Children who fail English or Maths in Y6 will be forced to resit their SATs

[noblegiraffe]

....under a Tory government, from 2016.

The reason they will be forced to resit their SATs in Y7 is to avoid dragging down the bright kids who are forced to share a classroom with them.

Secondary schools who don't manage to get 80% of these failures to pass by the end of Y7 will face government intervention.

WTAF.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/11521061/Children-who-fail-English-and-maths-exams-must-take-re-sits-Tories-say.html

Well- no, noble giraffe, as then the secondary schools would have to get them up to all C+ for GCSE, in order to demonstrate adequate progress.

Not that a C is going to be a pass by then, in any case

My year 4 boy is barely even looking at the underside of level 1 in some splinter skills that he has, btw. While I understand that he is at an extreme, it's already hard enough to persuade many mainstream schools to carry out their statutory duties towards kids with SEN, without this sort of shit.

The tests will soon be computer adaptive and self-scoring.

What makes you say that Bonsoir? Hard to get a computer to mark a KS2 writing paper.

How will having to resit the tests help?
All the schools I know try to support those with low attainment using interventions to raise their attainment. Tests won't change that.

Anyone who has wrangled with Mymaths will know that a computer-marked maths exam would be crap.

Agree that this move is probably intended to make us more compliant (and ultimately more competitive) with current continental systems.

I live in a country where all year six pupils have to sit an obligatory state exam in order to progress on to secondary school. The exam largely tests literary and numeracy (plus a combined subject including some basic geography, biology, science and history). If they fail, pupils have to stay behind a year in primary school or go to a 'special' school where all the other dc have failed too. It's harsh. But the exam itself isn't terrifically hard (although it is being said that standards are being raised this year).

The system works in that a much greater proportion of pupils end up at the same (relatively high) level of education, and these results follow through until the end of tertiary education and beyond ie there is much less of a gap between rich and poor here than in the UK and more social cohesion.

The downside is that for the few who are not academically able, they are obliged to remain in "secondary" school or at special colleges until their early or mid-20s; with the attendant loss of self-esteem. They do eventually end up with the basic skills however.

Totally agree with the poster who said that eleven year olds should not be labelled as "failures" however.

Which country is that Steady?

Steady that sounds dreadful

Steady, I don't believe you about the gap between rich and poor. I suspect that your special schools are not stuffed with rich kids.

Maybe there aren't fee-paying schools there, so all are in the same system?

I'm actually rather pleased with this announcement.

I think it demonstrates how out of touch the Tories are with public opinion, and my guess is that it will work against them.

Of course kids who are below average at the end of primary school should get extra help at secondary. I doubt that anyone would dispute that. However, I don't think making them feel that they have failed is the right way to go at all - it's much more likely to make them switch off altogether. And the idea that they should re-sit the tests not to prevent them from falling too far behind, but rather to prevent them from holding the brighter kids back, is frankly despicable.

Whatever happened to the idea that SATS were about measuring the performance of schools and not individual children? With tests for four year olds and the opportunity to "fail" at 11, a new Tory government had better ensure that it puts plenty of money aside to support young people with mental health issues.

What annoyed me most was the comment about "hardworking parents

Does he think that parents of children with learning difficulties are lazy?

"there is much less of a gap between rich and poor here than in the UK and more social cohesion."

Are you sure that the cause and effect here isn't the other way around? i.e that it is because of a smaller gap between rich and poor, and the greater social cohesion, that education standards are less polarised and higher overall?

I'm going to have to avoid the news programmes this morning - I am already getting annoyed by the tautology on BBC when they talk about SATs tests !

More details on the BBC website this morning:

"The resit would be a standardised test in maths and English, marked by teachers rather than external examiners. There could be up to two retakes, in the spring or summer terms, and the number of pupils who had failed the retakes would be published as part of the league table data.
Pupils with special needs would not have to take the resits."

The last sentence sounds like very dodgy territory.

Interventions already take place in high school

What does he think they do?

....ah billy came to us on a 3b so we'll just sit him in the corner and not bother about him

SEN children don't have to retake

But what about all the children with no diagnosed SEN who try their hardest but still don't get it?

Gah!

Except Noble its so impossible to get an SEN nowadays that very few students would be ruled out.

What on earth do they think happens in schools at the moment? Most schools set for English and Maths (maybe not the first term in some cases) these kids are not being just not taught, secondary schools still do their best to help them make progress.

Since when did SATs become pass or fail anyway and what is a fail?

Children with L3 SATs don't share classrooms with L5 children anyway.

Uhhhh???? Who told you that?

Some comprehensives stream classes but quite a lot don't. And before you think I am agreeing with the Tories - I am NOT!! - some teachers are completely against streaming and think all classes should be mixed ability. I am not sure what I think - I am not a teacher.

I am puzzled at the notion of "passing" or "failing" SATs. I wasn't aware there was a pass mark in SATs, just levels.

I am also disturbed at the idea that if a Primary school has not managed to get a student to a particular level, the Secondary school has a year to turn that around or the Secondary school is in trouble. (Lighthearted: I often think part of a Primary school's Ofsted rating should be based on what the Secondary school think of the kids they send up to them.)

Kitten but even if only a few students have an SEN, it seems to be a bit of a broad brush with which to write off students. Would a student with ASD who just missed out in primary be exempted and therefore not get the attention which will undoubtedly be lavished on those who will take the tests? Are they suggesting that there's no point in bothering with a child who has dyslexia?

I also agree that it's a bit odd to think that a child who made only e.g. 3 levels of progress in the 7 years of primary will suddenly be able to make a level or more of progress in a few months of Y7. If it were that easy, don't they think that we would already be doing it with all the pressure there is to get these kids a C at GCSE? To get a level 3 to C at GCSE is 4 levels in 5 years and that doesn't happen often.

bizarre. Because it's not like secondary schools don't already test pupils, with appropriately levelled tests. The one I know has tests that look very much like SATs style ones, at least for maths; in Year 7, children take the appropriate one - if that's Level 3-5, fine, or 4-6, or 5-8. So if they are taking the 3-5 one again, that's pretty much like redoing SATs, only as part of a sensible process of ongoing assessment. They presumably get taught at the right level as well. It doesn't matter whether you call it "failing" SATs or not, what they need is to continue being taught appropriately, and assessed appropriately. Some of them may need more intensive help or smaller classes or whatever in secondary, but you'd hope that they should be getting this anyway in order to improve their maths, not being they have to pass a test. I've no problems with SATs as ongoing assessment as part of primary school, or similar tests throughout secondary - just wish the pressure could be removed from them, as they could be seen as that: a test designed to assess where the child has got to, how they perform in more controlled conditions, how much of the material they've been taught has been retained, where they struggle, etc. It doesn't have to be some massive deal, the way it has sadly become.

My DS (who is actually by nephew, but we adopted him), left primary on a level 2. Because he had lost his parents and was bit of a mess (he says this himself). It took til half way through year 9 for him to start to come out of the issues he had, and he started to learn. And he is now at Cambridge studying maths.
So this is the biggest load of rubbish that I have ever heard. Kids do not fail SATS - if an 11 year old has a cold that day they might do badly.
Once again, people who don't work with children set the rules for children.

I think it shows the lack of understanding of what happens in schools. Children who need help are identified, making them do a test is another bureaucratic task. With funding for schools set to fall if the Tories remain in government how will this be funded? I think making sure there is support for those who failed to reach expected standards would be more beneficial than making them sit a test again. The whole thing is ghastly and am glad my children will be educated at independent schools which don't bother with SATs.

' it's a bit odd to think that a child who made only e.g. 3 levels of progress in the 7 years of primary will suddenly be able to make a level or more of progress in a few months of Y7. If it were that easy, don't they think that we would already be doing it '

Exactly.
Why not just increase funding to primary schools and ring fence it for children who are identified as underachieving.