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.

it's probably because he is bored with those type of questions, they are probably too easy for him. Later on when he comes across tougher questions that he can get his teeth into, he will enjoy the challenge of getting them right

I hope so, Claig

maggiethecat "Feenie, as the most passionate poster on the subject that I've come across so far, can you say if what you said a year ago remains true today of ks1 sats?"

Yes the changes were made in 2005, and remain the same now.

Cortina "This interests me. Given dips and spurts are normal, could it not be that the child HAS honestly reached level 3C by the time of the national tests? What if he was secure level 3 material by then?"

The teacher assessment is ongoing, day to day. If the child just scraped, say, a 3c one day, then a teacher could see they would be ready to begin learning 3c concepts adjust her teaching accordingly.

"I see the sense in what you say but maybe the danger is in the wrong hands and in a less than ideal setting I fear less might be expected from this child than another who has worked steadily at a higher level all along? More reinforcing would be thought to be needed, for perhaps a reasonably long period etc (and such reinforcing might be sensible for most children but not all). Meanwhile those at the 'top' pull further and further ahead and the 3C who doesn't deserve to be a 3C becomes demoralised?"

Cortina, sorry, but the situation you continue to describe is just insulting. I have tried to reassure you of the majority of teachers' high expectations for so long now - for the record, the reaction would be excitement that a child has attained so highly, followed by carefully planned teaching to ensure the child had opportunities to fully explore the myriad of 3c concepts which aren't included on one little test.

To not 'reinforce' children's learning would be flaky teaching at best, and at worst could do terrible damage to a child's confidence by sweeping them along and teaching them the bare minimum to succeed at a given level - sooner or later the child would come unstuck as all the basic scaffolding which was skimmed over just collapses.

Can I also point out, once again, that children are teacher assessed for the second they step into school until they leave, and that the only difference between teacher assessment in Y1, Y3, Y4, Y5 and Y2 is that the teacher assessment in Y2 has to be reported to parents, governors and the LEA.

If you want to help your child at home, please do, but don't suddenly do it in y2 for erroneous reasons. Yes, the teacher assessment affects where the y3 teacher starts their learning in September, but the same happens in September in Y1, Y2, Y4, etc - good teaching starts at the precise level the children are at AND GOES AT THE PACE OF THE CHILD'S LEARNING, CORTINA, NOT AT THE TEACHER'S!

Sorry, will stop shouting now.

Ok, first off I don't mean to be insulting, patronising or anything else, I respect you - from what evidence I've seen on here . It's great that we have people like you teaching our children, committed, intelligent, passionate people, and I really mean that.

I also love that we can debate these sort of things on Mumsnet. It's a great resource and far more informative than other similar sites I've seen. It's good to debate things in a healthy way, with respect on all sides. I think this happens here far more than on other sites.

I am not a teacher but do see possible flaws in the current system or at least a 'system' that sticks rigidly to the letter of the National Curriculum and never deviates. Do you really think the system is perfect? Is it really 'insulting' to question things? If I don't agree with you must I be always 'wrong'?

Ok, I see the wisdom in what you say about the '3C' situation but my other points about how we perceive ability etc are the ones that I am passionate about and really interest me. I've explained them already at length on this thread. Please read Carol Dweck and Bill and Guy Claxton as and when you have time. I'd be very interested in your thoughts. They describe all I am concerned about much better than I do. It's about what possibly goes on unwittingly, on a subconscious level. I do believe ability labels can be sticky. I've seen it in my own case and those of others. Many have read Malcolm Gladwell he touches on it too.

I think that levels to work towards COULD be limiting in SOME instances. I think about that experiment in a primary school where they went into individual classes and did an IQ test on every pupil. They gave the teachers the results of the two that pupils in each class that were the highest scorers.

Thing is they fed back results at random, and didn't give the honest results about who the two high fliers were but in EVERY case the two children who they'd messaged were the most 'able' had made significant strides in their progress and were in the top quarter of the class, many much higher.

I meant it when I said earlier I'd be pleased if you were at the front of my children's class.

By the way what do you think about 'predicted' grades being given out for the end of year one in term one? Especially when these appear to be very unambitious?
I don't think we are supposed to take much (or even any notice). They are only a rough guide. So why give them out? Poor teachers must have mother's like me on their case .

Do you believe a' W' in year one is as capable/likely of good results in year two and three as any other? How can they 'catch' up if they 'spurt' given the way the sub levels etc work? Surely it makes things more difficult? Perhaps not. My ignorance at not knowing how this would work.

Also what's happening in my experience of my kids rising to the average level of whatever group they happen to be put with over time? I am interested in learning more, always.

At the moment I trust in my dc's ability, not their attainment to achieve high academically in later life.

Also, I have seen children in my class working vry hard to get good/top grades. The grades were good enough to get into the same course as me at uni. However there the pace was so high they couldn't keep up and dropped out (so their attainment at school was "too high" compared to their ability)

(must admit I bought workbooks for dc1, but dc1 was never interested so now dc2 and dc3 use the gold stars in their art stuff...)

"I also love that we can debate these sort of things on Mumsnet. It's a great resource and far more informative than other similar sites I've seen. It's good to debate things in a healthy way, with respect on all sides. I think this happens here far more than on other sites."

I agree, you're absolutely right and I'm sorry for my impatience.

"I am not a teacher but do see possible flaws in the current system or at least a 'system' that sticks rigidly to the letter of the National Curriculum and never deviates."

But who said teachers do? With the advent of schools being able to devise their own curriculum, we can deviate as much as we like. Some of us did anyway!

"By the way what do you think about 'predicted' grades being given out for the end of year one in term one? Especially when these appear to be very unambitious?"

I think the concept of giving them out to parents is way over top! But as marker for teachers, they are there as an indicator that there may be a problem if progress is slower. That's all.

"Do you believe a' W' in year one is as capable/likely of good results in year two and three as any other?"

Of course. Children develop at vastly different rates, and usually 'spurt' in Y2 or Y3.

"How can they 'catch' up if they 'spurt' given the way the sub levels etc work? Surely it makes things more difficult?"

Not at all. The sublevels (and other indicators) enable teachers to teach to the precise level the children are at - not an arbitrary stab in the dark at where they might just be. The pace the next level is taught at depends on the child - how well they grasp the concepts, how confident they are, whether they are eager to learn or need a little push to extend their thinking.

"Also what's happening in my experience of my kids rising to the average level of whatever group they happen to be put with over time?"

I'm not sure what you're asking me here - what do you mean by 'group'?

Reading back over this thread, I'm not sure I deserve the accolade of 'most passionate' - most narky, maybe!

"Also, I have seen children in my class working vry hard to get good/top grades. The grades were good enough to get into the same course as me at uni. However there the pace was so high they couldn't keep up and dropped out (so their attainment at school was "too high" compared to their ability)"

The problem with this view is that you risk convincing children that intelligence is something they are born with and not something they build through hard work. Perhaps the other children stopped working hard when they found that party life that infests Universities around the globe?

Strix, hm, some cases yes, but other cases not. My uni was at a place were most students were from that city. Those students who were keen to go to uni for the party life/student life went to other unis. (This was not in the UK.)

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by intelligence. I do think that "abilty " is partly something you are born with. But without hard work ability will not result in high attainment (well, my DH maybe one of the exceptions, ability yes, hard work no, high atttainment yes).

Maybe I'm wrong but I went to school where children did not start school/started reading till they were 7 y. Therefore I'm not too bothered with SATS at Keystage 1.

And if this doesn't make any sense it's because I've just eaten 4 pancakes and all my blood in my brains has been diverted to my stomach

Well, i think there is a (unfortunate) tendancy to credit any education success to an inante talent that you were born with. People often say things like "When it comes to math, you either have it or you don't." And this leads to people not trying/studying as hard and that leads to them not doing so well, resulting in a self fulfilling prophecy. So, I think it is important to tell children that success comes from hard work because this encourages them to work and meet their potential. I always tell DD when she does well on her weekly spelling tests that did a really good job and she must have worked hard and that is why she did well. (I also do this because I don't want her going round to her friend telling them she is smarter than they are because that would be rude and I don't want DD to treat her friends that way). So I tell her that her friends are just as smart but she must have worked harder.

agree with Strix. Hard work is at the core of success and is in the long run more important than innate ability. Many people with innate ability do not make use of their talents, due to not applying themselves or being lazy or over confident. A disciplined hard worker often achieves more. This is similar to Aesop's fable about the tortoise and the hare. Thomas Edison said "genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration".

Brilliant quote Claig and thanks for your reply Feenie . Claig I don't think many people really believe this, and that saddens me. Edison had a whole team of people behind him, Van Gogh produced 10 years worth of pretty poor stuff before anything of real note, Michael Jordan wasn't good enough for the school basketball team (so he got up at 5am for months and months to practice) and so on.

All the research is showing that intelligence is more 'learnable' than we've every realised. The brain is like a muscle, the mind is elastic. People that believe in expandable intelligence try harder, find trying more enjoyable and tend to find learning fun. They are more interested in 'learning how to learn' as this is a very real possibility. They like to challenge themselves and worry less about how to prove themselves but how to improve themselves. (see Guy Claxton 'What's The Point of School).

If someone had explained this to me at a young age I think I would have fared so much better. When I couldn't draw a combine harvester for harvest festival aged 7 I asked the TA for help. I said 'I can't do this' she said 'no such thing as can't'! I thought 'but there is, it's short for cannot'??! I looked across at the smart kids, at the 'other' table, who could write beautifully by then and had drawn fabulous harvesters I can still remember the despair. I went off into my little dream world....If the TA had said 'Look Cortina, I know you are finding this really hard and at the moment it isn't coming easily I promise you if you get a book on drawing out from the library and practice every single day at home, your drawing will dramatically improve. You really can improve you know and you may even be able to do a better one that X over there in time'! I'd have run off to get a drawing course book from the library with a spring in my little step. That TA REALLY believed I COULD!

When I got a friend to write the topic title on my folder age 7 - because I had terrible handwriting, my teacher smirked and said 'you didn't do this did you Cortina'! If she'd said 'Look Cortina, it's a shame you got someone else to do this, you've got good ideas, I believe in you, lets come up with a strategy for getting your writing better, let's develop your learning power'. Or something like that .

In the UK and USA in particular we seem to like to give students a level of 'ability', where we sit them in a classroom, what we unwittingly message etc . You see many on Mumsnet that believe that one child is much more able than other, there will always be the bright and the slow and so on. There used to be a very fixed view about the mind and one of the reasons was economic. Otherwise how would scarce and expensive educational resources be allocated?

There are genetic differences in peoples intelligence but these are smaller than first thought. For everyone there is a wide envelope of variation around the base point that depends on experience, encouragement and self-belief. My worry is that sitting at a 'slow' ability table or 'bottom' set COULD shatter any self belief, certainly it did for me.

Why are 'ability' tables in primary schools not called current attainment tables, or even attainment tables? I think the subtle change in language could have far reaching positive influences even the sort of situation I am describing above which I doubt is uncommon. if I'd believed the harvester drawers were at a different stage in their learning on some level rather than just being inherently, forever 'better' I think it would have helped.

Claxton talks about making some subtle shifts in the vocab of the classroom. One is talking about 'learning' rather than 'work', another is using Could Be language rather than Is language. Replacing talk of ability with reference to effort, strategy and developing learning power.

Being labelled 'bright' is no better than being labelled 'slow'. Research has shown that whilst you may struggle less often, when you do, you are prone to feel even more stupid than 'less able' peers. Brightness equals easy success - if something doesn't come easy you may not be as bright as you are supposed to be.

Feenie, back to explain what I mean by the 'group' thing. My kids, I think, have a roughly similar IQ. One of them began the violin and learned in a group session. He was completely out of his depth! These kids were good, very good. Within a couple of terms he was about average in the group. I've seen this with the whole dreaded 'ability tables, wherever my kids are they seem to rise to towards the top level of the group. (You'll say because they are in the right place I suspect ) but bear with me.

Prof Lauren Resnick from University of Pittsburgh says:

Students who, over an extended period of time are treated as if they are 'intelligent', actually become so. if they are taught demanding content, and are expected to explain and find connections as well as memorise and repeat, they learn more and learn more quickly. They come to think of themselves as learners. They bounce back in the face of short-term failures.

I'd agree with the above from my limited experience with the kids. Also when I went on to study literature I didn't understand what on earth the lecturers said for the first month! They seemed to think I had the ability though, so I began to 'get' it in time. To sum up I believe intelligence is learnable.

By claig Tue 16-Feb-10 20:28:01
agree with Strix. Hard work is at the core of success and is in the long run more important than innate ability.

I agree hard work can contribute to success (as a very lazy student who coasted through grammar school)many, many children rise to the challenge but for some children expecting them to do something that is beyond their present ability has the effect of an off switch. It is better for these children to be given smaller challenges more often than give them a huge mountain to climb.

It comes down to knowing and understanding every child rather than applying generalisations.

Absolutely, mrz, well put.

Actually, we don't call them ability tables in my school, cortina, we call them groups/tables/teams.

ho ho, hang on. I know I had 4 pancakes yesterday. But I certainly do believe in hard work as well. I really gave dc1 a hard time last week because he did not do well in his spellings (2 wrong out of 10, top table) and I believe he could have done better if he had spent more time on them.

However I do not think it is right to spent more time on workbooks etc in the early years of school, beyond the ususal home work (and if they don't have any home work that is fineas well).

One of our nephews goes to private school and in addition he has 3 hours of tutoring every week. I think that if he needs to work that hard to "be good", how much does he need to do in later life "to keep up".

My DH and I have very similaar qualifications with similar grades. However I had to study a lot harder for them, so although we "attained" the same I think his "innate ability" is a lot higher than mine (don't tell him I said this!!).

By thirdname Wed 17-Feb-10 08:57:36
ho ho, hang on. I know I had 4 pancakes yesterday. But I certainly do believe in hard work as well. I really gave dc1 a hard time last week because he did not do well in his spellings (2 wrong out of 10, top table) and I believe he could have done better if he had spent more time on them.

I think this is a good point 8/10 for a child who is capable of more is annoying while 8/10 for a child who has struggled is cause for celebration.

"One of our nephews goes to private school and in addition he has 3 hours of tutoring every week. I think that if he needs to work that hard to "be good", how much does he need to do in later life "to keep up"."

also a good point

mrz, I totally agree with your points about not pushing them too hard and small challenges. The trouble I find is that in a class of 30 kids, the teacher does not have time (or possibly doesn't take the time) to know each kid well enough to guage how far to push each one without crossing the line.

Perhaps this is not a problem at private schools where classes (I believe) are smaller -- or even state schools with smaller classes.

And, of course, parents have different views as well. Some don't like homework in years 1 and 2. And some want to give their kids that head start. So, of course, the kids who are doing extra work are leapfrogging those who aren't. There is a boy in DD's class who is known for doing extra work with his mum. Guess what table he sits at? Yes, of course, the top one. He has a reputation as the very bright child. And all the parents who pretend not to be pushy ones all seem to know exactly how well this particular boy is doing. I call them closet pushy parents and I think they are the worst kind. You know, the parents who criticise the "pushy parents" and then secretly obsess at home about their child's rank in the class. I much prefer the parent who is honest and say, "Look, I want my kid to do more because I believe it is good for him/her."

Cortina, I think you are exactly right. I think the questions that you ask on this topic are very valuable and searching. No system is perfect, every system has its flaws and your probing questions turn the spotlight on areas of weakness.

If children are praised their confidence increases and they generally attempt more and do better. If children receive a message that they are not very capable, then often they will act out this self-fulfilling prophecy. Cinderella constantly received such messages, but she had a strong inner belief and help from outside, which enabled her to turn things around. Role models are invited into schools in deprived areas to show the children that success is possible, that people just like them managed to reach the greatest heights. This inspires the children with an Obama-like "yes we can" attitude, and this positive outlook can enable the children to improve. I think you are right that grouping children into ability levels may transmit a subconscious message to the children which is limiting. For some children this will lead to them losing hope and accepting their level. A "yes we can" message, allied to an ethos of hard work is more inspirational.

Your children rise to the challenge of whatever group they are put in, they raise their game. They don't feel restricted, they naturally want to compete and do well. You are right about the need for inspiring teachers who won't accept failure, who are often hard task masters, and who encourage and push to go that extra mile. Great boxers like Mike Tyson owe much of their success to their coaches who pushed them, challenged them and believed in them. Great tennis players like Rafa Nadal owe much of their success to hard work, hours of dedication in the gym and arduous training regimes.

All of us are capable of so much more. It is self-belief, hope and hard work that enables us to go further. The old quote "aim for the stars and maybe you'll reach the sky" is true. Anything that limits us, causes us to doubt our abilities and to fear to take that extra step is harmful. As Roosevelt said "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself".

I have 30 children in my class and believe I know them well and have high expectations of all children regardless of ability but recognise that there is a huge range of abilities in any group of 30 probably more than in a smaller class.

Well, our teachers don't always seem to know my kids very well. And other parents at the school have made similar remarks. I always figured it wasn't their fault if they were understaffed. Perhaps I'm giving them too much slack. Or perhaps you are just an exceptional breed of teacher.

Although, I must admit current teachers do seem to know my children. I usually get reports about how girls like this, boy typically that. But, at my last consultation for y2 DD, the teacher said she thought DD really didn't like english as well as she liked math and I almost started jumping up and down with joy that this teacher had actually recognised my DD as who she really is, and not just stuck her into the streotypical group of 6 year old girls.

I find Cortina's posts very interesting and I wanted to say thank you for exploring these ideas.

My OH and I are polar opposites - I was branded the clever one at primary and sat in all the top tables - great things were expected of me. Admittedly I was lazy, I achieved without trying very hard, I believed that I was naturally clever, until of course I hit a wall & came across something I didn't understand and it really knocked me for six - I don't think my confidence ever returned...my self-belief was shattered so much so that I didn't really see the point in trying to work hard, I believed I had hit my limit. I wish I could return to my 16 year old self and give myself a good talking to.

Conversely my OH was in a lower ability table all the way through primary but something clicked in Secondary school...something led him to believe that hard work was the key to success and succeed he did - in a big way. I find his approach to problems inspiring - he never feels constrained by not being naturally able to do something - he knows that hard work will get him there. Both he & his colleagues are all Oxbridge graduates but he says he knows only a very small handful of people who he would consider truly gifted, everyone else works their butt off. Oddly the truly gifted colleagues can often lack emotional intelligence and possess more than a touch of arrogance which despite their intellect prevents them from achieving.

We don't tell our kids they are clever, we tell them they can do anything but it will require effort on their part and their reward is succeeding for themselves. We still struggle with the "I can't" statements but everytime we breakthrough an "I can't" statement and replace it with an "I can" our kids become more like my OH and less like me!

"We still struggle with the "I can't" statements but everytime we breakthrough an "I can't" statement and replace it with an "I can" our kids become more like my OH and less like me! "

I will only accept "I can't do it yet!"

Yes of course Mrz