Can someone tell me what to think about primary sats?

[PollyParanoia]

Am fairly new to education. Well I'm not but my ds is. His school has done better than the last few years in their sats released today. Not brilliant, but I think perfectly fine. Probably about a third of the way down the table for the borough, below all the faith schools, natch.
Does it matter either way?
Are people whose kids go to a 100% school right to be insufferably smug?
Does it say more about the school or about the home life of pupils?
I know that I looked at the results before choosing schools, but then actually discarded them because I liked our local despite its then crappy scores. I know that there are always mitigating factors (in this case, the fact that a lot of people move due to rubbishy secondaries). In which case, why am I even caring what they are this year? What is the point of them?

I think they are a waste of time. What's more important is how you feel about the school and whether your child is enjoying learning there. My DCs' local school happens to be one that does well in SATS but there is a wide mix of abilities there and although the results are good there are other aspects of the school that could definitely be improved!!

Value added score is more important than raw SATS as it tells you how well pupils have done relative to their starting point.
A third of the way down the table for the borough is pretty good - particularly as you say the scores were crappy when you chose the school. It shows an improving school at that is great.
SATs are not a waste of time IMO, they may be for the individual child doing them but they do provide some objective evidence of how well the school is doing at the most basic level of producing literate and numerate pupils.

Total waste...
What the SATS say is that schools who are at the top of the league tables do loads and loads of practice. I know my ds's do at their school.
We are at a reasonably high achieving school, but it also puts a lot of effort into it's sport and extra curricular activities and that for me, is just as important.

Waste of time, imo.

Our school does really well but their biggest focus is competition and academic success. Unfortunately, I never considered how they achieved such good results, I naively assumed it was through good overall teaching, rather than teaching to pass a test.

Well, I have to say I don't agree that all schools who do well are teaching to pass the test. Our primary school does very well (top 20% this year, top 10% last year) and they do not teach to the test.

Are you sure LGP?
Do they assess/test a lot, maths, x table, spellings? do they have SATs related homework? Are they streamed so they are always being pushed to reach their potential? Do they have links to games/homework sites that are SATS based? All these things are teaching to the SATs imo.

LGP, how do you know they don't teach to the test?

I think every school ends up teaching to SATs because every state school is signed up to National Curriculum, and the Ofsted inspection results depend a lot on the KS2 SATs; the schools are forced into teaching to them.

I'm very involved in the school in many different ways. I've been the governor responsible for literacy for a number of years now. I have had one child go completely through the school and two more who are still there. I help in classes.
Yes, they place importance on times tables, mental maths, spellings and grammar. Of course they do. Those are important skills for children to master. If you are going to accuse every school who focuses on giving children basic literacy and numeracy skills as 'teaching to the test' then we'll have to agree to differ.
What I mean by 'not teaching to the test' is that the school is looking at the long term goal of turning out pupils who are well-rounded, who have a good grounding in the key subjects of maths, English and science, but who have also had a chance to explore a wider curriculum and to develop their creative potential through music and art.
I mean that the school doesn't pressure them to attend booster classes, doesn't give them homework based around SATs preparation, doesn't spend an inordinate amount of class room time preparing for SATs tests.
The school my children attend doesn't do these things.
If by 'not teaching to the test' however, you mean a school who doesn't think it is important to teach children the numeracy and literacy skills that the SATS tests measure then we'll have to agree to differ.

It's interesting that everyone who has posted here has a child going to a school that does well in these SATs, which makes me wonder whether we're as good at ignoring them as we like to think.
Part of the reason I was gratified by the improvement was because our school is not one favoured by the middle classes (a lot of whom are probably irrevocably wedded to private anyway) and am, snobbily, hoping that more of them might attend now. And then I wonder why do I want more middle classes? A lot of it is about the image of a school, how many parents work in posh jobs, how many famous parents there are etc, etc. I find this a bit tragic (while being completely party to it)

Surely there are some children who are unable to achieve level 4 however good the school is due to SEN. Are these childrens results included in the figures?

My dc school has had well-below national average KS2 SAT results (2006-2008)
I do think that's unusual on MN.
Definitely no famous parents, what would a posh parent's job be? No doctors or soliciters that I know of -- at least two (small) company directors, though.
Our school also has high % with SN or SEN (including one of my own dc).

Yes there are children who are unable to reach level 4, and they have to be included in the figures. So if the school has 100% level 4 and above, it may not be the right school for a child with SEN

We weren't always at a decent school though. We used to attend a school that looked ok on it's SATs, but actually didn't do any spellings, or x tables, that had a very high percent of SEN that was not catered for and generally offered a poor education but because it was so tiny it's results were always skewed.
DS1 is particularly bright, in his yr 2 SATs his high results made the year (of 8) look average. Conversely the opposite could apply and so the means absolutely nothing in that situation.

Interesting bigtillymint. DS school has had top marks for level 4 this year (300) and a good CVA result too. I doubt it will do as well when DS year goes through Sats. Most are very bright but there are a couple who can barely read in yr2.

Well with good teaching, they could easily make good progress with their reading.

If they have a good CVA, then they must be adding value - did you feel the end of KS1 levels were realistic for your children? (ie not lowered to make the CVAlook better!)

I would rate value added over SATs any time. Our school doesn't do well in league tables but the difference it's made to my ds1 has been huge.

In our area the schools with the best SATs results are the ones with little or no social deprivation and a below-average % of children with SN. I have a feeling their results would sink through the floor if they had a similar intake to the schools in other areas.

I don't find them useful at all.
In this borough (in London) there are essentially schools in middle class areas which are very popular and have tiny catchment areas with very expensive houses, or schools with a very ethnically mixed, fairly socially deprived intake. Obviously the middle class schools full of advantaged, English speaking children do very well in SATs, and the schools where most of the children don't speak English when they start school have poor SATs.

I don't think they 'provide some objective evidence of how well the school is doing at the most basic level of producing literate and numerate pupils' as LadyGlencora says, because the intake is completely different.

Big Tilly Mint

We're not quite at the end of KS1 with first DC yet so haven't had any Sats results. I think we will get them at the end of Yr2.

I imagine the school's good KS2 Sats results are due to a number of factors:

The intake - many degree level educated parents who are likely to have bright offspring (know there can be exceptions to this)

A good well organised Head

A number of very good teachers

Pushy parents with high expectations (maybe?!)

Happywomble, I think you're absolutely right!

However, CVA tries to measure value added regardless of the starting point (ie how much pupils progress from their KS1 level to their KS2 level). So at secondary level, even grammar schools can get a high CVA score.

Of course, it doesn't take into account what happens outside the school - ie pushy (or just keen) parents, tutors, etc, etc.

How many schools in MC areas fail Ofsted? Virtually all the failing schools are in areas of high deprivation and get lower than average level 4's

I don't think all children with SEN have to be included. One of ds's classmates has Downs syndrome and very limited speech: I am fairly sure they will not make her sit the SATS when they get to Year 6. I think severely disadvantaged children can be left off the list.

Yes Cory, I think you're right about cases like that - where the child is "severe" SEN. In any case, children who would not be able to sit the tests are Teacher Assessed anyway.

Completely agree with Cat64, SATs seem such a blunt way of recording school's success. And yet, because they are published, parents undoubtedly look at them when deciding which school to opt for (am aware that this might be a bit London-centric since in lots of areas there's no element of choice). I don't know any schools with consistently high SATs that isn't over-subscribed and vice versa. It seems to me that they are just a way if perpetuating successful schools and failing ones that have issues.
A bit like faith schools, grammars etc, etc.

Another issue with league tables is that they exaggerate differences. Sat scores "bunch" as they get better so two schools with virtually identical scores -well within marking error- may be some distance apart.

I broadly agree that sats are a waste of time. There are better, and cheaper methods of providing an external assessment of how schools are doing.

But we have them so how to use them?

if the score is low ask why. There could be, quite often is a good reason. But worth finding out. if the score is very high ask why. There could be a bad reason you need to know.....

(like very heavy "teaching to the test")