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?

missyPlumcake agree with your post but insisting on a raised level of those getting 'a good level four' or ... er, they will turn the school into a Harris academy ... ignores not only the fluctuating numbers with SEN etc. but also those who joined the school in year 5. Progress measures from KS1 to KS2 are better but still a bit flawed as they are messing with levels anyway. And good points from Purpleprickles about the massive pressure they would be putting five-year olds under.

This is not humane treatment of children. This is just way to sort and grade the merchandise before sending it off for auction.

Surely teachers are trained well enough to know roughly how their class is ranked and who needs extra help?

Reception teachers definitely assess children at the moment. It's nonsense to imagine that all teachers don't assess their students on an ongoing basis.

DS2 is starting school in September and has been on a couple of visits to reception. The teacher has spent time during those visits talking to him, finding out what he likes doing and watching what he does in a classroom environment. She was definitely (very informally and in a preliminary way) 'assessing' him because she needs to get an idea of what his learning needs might be. Just because she wasn't filling in a standardised form or performing some kind of standardised test on him, doesn't mean she wasn't assessing him (in an entirely appropriate way).

I don't see the point in a formal (and measurable against) 'baseline assessment' beyond this. All the 'expected progress' stuff is meaningless at the individual level because it pure statistical abstraction. Children will make progress in their own idiosyncratic ways.

mummytime Thu 18-Jul-13 06:52:58

"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 ."

This.

Coupled with the fact that many children are not developmentally ready to start formal learning until age 5 or 6 and you can easily see how a programme of national testing at 4/5 could ruin a child's chances of educational success before their education has even started.

I was bit upset when saw this on news yesterday.

is it consultation so may not happen.

how the heck do you test a 5year old what sort things they suppost to know that preschools wouldent have taught them?

would this test be very start of term when some 4 as can see a lot of peoples applications being deferred entry.

Are year 6s not under enough pressure with sats without flipping rankings of how they perfom ij their school? locally or nationally ? as some schools depending on intake area be at disadvantage.

Ironic we often debate grammers on education thread and 11+

,most against as it makes 11 year olds feel like failures like this new testing wouldent.

I was told diffrence between sats and 11+ is sats measures tests what you learnt where as 11+ measures potential to learn so which is fairer would 11+ pick up something in some kids that primarys miss with their standardised tests or does level 5/6 sats mean 11+ chances good?

I would worry about secondry schools setting year 7 sets on priary tests as in my old comp the bottom sets were full if naughty disruptive kids and stressed out teachers so a child who was bit behind, keen to get on but well behaved stood no chance I know as that was me in some subjects.

I had to work very hard to get from group 6 english to group 2 thankfully they realised i was in wrong set, maths i was always crap despite effort, science was not my best subjct would have been better if they split into 3 scinces rather than combined as physics i hated. The bottom sets some dident do gcses or got out in for foundation papers so highest greade i think was d and would only do single award science or get put in for btecs.

too much testing and setting means some people deprived of education as i dont always belive groups are as as fluid at they say in primary and seniors.

As much as dont like alex salmond scotland seems appealing i dont think they meddle with education so much there.

wales seem fixated with their place in league tables.

irish freinds tell me irish and ni education so much better always confused with ni as they suppost to be part of uk.

Im sure on primary post we discussed trying to miss sats but dont think it can happen as they just sit in when they back theres no opt out of tests other than home ed.

What is wrong with testing? They will be tested throughout their life. As early they get used to it better.

Also I have the right to know exactly where my child is with his or her learning journal. As soon as I know he or she is behind I can help him or her to catch up.

On day the teacher told me that my son is exactly where he should be with his learning. But what does it mean? Is he capable to do a University later on if he follows the same progress or not? Or they think he is not so clever so they won't give him harder work. From this sentence I cannot decide how good he is. But from a percentage I will know that he needs to do more work or he needs more help to be able to go to University and get a good job or he is fine without any help.

But if the teacher only says he is where he should be and the last year in primary the teacher says "the grammar school would not be the best choice for your son" or in the secondary "sorry your son won't be able to go to the University" then I cannot do anything, can I?

Parents have the right to know how clever is their child? So if the child is clever they can push a bit to be sure they will achieve academically or if the child not that clever they know there is no reason to push him or her.

And what is wrong with it if they now that one child is cleverer than the other child? They also know one child can run faster, swim better, sing better and play an instrument better than the other child. Or should not they have running on PE, because the slowest child will lose his or her self-confidence? Or no singing in music lesson for the same reason?

At least on the University they do not need to feel nervous when the exam is coming, because they already get used to the situation.

This type of teaching works all the other part of the Europe.

As early they get used to it better. Yes. Put them in shirts and ties and suits and make them sit in cubicles now. The sooner they get used to this the better.

If you know they are at the same level as 40% of their peers according to some spurious test what does that tell you?

It depends on how the testing is conducted, and what it is used for, IMO.

It shouldn't feel like a test to a 5 year old, or there is something very very wrong.

And if it is to help a school to track and monitor an individual child's progress, thus enabling teachers to support that child better - there may be a place for it.

If the motive is to segregate from an early age, to force, to put pressure on (however inadvertently) or to label, then absolutely not.

Trouble is, a lot of the way tests are handled is down to the school and, to some extent, the parents. So some will misuse it, with negative consequences both on individual children and on the school community.

Put them in shirts and ties and suits

Most of the school already doing it. Some does not do the suits, but shirts and ties are normal.

Why it is better to beleive that your child is genius when she or he is not? You do not even have a chance to help him or her, because you beleive he or she is ok.

Its a crap idea
to make money for a testing company
from a government of incompetents
that were not chosen by the people

Why it is better to beleive that your child is genius when she or he is not?

How are these tests going to tell you this? Opposing testing is not the same as burying your head in the sands. Testing is a lazy, inaccurate and counterproductive way of doing things. What you are guaranteed to produce is people who can do tests. That is all.

Shirts and ties not normal round here for primary school. How early do you think we should put them in shirts and ties and suits to get them used to it?

But what does ranking 5 year olds into deciles tell you? Nowt - except that some kids develop earlier than others.

Ds couldn't read at 5 - or even at 6 (finally learnt at 6.5). He "failed" a private school assessment at 4.5, He is now nearly 12 and excelling at secondary school and I'd be prepared to wager that he's also be in the top sets at the private school that wouldn't accept him (oh, they'd want him now especially since he is also talented at sport).....

I too "failed" an assessment for a selective school aged 5. I went on to get 6 As at Higher (think the rough equivalent would be 4 As at A Levels).

I do agree with whoever it was that said that rankings at such an early age would be dangerous for the children a s it would creat self-limiting beliefs :(

And as for This type of teaching works all the other part of the Europe. - what a load of poppycock given that all most of the rest of Europe hasn't even started formal education at 5.

In south-east England it is normal to have uniform with shirt and tie from Reception in a state school and shirt, tie and suit from Reception in a private school.

The tests are accurate. All of our life we need to work under pressure, we need to achieve under pressure.

If a child knows that 2+2 is 4 then he or she will knows this all the time, in the classroom, in the test, at night when you wake up him or her, in the shop when he needs to pay, etc... If he or she knows the answer only in the lesson and can show this only for his or her teacher then the child is not sure about his knowledge and he or she needs more practice.

All of our life not only one person judge us.

That is right. Most of Europe start education at 6.

awful awful awful

demotivating to children. And to teachers, I shouldn't wonder.

I don't know who would benefit from this-apart from (possibly) the parents on the top centile

We live in the south east. All the primary school children around us wallow in muddy polo shirts. It makes me happy looking at them.

So how early we should put them in a pressure cooker?

I grow up with lots of testing. I spent a few years in one of those east Asia countries whose testing system is the envy of Gove & co. They don't tell you about the suicide and depression rates.

We live in SW London. My dds are at a primary school in comfy polo shirts (or t-shirts, if they are the right colour, on occasion) and no ties except on the Head and male teachers.

Thank goodness.

If only Gove stopped to ask himself the question: who is this benefiting, parents, schools or the actual children?

Actually, I had been half joking when I posted "With Gove's mathematical prowess, I am sure he'll be expecting all pupils to be ranked in the top 50% and will penalise those schools that fail to achieve this "

But I've just read the proposals in greater detail and see that there will be level of achievement for schools (below which an Ofsted inspection would be triggered.... This is currently 60% for Sats tests but would rise to 85% under the proposed change

So what he wants is for all the children to be in the top 15%

But I will cut Gove a tiny bit of some slack - it would appear that Nick Clegg is also statistically challenged

As a teacher and a mother, this proposal strikes dread into me. I will not allow my (currently preschool) child to sit such a test. And I believe that the EYFS is excellent and we have an early years system that, for all its flaws, creates happy, challenged and stimulated children ready for school. If this test comes to fruition, preschools will become crammers for it

Please HQ, campaign against this.

rrbrigi
south-east England it is normal to have uniform with shirt and tie from Reception in a state school
BILGE
the vast vast majority of state primary schools use polo shirts

and only about half of state secondaries choose tie and blazer over polo shirt

The Scottish primaries I've seen seem to mostly have polo shirts. Ds' primary had the option of shirt and tie - but in practice most of the children wore polo shirts with a few starting to wear a polo shirt in P7 (last year of primary).

Ds' (state) secondary does have a shirt and tie for its uniform - I have no issue once they are becoming teenagers and developing into young adults with encouraging them to wear stricter uniform.

*InMyShreddies Thu 18-Jul-13 12:57:02
As a teacher and a mother, this proposal strikes dread into me. I will not allow my (currently preschool) child to sit such a test. And I believe that the EYFS is excellent and we have an early years system that, for all its flaws, creates happy, challenged and stimulated children ready for school. If this test comes to fruition, preschools will become crammers for it sad

Please HQ, campaign against this.*

I agree, also as a mother and a teacher. I'd rather home educate than put my child through the type of education Gove is after.

I like the current system of levels. Yes, it does allow comparison and could make kids feel demotivated as the proposed new system could, but being told you are a level 3 at 11, while you might be aware some of your peers are a level 5, doesn't seem as bad as being told you are in the bottom 15% and could only ever be expected to be so.

Levels seems to allow kids to make whatever progress they can whilst also allowing comparisons across the cohort and nationally.

It's just shuffling the deckchairs to a worst position - in full glare of the sun. A lot will be burned.