SATs - aibu to opt out, withdraw child from testing?

[MrsOprah]

I did my SATs 20 years ago. Think they were a fairly new concept in the 90s(?) They were fine, scored well, no pressure really was bright child and did extended papers too.
Was described as a way to know where to level kids, results were used by secondary school to decided if you'd be in top-mid-low set for maths, sci, eng.
Obv longer term it has no affect on earnings potential, not put on cv or uni application, so minor benefits had as the test taker.

Nowadays, they seem to be a HUGE deal. Masses of pressure, painted as important! All for schools benefit. Not for kids well being. On that basis, WIBU to ask/decline for my child to sit the tests?

RedSkyAtNight

The more fool them. That doesn't mean we don't need those things as well as 'gut feel'. Gut feel tells you whether someone likes children, whether they have an enthusiasm; it will not tell you whether they can teach.

If you spend a little time on the BOG (board of governors) it tends to flush away idealistic notions that SATs are in any way about an individual child.

Secondary schools do not use SATs to stream into sets. My son's secondary only set in year 7 for maths and English but still discounted SATs and used their own testing. Other subjects were not set until later years - again on the basis of performance on their own testing. They don't trust the objectivity of the results of multiple feeder primary schools - with good reason. This doesn't mean they are not pissed off that the measure of expected progress is set by SATs. These are two separate issues.

My older son's primary was a village school with year 5/6 in one class and so a cohort of 11. I was told that there was 'no problem' (for the school) with English as this was internally marked but maths was externally marked which meant a loss of control. Hence no less than 6 TAs were taken away from normal duties to act as readers in the maths test at the discretion of the head. One pupil given a reader had no SEN and was also sitting 11+ but 'had' to get a high level 5 or level 6 to make adequate progress from KS1. This was all about the primary school's OFSTED. And once those year 6 children had left that school, they did not give a shiny shit about what happened at a different (secondary) school wrt setting.

DS2 was withdrawn in year 6 and started KS3 curriculum at internet school to get away from the stagnation and pressure. This did not affect the ability of secondary to set. Secondary schools are able to set children that have been to independent prep schools and EHE. It is actually quite bizarre to suggest they can't do so and that no SATs must mean bottom set.

The problem is that some schools have the luxury of being more relaxed about SATs than others.

I teach in a school where 65% of the children have English as a second language. Some are fluent and speak English alongside another language at home. Others have arrived in the country a few years ago (so will still have to sit SATs) but are nowhere near fluency. Our system of judging schools allows no flexibility for this - schools are judged on what % achieve expected standard. This is MUCH easier for some schools than others.

As a teacher who has mentored, coached and managed other teachers, I can tell you it takes a hell of a lot more than enthusiasm.

I know but without the enthusiasm then it's a non-starter isn't it? I don't want my children taught by a teacher who doesn't give a shit.

Keepinkeepingon1 - some secondary schools do use SATS to stream into sets in Yr 7, my son's being one of them.

dayinlifeof

Nor does anyone, but that doesn't mean we don't need national testing.

You can't withdraw your child but you can not send them in.

They will ask for a doctors note. You can, quite reasonably, tell them the ailment did not require medical attention.

In my modest experience telling your child that they are optional for them takes a lot of the pressure off.

But Pengggwn why do we need national testing of 6/7 and 10/11 year olds?

Why can't we take the schools opinion on their progress.

Unlike GCSE's employer's are not interested in SAT results so why does it benefit primary age children to take them?

I'm planning a family gap half-year for the second half of year 6, one of the reasons for picking that time is to miss year 6 and the stats

SATs not stats

taratill

Because some assessors aren't competent (and the worse the school, the more likely this is) and all are biased.

But assessors for what? School attainment / teachers pay or what groups the children go in in high school?

I just think that it should be measured without putting young children under the degree of stress they are currently under. There must be other ways. There must have been when I was a child as I was not made to sit national tests at those ages.

The pressure children are under now, largely from schools rather than parents is resulting in an increase of mental health referrals in under 11s. This is indefensible.

Because some assessors aren't competent (and the worse the school, the more likely this is) and all are biased

Do you mean teachers?

Tessliketrees

Of course.

SATs are a waste of the children's time imo.
They don't measure true attainment, they measure the kind of parent in that school. If you have parents who are invested in their child's education those kids will do better because:
a) the parents will have been helping them at home in the weeks running up to the sats
b) those same kids would have possibly been tutored for the previous 2 years to sit the +11 6 months earlier

So the sats results of these kids are not a product of the school's teaching but a show of how much interest/time/money the parents have.
You need 100% of the pupils to not have been tutored or done extra work at home for the sats to be a true measure. If even 1 pupil in the cohort has been tutored (in any way) then the results' statistics for that year are skewed and the school/government will be publishing untrue results.

taratill

I don't think there should be any stress at all. I think schools should administer the tests without anything more than a mention the week before, frankly.

@taratill

I agree with you about the pressure put on children and that the school should do everything in its power to stop this.

The pressure on schools is too much too. A weaker cohort can mean jobs on the line for members of the senior leadership team. It's not a coincidence that schools are struggling to recruit Headteachers, especially in areas where you are going to struggle to get results.

@Pengggwn

I find the implication really sad.

I can think of any number of better solutions for this than SATs. Every profession has the exact same problem, I can't think of any that have come up with such a draconian solution (although childrens social work is heading that way).

So if you mean teachers pengggwn are you saying high schools rely on a teacher's opinion when setting for year 7 , and there is no room for movement once the child is in?

I just can't see that. It's also not my experience from when DS started high school having not done year 6 SATS.

Yes it is 'a' measure but it does not follow that the kids who achieve the highest results at 11 will be the high achievers at GCSE / ALevel and beyond.

taratill

No, I didn't say that. Where did you think I said that?

Rockandroll yes and then teachers under pressure will transfer that pressure to the kids in their charge.

It is sad and as I've said before there must be another way.

Not having sat national tests at 11 certainly hasn't harmed my education in any way. It is a nonsense to suggest it is necessary for our children's educational development.

Tessliketrees

I don't think it's draconian to have kids sit a test. It doesn't have to be how it is now.

I thought research showed it was a good indicator which is why GCSE targets are based on Sats results.

when you said assessors (teachers) are not competent and some are biased so national testing is needed.

I'm asking what it is needed for? In absence of another reason I thought you meant for streaming. If I have misunderstood then apologies.

taratill

No, I meant for judging how well schools have taught the curriculum.