Headteachers have voted to boycott SATS....

[deaddei]

but in RL what will that mean?
Will some schools not do them?

I do think that SATs have an educational value - albeit indirect. They are assessments of teachers rather than pupils and measure a basic level of progress that is expected.

Disappointing but not surprising, that teachers are reluctant to be assessed.

The two National Executives (NAHT and NUT) now have to meet to decide whether to go ahead! Not sure what will happen, I think most Heads are in the NAHT but not all teachers are in the NUT (I'm not, I'm in a non-striking union!) but technically it is the Head who administers the SATs, not the Yr6 teacher. So if my Head decides not to administer them , I can't, even though my union isn't striking! it's very complicated

Quattrocento, I have no objection to being assessed at all ( OFSTED, LA and Head have all said I'm outstanding!) but SATS don't assess teachers, just what they can cram into their pupils heads. That's not teaching!

Quattrocento I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion

tethersend - I know Ed Balls cancelled SATs at 14 because of the administrative disaster of marking them. THAT was not an educational reason. The unions were agitating for years and they took their chance to put pressure on Balls when he was embarrased by the marking fiasco. He refused to cave in to pressure to scrap SATs at 11.

Dont pretend SATs at 14 were scrapped because of some considered decision by Govt over their eductional value. The unions are still agitating.

See, I read this all the time. That SATs are a measurement of teachers' performance. But then I see people saying "well, DS got all 5s at KS2", and it strikes me they're no congratulating their teachers for their sterling work. And when do exams become about the child and not the teacher? GCSE? Why does it change then?

Yes Feenie, that will spark a whole lot of MN threads next year!
Ah well, I'm off to bed to read my book....night night. [yawn]

Quattro, they don't assess progression at all; much less a teacher's progression. They take no account of the different intake from year to year.

SATs are not designed to measure a teacher's performance; they are a wholly inadequate method of doing so.

Teachers are assessed up to 3 times a year, in addition to OFSTED inspections.

Why do you think teachers are reluctant to be assessed?

A* for googling BeenBeta.

A bit late, though.

Do you want to discuss this with me, or are you going to selectively ignore me again? I am happy to discuss, but please come armed with informed opinions.

BeenBeta and what about the disaster of KS2 marking? It's a good excuse for the gullible.

Good teachers can transform pupils' lives IMO. So, unfortunately, can bad ones.

Is it not reasonable then, to ask teachers to be independently assessed to see whether their pupils can make a basic level of progress?

But it isn't an accurate measure. The marking is atrocious - our English results went up 20% last year after yet another appeal.

And how many times do we send pupils to high school having 'squeaked' a level 4/level 5 because a ridiculously narrow test said so, knowing damn well they aren't secure?

Or children who didn't achieve well on the day because something happened in their young lives which meant they couldn't perform as a little machine as required on the day? All their classwork could be stunning examples of solid, secure level 5 work, but if they couldn't do in that 45 minutes, tough.

Oh yes, by all means Quattro- but SATs are not a tool with which to independently assess teachers.

Ah well - I suppose it's different for me because I will always have classes doing public exams, and yes, they count towards my performance management.

I have no objections to being assessed, it happens constantly.

We are all assessed constantly.

Exactly TFM.

I'm a teacher, a Union rep, & very much against SATs.

I've got no problem with testing kids, actually. Although there are some subjects, & some skills, where you'll get a better picture of what's going on by looking over a range of work than by a traditional 'test'. But yes, there's definitely a place for them.

The Year 9 SATs were bad tests. They didn't provide reliable results (snapshot performance, untrained/non-specialist examiners). They didn't provide useful results (if I'm setting students in 8 groups, I'd want a little more info than a raw level 'below 4' to '7', actually. So obviously it's done on teacher appraisal). Above all, they were crap tests because they meant we spent the whole of year 9 teaching 'how to do SATs papers'.

A specialist skill, frankly, which had naff all to do with teaching English (I don't pretend to speak for Maths & Science).

The year 6 SATs are the subject of this boycott.

I teach two year 7 groups this year. The SATs-based information I have on them is of pretty minimal value. I've got one 'set 1' (all level 5s) & one 'set 2' (level 4s mostly, the odd 5 & a couple of 3s who did much better in Maths & Science KS 2 SATs).

Honestly, I could've told you by November who'd be in what set in year 8. Their SATs results are the last thing I'd look at.

Total waste of everyone's time.

The Science KS2 tests were equally unhelpful as predictors of GCSE performance. Of course they are used to predict it, and set targets for it (a whole other can of worms), but a highly prepared level 5 does not mean a higher level of scientific ability (taught or untaught) than a less well-prepared level 4. Like Raven, I could tell pretty smartish how they would pan out. Makes for some interesting converstations with parents though...

I went to look round a Private pep school and kids in year 5 were practicing test papers in September. This is not what I want for my child in her state school. I want her to be taught, not taught how to pass a test, which has no bearing on her future. When she applies for university or a job she won't be asked to give the results of her yer 6 SATs. I trust the teacher, who teaches her all day, 5 days a week to just tell me the level she is working at. She can practice for her gcse's as these will affect her future, but until then I want her to be educated, not trained.

tethersend - we clearly come from different worlds. I like exams and tests. I used to be a University lecturer and therefore set and marked exams. I found them a good indicator.

You are a teacher and do not like tests and exams. I still do not understand why. I am sure you are a commited teacher but would not be happy for you to teach my DSs. If you went on strike and cancelled their SATs I would be livid.

And how is it they manage in wales with no year 6 sats if they are so important beenbeta??

BeenBeta - don't you see that the school is putting your children under pressure for something that is of no benefit to them whatsoever? What use are tests that they are forced to cram for ad nauseum? I would rather they were learning instead. Testing knowledge and understanding is a good thing, but SATS do neither.

However, I don't have to worry as I'm in Scotland. But if I had a child at primary school in England I would withdraw them from lessons for the duration of the revision period and the SATS tests.

These exams - or rather tests - beta. These ones. You aren't listening.