Year 2 SATS results

cougar_3

Don't be worried about SATS at any level (infant, junior even secondary). Don't even bother. They don't help your child and there is no advantage to them getting a higher level.

They only take them for the school's benefit as it allows them to make statistics.

Jet

Just to let you know that I got my son's SAT's results last Friday and he got a 2A, 2A and a 2B.

divadee

jellyhead wrote:

lol!

in yr 2 my spud was given the choice of sitting the level 3's or not. everyone with a 2A in the first exam could sit the level 3 but the rest of the children were going swimming - guess which option he chose :rotfl:

lmao thats what happened to little miss divadee. She was given the option to do it, she said what will everyone else be doing he said playing game soutside and she said no thanks i wont bother, ill go outside!!!! so all 2a's for her, even though the teacher said she would of defo got all 3s if she had bothered to sit them,

jellyhead

a 2A is enough to let you know your child is doing okay though isn't it, a lot of parents thought i was mad to not be angry about him missing the level 3 papers but i don't see the point, 2A is fine, more than enough - he was only 6 at the time, fed up with exams and he really wanted to go swimming

shiprob195

my son got his sats level 1 results about 4 weeks ago with his end of term report( all 3's).he is in year 2 (aged 7).

Poppy9

When little Poppy did her KS1 SATS there were five papers and depending on how they did they were awarded a 1, 2 or 3.

The five subjects were:

Speaking and listening (3)
Reading (3)
Hand-Writing (2)
Maths (3)
Science (3)

I didn't place much value in them though as not only at 7 are they still finding their feet, her handwriting at the time was apalling, mainly due to being left handed and her getting frustrated with the constant smudging. They published the whole of class results and whole of Wales. 98% of her class had a 2 in handwriting (the remainder were 1). However I knew of a couple of girls in her class who had fantastic handwriting for their age, well above average and would have merited a 3 if DD was worth a 2.

I think I gain more insight into her ability from her homework and at the end of term when she brings her school books home. They include the regular mini test papers they do throughout the year. The red ticks and teachers comments are far more informative than the SATS which has been pointed out before is more a measure of the teachers ability than the class. Each school expects to score the average of all schools or higher. Lower may mean the school is underperforming.

bylromarha

flea72 wrote:

think im gonna have to contact the school and ask

all we got was a piece of paper titled NCAR (whatever that is) which states, 'that the average child attains a score of between 95-105 and the expected level of attainment for a Y5 student should be 4C'

then the sheet is split into Reading, Writing, Maths and then a score and level is given

i just assumed these were her SATS results, as i know she had SATS back in May

The NCAR score referred to is a standardised score for the NCAR tests. A standardised score is calculated by taking into account the childs test score and their birthday (ie an august birthday can be accurately compared to a september birthday by standardising) This NCAR score is NOT the SATs results.

As your child is in year 5, it is unlikely he would have done official SATs. He probably did practice SATs (aka optional QCA tests). This are scored using levels against the same criteria the real SATs will be marked on in Year 6. Therefore a 4c level in year 5 means he is on course for a level 4a or 4b in Year 6...the expected score for the average child in year 6.

And to top it all, SATs are no longer called SATs, but National Tests. Confusing, isn't it?

Basically don't worry about the results. They won't tell you anything you don't already know...if your child finds school hard, your teacher would have told you long ago, ditto if they are bright, happy, plodding along quite merrily, a pain or a genuinely nice kid.

The tests are just an incorrect way for Ofsted and the government to judge a school to be failing/successful. I have no time for them as they do not take into account the fact that a child needs to be educated in more than English, Maths and Science. There are some schools that spend their entire year 6 training their kids to pass this test, and squeezing out all the fun stuff kids should be doing like art, music, languages and the like.

bylromarha

jellyhead wrote:

a 2A is enough to let you know your child is doing okay though isn't it, a lot of parents thought i was mad to not be angry about him missing the level 3 papers but i don't see the point, 2A is fine, more than enough - he was only 6 at the time, fed up with exams and he really wanted to go swimming

A 2a is a fab score for year 2, especially if he had special needs, and especially if his birthday is late in the academic year. He chose well by going swimming. A level 3 in year 2 would not make him any brighter, or give him any extra favours in year 3. TBH, i guess he's achieved a level 3 now in year 3? The change from year 2-year 3 is a huge jump, so he would probably have felt like he'd achieved less in year 3 if he finished year 2 on level 3 and finshed year 3 on a level 3. The jumps they make are less obvious now, so that continued motivation is important.

And have you not had a baby yet? You must be itching to meet spud junior.

Spendless

bylromarha wrote:

I have no time for them as they do not take into account the fact that a child needs to be educated in more than English, Maths and Science. There are some schools that spend their entire year 6 training their kids to pass this test, and squeezing out all the fun stuff kids should be doing like art, music, languages and the like.

This was something that was mentioned when I initially looked round my sons school. I was told that they may have a child that was particularly gifted at sport/music/art but SATS do not show any of this.

jellyhead

bylromarha wrote:

A 2a is a fab score for year 2, especially if he had special needs, and especially if his birthday is late in the academic year. He chose well by going swimming. A level 3 in year 2 would not make him any brighter, or give him any extra favours in year 3. TBH, i guess he's achieved a level 3 now in year 3? The change from year 2-year 3 is a huge jump, so he would probably have felt like he'd achieved less in year 3 if he finished year 2 on level 3 and finshed year 3 on a level 3. The jumps they make are less obvious now, so that continued motivation is important.

And have you not had a baby yet? You must be itching to meet spud junior.

no baby yet, i'm going into hospital on wednesday to be induced, hopefully just a gentle start with the gel - if they come near me with the crochet hook or drip i'm running :rotfl:

young spud gets varied results, his handwriting is really poor. in year 2 he got a 2C for writing but apparently he only scraped that. he wouldn't have got a level 3 in any of them i don't think, even with grades being adjusted according to birth month. maybe a 3 in reading but the level 3 maths paper would have really upset him and dented his confidence. the papers changed, they left all the spatial stuff out of the level 2 paper - everything he didn't understand was left for the level 3 paper. right angles, symmetry, etc. i was happy that he chose the swimming, he was sick of exam papers and was only six, little sausage. two thirds of the children got a 2A and about half of them got a 3, so yes he did brilliantly, at least average in the class.

teachers don't really tell you what the children get in the optional SATS, the SENCo told me he was level 4 (i think) in reading, and that only 3 children out of the 69 scored that. i wasn't told the other results except that he was doing well and that he did much better in exams than he did in the classroom. i didn't get any of the year 4 results except a comment on his report that his lack of concentration and slow pace of work let him down. i know that he makes progress though and i can see at the end of year how his handwriting improves. i help out in year 5 and as you say there are lots of children who got such high grades in year two that they appear to be making little or no progress year on year despite learning okay. obviously i think my boy is wonderful but apart from his reading well for his age i wouldn't say he's above average, a 2A was high, a 3 would have been wildly inaccurate if i can say that without sounding like i'm being negative about him. he has a great memory and he soaked up the exam technique during all the practise papers. lots of 6 and 7 year olds haven't got the hang of academia yet, they all still seem so young. spud did well because he got the hang of reading very quickly, some of the children sitting those exams could barely read the paper and it wasn't due to lack of intelligence, just that they were 6 years old which is still very young i think. but i won't start a rant about early education, i promise :rotfl: