It’s never dull working for ASCL, says Julie McCulloch. Here she explores why this summer’s media reports on Key Stage 2 SATs results should be treated with caution.

Beyond the headlines

One morning this summer, I found myself live on national radio, being accused by a journalist of attempting to defend the indefensible. Why, he demanded to know, could half of our children not read, write or add up at the end of primary school? What are our teachers playing at?

My early morning interrogation was prompted by the release of the provisional results of this year’s Key Stage 2 SATs. Moreover, my interviewer wasn’t the only journalist concerned about what these results appeared to be telling us. “Nearly half of primary pupils fail ‘tougher’ SATs tests” one paper informed us. “Only half of primary school kids managed to pass the government’s controversial SATs exams” said another.

On the face of it, these numbers are correct. Only 53% of this year’s Year 6 children achieved the expected standard in reading, writing and maths. Higher numbers did so in each subject individually (66% in reading, 74% in writing and 70% in maths), but nearly half of children failed to do so in all three subjects.

Last year, the equivalent figure was 80%. So what’s going on here? Is my early morning interviewer right that teachers have taken their eye off the ball? Have standards in the nation’s primary schools really plummeted in the way that these figures suggest?

The problem with direct comparisons

Unsurprisingly, the truth is a little more complex than that. There are at least three major reasons why direct comparisons between this year’s results and previous years’ results should be treated with caution.

First, the expected standard has been significantly raised. Previously, children were judged as having met the expected standard if they achieved a Level 4 or above at the end of primary school. The new expected standard has been nominally aligned with the old Level 4b (that is, a sub-level higher), and many teachers believe that, in writing particularly, it’s actually closer to an old Level 5.

Second, what’s being tested is different. Last year’s tests were based on the old national curriculum. This year’s tests were the first to assess children’s performance against the new National Curriculum – which is not only much harder, but also prioritises different types of knowledge and skill.

And, third, this year’s cohort have only been following that new curriculum for two years. Teachers tried their hardest to ensure their children were as prepared as they possibly could be for the SATs, but it’s difficult to believe that changing the goal posts halfway through their time in Key Stage 2 hasn’t had an effect on their results.

So are half our primary schools failing?

So, what will be the effect of these results on primary schools? They are the key piece of data driving both the attainment and the progress part of the new primary floor standard. Will we see half of all primary schools being classified as below the floor because of these figures? Had the floor standard been based on attainment alone, that may well have been the case. To be above the attainment part of the floor, primary schools need to get at least 65% of their Year 6s to the expected standard in reading, writing and maths. Given that, nationally, only 53% of children achieved this, that will leave an awful lot of schools below the attainment floor.

However, primary schools can be above the floor by meeting either the attainment element or the progress element. And the progress bar has been set at a point that has enabled the DfE to deliver on a commitment made by the former secretary of state for education that no more than 6% of primary schools would be classified as below the floor this year.

Political manoeuvring?

I’ve encountered some scepticism about this when I’ve explained it to people not directly involved in primary education. Surely, this is just political manoeuvring? If our schools aren’t good enough, surely we should be told? My view is that setting the progress bar at this point is a sensible way of balancing ambition and realism. It’s important, of course, that schools are held to account for enabling children to achieve as well as they possibly can. But it’s also important to recognise that, according to Ofsted, 90% of primary schools are doing a good or outstanding job of exactly that.

It’s right that the government should set ambitious targets for schools but it’s also right that the accountability system should recognise that there are good reasons why many excellent schools haven’t hit those targets this year. Suggesting otherwise really would be attempting to defend the indefensible.

ASCL guidance

Download Julie’s guidance paper on Understanding and Interpreting the 2016 Key Stage 2 Results at http://tinyurl.com/jepvbvo

Julie McCulloch is ASCL Primary and Governance Specialist

Designed with IMPACT

© 2024 Association of School and College Leaders | Valid XHTML | Contact us