Testing for primary pupils at 5 and ranking at 11 - what do you think?

[SarahMumsnet]

The Deputy PM Nick Clegg has today unveiled a set of proposals around testing for primary school children.

Under the proposals, pupils aged 11 - who are already tested under the SATs - will be divided by their results into "ability bands" of 10%, and that information will be shared with parents, so that they can see how their children rank nationally.

Clegg also announced that he'll be launching a consultation on whether or not to bring in a "baseline" test at the start of the Reception year in order to establish where children are, and whether they need additional support.

However, teachers' unions have already raised objections to the proposals, with the leader of the National Association of Head Teachers, Russell Hobby, saying that "The vast majority of teachers are unhappy with the need to rank students."

What do you reckon? Does more testing - and more grading around the results - benefit children (and schools)? Or do we risk a return to the days of labelling children as successes and failures before they've hit their teens?

Children in state primary in Y5 or Y6 don't do thrice weekly tests routinely to time as far as I know? Many Preps do. If you are tested enough it is all a walk in the park after a while and just part of what goes on rather than any gauge of your ability or talent.

But Hamishbear, most children in prep schools are already ahead at five years old - they have wealthy, supportive parents and/or carers who have spent a lot of time on reading etc. and bought all the books/tuition/baby classes. No families on FSM and fewer with SEN or learning difficulties, and they would be in the top 10% IF they did SATS and then were ranked - which they don't.

It's really not difficult even now to know where your child is likely to be nationally if they are getting level 4b or 5a etc. and statistics showing how many achieve that in the cohort are published. The information is there already, the testing is already there, but this rams failure down your gullet.

The LibDems rejected norm-referenced GCSEs - so why propose ranking children at 11? David Laws does not have a clue about state education or children.

You're right Mum in London. Most seem to be very bemused by the system as it is though.

Re thrice weekly tests Y5/Y6 - IME they are doing at least twice weekly tests if you count regular dictation/spelling/maths tests, etc. The rest of the time they are enjoying learning, discussing, collaborating, reading, thinking, questioning, creating.

Hi muminlondon do you mean at Preps (generally) or state schools?

Our outstanding primary does not believe in testing children. It's incredibly creative and my children love it. The school does not believe in testing, they do not believe in spelling tests etc. They do a few Maths quizzes but by Y6 are not used to working to time for example in any capacity.

Speaking personally mine are totally freaked out by tests when they face them. Grammar prep is frowned upon and we are told just a couple of practice VR sessions are all that's needed and if not the child isn't bright enough. They are brilliant at collaborating and very articulate as are their peers.

Contrast to the Preps I know where tests to time are rattled off from Y3 and everyone knows the drill and it's all seen as a breeze.

Totally against it. Clegg might learn a thing or two from Finland.

Finland has an entirely different society from ours with different values and cultural norms so comparing the two is meaningless.

m.guardian.co.uk/education/2013/jul/01/education-michael-gove-finland-gcse

Although the article does not specifically relate to primary education, much can be inferred.

I agree with others that I can't see any benefit to telling parents where their child is ranked nationally.

I think data is very important to monitor the progress of each child through the school and to identify children who are struggling and teachers who are underperforming. But schools do this. I don't think we need more externally supervised tests. Let schools get on with teaching.

The more I read about the education policies the more seriously I am considering home school or (if we can scrape the money together) private education.

I will not have my 5 year old tested formally, it is absolute bullshit particularly as they have only just changed the EYFS. Surely this should be enough?

I honestly believe that DH and I will be 'those' parents who are writing to the school because our PFB will not be taking part in x y and z.

This government seems to think that you can fatten a pig by weighing it. You can't.

Testing at five seems utterly pointless. My 4 year old daughter is a different animal so to speak compared with her brother when he was four. This will just highlight the differences in development at that age.

Kindly reveil the proposals Mr. Clegg and move on to the next thing. Or revamp your plan to save the libraries, this will be far more useful for all our five year olds.

I don't think these tests are being introduced to improve pupil's exam technique. Preps specifically prepare children to take common entrance.

I have nothing against teaching children to prepare for exams, but a test at 5 and 11 won't do that.

Ds only learnt to read at 6.5: he wasn't developmentally ready until then, despite loads of extra support.

Top group in language in P7 (age 11); confirming by Secondary School which "set" English and Maths after a month or so (an "exceptional" class according to his English teacher).

So what exactly would that prove?

Anyway, it's academic anyway, as we're in Scotland so it won't apply to us.

I can't see this going through..it's another ill thought out idea that has not been researched properly. It's not exactly going to be a vote winner is it? Fwiw I think that this a terrible idea. I have one dc who is, at the moment, in the top 10% and one who is ,at the moment , in the bottom 10%. I can't for the life of me see this utterly crap idea being of benefit to either of them. We are in a very competitive area of SE England and this will only pile the pressure on further. I would feel very concerned for my lower achieving dc if they were told their ranking nationally...how will it benefit the nation to tell so many children that they are, probably through no fault of their own, failures because they are not achieving academically?

I can't see this going through..it's another ill thought out idea that has not been researched properly. It's not exactly going to be a vote winner is it? Fwiw I think that this a terrible idea. I have one dc who is, at the moment, in the top 10% and one who is ,at the moment , in the bottom 10%. I can't for the life of me see this utterly crap idea being of benefit to either of them. We are in a very competitive area of SE England and this will only pile the pressure on further. I would feel very concerned for my lower achieving dc if they were told their ranking nationally...how will it benefit the nation to tell so many children that they are, probably through no fault of their own, failures because they are not achieving academically?

On the basis of this and every other pointless, heartless policy that the coalition government is trying to impose on my children and all pupils in state education, I have vowed to leave this country if the Tories get in for another five years in 2015. I don't want my children to have suffer the pressures of constantly being tested, with longer days and fewer holidays, and then at the end they have to pay £9k a year for a university education. Every pronouncement made by Gove, and now his unpopular little 'voice box' Cleggy, makes my blood boil. So, I'm looking for an exit strategy to somewhere which understands that education and testing are NOT the same thing. Not quite sure where yet but Australia and Canada are looking attractive. Or Scotland? Independence must never have looked so sweet. (P.S Thanks Mumsnet for giving us this forum to air our views. Politicians would do well to pay attention to what the mums of Britain are saying. We are 50% of the vote after all!)

I'm probably wrong, but I seem to remember, back in the mists of time, that SATS were there to check that the school and teachers were helping pupils progress, based on the value added. Not for labelling individual children. That was the line I told my eldest recently who wasn't sleeping earlier this year with worry at the impending tests. I reassured her that it didn't matter, that she could really freak out on the day and it wouldn't matter a bit. That her teachers knew her and her ability or otherwise was much more than an exam paper, it was just an exercise to measure the school. Will clearly need to change this story for her sisters.
Seriously, find me a single teacher that thinks this will help a single child to achieve. Show me any connection between this policy and achievement. The adage of if you want to manage it, measure it works in business - but translating it into this context assumes that all the schools currently haven't given children's achievement much thought, but with this helpful banding will suddenly see the light.

Actually - we don't even need independence - Scotland has always had a different education system, even before devolution. And it is very definitely a devolved matter!

Did I mention we don't have SATs either?

Hamishbear my DC's experience of state primary. Spelling tests are often marked in pairs (within a couple of ability groups I think), so it doesn't matter if you get it wrong, it's just an opportunity to revise learning of tricky spellings at a pace that's right for the child.

pointythings love the pig saying! The government has cut funding for Surestart, school building, free school meals, child benefit, housing benefit, IT/music/sport in schools and now infant class sizes and schools are getting bigger. And they want to brand the lowest achievers as failures so they can sneer at them patronisingly as befits their station in life, the guttersnipes.

Boycott!

I am confused as to how the information about national ranking is constructive in achieving anything that isn't already within the system.

Firstly the top 1% nationally get a level 6.

The top 10% get a level 5a

The top 25% get a level 5a, 5b or 5c.

Etc etc - it doesn't take Einstein to work out that the bottom 10% are level 1 or 2 at the end of Year 6.

Basically we are already aware of where our children rank on a national scale so how does making it more official improve anything? It just doesn't.

There is the point that the level 4 is very broad and that less than 50% of those achieving a level 4c at the end of Year 6 will get a GCSE grade C in that subject when the time comes.

Therefore, it makes more sense to do what they're doing and to make it that schools need to get a higher percentage of pupils achieving level 4 and above in both English and Maths. But that doesn't take into account how many children within a school are SEN etc. So from that point of view, I can see why they may want to see where a child is at at age 5 coming into a school in order to make sure that support is in place to ensure the higher percentage levels required of children getting level 4 or above in both English and Maths is achieved by the end of year 6. That way the greatest proportion of children can get their 5 GCSEs grade C and above.

However, I don't understand why so much in our school system is focussed on the academic. OK so all kids should be able to leave school at 16 able to read and write but why are we not geared up that some children are given more options for vocational subjects, apprenticeships, skilled crafts and trades to learn and why are these not valued as highly? Why is it that a degree is now necessary for certain jobs which are largely vocational? It's the one size fits all mentality which feels short-sighted and inflexible and ultimately which fails a proportion of our children.

Ultimately, more pressure on primaries than there is already seems unjustified. Also this pressure to succeed so early seems bonkers too. I got 11 GCSE's grade C and above and wasn't doing algebra in primary. This year secondary school teachers in maths came into my DD's primary school to teach some of the KS3 curriculum to help with preparing for SATS throughout the academic year. Why? Because of government pressure and league tables. Surely it is better to do enrichment activities within the level to cement the learning and enjoyment of it rather than always striving for the next level up so rushing through. I once climbed a very high mountain very fast and didn't enjoy it at all. Yes I got to the top but wish I'd taken it more slowly and enjoyed the view on the way.

The government pressure is wrong and statistics taken by themselves can get out of control and don't take into account the humans behind the numbers. Sometimes better statistics involve changing the game and not sending everyone along the same narrow path.

At the end of the day there are 100% of kids and not all of them are academic. So long as they all can read and write at the end of it and learn how they can best be involved in contributing to our rich society, then we have succeeded. Maybe they're nurses, doctors, lawyers, ambulance drivers, potters, textile designers, carpenters, mechanics, hair dressers, care workers, journalists, social workers etc etc. Not all of these jobs require a high level of academic ability so why make the academic the only mountain to climb?

Sorry for the long post

This thread is giving me hope!

Boycott!

We really need a campaign against these ridiculous proposals. I'm an EYFS coordinator and Reception teacher. Four and five year olds do not need a formal test. This would go against the whole ethos of EYFS and completely contradict everything we know about child development. I cannot believe that less than a year after the EYFS overhaul they are suggesting it becomes non statutory. It makes me furious. Young children learn through play not through tests.

I'm also insulted over the insinuation that teachers don't already assess their children. Of course we do, constantly! But we do this through observations of play so that the children don't know they are being assessed. We then plan next steps for them and support them in meeting these in a non threatening, non pressured and fun way.

This year my reception class are leaving me having made huge progress. Not all are working at expected levels but they have all progressed in terms of their own development and should be proud of their achievements. More importantly they have all shown that they can be resilient and independent in their learning and they are all happy and eager to learn. I whole heartedly believe they feel this because they have had a relaxed and fun environment to learn in.

We've also just been through Ofsted the last two days and were praised for our approach in EYFS and the attitude our children had to learning.

If this proposal does become reality I really don't think I can continue in my job which would break my heart because I love it. I won't represent the destruction of childhood or put pressure on a child on entry to school. I will be asking my whole EYFS phase to comment on this consultation in the hope that enough objections can cause a rethink.

I think baseline testing is a good thing BUT I thought the got rid of it because the foundation stage was supposed to be a continuum from pre-school to reception - so the relevant information should have already been collected (on most pupils)?

The ranking I do not like for two reasons, first it is meaningless unless given local context.
Second and more importantly psychological research show that this kind of ranking of students leads them to become rigid in their beliefs about learning and then to under perform .

Why can't the government look at any research on how the brain works and how learning works?