After a late night, and reasonably early morning, there are a few common questions coming up, so here’s my attempt to answer them:
What’s the national data like?
Full set of data available from gov.uk website here: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/national-curriculum-assessments-key-stage-2-2016-interim
What about the floor standard?
We don’t really know much yet, so it’s too soon to panic! The floor standard is based on two elements: attainment and progress.
Nationally 53% of pupils met the combined Reading, Writing & Maths standards. However, that doesn’t tell us much about how many schools have met that floor standard. Large numbers of those 53% will be in the same schools – and some schools will have none of them. I’d expect the final figure for schools to be a much lower percentage reaching the combined attainment floor standard.
Because of that, this year the floor standard will come down to progress more than ever. We won’t know anything about progress data until September, so for many headteachers it could feel like a long summer holiday – and not in a good way!
Where are the ‘Greater Depth’ thresholds?
There is no threshold for ‘Greater Depth’. Indeed, for tested subjects, there is no ‘Greater Depth’ at all. The scaled score indicates how far above the expected standard a child is, so there is no need for a label. After all, where would the benefit be in saying that a child who scored 117 is high achieving but a child who scored 116 isn’t, when clearly they both are?
There will be an accountability measure that schools have to publish later that is linked to “high scores”, but this is likely to be a combined measure, for example, the proportion of pupils who achieved over 115 in all 3 tested subjects. Note, that I’ve just picked 115 out of thin air. We don’t know what will be counted as a high score, and for the purposes of reporting to parents and children, we don’t need to know.
How on earth do we report this to parents?
Schools are required to share test results and teacher assessment judgements with parents. I suspect that MIS suppliers will provide a template that allows you to print a separate sheet to give to parents alongside reports. I’ve also written a free leaflet which can be downloaded from the Rising Stars website that helps to explain the results to parents:
How do we calculate our combined RWM score?
The key thing to note with this is that it is based on the number of individual children who have met all 3 subjects, not an average of the three subjects’ results. To find your combined RWM score, you need to look at each child to decide whether or not they have met all 3 subjects Expected Standards. For example, in this small cohort, 5 out of the 8 pupils did meet all 3 standards, so the combined RWM score will be 62.5%.
Note that the grammar score does not contribute to the floor standards.
What does CA mean on my results?
This means that special consideration has been granted. More details can be found on the STA website here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/key-stage-2-tests-applying-special-consideration-to-results
Notably, it won’t affect the scaled score at this stage, but will be accounted for when it comes to accountability. Schools have to choose how to explain that to parents.
Can I appeal if they got a scaled score of 99?
You can still apply for marking reviews this year. If it affects the scaled score by moving from over the threshold, or if it affects the raw score by more than 3 marks, then there is not charge. You can submit review requests via NCA tools within the next 10 days. More details online at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/key-stage-2-tests-how-to-apply-for-a-review-of-key-stage-2-results
Where are the markschemes?
All the markschemes can be downloaded from the gov.uk website here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/key-stage-2-tests-past-papers
Ramblings of a Teacher 
Main headlines is that Reading, Writing and Maths combined at the new standard is only 53% (12% less than the government floor standard!!).
Separately:
Reading expected is 66%
SpaG expected is 72%
Maths expected is 70%
Writing TA expected is 74%
Floor Standard
So there is obviously a huge amount of schools nationally who are under the attainment floor standard – so progress elements come into play. It is worth noting here that the government confirmed (Nicky Morgan) that there would be a maximum rise of only 1 percentage point of schools under the floor standard. So the progress measure should not be that frightening. . .
Huge concerns over how the writing standards have been applied. Already hearing of inconsistencies within moderated schools let alone those not being moderated. Results suggest the secure fit process has not been applied consistently. Reading and SPaG both below the Writing assessment? Really?
Given that we didn’t feel that our white, middle-class cohort of relatively high achievers with a high percentage of girls in it were consistently meeting the published writing standards, I have more than ‘concerns’ over that ‘74% meeting expectations’ figure and the apparent lack of consistency in application of the frameworks that has been involved in arriving at it.
We had pupils who we’d have happily awarded a high level 4 to previously – and in one case a borderline level 5 – who we ultimately marked down on the basis of inconsistent spelling and capitalisation.
It is a silly thing.
It was a silly thing from the outset.
And it is a silly thing that should be made less silly.
Spelling shouldn’t be part of it, for a start. We already have a test for that.
[…] Source: KS2 Results – Frequently Asked Questions […]
I am confused about reporting the scaled score. I used your leaflet (thank you :)) to write to parents explaining the test results but the MIS does not report the scaled score. I have checked the ARA and it doesn’t say we need to report it. So should we report the scaled score or not?
It’s true that the ARA is not clear about exactly what must be reported, mainly because the legislation itself is out of date and so unclear – it needs updating to reflect the new style of results. However, the government’s intention is clear that scaled scores are intended to provide that context to parents. You will find that this is also explained in the DfE’s leaflet:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/information-for-parents-results-from-the-2016-national-curriculum-at-the-end-of-key-stage-2
Do you have any insight into a potential issue between the intention to publish the proportion of pupils achieving the higher standard and the review rules that limit applications only to those cases where a difference of three points raw score will be made? If a pupil scores 56 in maths, an additional three points makes no difference to their scaled score of 99. In reading however, a change in RS of just one point is generally sufficient to change the SS by the same amount. In reading high scoring pupils will not qualify for a review because they have already achieved the expected standard unless the review is likely to result in a three point change. However a change of just one point may be enough to move them from expected to higher. But we won’t know that until well after the deadline for reviews is closed. How are we expected to work with that?
No insight at all. I don’t imagine they thought that through particularly.
To be fair, you can make an application, even if fewer than 3 marks increase is likely. However, in this case schools will need to pay for the review. I believe it’s £9 per paper in such cases.
Do we* know what qualifies as a ‘high score’ in reading, SPAG or maths yet?
*when I say ‘we’ I mean ‘you’
Yes – it’s 110. Only used for the combined measure.
If the scaled score of 110 is only used for the combined measure, then what figure did they use to work out ‘%achieving the higher standard’ in the separate subjects as reported in my school’s data checking tables?
Also, by holding schools accountable for the % of children getting just past this ‘High cut off’ point of 110, as well as the ‘At standard’ cut off of 100, have we not just re-invented the perverse incentive of levels, whereby schools will feel pressured to direct disproportionate resources to the LA or MA group in order to get them across a threshold point? I thought getting rid of levels was meant to get rid of this???
Sorry I meant that the 110 will only be published as a combined measure. Other measures will be provided to schools, Ofsted, etc.
As for the replacement of levels with a new system of levels… couldn’t agree more. It’s a nonsense.
Has there been a scaled score attributed to children achieving ARE or GD in writing?
Yes, scaled scores for writing were:
91 – WTS
103 – EXS
113 – GDS
Thank you! I guess there is no way of knowing if these will be the same this year is there?
I have presumed that they will. But there’s no guarantees!
My daughter has achieved scaled scores of 114 in both reading and maths and has been given teacher assessment of exs which is ludicrous considering she clearly scored greater depth!!
There are no options for GDS in Teacher Assessment of Reading or Maths. Teachers can only specify whether or not pupils meet the Expected Standard. They are different from the test scores.
Oh really thank you for that useful information Michael shame the school doesn’t have the common sense to explain this to parents instead we receive a jargon of codes !!
I completely understand… although the government has made it a very tricky business. Even their own leaflet isn’t the clearest on the matter!
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2017-national-curriculum-assessment-results-at-the-end-of-key-stage-2-information-for-parents