what are these Y5 sat-like tests dd is doing? and what does her mark mean?

[hatwoman]

I dont't understand what it means to be given a mark that corresponds to a level they're expected to get at a certain age.

because that makes it sound like everyone does the exact same test...iyswim.

I really don;t understand sats.

My dd is in Y5 and I think that she is doing banding tests this week. We are in London, and these tests are used to ensure that schools have a comprehensive intake. Lots of schools also do optional Sats. These can be done at any time, but many decide to do them this week, because of the Y6 Sats. My Y2 dd is also doing her tests this week.

Optional SATs are something schools can choose to use to assess pupils progress.
Levels: at the end of year 2 children should on average (which now means all of them) should be on a 2) then they go up a level roughly every 2 years, so should be level 3 at the end of year 4, and 4 at the end of year 6, and oddly 5 at the end of year 9. Schools sometimes split these into a,b,c but these have no real meaning in the national curriculum etc.

The aim is that pupils are on average showing the same kind of skills, and understanding at a certain age. But just as GCSEs are all considered equivalent, but from test to test don't ask the "same" questions.

I hope that makes it a tiny bit clearer.

But don't get too hung up on it. Ask teachers, is my child achieving what your would expect? Are they fulfilling their potential? How can I help them? Are there any oddities (e.g. are they better verbally than written or vice versa)?

thanks. I read that about level 5 and year 9 and it threw me...coz dd got 5b. she also told me she got 86 per cent. now to my mind it makes no sense at all to be getting y5 kids to sit a test where getting 86 per cent is, in some weird way, what a y9 kid should be getting. (but presumably a y9 kid wouldn;t be taking this test...I would hope they would be doing something harder) iyswim.

I'm not hung up on it btw. I think they should be banned. but am quite intrigued. never met a teacher yet (or, perish the thought, a politician) who can explain it all to me

It is confusing, especially as when children go to secondary their levels can remain the same, but they have learnt because they have learnt content. In year 6 the highest level they can get is a 5. In year 9 lost of students will be getting 7 or 8.
Even more confusing my son got 58% in year 9 but that was a very borderline level 8. We were disappointed with the raw score and then pleased with the level. (But they do sit different papers for higher and lower levels.)

Part of what is being measured by levels is depth of thinking. So just as a child could have a reading age of 13 but not have read the books you would expect a 13 year old to have read, so they could be 5 but not know all the facts a 13 year old knows.

There's what they should be getting and what they do get. In my DCs' school about 20% of them get 5s in yr 5 and nearly all of them get 5s in Yr 6. Are they a bunch of geniuses? nope. Is it a small school in an affluent area where they do a lot of SATS practice? oh yes....

am I a cynical old bag?

I think mummytime (post crossed) has also made an excellent point about primary school 'reading age' tests..just because you can read all the big words on the test does not mean that you have the maturity, insight and breadth of reading experience of a 13 yr old..

By the end of KS3 Y9 children are expected to reach Level 5-6

Okay slight hijack - do they still do SATS in Year 9? I thought those had been done away with (my elder DC in Yr 6). I do not want her spending most of Year 9 doing more SATS practice. I would like her to be larning summat!

Some schools still do "optional" tests in Y9

Groan. Oh well, thanks for the info mrz.

I've worked out why I find this "level" business confusing. in the olden days (ie when I was at school) a kid might get Bs (or As or Cs) in their written primary school work and in their secondary school work and exams. generally a kid would get (roughly) the same grades as they move through school, but, obviously, doing harder work. ie a kid who got Bs for primary school work and then a bunch of Bs at GCSE would be considered to have progressed (because the work got harder). You wouldn't necessarliy expect them to get As at GCSE(though it would be nice) [nb - I'm not saying that Primary school grades mark you for life...that's a completely different issue - I'm just trying to understand what seems to me to be a wholly different approach to measuring progress)

now I find it really hard to relate that sort of system with one where kids reach "levels" - and where there's an expectation that the kid reaches higher and higher levels as they go through school (rather than achieving a similar level but on harder work) . anyone else understand my confusion?

They don't really practice for SATs like they did in primary. I suspect they never did. There really is too much to learn at secondary. A lot of schools actually start GCSEs in year 9. Also secondaries have always been mainly judged on GCSEs not SATs.
If SATs are used it is just the type of end of year exam used in year 9. My son has just done them in scienc but sits his first few GCSE paper at the end of June.

hatwoman, that has also been one of my problems with SATs and levels as well - they simply do not mean the same thing at different years. The writing of a child who gets Level 3 (above average) at Year 2, is qualitatively different from the writing of a child who gets Level 3 (below average) at Year 6. Level systems like this work well on material that can be objectively graded into categories where the level needs to be met. The tests/questions for each level need to be similar/parallel. To some extent, maths tests can work like this (though I am not convinced that the SATs do). It is much harder with subjects like writing or reading. The spelling tests seem to be more like tests of consistency to me - words not clearly graded in terms of difficulty, but a selection over a relatively limited range, and a child's score indicates how many of that range they are able to spell. That might be an accurate reflection of ability in many children, but often does not reflect ability of a dyslexic child.

I find the levels more useful in terms of whether a child is at, above, or below an expected level at a particular age.

I disagree with DyslexiaTeach in the example of writing levels being different in each Key Stage as I think this is one area there is some consistency.

Dyslexiateach "hatwoman, that has also been one of my problems with SATs and levels as well - they simply do not mean the same thing at different years. The writing of a child who gets Level 3 (above average) at Year 2, is qualitatively different from the writing of a child who gets Level 3 (below average) at Year 6."

This no longer applies, dyslexiateachm, and hasn't since 2005 - it used to be the case when the Y2 writing level relied on one test. Now, however, Y2's writing leevl is a teacher assessment, and would therefore use exactly the same assessment criteria as the whole achool (including Y6) using many different pieces of work.

There may occasionally a problem with infant school judgements, since they may not have opportunities for moderation with junior schools.

I know that it's still a comprehensive assessment involving more than just the one test, but I am still finding that I have children who are supposedly Level 3 at the end of Year 2, and some who are supposedly Level 3 at the end of Year 6, and their writing is so different - really, qualitatively different. However, this could be something specific about those types of children, depending on the reasons I'm teaching them (usually because something about the school isn't working for them). Perhaps for typically-developing children it is not such a problem.

(although to be fair, some of the Year 6 and 7 children I have now, probably were still assessed the old way, so that will muddy the waters too). I suspect the problem is more just the mixed types of skills that the dyslexic children have, being very good at some things and progressing well in them, but not in others.