AIBU to think our kids have been set up to fail?

[theluckiest]

There are heated conversations in Education about this but I really feel everyone should know what's happening - I have only been teaching primary for 5 years. However, for most of that I have taught Year Six. This week I came close to quitting a job I love and think I'm good at. This isn't about pay or conditions. This is about a system designed to make kids fail - the new 'expectations' for an 11 year old will ensure that most children this year will simply not reach them. They will be judged as 'working towards' ie. not good enough. AIBU to think this is going to be a national scandal this year?!! If your kids are in Y6, I am so so sorry. Sorry that they have been set up to fail, sorry that their lovely rich curriculum will be abandoned for a diet of SATS drilling and sorry that concerns for children's mental health have gone through the roof. This is happening right now people - in your kids' schools. AIBU to think something just has to give?!!!https://m.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tes.com%2Fnews%2Fschool-news%2Fbreaking-views%2Fdear-nicky-morgan-a-talented-and-demand-teacher-has-resigned-she&sid=0&appid=966242223397117&referrer=sociallplugin&rdr

Undramatic you are completely right. But grade inflation, from GCSEs onwards (really - how could anyone actually believe that every successive cohort gets brighter? Yet for years on end, ever-increasing numbers of As, which lead to the invention of the A* ffs, gave the impression this was happening) is a reality - there are articles every year about how university grades are inflated: we know it's true, and we talk about it between ourselves - but like schools, we have government targets for the number of Firsts and 2:is our students must attain. The one saving grace is that the British education system, from primary through to university, was, for so long, the most rigorous in the world, so we've been getting away with it.

It is probably also a useful reality check to look at books squarely targeted at the 'average' 10-11 year old reader, and look at the model of writing that they set, compared with the type of writing that a child must do to achieve the new ARE.

With very few exceptions, the writing of the best authors for this age group, though hugely engaging and in many cases much 'better' - in terms of creating avid readers - for their target market than the books that were around a generation ago, are not as grammatically complex as the writing that children are being required to produce. [As teachers, going through the current class book looking for examples of the newest gerammatical teaching point, will attest] This to my mind only goes to show how 'age inappropriate' the ARE are.

Constant homeworks of practice tests sounds totally soul-destroying, for children and teachers: if that's not coaching for tests, I'm not sure what is. But as the schools are bound to get hammered whichever way, I can completely see why it's the practice. What a way to ramp up anxiety in parents, teachers and children, though.

Yes, if they didn't do dance and music and art and drama and food tech and DT and textiles in secondary they would certainly have more time to teach writing.

At parents eve it was really clear why the writing was so bad. They have English 3 times a week. Every other subject that requires writing (history, geography, RE) only once a week. So no one has time to teach writing.

Really, really wish they'd slim down the number of subjects they teach in KS3.

The new system might be bad - but so is the current one.

it wold be better to look at the teaching of English writing skills in secondary. Yes it would. All that work on SPaG in primary and then never looked at again.

I suppose I am lucky as my youngest two DC are in Year 4 and Reception so they both have time to learn the new curriculum before being tested. I am interested to see the difference with DD2 (Y4) who, like her older siblings, is very good at literacy - they both achieved L5 in their SATS. But I am also watching with interest her enthusiasm of the work she does, or whether the changes spoil her enjoyment.

There has already been a noticeable difference in the homework she gets, it is at a higher level than that her sister received 5 years when she was in Year 4.

Our current head has always hated SATs, she prefers to teach by providing as much variety and experience as possible so she will be hating the changes/tests this year - I wonder if this has had something to do with her deciding to retire this summer, earlier than expected.

However, I don't think it's the kids that are being set up to fail, it's the schools and teachers that are being set up, the kids are merely collateral damage. this.

There is too much pressure on the children. my Y3 child may be able to achieve it as they will have four years or so to complete the work. my Y5 child, possibly. school is pressuring parents to fill in the gaps already. children are being encouraged to revise during the holidays.

That's a good point, teacher - I think the demands on primary school children, grammar-wise, seem very out of synch. I do think grammar is important (as is punctuation) but it needs to be appropriate to the general - and realistic - level of reading and writing of a child. If their class reading is based around books which don't use complex grammatical structures, why is it then the expectation that they will be able to replicate this in their own writing?

When ds1 was yr6 he got very stressed in the run up to sats. I told the teachers that I would pull him out if the pressure continued to be applied. I have no qualms about doing this for dd if needed.
I couldn't give a stuff if she answers all of the questions wrong and will tell her this when needed.

On a plus note ds2 yr 9 needs some reminding of punctuation, I've just borrowed her flash cards

chalk are you seriously advocating getting rid of the arts and technology?!

I have children in my class with spelling ages of 12-13 years yet they are achieving 60-70 marks on the year 5/6 statutory spelling lists, I have children with similar reading ages who will be lucky to achieve expected, I have confident fluent writers who are creative and expressive yet because I haven't enough evidence that they consistently use the subjunctive form independently will be assessed as achieving expected levels, I have dyslexic children who will be assessed as Pre-Key Stage 2 level for writing because, despite working their socks off, they will never be able to spell the required words. I'm p**d off!

The tories are trying to make education elitist, just like all the other sectors of public life. Make the curriculum too hard for the masses, deskill the populace, keep all the cash for the tory cronies. Wish they were more honest with their politic. They fight for their own at the expense of the majority. This won't change until we get rid these elitist politicians out of power.

"If their class reading is based around books which don't use complex grammatical structures"

One answer to this would, of course, be to change the class readers BUT that either pushes you into age-inappropriate territory in terms of subject matter, or into a narrow range of 'Classic Texts' selected for their grammatical complexity rather then their ability to capture the imagination and inspire children to actually read and write. I teach upper KS2 - though not Y6 - and we cover a range of classic books and poetry, books by modern authors and some of the wonderful picture books now available for older children, which inspire some fantastic writing. I wouldn't want to restrict that range just in order to be able to read only books that had the grammatical complexity that the children will have to demonstrate in their own writing in a year's time.

For those who say they fell their children that SATs are about the school and not the children, how will you explain the need to resit SATs if they don't score well enough? this explains more fully. Interesting to note that when DC1 was doing PGCE last year, one of the lectures not only gave this information, but also stated that the intention is that eventually, if children still do not achieve the expected level after a resit, they will be made to retake year 7. I have no evidence of this, apart from notes Dc made during the lecture, but given that at that point, resits had not been announced (when I related info about resits to colleagues at my primary school I was told DC had clearly misunderstood) and have since been confirmed, I have no reason to disbelieve DC.

The reason why the gov aren't reacting is that this is what they want: only a small minority of children to 'succeed'. I like the idea for the children to go on strike that week!!!

Plus if schools fall below floor targets they can then become part of the increasing academisation of local authority schools. There are few secondary schools left so primary schools are next on the hit list.

Rickety, I actually think the aim is slightly different - for only a small minority of SCHOOLS to succeed.

This would then give the government the lever that they need to move all schools to the academy / free school model that they assert will 'raise standards', as well as making further wholesale changes to teaching staff, curriculum and educational approaches in order to 'raise these shockingly poor standards'.

Actually, I think a lot of parents are prepared for what a bodge this year is going up be.

They would have to be on strike the following week as well.

The NAHT are on this - they sent an excellent email to Heads this week which set out the concerns they have put to the government, threatening action.

X-posted with spaniel there! A relatively small proportion of primaries, as opposed to secondaries, have become academies, which is why I think that this particularly brutal approach to 'end of primary' testing has been adopted.

Despite, of course, the fact that academisation HASN'T improved a whole raft of secondaries, especially now it no longer comes with any money. Early successes are likely to have been due to that money, not due to academisation per se....

The fact they need to resist the 'end of year 6 test' (not the SATS anymore) is one of the very changes IMO.

It will also have a major effect on what will happen in Y7 as in effect some of the teaching will go towards preparing children for that test again rather than learning what is in the y7 curriculum.

Personally I have no issue with the effect on GCSE. If the results of the Y6 test are low it doesn't mean that the child HAS to have low results for their GCSE. They will still have 5 years to catch up on the new curriculum iyswim.
In some ways, the Y6 from last year are more at a disadvantage because they will sit the new curriculum for GCSE with less time to adapt to it (actually the current Y10 ??? I think are even more at a disadvantage because they will have had very very little time to adjust to the new curriculum for an exam that WILL have a major impact on the future studies)

www.theguardian.com/education/2015/jul/24/academy-trusts-accused-of-failing-disadvantaged-pupils

and some are making things worse!

As a parent, my main intention this year has been to prepare dc2 to not have fantastic results in his test.
I know that in maths he will be ok. In writing, where he was behind anyway, I doubt he will come close to any pass.

So I (and the teacher!) concentrate strongly on how much he is improving etc...
But of course, the big risk to floor his self esteem and his belief that he CAN do well if he applies himself sufficiently.

Well, yes.

And I suspect that the situation looks worse for academies if you strip out those who chose to convert for the upfront money (and were allowed to do so because they were already good or outstanding schools) and look only at those who have been academised because they were failing, for who academisation was supposed to be 'the answer'.

So what is the deal with academies? Is the funding different?