a place at a grammar and done well, but for whatever reason what the teacher has said has played on his mind, I will catch up with the teacher after half term. He is being sat next to some of the most troublesome kids in the class (teacher more or less told me this at last parent catch up in a diplomatic manner about how my son was very helpful to person X and person Y) so I wonder if the teacher was trying to motivate the people around him (x and Y) , but has inadvertently causes my son some anxiety. I have told my son not to worry but he is like the teacher says it does matter.

So it just made me think - what is the deal with assessments then usually and what are other schools doing now their is not the usual sats?

The results for the end of key stage 2 assessments can have far reaching consequences for the child. Several previous posters have said that they don't limit the child - and they shouldn't - but in practice that's not what is happening in many secondaries across the country.

For example, in my local secondary school, you are only allowed to take triple science at GCSE if you start the school in a specific "band". Otherwise you won't have covered all the knowledge required. How is your band determined? Your SATs results.

In another example, there was a programme on TV a couple of years ago about a multi-academy trust. They were able to offer targetted support with tutoring time and teacher mentoring for a small handful of GCSE students. They decided to devote all that time, energy and money on the underperforming boys because improving those would most help the school's progress 8 score. How did they determine who the underperforming boys were? It was those furthest away from their official targets as set from their SATs.

It used to be that the end of key stage 2 assessments did affect the primaries more than the child. Now, I'd argue that it was the opposite.

For example, in my local secondary school, you are only allowed to take triple science at GCSE if you start the school in a specific "band". Otherwise you won't have covered all the knowledge required. How is your band determined? Your SATs results.

It's actually even crazier than that - how are the Science targets derived? From the official Science TA? No, no, no, don't be silly - from the reading and maths test results. Barmy. So glad they don't exist this year.

Feenie
So glad they don't exist this year.

I do have some concerns for these two year groups though. In the past, if you had a child who had worked hard through primary or, at least, Y6 but they took their foot of the pedal in secondary, they were picked up and pushed harder. The secondary needed that child to stay on track for their higher target after all. For these two cohorts, those targets won't exist so attainment, rather than progress, will be what matters.

I fear some children with potential will be left behind because they don't show that possible potential during Y7. I have a boy in my current class who is exceptionally capable and has needed to be really stretched this year to reach damn near perfect score targets. However, he's also incredibly lazy and, if you gave him the option to relax with something easier, he'd take it ever time.

I hear you, but artificial targets set from an hour or two when you were 11 are absolutely not the answer. Ds is 15 and the fact his attainment is beholden to anything he did when he was 11 seems just laughable.

Many children had no targets in 2010 when a third of schools boycotted the assessments - the sky didn’t fall in.

A better system has to be found - and trusting secondary colleagues has to be its foundations. All the current system does is fuel poor perceptions of primary colleagues - as exemplified earlier on this thread.

I think saying that the assessments are just an hour or two when you were 11 is a little dismissive. They are a culmination of the years of learning and hard work that the child has done through KS2 in the same way that GCSEs are for secondary.

The entire system is based on assessment derived targets though. KS1 is accountable based on Rec attainment. KS2 is accountable based on KS1. GCSE is accountable based on KS2. The only other way is to remove the entire target system.

Unfortunately, when you do that, there are risks. The KS3 SATs were removed. Seven years later, a detail piece of educational research referred to Y7, 8 and 9 as "The Wasted Years". I'm not saying those things are linked but when some call for the removal of all exams and progress scores, it does worry me.

I think saying that the assessments are just an hour or two when you were 11 is a little dismissive. They are a culmination of the years of learning and hard work that the child has done through KS2 in the same way that GCSEs are for secondary.

They’re really not. They are exactly what I said, 170 minutes snapshot in a Y6 when they’re 11, or 10 years old for some. The marks depend on their ability, yes, but also their maturity, amount of sleep they’ve had, how many bowls of coco pops they are at the SAT breakfast or whether their hamster died that morning. Setting targets from that is ludicrous.

I’m not saying there shouldn’t be targets. But there has to be a better way of setting them.

*ate

KS1 is accountable based on Rec attainment. KS2 is accountable based on KS1.

Not for these last two years or henceforth!

@Feenie

KS1 is accountable based on Rec attainment. KS2 is accountable based on KS1.

Not for these last two years or henceforth!

They will be for the next few years, until the final year group with KS1 assessment data get through.

From then, the targets for Year Six are going to be set from a 10 minute interview style test in the first two or so weeks of a child joining Reception and there's going to be no midpoint external check-in or moderation process. Deep concerns about that.

I’m not saying there shouldn’t be targets. But there has to be a better way of setting them.

Any suggestions? The current method isn't perfect - totally agree with that - but anything that isn't based on cold data and moderated will be even more open to manipulation and human error.

It's the amount of cheating that goes on in some primaries during yr6 SATs that is (for me) the biggest issue. There is local primary that on paper has outstanding and amazing yr6 results. They've taken over many of the other local primaries due to this amazing data. But the students tell me quite openly how they cheated in yr6 SATs. How the teacher would place a rubber over their incorrect answers! Of course those students who massively overachieved then spend the next 5 years at secondary being told they are underachieving. Thankfully, my dds' primary is not part of this little group. But the potential impact is that despite knowing she is fairly bright she won't end up in a top set as she is part of this cohort. She has very high aspirations to be a doctor (obsessively so) and she is herself worried about this. I've reassured her that we tend to spot the ones placed lower down who have been misplaced early (but in reality most spend at least 1 year in the wrong lower group because we need to make sure the ones misplaced higher up are definitely not just struggling to adjust).

In my opinion, SATs need to be externally invigilated if they are to continue. I don't really see the arguement for them not being.

I want to make it clear I know we are talking a (I hope) minority of primaries that 'cheat'. But the impact on those students from those primaries has such long lasting negative impacts. I do think SATs or similar need to stay otherwise you could argue there is no drive to ensure students get their best out of primary years and no come back for any schools that don't support that. It's also a really good taster for younger students to tackle an external exam. Hopefully without the insane pressure I've heard about in some schools.

I think there are a few schools that openly cheat and get away with it. A local Ofsted outstanding school (last inspected more than a decade ago) has an adult sitting with every child during the tests to prompt. It only cheats the children.
But the majority of schools do follow the rules.

@Iamnotthe1

Feenie So glad they don't exist this year.

I do have some concerns for these two year groups though. In the past, if you had a child who had worked hard through primary or, at least, Y6 but they took their foot of the pedal in secondary, they were picked up and pushed harder. The secondary needed that child to stay on track for their higher target after all. For these two cohorts, those targets won't exist so attainment, rather than progress, will be what matters.

I fear some children with potential will be left behind because they don't show that possible potential during Y7. I have a boy in my current class who is exceptionally capable and has needed to be really stretched this year to reach damn near perfect score targets. However, he's also incredibly lazy and, if you gave him the option to relax with something easier, he'd take it ever time.

I find this really interesting... I was delighted DD didn't do SATs last year, I had even contemplated withdrawing her if they did go ahead (and I'm a big fan of exams in general).

DD has quite severe dyslexia and massively underachieved at primary (school well aware as picked up by both the staff and the Ed Psych). Her SATs would have been awful I imagine.

Her secondary used banding tests that were all NVR. For some reason DD does amazing well at these and was therefore put in one of the top sets (15 form entry). Judging by school report she's doing a million times better than we could have ever hoped for and is being properly pushed by the teachers. She has a very spiky profile and is also inclined to pursue the path of least effort... combined with SEN it is not exactly ideal.

I can't help feeling that if she had been set on her SATs results rather than the NVR that she would have ended up in a class where the staff might have had far lower expectations, allowed her to get away with the bare minimum and she'd underachieve forever.

That makes me worry in general about how much these things can influence your entire school career and what is in place to catch those children who aren't correctly pigeon-holed.

Or am I being unfair and actually secondary schools set based on the school reports as much as the SATs?

There is a very small minority of primaries where cheating happens. We see that every year on Mumsnet when parents post about cheating their child has told them about. Unfortunately, that parent never ends up reporting it because they think it will affect their child and so it continues.

There are measures in place to prevent it: all exams must have at least two adults in the room, there are randomised spot checks from the authority during the exams, any allegations reported have to be fully investigated etc.

@OhCrumbsWhereNow
Or am I being unfair and actually secondary schools set based on the school reports as much as the SATs?

The best way to explain it is with an example. There are three kids - Bob, Jack and Stacey.

In his KS2 assessments, Bob performed very well and so his GCSE targets are all in the 7-9 range. Bob has to be in the top sets because, if he isn't, he won't be taught the material to get those grades. If Bob fails to attain those grades, he will count as a negative progress score. The school will do what it can to avoid that happening.

Stacey did alright in KS2 assessments and is targetted for a 5 or 6 in each subjects. She will likely start in middle sets, because that's what she needs to achieve her targets. She won't be allowed to fall below this (negative progress score) but could move up so she can contribute a positive progress score if there is the space. She won't move up if her being in top set means a child like Bob, with the high targets, is moved out.

Jack didn't attain well in his KS2 assessments and is targetted for 2-4 in each subject. He will start in lower sets. He could move up, again if there's space, but the priority will be on him meeting those targets.

Iam A secondary school should never be limiting what a child can achieve by what set they happen to be in. There should be overlap between e.g bottom of set 1 and top of set 2, if only for the reason that some children perform better at the top of a set as it gives them confidence, and some will rise to the challenge of being lower down a higher set.
I do though agree it could be more of an issue in schools that use streaming/banding in y7-9 rather than setting, which is why I didn't rate the school in our area that streamed from the get-go.

Teen
I agree - that is what should happen but, in practice, it's not all that common.

Even before Progress 8, different sets were still taught different content depending on whether they were going to sit a higher/lower paper. Set 1s learn things that Set 3s aren't ever even shown.

Since the introduction of Progress 8, ensuring as many children as possible hit those targets has become paramount. I even know of heads of departments in my local secondary who were managed out simply because their subject got a negative progress score. The departments there that get the lowest progress scores are targetted for "additional monitoring" and gain heavier workloads as a result. Prioritising children who are "off track" for their official targets has become a survival tactic. It shouldn't be like that, but it is.

Not sure about setting, but secondary schools (or at least some) do use KS2 results to create a pathway of expected GCSE results. DH teaches a subject that is not even taught until Year 10 (Business) but his grade targets are set based on the pupils' SATS results! I'm not sure how they are going to make predictions for this year and next year's Year 7s.

I agree that set 1 will see things that set 3 does not, especially in maths (as set 3 aren't going to be able to manage set 1 content). But a child at the top of set 2 should have the opportunity to cover things that the bottom of set 1 are doing.
My DD1 moved up sets between y10 & y11 'to give her more exposure to A grade questions'. So she knew the basic content, but by moving up there would be more focus in class on the A grade rather than B grade.

It depends on where schools decide the cut off between higher and lower is and if they have a mixed class in the middle.
If a school said set 1 and 2 do higher and sets 3, 4 and 5 do lower, the top of set 3 still wouldn't cover what the bottom of set 2 do.
If a school said set 1 and 2 do higher, set 3 is a mix of children, sets 4 and 5 do lower, this gives the opportunity for a blurring of the higher/lower boundary.

Your DD1 is the perfect example. She had been at the top of set 2 but had to be moved up to set 1 because set 2 weren't focusing enough on the stuff needed for an "A". Fortunately, she was at a school doing things properly. But imagine if she had been at a school prioritising Progress 8 and all set 1 places were filled by children who had to get an A and your DD1 only had to get a B.

Agree, my DDs' school do things well.

DD only 'had' to get a C. She started y7 in what was effectively set 7, kept improving and then at end y10 moved from set 4 to set 3.
(They also do maths & science cross over classes.)

This thread is fascinating - thank you for all the responses.

Iamnotthe1 so with your 3 examples of Bob, Stacey & Jack....

So is it up to parents to ensure they cover at home all the content? I was thinking at secondary the children would have more independence? Or does a secondary school pupil have to be an independent learner to ensure he or she covers the content required for good marks?

So a secondary can differentiate the content based upon ability? I get that that may happen in practice but let's think... if you start off in the 2nd or 3rd set then it is very difficult to move upwards? This seems to me to potentially stifle children, whilst at the same time allowing the school to say they have met the progress 8 measure as a cohort but individual children can be penalised?

It's as case of "not needing" to cover the content. For example, Bob as a prior higher attainer would likely be given the option to study triple science at GCSE. Jack, as a prior lower attainer, wouldn't. Jack doesn't need to learn that content (from school or parents) because it's not part of his qualification and won't be on his exams.

It's not differentiating the content as such. It's the fact that, at GCSE, children don't sit the same exams. In GCSE Maths, for example, there are higher and foundation papers. If your prior attainment and targets suggest that you're going to sit the foundation paper then you'll be in a set which focuses on the knowledge and skills necessary for that paper. You won't be taught the higher paper content because you'll never "need" it. It does make moving from foundation to higher far more difficult though as you won't have been taught all the building blocks of knowledge through previous years.

However , OP, a decent school will not place limits on a child based on incoming SATs but should, during y7-9 teach the child in front of them.
Ultimately though some pupils won't be able to master mid-level content / skills so there is no point teaching them high-level, it is better to focus on the low/mid level properly than teaching stuff beyond them.

So my DD was never taught the fine details needed to get 8/9 in GCSE English, because she was still trying to master the things to reach grade 4/5. Similarly we agreed with school mid y10 she would be entered for Foundation science, because when revising she couldn't grasp/learn/apply the higher content she had already been taught so she was better off focussing on the core foundation level info.

As a parent, when choosing a secondary school, ask about their setting/streaming policy and how easy it is to move sets. Then if you want, help your child revise for tests so if they are more able than their setting they can show it.