KS2 results do matter - Secondary schools are judged on progression from them.
Schools that say they take 'no notice' of them are not being totally truthful as they need to track from starting point which are KS2 tests.
If you look at DfE Secondary performance table you can see how important these 'starting points' are!
Are they always judged from that starting point? Or can schools choose their own starting point if they can show it to be robust and measurable?
I ask because in dd's school her predictions and expectations definitely stem from her CATs results rather than her SATs results. I know this because her SATs results were fantastic and her CATs surprisingly poor and all her predictions are a level lower than her peers in her sets, whereas if they were from SATs she'd at least have to be on a par with them.
ETA: I have no particular interest here and no axe to grind. They just seem supremely irrelevant to me but I am prepared to be shown to be wrong by people who know more than me! (Presumably from a Value Added perspective, secondary schools would prefer their intakes SATs to be relatively lower than higher??? I think this was what the HOY7 I was talking to was trying to say - that the SATs that the children were coming in with gave an over-inflated prediction of GCSE results etc which is why they had started to rely on their own tests).