SATs levels at secondary school (information for appeals)

[capers123]

Hi,

I don't know about how Bucks decides on who to allow a test at 13, however, to add on to what others have said...

At the end on KS2 - year 6 - the average child in the population would get a Level 4 in SATS. To be more precise, they would get a 4b, though the sub levels (a, b, c) are not reported in the official SAT grading. The progress they would be expected to make would be
Y7: 5c
Y8: 5a
Y9: 6b
Y10: 7c
Y11: 7a
Y12: 8b
Y13: 9c
as the usual progress is 2 sub levels per year. There can be a slight drop or pause at the transition to Y7 from Y6 as some primaries really push SAT testing so the average child might get slightly higher than they should have got.

A child in the top 20% would be far advanced of this. So Y8's are currently getting level 7's on average - some even getting 7a which is what is expected of the average child in Y11. This isn't because of better teaching at grammars but because the kids are brighter so progress faster.

Most children in this country must be, by definition, 'of average academic ability' or close thereto.

If your child is mainly on L5 in Y8, then that's pretty normal and is what's expected of most children.

[Guest55]

Capers - 'expected progress' in Secondary is 3 levels over the 4.6 years in a Grammar school most pupils make four levels.

Very few Y8s will be level 7 in English now - progress in English works differently as 'levels' are not equal steps!

[Kingfisher]

Don't get too hung up on these. When DC move to Year 10 they are all assessed in terms of GCSE grades, not SATs levels. No one is ever going to ask DC in the future, "by the way - what were your Year 9 SATs levels?" What matters is that every child is learning the basics for success in the years ahead. What more can they do?

[Amber]

The progress they would be expected to make would be
Y7: 5c
Y8: 5a
Y9: 6b
Y10: 7c
Y11: 7a
Y12: 8b
Y13: 9c
as the usual progress is 2 sub levels per year. There can be a slight drop or pause at the transition to Y7 from Y6 as some primaries really push SAT testing so the average child might get slightly higher than they should have got.

A child in the top 20% would be far advanced of this. So Y8's are currently getting level 7's on average - some even getting 7a which is what is expected of the average child in Y11. This isn't because of better teaching at grammars but because the kids are brighter so progress faster.
n.

Has this changed then? I haven't taught since July but there was no level 9 then, and only an 8 in some subjects. The levels were for KS3 only and finished therefore at the end of Year 9. The only GS I have experience of sets level 6b as pretty much a blanket target throughout Year 8 and seems to set 7a or b during year 9. Even if the 'traffic light' reports are always green, the targets don't get raised. Bit daft imho but I assumed that was because 7a was generally as high as you could target, with 8 being for 'exceptional performance' (except Maths??)

Very few Y8s will be level 7 in English now - progress in English works differently as 'levels' are not equal steps!

Agree. I have never taught a Year 8 who was genuinely, consistently level 7a in English.

[Kingfisher]

You are right, Amber. In Year 10 they move onto GCSE grades.

And I agree with Guest55's comment about level 7 English. There are a few though.

[Etienne]

Split from slough mum's topic "Appeal for Testing in Bucks".

I think this merits a thread of its own.

[Guest55]

OFSTED definitions:

An average child - expected progress:

Year 6: level 4b

Year 9: level 6b (ie two levels from KS2)

Year 11: GCSE grade C (one level in KS4 and three levels from KS2)

An able child - expected progress:

Year 6: level 5b

Year 9: level 7b (ie two levels from KS2)

Year 11: GCSE grade B (one level in KS4 and three levels from KS2)

Clearly in a GS three levels is not very appropriate and we'd expect all our level 5s to get As and A*s

[Amber]

OFSTED definitions:

An average child - expected progress:


An able child - expected progress:

Clearly in a GS three levels is not very appropriate and we'd expect all our level 5s to get As and A*s

And just in case anyone out there has some kind of sinking feeling on reading this, I would like to encourage you by telling you someone I know very well got a level 4 in Maths and Science at the end of KS2; then did Maths GCSE in Year 10 (ie one year early) - got an A*; did the FSMQ in Year 11 and got an A (highest you can get); and got A* in all 3 Sciences too. Not at a GS. So it isn't the be-all and end-all of prediction: some kids mature later.

[Guest55]

Totally agree - should not be used to cap attainment at all! In fact Ofsted expects a high number of pupils to be achieving 'more than expected progress' for the school to be considered good.

[capers123]

OK, there's no level 9... I was just over-enthusiastic! The OFSTED defs are what I was working towards (so to speak!).

Amber's mention of the child who did very well does support my thoughts that grammars are not right for all children - and that by not going to one, a bright child is not relegated to being second best. Likewise, attending a grammar does not guarantee a great outcome.

I know of children who have not done well at grammar and would probably have achieved more at a comp, and vice versa. In my town, it's true that the comps don't have as many children going to Oxbridge as the grammars have, but 1) they do have pupils going to Oxbridge and 2) some transfer to the grammars for 6th form and I note that at least one grammar credits in the press the good 'foundation' they got at the comps when publicising the Oxbridge passes.

Sorry - I'm prattling on a bit.