This is the recent KS2 English reading test that staff and pupils thought was hard

[cakeorwine]

Key stage 2 tests: 2023 English reading test materials - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Only had a quick look - but I thought people might find it interesting

Looks like a usual task that would suck the love of reading out of any child...

...apart from that, doesn't seem so hard but - possibly quite tough to answer all those questions in such a short time? Might make some kids rush unnecessarily which I don't see as fair as you can still test understanding without making kids panic about a ticking clock.

Thank you for this. Will have a look later.

I can see that there is a lot of text for a child to digest plus answer questions but the actual stories and questions do not seem to be very difficult. My child is year 4 and would be able to answer those. Their challenge would be to be focused for 1 hour and complete all three readings and questions in that time

And the Mail's take on it

Test that left primary school pupils 'in tears' included extract from book with '13-18 reading age' | Daily Mail Online

Apparently one of the books has a reading age of 13 - 18, and the other is an article adapted from the New York Times

"Based on Department for Education guidelines that a Key Stage 2 Sats pupil is expected to be able to read a minimum of 90 words a minute, it means reading the booklet alone would take 23 minutes and 30 seconds."

I'm an English teacher though not KS2.

The only thing that I'd say looks "difficult" is the length of the extracts. The questions are fairly simple if the kids have been trained to understand what the question is looking for. (haven't read them all, but most of the first ones are looking for the parts of the extract where opinion/emotion is expressed rather than detailed/specific information etc) They should also have been trained in skimming/scanning techniques, looking for detail, looking for general meaning and inference.

These tests are nothing to do with reading or love of it. They're testing the use of English language and ability to understand what a writer is trying to say.

I hadn't realised there'd been complaints about this particular test. Looks to me like it's a simple "we don't think SATS are valid" complaint tbh.

As already previously stated, general consensus among experienced, qualified teachers who do this year on year out for their job, was that it was amount of reading in the time given that was the problem.

That is really distressing.
My year 2 child would be able to read that and answer the questions. I suspect they'd struggle to sit for that long and would need it broken up by story. But by year 6, I can't see how that would be challenging for the vast majority.
There is a huge problem in education. What exactly is it that is supposed to be hard? Very little writing in the test booklet, quite a few multiple choice. Very clear

The time allocated to the test meant that after allowing for reading time, the children had 30 seconds to answer each question. Last year they had over a minute.

There’s not enough time for them to read through the booklet, read and understand the question, then find the right entry in the text and answer the question. My daughters in year 5 currently and missed her year 2 sats due to covid so has never had any formal tests like this. A paper like this would upset her if she didn’t have enough time to finish.

How long was the test?
Looking at the reading booklet and answer, I should imagine most could do it in 45 minutes and the more able in 30.

Blimey, if you find this really distressing then you need to focus less on academics and more on your mental health.

You think more able children could read the 3 texts, then read and answer all the questions in 30 minutes.

I’ve had a look at it and as expected, it’s not half as hard as the press have tried to make out. Some of it is quite basic really. Mine was quite nonplussed about it, took most of the hour to finish but got there apparently. I’ll put my hard hat on - got slated on another thread for pointing out, as a PP has done, that if the DC have been taught test techniques, how to scan etc, then it should have been accessible to most.

She is home educated and we spend about 20 minutes on English a day 4 days a week. To go go to 30 minutes in September. I don't think that counts as hot housing.
If this is meant to be hard, then I'm allowed to find it distressing how low expectations are.

10 minutes to read a short simple text and answer a few questions that are multiple choice, or require a simple sentence?
Yes, I think the more able children who have presumably learning exam techniques can manage that.

I think a lot of you are forgetting that 10/11 yos have a range of ability and reading speed.

It has been clearly reported on MN primary board that more able kids were only just finishing in time. Where does that leave any child who is average or slightly below? (Where does that leave the kids with slower processing, probably still undiagnosed?) It shouldn't be a speed reading test it should be a comprehension one. Give them time to think.

Some of the questions were ambiguous or at least not clear cut. Which word is closer to 'eat' - feeding or consume?

I think the questions are quite simple but the length of it is a bit crazy.

Also the first extract is as boring and wooden as it's possible to be.

My Year 4 would find that paper OK. She reads real newspapers daily and mainly reads Classics because she enjoys complex language. She also reads Science and History books regularly.

If children do not read enough and widely then SATS papers will be harder. However, there are plenty of children who do read widely like my DC so someone does need to cater to them too.

@TeenDivided - that's not really evidence though, is it? Most people on here think their child is way above average! Both of those answers were allowed in the mark scheme, by the way.

Here is the TES' analysis of the paper: https://www.tes.com/magazine/analysis/primary/why-years-sats-reading-paper-was-so-difficult

I would add that the concept behind the first text - sheep rustling - would have not been particularly relatable to many children either, particularly those in cities or who have English as a second language. The third text was just dull as ditchwater.

My GDS children, who are very strong and capable readers, took up until the last moment, when they usually have 10, 15 minutes or so left to check through.

Sorry to single you out.

I've had three kids go through state primary and your dd would have been quite unusual at all of them. Mumsnet is bizarre sometimes.

Do we even say 'rustling' in this country?

Some of the questions were ambiguous or at least not clear cut. Which word is closer to 'eat' - feeding or consume?

Any child who did 11 plus would find that question a walk in the park. It is the classic trick question aimed at reading the text properly. A child good at verbal reasoning can easily do that.

Verbal reasoning skills are important and top employers in eg Law test for it later on.

I wonder whether the press is going to claim that SATS are now stealth 11 plus?

I do agree that the semantic content (esp the sheep one) wasn't terribly relatable in this day and age.
Reading theory techniques also depend a lot on what the reader's own world experience brings to a text.