Is it ever ok for children to have tests?

[jumpingcastles]

I didn't have my education in the UK so please forgive me if I am being over the top here.

I read on MN all the time about :

4+ assessments being cruel
7+ tests being horrible
SATS
11+ tests being even worse, like sending kids to the scrapheap
GCSE should be scrapped

When is it ever going to be ok?

its ok....we all had 'tests' and live to tell the tale!!

Without gcse most kids would leave with no qualificatiosn at all ! Relatively few take 4, 7 or 11+ now. Surely wherever you are there are standard tests in schools

LOL MoFo!

I dont see any problems with tests but I am surprised that this is seen as cruel

I don't understand why there's so much anxiety about tests including SATS which I think are valuable for benchmarking.

Tests are the most efficient method of measuring and comparing performance, identifying strengths and weaknesses and setting targets for individuals and institutions and societies.

Where tests are a problem IMHO is where there is a pass or fail with enormous consequences like the 11+ which leads to a 2nd class education or judgement of a person as 2nd best or where there are league tables and competition. Educating a child is not like producing a product in a factory and schools are not like businesses. Comeptiotn in education is a totally inappropriate concept.

SATS aren't a true benchmark though. Children are hothoused to do them. Continual assessment is a more accurate form in primary school.

I don't think most people are against exams at GCSE age.

But very early tests coupled with misinformation ("these SATS results will have a major influence on your future") can have a negative effect on a child. I am very thankful that dd did not have to go through 11+ as she was ill at that time of year: she would ended up in a comprehensive while all the other bright children went off elsewhere: instead she is at a school with a mixed intake including bright and academic children and has a good chance of straight A's at GCSE.

I don't understand all the worry about tests. My dd doesn't do Sats but does exams at the end of every term and from yr 2 their class position and average is calculated using Maths, english and science. They just go in towards the end of term and find out its test week and get on with it finishing by Friday - only reading hwk all week.
So by the time they reach yr6 entrance exams and 11+ are just taken in their stride as they are use to doing exams

IMO it's not the tests themselves that are the problem. It's the fact that, throughout the school years it seems, many schools are only teaching 'to the test' - utterly pointless and off-putting.

I think tests are good if used as a teaching tool for when they are older.

Children need to be able to read the questions, interprete them and answer correctly in a timely manner. When older they will be given a task at work and be expected to complete it accurately.

Tests are useful as guidelines so that teachers know at what level to teach a child so assessments in a less stressful manner is more useful.

Tests can be an instant 'at the moment' guide, but you could give the same test the next day and the child give completely different results.

Tests can give children the confidence to know that what they have been learning was worth it.

But my biggest issue is that children need to be taught how to interprete the questions. Many test questions are extremely confusing. If a good mathematician doesnt have good language skills then this can affect the results.

I like the way it's done in Scotland. They take tests but these are just to confirm they've achieved the level they're working in and that they are ready for the next. They only take the tests when the teacher thinks they are ready, and it's done on a subject basis, so ds1 was ahead of his age in maths, average at reading and in need of help for his writing. Schools know if the performance levels of their pupils and no-one is stressed. Have yet to find out what secondary education is like as I was educated in England.

Teachers need to assess children, so they can help them if they have problems and can stretch them if they are flying.

However do they need to be in a formal test situation, sitting separately, limited access to notes and materials, in silence and working from a formalised booklet? Even more do the results of such tests have to go into league tables, and the threat of other people being able to know/work out how individuals have done. Do children for 4, 5, 7 and 11 need to be labeled as failures?

Even more important do the tests get used to pillory teachers, so teachers "teach to the test"?

@RoadArt: "Children need to be able to read the questions, interprete them and answer correctly in a timely manner. When older they will be given a task at work and be expected to complete it accurately."

I can't agree with you here. Yes, it's good to be able to read a specification carefully. However, school-style tests bear very little resemblance to anything one might need to do in most jobs.

In a TED talk about maths education, Dan Meyers points out that pupils "expect sit-com sized problems that wrap up in 22 minutes, three commercial breaks and a laughtrack... no problem worth solving is that simple." He asks, in which real-life situation can you ever rely on being given exactly the information you require and no unnecessary information? www.ted.com/talks/dan_meyer_math_curriculum_makeover.html

Out in the post-school world, it's very common that a briefing for a task will omit some key detail which you will have to go and find out, or that you'll be given extra information which is irrelevant to the task, or that it will be appropriate to question whether the task is necessary and why, and whether a different approach might be better. The critical questioning skills required to complete the task is not to be learned through the type of tests generally given at school. Unlike in the wider adult world, in school tests there is no context to the exam questions, and you aren't usually allowed to have a proper discussion with the person setting the task.

I'm not just talking about the skills needed by surgeons and architects. When I worked for a pizza delivery company, some of our worst employees did follow specific directions quite well. The ones who were really valuable were the ones who said, "Hang on, you've not explained how this special offer works; can they use it on two pizzas?", who carried their own maps rather than relying completely on the directions I gave them (which could be useless if roadworks or bad traffic intervened, or if I made a mistake), and who wondered whether we couldn't make big improvements to speed and hygiene if we could move the sink closer to where we actually worked.

Tests are done almost entirely for purposes of assessment by someone who doesn't know the child well. They rarely teach a child anything. I had a handful of tests at university which actually taught me something. I don't think I ever had such a test at school.

DS primary school has the policy not to inform children/parents about test to save them/us the misery...

We don't get homework until year 3 not to stress the poor kids.

The only thing we parents have earned of such stupid exercise is not to have any idea of how far behind the children are falling.

Needless to say, I'm looking for another school.

My DCs are at a fantastic pre-prep whicme has the one downside that we are potentially looking at 7 plus. I have thought and worried about this a lot and have concluded that it is not the testing itself that is the problem, but any associated parental pressure or over-coaching/tutoring. I think where parents are realistic about a child's abilities and select schools accordingly without pressure or expectation, it is absolutely fine. The kids seem to enjoy the test day itself - it is a slightly different way to spent a morning which they find interesting, and the schools try to make it a relaxed atmosphere at that age. Even the odd practice test is fine I think so long as the child does it willingly and it is more a case of familiarisation than pushing them to do something that is beyond them. I have seen it going wrong where either the parent is unrealistic about their child's abilities or where the child is a bit too aware of which school their parents want them to go to and the fact that their parents will be disappointed if they don't get in - then I think there is pressure which is not fair
on a 6/7 year old.

I have not had cause to consider 4 plus (not sure what they are testing for but I doubt the child would feel any pressure at that age) and not needed to worry about 11 plus as yet (or possibly at all) but I can see it is quite a different proposition as there will be much more self awareness and self pressure on the part of a 10/11 year old, at a much more difficult age emotionally. On the other hand, it is probably partly their decision at that age which means they may be doing it because they want to rather than just because their parents want them to, which feels more comfortable.

Saracen

I take on board what you say, very positive and true. thank you.