Preparation for key stage 1 SATS

[Reallytired]

My son is in year 2 and will be sitting SATs either at the end of this term or in May. I am not sure how it works. Do children still sit tests or is it done on teacher assessment?

I found some old papers and mark schemes on the internet. It has been a bit of shock how rigid the mark scheme can be. I get the feeling that quite a few marks can be lost by not understand what is required, even if the child has no problem with the maths, reading or writing.

For example am I right thinking that in Maths if a question asks you to show working out and you only give an answer with no indication of what method you have used then the child will get a big fat zero. Even if their answer is right. Similarly a child can get a wrong answer but get a good proportion of the marks if they show they understand what they needed to do.

How do you make sure that a child has the best chance of showing off their ablity and not throw away marks. I really don't want my son to do practice papers or get stressed. He is only six and too young to have a care in the world.

However I do not want my son to end up in the bottom sets next year with the nightmare kids.

In two or three form entry there is more possibility for sets but I would hope that what children do in Y2 is not going to set their future in stone.

It seems that most primary schools have fluid and flexible sets. From my experience this isn't so, children that move between the sets are few - perhaps 1 or 2 a term maximum. Self belief can suffer in a worst case scenario. Sometimes the best resources are given to the 'top' sets,
I am sure this is very rare though and many would say it doesn't happen.

I see with my children that they rise to the level of the set they are placed in within a short period, whether this is the bottom ability table, one in the middle or nearer the top. This is really curious.

Do you feel that your children are in the "wrong" sets? I have to admit that I don't know which "sets" DS is in (year 1) but am happy with the education he is getting. And if I were not happy I would discuss it with his teacher.

If you had read the rest of this thread you would see that if children are streamed it is mainly through teacher assessment not SATS results. If I had an average ability child who suddenly did amazingly in the SATS I would wonder why. I would also not then automatically put them in the top set of the next year up as it could 'irrevocably damage their self esteem' to be struggling in comparison to the rest of their small (and therefore more observant) group.

Training a child for KS1 SATS is ludicrous.
Obviously supporting your child at home is commendable and incredibly important but hothousing for KS1 tests is not. I can't believe how angry and sad these attitudes make me. Those poor children who are led to feel their success is based only on tests.

I am also sure that teachers are assessing children all the time (well maybe not every second of every day) and that the SATS tests are there as one small part of the overall process.

I am also glad that at DS and DD's school although the SATs happen, we are told to specifically not talk about them with the children or to prepare them. I think there is a general time when assessment happens throughout the whole school (May or June) but the year 2 assessment is just part of that. School is a lower school so only up to year 4 and so doesn't have KS2 SATs

I don't think mine are necessarily in the wrong sets, I've noticed if they start an out of school activity with much more able students (violin is an example) they have risen to be as good as the group average within a couple of terms. It interests me.

Sometimes I've thought they've been hideously out of their depth, in a language class etc. I've told the kids I REALLY believe in them etc an sure enough they surprised even me! Their 'ability' has increased.

My son was in the bottom group, he'd been ill and missed a lot of reception. The teacher was keen to keep him there but I thought he could cope with more challenging work after a term or two. He moved up and pretty soon was working at the mid to top level of the next group.

I've done similar with the older ones, at times, and sometimes I wonder if I hadn't whether they would have been perceived as being as 'able' as I know they are going forward?

Does that make sense at all? I approach all of this as a 'bottom set' person myself. Not many bottom setters got the English prize plus, and top A level grades (am no genius, just very average and worked hard), and sadly I always believed I wasn't good enough for university etc. It wasn't got right for me through my school career and this makes me more concerned. That was, a long, long, time ago though. Even in primary school being in the lower sets made me feel less intelligent and able than my peers. Perhaps I was unusual in that I felt that way even at 7.

All the stuff I've been reading on ability backs up some of my worst fears. It has to be said if you've got a teacher like Feenie in front of the class and a great school you shouldn't have too many problems though.

That should read 'they would not have been perceived as 'able' going forward.

Could you enlighten me on the difference between "Training a child for KS1 SATS is ludicrous." and "Obviously supporting your child at home is commendable "

At our school, we are streamed... I'm not sure when. I caught onto it in year two. But I think it happened in year 1. They tables are reset often (at least termly, possibly half termly) so they are not set down one path for life. But, the table at which they sit determines the level of work they get. So, the kids at the top table are actually given a better education right now which will of course better prepare them for the next round streaming. And this is why I want DD to be pushed in those subject in which I believe she is naturally inclined (math in her case). I don't fuss about all subjects. But I go way out of my way to tell her that math and science are both for girls as much as they are for biys. I am actively counteracting the victorian views of the teacher which are also repeated by the boys in the playground. This is unacceptable to me. And I think if she can score a 3 on SAT then in year 3 the school will have to acknowledge her inclination to math.

Strix - have you read outliers? I sometimes wonder, seeing the kids at the top tables in our primary are now streets ahead of the rest of the cohort, if the positive outliers of the future are being created?

I wonder about what you touch on. If a child joins in year one, or has missed reception due to illness the playing field won't be level at the beginning. The work that all do is differentiated, how can those at the bottom 'catch' the top when a gulf opens up early on?

Do people believe a child working at W level now in year one is as likely to go to go to grammar school, get into the top set for Maths in year 3, go to Oxbridge as one working at level 2 plus? If the answer to this question is always 'yes, of course' I'd be very reassured.

Hopefully it doesn't matter but the NC unlike the IB appears to see things in a more linear way? Bottom setters in my friend's IB school abroad, are expected to get the equivalent of A* in GCSE Maths for example - unless learning problems. There are no levels to reach by certain times depending on where you are currently. The sky is messaged as being the limit and kids seem to be taken out of their comfort zones very easily. Perhaps not a very good idea? I'm not sure?

'Training a child for KS1 SATS' ie going through test papers creating a pressure to perform when the child is given the papers at school.

'Obviously supporting your child at home is commendable' ie listening to them read, helping with spellings/timetables etc

LOL at the idea of 'streaming' in Year one, a far too serious expression for five year olds. Of course different ability children do sit together (particularly for Numeracy and Literacy, but even then not all the children on the 'top' table in one subject will be the same as in others) The work they are given will be differentiated. This isn't to stigmatise the child, it's often so that the teacher/TA can support the children with a particular task (far easier when they are all doing the same task) - they can work in pairs on the same task etc. Within a subject, for example numeracy on the topic of addition there will be children who need consolidation on the basic principles where others will be ready to bridge ten or taken on more complicated techniques, it is simply impossible to deliver both those lessons five times to five different tables so everyone hears the bit that they need.

There seems to be a basic misunderstanding that this so called streaming is aimed to be of benefit to children as well as teachers. There are always going to be children brighter or less able than your child. If your child is not in the 'top' group it certainly doesn't mean they get a poorer education.

Cortina - where you say Do people believe a child working at W level now in year one is as likely to go to go to grammar school, get into the top set for Maths in year 3, go to Oxbridge as one working at level 2 plus? If the answer to this question is always 'yes, of course' I'd be very reassured.'

The ability groups in KS1 and 2 are flexible and children do get moved if they are excelling in a subject but there does seem to be an unwillingness to accept that not all children will excel academically (not that they shouldn't be encouraged to do their best and nutured in the areas they achieve though). Not all of them are suitable to go in the 'top' or 'bottom' set. It isn't a failure of the child. There is a strata of ability through any society and of course it doesn't always apply to academia there are so many other areas in which to excel. When parents believe the only way of measuring their child's success lies in what group they are in or what they get in KS1 SATS well, in that way a life of disappointment lies.

Gah - re-reading my last post it sounds so negative. I just get fed up with parents who think if their child isn't top of the class it's because they should be but the school is holding them back. Not everyone can be top of the class. That's my point. Can't even remember why I got there. I still think training children to do KS1 SATS is ridiculous and sad. Send them outside with a skipping rope or indoors with a pile of glue and felt tips and put those test papers in the bin.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the children in the top group are receiving extra help and coaching at home. I wouldn't be surprised if the class swot is not only a swot, but is getting more coaching at home than the children in the lower groups. That's why I think it is right for Strix and Cortina to give their children extra help at home. As Strix said her daughter easily mastered telling the time correctly with the help that Strix gave her. With more help and tuition I am sure that Strix's daughter would soon be in the top group, and Strix is hoping that her daughter does well in the SATS exams so that this will be noticed and her daughter is moved up.

We don't go through the test booklet in a testing environment. I don't time it. She can ask for help, and I work through the problem with her. When she gets frustrated we take a break. It helps me understand the curriculum, and I can help her by dropping these things into conversation wherever we go.

Things like:

DD: Mummy, when is Jane's party?
me: 4:00
DD: And how long is that?
me: Well, waht time is it now. Can you look at the clock here and tell me?
DD: 2:15
me: So how long until 4:00?
DD: An hour and a quarter.
me: Yes. Nice job!

Without the questions in the sat book, I wouldn't know to have this conversation.

And, as for not telling the kids about the tests and the tables, they all know. If I say "WHo is at the top tables in math?" she will list them all. And she will go on to tell me that she knows it's the top table because they get the biggest numbers.

Furthermore, her teacher told me that she is borderline beween her current table and the top one. So just needs a bit of practise and not serious cramming to get to that table.

So, frankly, I think your hothousing comment was a bit off mark.

Oh bloody 3 quarters. I hate when that happens.

Strix - but why go through the test booklet at all? WHY do you need her to be in the top set?
The supportive stuff you are doing (like the time example you gave) sounds good it's the test papers that make me despair.

Claig your comment:

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the children in the top group are receiving extra help and coaching at home. I wouldn't be surprised if the class swot is not only a swot, but is getting more coaching at home than the children in the lower groups.

GOOD GRIEF. Have you read this thread?!
Why whould the children in the top group be receiving extra help and coaching, why can't they just be bright?! NOT EVERYONE CAN BE IN THE TOP GROUP!

I guess it's the first book I ran across that would tell me what they do in year 2 curriculum. Although, there is some good stuff on the bbc too.

Also, it's good to get used to the firmat of the test in a non-pressurised setting because then the tests at school will be less stressful. (and they do have plenty of written tests)

KS1 tests shouldn't be pressurised in any school. When I did SATS with YR2 last, half of them didn't even know they'd done them!

If you want to know what they do in KS1 curriculum have a look here and literacy, select year group then tick all boxes and numeracy, do same as literacy

I can see I can't dissuade you from doing tests at home but just have a think about what doing them at home is going to do for your dd's view of how important (pressurised) they are. Good luck

I must admit I have not read the whole thread. Some of the children in the top group may just be bright, what I am saying is that just as Strix and Cortina help their children, I am sure the parents of children in the top group also help their children. We often read on these forums how many parents send their children to Kumon classes etc. or pay for subscriptions to mathletics etc. These children will gain an advantage over the children that don't get these opportunities.

I am not using the word swot in a pejorative sense. I am using it in its dictionary sense of "a student who studies assiduously, especially to the exclusion of other activities or interests". We all know that there are some students like this, whereas other students are not as assiduous and prefer to play football or play "outside with a skipping rope or indoors with a pile of glue and felt tips". I think it is highly likely that the assiduous students also probably have extra Kumon classes as well as other extra help at home. I don't think that their ability is all down to natural talent, and I agree with Cortina that some of the children in the lower groups possibly have as much natural talent but are not working as hard and are not receiving the same level of tuition as those in the top group.

Yes, I encourage him, because he is interested in learning and I want him to keep that love of learning for as long as possible. I listen to him reading his reading book. I help with the (small) amount of homework he gets. But in no way is he "tutored".

Sorry, I shouldn't get carried away on these threads

There is a strata of ability through any society and of course it doesn't always apply to academia there are so many other areas in which to excel. When parents believe the only way of measuring their child's success lies in what group they are in or what they get in KS1 SATS well, in that way a life of disappointment lies.

I think this is a good point. There's a Claxton book coming out: 'New Kinds of Smart' or some similar title that talks about just this I think. Can't wait to read it.

Thing is James, James you mention 'lower ability children' I wonder what this means exactly? I was seen as one. Most children will have an average IQ, most of us fall in the middle if you plot a graph. Yet some 'averages' may be sitting at the top and some the bottom and then potentially a gulf opens up. The whole of the British Education system was founded on the used to be believed fact that intelligence was fairly 'fixed'.

All the recent research on the 'brain' is showing that it is like a muscle, you can get smarter. IQ can grow if you like. Thing is children can be disadvantaged if they don't 'believe' and being in a lower set can do this (if care isn't taken to stop it). Carol Dweck is really interesting on this subject and has done a great deal of research to back up her ideas. Even though some intelligence is innate a great deal isn't and can be developed. I'm not putting it well, Dweck puts it better.

Not all children can be academics but most 'average' children I believe are capable of an A+, A or B at GCSE if in a good environment at home and at school and have self discipline. Studies, I think, have shown that self discipline determines future success more than anything else. There's a danger an 'average' child might have given up on themselves by then, I know I did. If being in the bottom set has prevented them getting to this point then that's not good enough. I believe to get this basic level of qualification is a springboard to a good future, whatever route they decide to take.

Love the name James, by the way. Have you read Jilly Cooper on the poem - think it's 'Disobedience'? She's absolutely hilarious!!!

no I agree not all are, but I think some probably are tutored. BuT I may be wrong, I cannot be sure.

Claig, I can say in my experience quite a lot are tutored. I have a friend who has an (excellent) tutor that comes to her house for 4 hours a week and helps her (3) children with homework and areas where they need extra help.

The tutor teaches them to think for themselves and has given them huge amounts of confidence in their work and themselves.

My friend did this initially when her daughter fell very behind and has kept it up since. In our school she is very far from alone. The children are aged 7 up.

You say 'There are always going to be children brighter or less able than your child'.

if most of us have average IQ, why at 5 should this be so? Shouldn't most of them be working at a similar level? Perhaps they are. I get some are younger etc but surely most should be similarly 'bright'? I think we unwittingly label children very young and these labels can be very sticky and limiting. I know good teachers wouldn't do this etc but research has shown so much happens on a subconscious level.

You say: but even then not all the children on the 'top' table in one subject will be the same as in others.

Certainly the view in DS's class is that the kids at the top table are very smart 'all rounders'. It may be that some are weaker in one area but as far as I know currently they are seen as being as 'good' at English as Maths hence the position at the coveted ( ) top table.

Children in KS1 and 2 are increasingly being assessed using APP grids- this is an ongoing process and will, eventually, mean the end of formal NC testing (SATs). The tests themselves at KS1 are used only to 'inform' teacher assessment ie to confirm or check judgements made by observations and ongoing assessments. These judgements and the evidence for them are moderated internally (and a percentage externally). In a good school these sub-levels should be sound results that can be relied on.

I agree Cortina. I tutor my DS for the 11+. I often read of parents who don't tutor their children for the 11+ and think that being on the top table is sufficient. It may work in some cases, but often the untutored children will be at a disadvantage to the assiduous tutored children. Years ago I used to tutor children privately for maths, and I improved their understanding tremendously. From that experience I know how valuable good 1-to-1 tuition is and I also know that children are capable of so much more than they ever believed. That is why I agree with you that intelligence is not fixed, spurts can easily be created with good tuition and hard work, and that there is a danger that some children will come to believe that they are thick and incapable because they are on the bottom table.

Agreed but the 'tools' of the system (NC) seem to support the 'fixed' intelligence argument I sometimes think. Schools etc talk about 'ability' all the time rather than current 'attainment' etc. Certainly I fear they could make 'vast spurts' unlikely due to the way things are structured. That said I appreciate any system needs structure and my fears may be completely unfounded.

As an aside DS doesn't seem to give the 'right' answers at times which means his 'scores' are probably not what they should be in the way 'levels' are assessed etc. They'll ask him what colour gold is for example in a comprehension test and he'll say 'pink' (because you can get pink gold too)!? Rather 'outside the box' type of thinking shall we say! I've told him he needs to 'conform' and not give 'trick' answers, he thinks that's beyond dull. A shame, maybe?