Is this unusual/common re Level 5 SAT's and Set 3?

[urbancupcake]

My dd's school decide on sets (for all subjects) when they start the school based on their primary school SAT's results.

My dd received all level 5's in her primary school SAT's results and was placed in set 3 and after their exams in the new year, achieved all level 5a's but wasn't moved up. She's quiet and well behaved.

Is this usual/unusual?

Last year's sats could have been easy, but, imho, the year before's were even easier (sorry year 8 kids)

But even though the SATs may have been easier (but I'm pretty sure that did not apply to the Level 6 Maths), that doesn't account for higher marks in 11+ (and other selective exams) to gain places at super-selectives for the current Year 7 cohort compared with the 2012/13 Year 6 one!

True that.

!

I complained ( primary sets). Ds was reassessed & moved up to set 2.

I am (semi) serious in my alternate year theory. I have two children with a big age gap, so I have been involved with the same primary for longer than anyone would wish, and a governor for longer than I should and the stats bear me out in my one small sample. I remember in one governors meeting we were talking about how we hoped OFSTED would hold off for a bit so they could look at the following years SATS rather than the current years- sadly they didn't.

Interestingly, DS's year (currently Y7) in his primary had the best Year 6 results for many years BUT the school did jump hugely in the local league tables, implying that it might have been a bright year IN THAT SCHOOL but that it was not especially bright in other schools.

And entry into local grammars (live in an area with some residual grammar schools, not a wholly grammar area) has been much greater for the current Year 6, rather tan last year's - though I think that this is more to do with a slow change in the socio-economic profile of the school, with more aspirational parents with the money and sharp elbows for coaching than it is to do with the relative academic performance of the school. Of the 10 kids with L6 maths, for eample, only 2 have gone to grammar, with the rest choosing local comprehensives.

Seeker - I think you are right. The current year 9 had the best set of results for my dcs primary ever, the 8's not so great (although still above national average), the 7's I think 85% level 4+, 6's as I've said not predicted to do as well, 5's an able year, 4's not as able and 3's able! How weird is that? Dd is in year 4 and is very able though so hopefully her predicted grades will get her to the top of the top set ;-).

Speaking to dcs ho maths the other day and they have 3 maths geniuses in yr 12 normally just 1.
And when Dd yr 10 started they said itcwasvthe brightest cohort they had ever had. My Dd got 89% in her maths ks2 sats and didn't make top set although she did got moved up in yr 8. This is a hugely improved school and i suspect each year is attracting brighter children. As they say success breeds success.

In my school a student could be in set 3 with solid 5a and not just this year.(High achieving comprehensive).

My dd was in set 5 of 7 at a selective school with a 4a just off 5. So at a comprehensive school set 3 with a 5 sounds feasible.

Seeker - Thanks for your feedback, I was talking about a comprehensive as opposed to a selective though.

This is difficult to gauge also as it seems most who have responded so far are in schools that set as opposed to stream and with sets, it seems as though as a general rule, with all L5's a child could be in set 1 for some topics and a variety of different sets for others.

This streaming thing seems so dated also and sets a much better way to go. Still, doubt if the school will be changing their systems any time soon though based on my view:), so am forced to work with what I have:0)

"Seeker - Thanks for your feedback, I was talking about a comprehensive as opposed to a selective though."

I know you were. What I meant was that if my dd was in that set in a school which only had top set kids, your dd could be in the right place in a school which had all abilities. If you see what I mean.

@Tiggytape - Thanks for your really comprehensive reply. I totally agree, it's all but a number really. However, this is the problem, in my DD's school, set 3 miss out on subjects that are only taught in the other sets, one of those being, learning the science's separately.

The other concern of course, is the syllabus. when I look at what percentage sat and received A and A*, they could only have come from the top two sets, yet L5 put's you well within the ream of being able to achieve the same (B's and upwards statistically). You've pointed out another issue, as in the foundation paper where only a level C is achievable, I believe (prepared to be corrected). I know in some schools, this is only the option ultimately available to the mid - lower sets? This would be an absolute tragedy in DD's case, when with high level 5's, she is statistically able to achieve more but would be denied the opportunity.

Happy to be corrected however, so please let me know if I've missed something :0)

@Tiggytape: I think this is good about your school too:

The letter home with the results of setting for example specifically said level 5b children being placed in Set 3 was not a mistake and explained the number of higher level 5's in the whole year and the higher curriculum they would still follow.

With all due respect, that can't be argued with as it justifies and makes it absolutely clear to the parents and child any decisions made. Wish our school did the same.

@Seeker - No confused??? I saw it that selective schools cream off the top so effectively their whole year 7, for example, are just one big set 1 and set 2, so could easily see how straight level 5's could be set 3. Whereas a comp who cant select by academic alone, would mean two classes of at least 6,5.5 (bearing in mind ours stream according to levels across the board) and a top set of roughly everyone achieving 6,6,5.

I can easily see that no problem in a grammar or selective, but even in the highest achieving comprehensive, even those who gave their children the special milk in year 2000, I don't know:0). Is that what you think is totally probable or am I still not understanding - which is possibe?

@Tiggytape - I adore you. Thank you so, so much. I always just want to check beforehand to make sure I'm not going potty or just a loopy parent on a rampage (I'm sure every school has enough of those to deal with:).

I'll keep reading your posts, as your so good at all this. Thanks again:)

Tiggytape - I've printed off your reply. You're tops. Yes will go through the correct procedure.

You should set up a education/parenting consultancy:)

ps: just spotted my grammatical error in my earlier post - 'your', instead of you're. Daft parent, eh?

My dd is in a comprehensive, though she did pass her 11plus.

So she is bright, got Lvl 5s in year six sats. Initially she was in middle set for maths and science. They did Cats and she was moved up for maths. She's now getting Lvl 7 in most of her homework and tests in all subjects. Well main subjects, I'm not counting PE, ict, etc.

I think the current year 6 is a bright cohort in our area. On the 11+ forum they were saying that the children had done exceptionally well in this years 11+ exams.

Can you imagine what sort of standard any of this lot would have to be working at to get an A if we had normative assessment at GCSE?

SATs and levels are generally shit.
HTH