Have the Y2 SATs started already then?

[violetbloom]

I'm not making a big deal of it. Just dd mentioned today that they did a 'very hard' maths test at school and I wondered if this was a SAT? I kind of thought they'd do them after Easter.

My comment about Ofsted was not relating to the assessment process but the fact that schools which routinely and openly practise rigid setting etc can still be considered outstanding. It's simply about making sure you have 'the right data'. The teachers need have little knowledge of the children as long as their data demonstrates that 'progress' is recorded....Jonny has read books, x,y,z etc etc. Who cares if Jonny cis actually capable of reading books a,b and c? The data is meaningless.

I don't doubt also that low KS1 grades benefit primary school stats in the long term either.

Our Ofsted inspectors examined every Maths and Literacy book in our school (420) to establish that our teacher assessment was sound, debs40 - i.e. to check a so-called level 4a child was indeed working at a Level 4a, in case our assessment procedures and the work produced matched the data.

Perhaps the new inspection regime is more thorough! Individually assessing 420 books and comparing written work against teacher assessments seems an incredible task and must have taken a very long time. Are teachers supposed to have a running assessment of every child and the level they are working at? Because I can tell you they don't in DS' school.

What do Ofsted do if they spot inaccuracies. I presume there will always be some.

But then, I suppose, once you've been Ofsted'd, you know you're not due again for x number of years.

I'm not getting at you Feenie. I'm really not. I have alot of respect for your views and you've offered me some great advice. You sound like a fab teacher. But the sad reality is that not all schools (or all teachers) are the same.

I know you're not getting at me, debs, nor I you, I promise.

In answer to 'Are teachers supposed to have a running assessment of every child and the level they are working at?' Yes! But there has been a huge teacher assessment drive during the last few years, and I would still hope most schools are up to speed with current good practice.

I read a thread on TES recently which suggested that teacher's loathed APP and didn't see the point in that or guided reading...I must admit I decided to stop going to there after that thread, as I found it far too depressing.

I wish we could have a Mumsnet school - I genuinely thing the teachers who post on this forum are fab and I agree with most things you say, I am genuinely not tarring you all with the one brush but we seem to have developed a poor culture in our school, it seems to revolve around the teacher's needs not the pupils.

teachers loathed

I wish there was a mumsnet school too! Although I can't complain about dd's teacher. She's very experienced and straight speaking, she moves the kids around a lot in the class and seems to really know what she's doing. The only criticism I have of her is that she hardly ever changes their reading books. Dd's had the same one in her bag for 4 weeks now.

Is that something to do with this stage in their education? Dd's more or less able to read anything now so perhaps the teachers cut back on giving out books? Dd still does group reading at school and is in a reading extension group with 5 others from across the two Y2 classes. We've got tons to read at home so I haven't bothered mentioning it to the teacher.

APP and AfL are two very different things Assessment for Learning is what good teachers have always done. They know the children they teach, their strengths and weaknesses, the areas where they need to be extended and the areas where they need support. APP is filling in lots of paperwork to show to external agencies to prove that you know where your children are. AfL essential APP a paperchase.

debs low KS1 levels don't really benefit a school (only in terms of Value added) in fact they can trigger lots of unwanted attention from the LA and OFSTED.

In the area we live in mrz, the levels wouldn't be low in terms of national average. Whether they accurately reflect children's progress is a different matter.

We have selective secondary system here and hugely competitive parents. Children who have a reading are only a couple of years beyond their actual age are seen as 'not doing so well'.

That should say reading age. This was said by one mum whose 7 year old son's reading age on his report was 8.11. She was disappointed that he wasn't 'doing so well' as others in the class are in double figures!!!

How do you ensure that all teachers, across the years, are assessing consistently?

I know a child who was assessed as having a writing level of 5c at the end of Year 5 but this had fallen to Level 4A in Year 6, with a different teacher - yet the child has worked incredibly hard and apparently made good progress, since leaving Year 5. There's something to be said for not giving parents Sats levels twice a year if teachers struggle to be consistent in what they are looking for.

When you see your child has worked hard & made great progress and yet that progress is not reflected in the levels - it's all very disheartening.

Interesting you should say that makeitawhisky, have you looked at the writing examples on the National Strategies website?

There's an example on there of high level one writing - 1A - about a fire engine. It's largely unreadable, and the child's name indecipherable. I know it's not all about the writing standard, the writing is imaginative in places and some good adjectives are used. There are a lot of spelling errors, some high frequency words. From my limited and unprofessional knowledge I'd say it was more a 1B standard.

However, DS's writing I saw in exercise books at school I would say is consistently 'better' yet he is at a lower level?

Quite honestly DS's writing at 5 is better than mine was at 9 years old! It's neat, joined in parts and his spelling is above average for year one. Not brilliant but he can spell most of the simpler high frequency words correctly on the whole. His comprehension is usually fairly consistent too.

Not only that I feel that our school has a much higher bar than the National Strategies website examples make me think might be the case across the country?

Knowing many of the other children's work and having seen it to at opening mornings etc. I would say that most on there is pitched around a grade higher than it would seem to merit in our primary.

Be interested in Feenie's view etc. Do you feel the examples are consistently accurate?

Having said that, I would imagine there are strict criteria that all schools have to meet in order to 'assess' levels correctly.

debs my reply was in response to this post of yours not a comment on standards in your area

By debs40 Fri 26-Mar-10 23:20:24
My comment about Ofsted was not relating to the assessment process but the fact that schools which routinely and openly practise rigid setting etc can still be considered outstanding. It's simply about making sure you have 'the right data'. The teachers need have little knowledge of the children as long as their data demonstrates that 'progress' is recorded....Jonny has read books, x,y,z etc etc. Who cares if Jonny cis actually capable of reading books a,b and c? The data is meaningless.

I don't doubt also that low KS1 grades benefit primary school stats in the long term either.

makeitawhisky I can only speak for my own school but we moderate levels internally to ensure consistency in addition Y2 and Y6 (which are the only years where schools are required to provide to inform parents of levels) there is external moderation from the LA. Many schools use the optional SATs which are also externally marked to provide a balance and highlight any glaring discrepancies. As Literacy coordinator I scrutinise work twice a term to ensure consistency of marking as does the numeracy coordinator.

Cortina the examples on the NS website are standardised and the piece you mention is what the government classify as 1A whether or not you (or I ) agree.
My head considers that the deputy head and myself mark exceedingly hard compared to other schools but it means when the children do KS2 SATs they are secure level 5s rather than borderline.

debs reading ages are to be taken with a pinch of salt as there is very little consistency between different assessment schemes (it can vary up to a few years) ...

No, I understand mrz, I should have said 'lower' rather than low. Too low, you might get picked up. Keep the scores nice and average and think of the value added!

Mrz, I am not talking of ages based on assessment schemes but on the Burt reading test which seems to be administered at every report.

I work in a similar way to mrz - I am also Literacy co-ordinator. We have moderation meetings as a staff where we pair up and mark 3 pieces of writing from another year group and compare the results, to ensure consistency of marking. We use Ros Wilson's Criterion scale to mark, and find our judgements slightly harsher than other schools, in general - but as mrz says, this ensures our children are secure at their level, not borderline.

I also work sample to check the reported levels of children match the standard of work. (I wasn't suggesting that Ofsted did this for 420 bokks, btw, merely that hey did this to ensure that the sample they chose to check levelling was not dictated by us).

I help the Y2 teacher mark the KS1 writing tests, so she isn't marking in isolation, and I do the same for at least one piece of Y6 writing per year.

The LEA moderate our Key Stage 1 assessment every 3 years (last year was the last one) - it is a rigorous process which takes at least half a day, where the teacher has to show in detail how she arrived at judgements for 3 selected children.

Ofsted, of course, inspect the whole assessment procedure.

mrz - are you saying that you mark harder than the National Strategies website 'recommendations'? Also that other schools sometimes do this and it is a good thing as children are not 'borderline'?

(Not a criticism it may be a good thing - I am no expert ).

Would you mark the piece I am talking about as 1A?

Feenie and mrz why aren't you teaching at my son's school??!!

There is no way that anything so rigorous goes on at DS's school. Has practice/expectations changed in the last few years?

His school got an outstanding in 2007 and in many ways is a good little school but there is no way it works in the ways you describe. More's the pity!

debs I should have said that lower than expected KS1 levels (determined by the LA not the school) will trigger investigation even if meeting national averages.
Personally I find the Burt reading test particularly inaccurate (as are most tests that rely on single word reading)
I have administered the Burt test and obtained one reading age then used the Salford test and obtained another and yet another from the NfER test so don't find them particularly helpful.

We also use Ros Wilson's criterion scale to mark writing and high expectations. Our LA moderates every other year in school for KS1 SATs.

I also have to present my annual monitoring report to the Teaching and Learning Governors' committee - maybe as a parent governor you would learn more?

No Cortina I would not give a 1A on the evidence of the Fire Engine writing alone.

Thanks Mrz. I agree with you on reading tests. THye're piffle. DS has a good 'reading age' but it is a nightmare trying to get books he will read as he really needs colour visuals.

The reports always say they put the reading age on because parents say they like to see it. But they really just create more anxiety with the constant testing and scoring.

Haven't read all this thread but in case no-ones said it please remember the SATs are to test the school and the teachers and not our children. The last thing 7 year olds need is pressure from us!