KS2 SATS 2016

[chimera-ma]

Ditto. And I'm shocked that head teachers and their teaching staff were not given national and other comparative data prior to or at the same time as their own school's results. After all the strain of new standards and tests, it's appalling.

Sorry you're going, moved - another loss to the profession. Good luck.

[nyr]

Does anyone know if there are tables kicking around which map scaled scores to percentiles or to the old levels system? I've done a few searches but haven't been able to find anything.

[JamesDean]

... I'm glad I've quit!

It's terrible that you feel like that, Moved, but completely understandable. I do hope you haven't left education completely, as the caring and compassionate leader that you so obviously are, that would be an awful loss to the profession

JD

[JamesDean]

DD gets her report today; I don't think she knew when she left this morning. They have been so engrossed in their end of year production, which they all performed so brilliantly yesterday, some could be coming down with a bump today

From being a gov I know our overall results, and they are much better than the national averages published, but there will of course be individual children who haven't done as well as they'd hoped. Our school is usually very sensitive and I know will be no different today.

As an aside, my secondary school (which DD's primary school feeds along with many others) has doubled its AP provision for next September ...

JD

[moved]

I haven't left education. I'm off to train teachers and continue my academic research. House on the market, whole family move. No regrets. Back home to the West.

We had 'meet the new teacher' today and many of my yr 6 parents came to say thank you. It was very touching and lovely for my teachers.

[Tolstoy]

Well Moved I don't blame you 'moving 'west but does that mean a temporary name change again but sorry that a school loses an excellent and commited head. Love positive mindset it has been wonderful for my DC and use it in my oen teaching.

Okay these SATs scores are confusing me.

So if the pass is 100 and the national avearge was 103 in reading, 104 in SPAG and 103 in Maths, why have so many been deemed as failing? Is it because children haven't managed to get passes across the board?

Interestingly DC's school which I would deem as being a high acheiving school with a high percentage of Grammar passes usually seems to have performed slightly above average in reading and SPAG and below in Maths. Most of the children will have been intensively tutored for CEM test and in the past they have prided themselves on above average scores.

[moved]

We scored 84% in maths. We are a 'go to' school for maths excellence. No child who should have achieved 100 did not.
We scored 70% in reading. Previously, our strongest subject. 4 children should have made the standard who didn't. My bad.
We scored something similar to maths in grammar, but I don't really care. The test was formulaic and fine for all my spectrum children.
We teacher assessed writing against strong criteria at 83%.

Our combined was 67%. We only have 30 so each child counts as 3-4%.

A child who passed maths and writing but didn't make reading scores as 0 for the school.

The averages of 103 etc. only include children who managed to score over 80.

The standard was set against the performance descriptors in the test frameworks. The performance descriptors were based in 2012 on level 4b. This was my work for maths which is why I had an indepth knowledge of the required standard.

There is no direct comparison with levels as this is a totally new standard against a different curriculum. However, level 4 is now a fail as 4b is approximately where the standard was set.

The standardised score is similar to that used in most 11+ exams. I'm a reasonable nerd so feel free to ask the questions.

[Tolstoy]

Okay so if I understand correctly, by excluding the low scorers, 80 and under, the averages are not really averages at all. This would only be the case if they also excluded the high scorers as well which they don't? I know the test is designed differently to other tests as the children ar expected to get high marks due to it beimg about testing what they have covered and understood. However how can it be fair to exclude the lower acheiving children from the demographic when workimg on averages?

As an aside you have used a cut off of 110+ as exceeding. Is this the score you would expect Grammar children to be achieving? DS will be set them for maths at his Upper school and I am trying to work out whether he will be top set.

[moved]

It has always been the case that you can get half the questions wrong and still get a Level 4.

The debacle with the Reading paper is a result of attempting to have one paper to test all ten year olds.

There is obviously going to be a huge difference between those who have been preparing for selective schools and those who have not.

The paper was very straightforward for any student who has been doing papers in preparation for the DAO, HBS, ST Olaves and other standard format English papers.

I know of several students who got 120 in the Reading paper but it is very very unfair to put students who have not been taught advanced comprehension skills against those who have and then judge them a "failure" because they cannot use skills that nobody has taught them.

So much more sensible to have a "foundation" paper and a "higher" paper. There is a reason why GCSES are examined that way. DG

4B was around 65% on the old papers. So 42% and 53% much lower. This is only partly because of the top end questions. I added relevant L6 to the pot when I audited the questions. Mainly there is a change in content and emphasis and many schools were unprepared. Mathematical reasoning and inference in reading are high level skills that can be taught through fun and interest. It will be like the phonics screen only better obviously. Phonics and nonsense words being ridiculous and reasoning being a high end skill.

The tests were hard but they are potentially accessible to 85% of the children. The way they are used is unacceptable.

I want to raise our aspirations for our children. That is just plain right. I think sacking people and leaving them unemployable is just plain wrong. I'm looking at an outstanding head, been so for years but set to be sacked by the board of her multi-academy trust because she didn't make 65%.

[moved]

Okay so if I understand correctly, by excluding the low scorers, 80 and under, the averages are not really averages at all. This would only be the case if they also excluded the high scorers as well which they don't? I know the test is designed differently to other tests as the children ar expected to get high marks due to it beimg about testing what they have covered and understood. However how can it be fair to exclude the lower acheiving children from the demographic when workimg on averages?

As an aside you have used a cut off of 110+ as exceeding. Is this the score you would expect Grammar children to be achieving? DS will be set them for maths at his Upper school and I am trying to work out whether he will be top set.

I know of plenty of GS children who 'failed' English! One of mine failed 11+ but scored average of 118. It depends what the test looks for.