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

The discussion had moved on considerably since the OP, so it sounded like you'd just jumped straight in - sorry.

Year 2 teacher here. I have the loveliest class of 6 year olds who are finding the new expectations very challenging. Many will not make age related expectations but have made truly wonderful progress which counts for very little in the eyes of the government. I've taught for 14 years, I spend my evenings (after much work) searching for my escape route out of teaching. I told my head, she sobbed and begged me to reconsider but I can't be the person who continues to berate children for not having enough subordinate conjunctions in their work!

No problem. I don't think the removal of levels has been helpful for anyone-teachers included-but I do think that the changes to the curriculum are absolutely necessary. The implementation is what has caused the issues-I'll use the example of Roman Numerals. My class did not start learning these until year five: in the new curriculum I believe they are taught from year two. The end of year six test will assess them as though they learned them from year two, hence they will undoubtedly not 'score' (hate that word) as highly as year six will in the following years. This is the issue-a phased introduction over four or five years isn't really workable but this is the result. My class are such lovely little people and they, and their parents, understand what's happened and why and we talk all the time about how far they've come, what they couldn't do when they came into year six compared to what they can do now etc. etc. as I'm sure all teachers do.

Had this thread, however, been about chunking as the division method of choice I doubt my response would be so serene

Ice I don't know. The idea of repeating the year is interesting but I don't know if it would help. He seems to do better one on one so he might feel even more stupid in a class of kids a year younger if he still can't do it. I'm tempted to pull him out and homeschool him until September but it's a scary prospect. Plus he struggles to make friends and is just starting to come out of his shell with the rest of his class.

My class did not start learning these until year five: in the new curriculum I believe they are taught from year two.

That's not right - it's on the Year 5 curriculum, not Year 2. And it wasn't on the previous curriculum at all.

Logical,

Of the different requirements, though, maths is probably the 'least difficult' - the new curriculum has been out for a relatively long time and hasn't changed since. Your Year 6s would have started on it at the beginning of Year 5 at the latest, the sample papers were out in a timely manner, and because ARE won't actually be calculated until after the tests, it is entirely possible that [by dint of a little lowering of the 'pass' mark and application of a normal distribution] the distribution of results will be fairly sensible.

Yes, the requirements of the new curriculum are more challenging, and like you I find there are gaps to fill that will not be there in future years, but on the other hand Maths is not something that requires 'emotional maturity' or 'life experience' or 'wide knowledge of the world' or 'wide reading', so the 'age appropriateness' issue is not one that particularly arises in Maths

The writing, in particular, is much more of a mess. There are only interim assessment arrangements, still. These have changed substantially over the implementation period. Exemplar materials have only just come out, and are 'absolute' standards, not something that can be 'massaged once the final test statistics have come in'. The writing requirements are not age appropriate, as many of the aspects a child has to show will not be familiar to them from age-appropriate reading, and there is no credit given for e.g. being able to tell a good story, interest the reader, create suspense as the assessment criteria are formal and grammatical. Marks for all areas will have to be gained - no 'failing on the symmetry questions but still getting a good mark overall' - EVERYTHING has to be at the same standard to reach ARE in writing.

Might you have a different view if you were an English specialist, do you think?

(I am not, btw, saying that the current Maths curriculum would be my perfect primary Maths curriculum. But IME the implementation of the Maths has been much less of a mess than the implementation of the English, in particular of Writing, and thus the difficulties around the current Y6's SATs are greater for Writing than for Maths)

My DD is in Yr 6. A year ago she was in a joint yr5/6 class, so SATS were on the cards for the year 6s in the group, but it was not made to be a big deal at all. Result - completely unphased DD1. This year, she is in an all-year 6 class at a different school (we moved to a new part of the country), again, SATS not being made a big deal of, DD completely unphased and as far as I'm aware, her friends aren't remotely stressed either.

We know the system has changed and that DD is more likely to be 'working towards' instead of 'at level'. But so will THE ENTIRE YEAR and EVERY OTHER CHILD going up to Secondary. So what? All the children are still at the same level in relation to each other, no-one is going to give them any kind of bollocking and this will in no way impede their ongoing education as they are all in the same boat and will adapt to the new syllabus and catch up together.

I'm all in favour of blaming the current government for all kinds of awful things - the raise in food banks, driving the disabled out of their homes and jobs, dismantling the NHS etc etc. I'm really not a fan. But yet another minor change to the education system? Meh. If some schools are making a huge hairy deal about SATS and leaving 10 year old children crying and stressed, then that is a failing of the individual school - one which needs to be taken up with the head teacher. Any negative impact on children is down to the way school are handling it and that's where your anger and blame need to be directed. I'm grateful that the two schools my DD has attended over the past year seem to be handling it very sensibly indeed, leaving DD happy and oblivious.

Sera,

You might see a change in approach to writing after half term. I do think that there will be some 'interesting' moments following the publication of the exemplar materials, in schools who have judged, from their usual proportion of L4s / L5s under the old system, that they would be OK.

I am sure, btw, that there will be many schools where teachers and head manage not to communicate any of the stress that they are under to the children in their care.

That does not mean that the teachers and heads are not under stress!

Oh, I absolutely feel for the poor teachers and heads having to wade through this mess. But this thread was started on the lines of "this year's poor year 6s are all being thrown under the bus and doomed to educational failure!" and that's not necessarily the case.

Or even remotely the case.

and there is no credit given for e.g. being able to tell a good story, interest the reader, create suspense as the assessment criteria are formal and grammatical

This is what upsets me the most I think.

Most teachers are terribly - excessively- self-critical. We will want to give your Y6 child the educational experience and success that we will feel that they 'ought' to have - balanced between all subjects, tailored to their needs, leading to a fair assessment that rewards what they know and points out what they need to learn next, within a curriculum that is entirely appropriate to their life as a 10-11 year old.

The current arrangements are making that harder than it has been for previous Y6s, and teachers, being intensely self-critical, will mind a LOT about it.... and many Y6s will come out relatively unscathed but as statistical 'failures' that could come back to haunt the teacher
and the school. if we can avoid the children themselves being scathed, then tbh that is success.

teacher I'm not sure is my honest answer to that-I think my general feeling on all of it is the same. It's very painful at the moment but I do think the reasoning behind it all is sound and the understanding of grammatical intricacies can be laborious (and let's be honest, downright pigging boring for all involved) but it will help no end with learning other languages-an area we are embarrassingly poor at in the UK. I don't think any of it is perfect but it never was.

Logical,

Final question - must go to bed. When you see the ARE materials for writing, do you think 'oh yes, that is reasonable, it is exactly how we should be expecting all our 10-11 year olds to be writing'?

I'm not sure I look at any curriculum and think exactly that! However, I do think it's the stretch and challenge that we need. Of course we should understand the structure and grammar of our language and I think there is a danger of underestimating what children will grasp because we give it a long name. I remember growing up with the magic e for example. We still teach it, very early, but it's a split digraph....say 'split digraph' to a lot of parents my age that remember the magic e but don't work in education and they would probably look at you like it's something hideously complex. In secondary school ed you could often tell which students had English as a second language when they wrote because their grammatical knowledge of English was far, far better that that of those with English as their first language. I, admittedly, taught Maths and some Physics so essays were rare but it was not an observation I made alone.

The current year fives and sixes are going to be he 'victims' and we must do what we can to protect their confidence but I do think that the future participants in this new curriculum will reap the benefits of it. I also accept that isn't a popular view and I am one of those really irritating always optimistic people that you want to punch in the face-I'm at peace with that....

I'm not sure that understanding the structure and grammar of our language is a good enough justification for these tests. I can't help wondering what, if any, grammatical information these children will retain by the time they are in year 7 and learning French.
I find the whole thing a little bit heartbreaking and am very grateful my yr 6 dd lives in Wales.

I find the general lack of aspiration (logicaltest excepted) depressing. The only reason I can see that people do not want children stretched is because teachers are put under the microscope.

Objection to the test isn't really the same as objection to the curriculum itself-testing is harsh and hard for youngsters although other methods of assessment are less likely to give a realistic idea of ability (other opinions are available). Again, doubting what children will retain surely underestimates their ability? My job, my responsibility, is to teach in ways that means that every child in my class will retain what they have learned.

Are you a Maths coordinator, Logical?

I also have famously high expectations and pride myself on helping child achieve their very best. I am a also a Literacy leader. This curriculum, and especially the testing at Y2 and Y6 with heavy and pointless terminology emphasis, is out of kilter with most children's maturity.

Of course children who have not been taught to this new standard, are not necessarily going to meet it. But I am not convinced that if taught from the beginning, that this is not a realistic standard.

I agree with the poster upthread who said that time should be spent reinforcing the basics, before moving on.

Carol, again, you are not getting it

I don't object to the "raised aspirations" of the new curriculum per se. No-one likes bad grammar. Being able to spell correctly is useful. Teaching these things can be done creatively.

I object to testing on a narrow curriculum and the consequent devaluing of things that cannot be tested; to children being assigned a "flightpath" at 7 and 11 from which they are not allowed to deviate; and most particularly, I object to young children being tested and found wanting on things that they have not had time to learn. And to the pressure on schools and teachers; and the impact on their enjoyment of the last months of primary school that this is very evidently creating.