Year 6 SATs and 11 plus passes- correlation?

[mystery]

I'd guess that the correlation between the Kent maths paper and KS2 maths will have reduced with the introduction of the new maths KS2 curriculum as it has been considerably watered down for more able pupils, particularly in schools which are a bit pedantic about keeping to what the curriculum suggests for year 5 for children who the teacher has not picked out of a ha as being amazing maths geniuses.

The new Primary NC actually has MORE content not less; a number of KS3 objectives were moved down. Yes you are correct that acceleration is not approved but the children are meant to be challenged in more educational ways ie new contexts and broadening.

Yes - that's right. But a child who would have done level primary KS2 version of level 5/6 will most likely cover less content under the the new national currciulum and the GL kent maths papers has not taken this into account in terms of the content which can help get a higher score

[Guest55]

Kent should do what Bucks has done and restrict content to the end of Year 5.

[mystery]

That would make more sense - but even then it's not 100% crystal clear from the national curriculum documents what is year 5 for all children but it would still be an improvement. Kent's view certainly was, after the new test had been introduced, that it didn't really matter whether the test paper matched up well with what was being taught in year 5 from the new national curriculum in Kent schools as you could answer enough quesitons correctly to pass whether or not you had covered all the content that might be included in the paper.

Kent is highly political. There was a lot of spiel about the new test being so very different, less tutorable, more about what they learn in school etc etc, not possible to buy practice papers etc.

They don't let people know clearly that they can buy GL papers that really are fantastic preparation for it. They used to. Pretty much the new test is the old test done in one morning rather than two - so many fewer questions, and with English added, and some spatial reasoning is the surprise element. It's probably more tutorable than ever.

[Guest55]

It is crystal clear as the objectives are set out by Year group in English and Maths. Very few objectives were moved up so I don't see why there's an issue in Kent now that wasn't there before.

[mystery]

Before the new Kent test, the KCC assumption was that most children who were capable of passing the 11 plus would be doing work in year 5 that would get them to level 5 by the end of year 5 - this was the feedback they had from Kent primaries. And the content of the GL test, by accident or design, reasonably well matched in with this.

When they went out to tender for the new test (first sat in September 2014) they did not make it a requirement of the specification that it would fit with the new national curriculum at any point.

The new national curriculum is vague about which children can do year 6 work in year 5. GL mahts papers in Kent do, and always have, include some work which is in the new year 6 national maths curriculum and maybe even beyond.

I think it would still be possible to pass the Kent maths test if you could keep a clear head and find the questions that you could do with year 5 work.

But the thing I am trying to say badly, is that I suspect that the maths scores would now correlate less strongly than before with KS2 maths test scores. I don't know though. I don't have the data to be able to do the statistical work needed.

My personal experience, via my own children, is that the KS2 maths test did not incorporate anything to the level of the old level 6 papers which some children sat. My second child learned a lot less maths in year 6 than my first child at the same school. She spent a lot of time helping another child who would have had great difficulty getting a 3 in old currency. A good experience but different.

[Guest55]

The new Maths KS2 test is supposed to cover some 'old' level 6 that's why there is no separate paper. Btw the old level 6 paper was a joke [imho] as the content was so scaffolded that it took away the level 6-ness.

[mystery]

The new Maths KS2 test is supposed to cover some 'old' level 6 that's why there is no separate paper. Btw the old level 6 paper was a joke [imho] as the content was so scaffolded that it took away the level 6-ness.

I know it is supposed to - but I wasn't convinced when I read through the very first new KS2 paper. It was very easy compared with anything in the level 6 papers which I had been through prior to that. I read teachers on TES bemoaning the difficult questions but I really could not see them.

There was a lot of hype about mastery, depth etc for the new national maths curriculum and I am sure some teachers take this seriously so far as non-specialist maths teachers can in primary schools. But it didn't show up for me in that first paper. The second year one of my own children did it and got a very high standarised score - so it can't have had any really novel problems which tested one's mastery as she is really not the kind of person to do novel maths problems in the pressure of a test.

[Sparklecat]

Some children just "click" later than others. I can think of one with great SATs who didn't pass the 11+. Several "borderline" children were intensely coached by the school for SATs. Whereas my daughter who passed the 11+ well, complains year 6 was boring; repeating work she did two years ago, but still got over 110 in SATs. Probably too many variables between when the two tests are taken to draw reliable comparisons.

[Juneboy]

Thanks for your responses- interesting discussion