SATS results

[miccoops]

For anyone interested.. the raw scores required for an age expected score (100 and above scaled score) are on this link, published today

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1087928/2022_key_stage_2_scaled_score_tables.pdf

The Reading paper was down to 24 out of 50 raw score for a age expected .. that definitely lower than previous years.. backs up the feedback that it was a challenging paper. Waiting for my sons results from school later this week..

@spanieleyes you seem to have good access to data. Out of pure curiosity can you see what percentage of children score 120 in each of the 3 subjects?

I would be interested in that too as my DD got 120 in all 3.

Sorry, no the data we have access to doesn't show anything like that, it's purely performance measures. Someone, somewhere might collect it but we don't have access.

https://www.ascl.org.uk/ASCL/media/ASCL/information_paper_using_key_stage_2_data_as_an_input_measure_for_secondary_schools_2016_18_april_2019_61476.pdf

This table not this year but previous year will give some idea, 120 is among top 1-2% per subject.

We are an quite affluent state school with good results. I am only aware of 1 out of 90 getting 3x 120. There may be a couple of others but all heavily tutored

a big factor is age within year and obviously that helps get into grammar too

It isn't really that big a factor by the end of year 6 - plenty of spring and summer born children score higher than autumn born children.

Thanks, that's interesting. We didn't do any work at home at all or any tutoring for SATs but she did do 11+ at the beginning of Y6 and we did quite a lot of practice at home for that during Y5 so I suspect that will have affected her score compared to areas that don't do 11+. She had basically covered all of the Y6 syllabus by the beginning of Y6. It's a stupid system.

@entitledparents Our school is also in an affluent area with many children sitting the 11+. Noone got 3 x 120. The highest was 2 x 120 and one other high in greater depth.

it is possible without tutoring etc…
mine got 120 in all 3 - she passed the 11+ and is going to a grammar school but no tutoring for either test….

shes also (early) summer born and goes to a school in a deprived area with high %FSM/EAL….

Just pointing out it’s possible although on the whole agree from my experience that most tutor for the 11+ and I suspect this boosts their sats results….I suspect most don’t need to tutor as much and would still be GD in sats! And pass the 11+ 🙄

Can anyone tell me whether the SPAG element has any weight as my DS got 116 for that paper but has 109 for the other and then 108 for maths. I have been told that SPAG is irrelevant which seems a little harsh.

I guess it depends on the 11+ exam. The one my Dds took - super selective in London - you take at the start of Y6, but the syllabus is until the end of Y6. It would literally be impossible for child to get a high enough mark in Maths anyway to pass without tutoring as they wouldn't have covered the work by the end of Y5.

No weight whatsoever. There isn’t even a KS3 grammar curriculum - the working party ran out of money.

DietrichandDiMaggio no tbere is still a large attainment gap by birth month.and twice as likely to exceed in all 3. (Year depending) at say 7% for aug vs 14% for sept.
Works out at maybe 2+ scaled score advantage.
My dc would have to have been top 5% of birth month to get all 3 exceeded i think in 2019??
I expect its more that many summer borns get behind in at least one subject and then lose confidence.
Its like if you lined y6 up by height. The oldest out of 30 or 60 may not be tallest. But if you take a national level average sept vs average aug. They are taller.
Grammar entries they do adjust but still end up with fewer summer borns.
Obviously for some kids sitting tests almost a year later helps. But for others they have achieved their potential anyway. (With 120 dd couldnt have do e much vetter at spag.). Maths weve made huge progress so yes i would say a few more months in y6 and could have got close to 120 (or tutoring). But a bigger issue being the teacher didnt see her as being good. And actually said 'she didn't come into y6 as good at maths (yet now got top 10%?
Reading other im not sure maybe the harder paper, slower speed. Or could easily be that she hadnt been reading as much to focus on bringing up maths.

I would say though being young in year has come out with similar marks to friends (who are older) so is being underestimated which frustrates her.
The test for maths isnt stretching the most able so i think her school likely have a group maybe 50% over 110. But its not differentiating. As so.e of them (not dd) are years ahead

This. Absolutely this.

My ds did SATS last year. Quite average results. Not greater depth in anything. Seems to be doing well at secondary school though.

My daughter got 105 for maths. 112 for reading and 113 for spag. I thought she did quite well considering none of her reports previously said she was working at greater depth (although the year 6 one did) she didn't do a single thing at home it was all done in school and she didn't seem phased at all. Are people on mumsnet just making up scores to make us all feel like our children aren't up to scratch? That's how it feels.

@CoffeeWithCheese similarly with my son. He was in the ‘middle’ group for maths in his 3 form primary, as due to his SEN he couldn’t cope with the ‘top’ group, but he got 120 in maths. He is off to a secondary that focuses more on the kids’ wellbeing than grades and I am hoping he will thrive in this environment. He was GD for reading and SPAG too, despite a local private school turning him down as he ‘struggled with the inference questions’ in the tests they gave him. They knew he was autistic and gave him a set of inference questions - he was basically set up to fail, but I feel he’ll do better at a state secondary that prioritises pupil’s well-being, so glad now that they turned him down!

@spanieleyes what ranking would 116-117 be for Maths ple?

Would this be top set for state comp? Got 113 in the other two. And 100% in all of it for year 2 SATs. Thanks

It would put your child in the top 10% or so, depending on your local authority performance. Whether that would put them in top sets, I have no idea, it depends on how the school sorts sets out, or indeed whether they have sets at all.

As pp said, I don’t think you can be sure what set a child we be put in as it depends on the cohort joining the school. 85 out of the 90 children at my sons school are going up to the same high school. They had 50% achieve greater depth. They can’t all go into top set, so it very much depends on the school.

It also depends on how they set.
When DD started in y7 they had three equal thirds each of 3 tutor groups. So there were 3 top sets, 3 middle sets, and 3 lower sets.

No tutoring here but proud that my DC got 119, 120 & 120. They are going to a local comprehensive with a current "requires improvement" rating by Ofsted. No grammars here and private is too expensive for us.

Someone said something earlier about people making stuff up here because so many kids have such high scores, according to posters here.

I actually wondered if that's a sort of positive bias caused by the fact that those (and I'm talking for myself certainly) who are very proud of our high-scoring kids would never dream of boasting about it to others we actually know IRL, whose kids may have not scored so highly. What I mean is, it's a little outlet where we can come and be proud without feeling too much like the playground twat. I hope that's forgivable! (I think as parents we are allowed, sometimes, somewhere, a little brag!?)

@snellgrove I think there is positive bias as you said. Also, the people who hang out on these boards tend to be quite invested in education.

I do think though that as things progress to GCSEs people with high achieving kids need to be careful. Too many people seem to bandy their child's predicted/actual grades around even when not really relevant to the discussion at hand. It can put off parents of average or lower achievers from joining in the threads.

e.g. On GCSE results, in my view it is 'good enough' to say 'delighted with DCs results, they beat their predictions in most subjects' rather than adding on they got 8 grade 9s and 2 grade 8s.
Especially when parents add on something like 'they deserve it, they worked really hard', which leaves hanging in the air the thought that maybe kids who got 4-6s didn't work hard...

Of course grades are relevant for various things such as when talking about suitable BTECs/A levels or Unis, including in 'so proud' or 'boasting' threads.

Oh yes 100% agree. I wouldn't assume anything from SATs results further down the line for sure. And also entirely agree on the notion of deserving it. The fact is that a bright child can do extremely well in SATs in y6 without much work at all, really. And I'm sure mine did so well in hers partly as the result of the work she DID do for the grammar school exam - different kinds of work, mostly, but it did give her a good prep in exam technique/ timing that other kids simply didn't have the opportunity for. So when it comes to deserving a good result, I think there are plenty of others in her class alone who probably deserved more if you think about that in terms of effort in = results out. Or even opportunity in = results out.