Trying to decipher what the sats results mean and also curious if kids who pass the 11+ always do better in SATs or whether as I suspect it depends on how the child performs on the day. Not sure either what a “good” SATs score is? Does anyone know? I read somewhere that anything over 110 is considered a high ability.

Difficult I would think - both are based on performance in an exam on just one day (I know SATS are over a week).

Both of mine did well enough in the 11+ to get a place and both got more than 110 in all SATS (which is where I think the 'above expected' band kicks in).

The child with the higher 11+ score also got the higher SATS scores, but based on a sample of two I don't think that stands much scrutiny.

My personal experience some time ago would show there can definitely be outliers....
Very high Cat scores, level 5/6 SATs but failed 11 + . Child ended up in grammar on appeal...regarded as high achiever within his cohort..just waiting on the GCSE results...time will tell....

I have worked with year 6 for quite a few years now ( support/ppa teacher) we have had children who have scored brilliantly in 11+ be judged “not secondary ready”. Children who were complete surprises when it came to Sats Results.

Apparently over 110 is generally felt to be grammar-level (not necessarily super-selective). But the SATs are a measure of how well the children perform in thatbtypenof test rather than genuine intellect/intelligence. So the broader achievement may not be represented. A child who has a keen enquiring mind and huge general knowledge would still underperform at SATs if he could not identify fronted adverbials or perform under pressure.

And not every child who fails 11 plus will have a parent appeal even if they are “grammar level intelligence”. My DD2 has “average” SATs for KS1 because her significant dyslexia was not yet identified, so she underperformed. This made an appeal very unlikely to succeed because she wasn’t hitting the old “level 3s” despite being verbally very bright. I’m interested to see her SATs results even though I know due to the spelling components she is lilely to have “underperformed” again.

110 is nothing to do with GS suitability -

The old Bucks 11+ [VR] was pretty hopeless with levels from 3 to 5 joining Year 7. The KS2 levels tended to be more reliable than the 11+ score - there was very little correlation.

I respectfully question your reasoning, Guest55.

110 at SAT is by no means a magic number, nor did I purport it to be.
But by definition, those who are better at sitting tests will tend to get higher marks, either because they have higher intrinsic capacity, or have been coached specificallt for the test.

So the actual MARKS in one test are not releted to actual MARKS in the other: 11 plus are cohort marked whereas KS2 tests are get-the-answer-get-a-raw-mark, the conversion method is different I believe.

But those children who have a KS2 SAT mark of 100 have hit “expected progress; nationally about 75% of the children nationally achieved this in eg Maths.
So getting 100 is not equal to being in the top 30% of cohort for a grammar or the top eg 10% for a superselective.

110 plus at KS2 SATs is achieved by a smaller number of children.... perhaps 25% or so.... so do you see how BROADLY those children wth the highest marks at KS2 would
Not be surprising to have a considerable overlap with those who perform well
In the 11+??

The “syllabus” is different, the children going in are not the same (even in fully selective areas due to exam tourists), so yes they are not identical. But to state that the two scores are totally unrelated seems highly illogical.

Pardon? 110 on the KS2 test IS not related to the 11+ score - there is no correlation.

I'm not sure what point you are making. I can only report on my extensive experience in a GS - we had children entering at 'old' level 3 and high 11+ score - which is the more accurate? I can tell you that the KS2 test was as these children really struggled at GS.

I know plenty who got 'old' KS2 level 5 in English, Maths and Science who were at Uppers ... at least 10% every year were. I think they were GS ability children who messed up the test.

Ok guest55. I am not a teacher.

But is it really true that there’s no correlation AT ALL between KS2 results and 11 plus pasees who get into a grammar school? Really? Because that would sort of imply a comprehensive intake into grammar schools. I’m pretty sure that doesn’t happen.

Or have you personally, as a teacher, written down all the SATs scores for your year’s intake and correlated them with those children’s 11 plus scores in order to demonstrate a definitive lack of correlation between the two? If so please publish this (anonymised of course).

Or, are you using the anecdotal experience of x children whonwere tutored up to pass the 11 plus while actually being of average ability and then sadly having a hard time managing at GS? And adding on the experience of a bright child whonunderperformed on the 11 plus day and then took their genuine high ability to a comp and did well?
Because *that* is anecdote. The plural of anecdote is not data.

On re reading, It may be that you have misunderstood me, by your use of the word “correlated”.

Getting one score in one test does not “translate” to getting a particular score in another.

But a child who achieved highly in one test due to natural ability SHOULD reasonably do well in another test, providing the score is not skewed by factors such as overcoaching/leaking the questions/changing the time allowance/distractions/illness.

In previous years folk on here have commented that many GS atendees also did pretty well at their SATs/levels. I don’t understand why this is controversial in your book.