Headteachers have voted to boycott SATS....

[deaddei]

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

Rigorous teacher assessment, backed up many different sources of evidence to ensure sound, solid judgement, moderated within schools, by the LEA and by Ofsted. Works perfectly in Key Stage 1.

"Mr Balls did say that ministers do not have full confidence in teacher assessment at the moment, so Sats tests will remain for now."

I am puzzled as to what Mr Balls thinks we have been using alongside tests in both KS1 and KS2 for the last 16 years? Why ask us to do something if ministers have no confidence in it?

Works both ways, anyway.

I think it just shows that Mr Balls knows bugger all about education. They know what to say to get headlines and sound like they're being tough but it is a pile of poop.

BeenBeta, rest assured, the very second you answer a single one of my questions, I will respond to yours. In detail.

Why do we have GCSEs and A levels?
They are important because they are independent measures of achievement that do not just rely on teacher assessment.

They are teacher assessed. Just not the teachers who have been teaching those particular children. SATs are not used as qualifications to get jobs. They are used to assess the quality of the teaching and to pass on data to the high school. SATs do neither of these things very well.

The thing is, as a secondary Science teacher, I know that teacher assessment is a better indicator of where a student actually is than the KS2 Science SAT result was. So for me, trusting a teacher assessment for my own primary-aged children isn't a problem. I do understand that people who aren't teachers, and in particular aren't core subject teachers, may not have that confidence. But it doesn't mean they're right.

soapboxqueen, good point that we need independent controlled assessment for qualifications that matter to employers. Agree that the GCSE assessment is carried out by teachers, the important thing being that the teachers have no direct relationship with the students whose exams they are marking.

Sats are different, "They are used to assess the quality of the teaching and to pass on data to the high school"
The real questions are, are they necessary at age 11? How important are they? What is their purpose?
I think that many people think thatthey are unpopular with teachers because "They are used to assess the quality of the teaching".
How important is it to assess the quality of the teaching and what happens to low performing schools?

claig - good point on essay writing. I also agree with you on GCSE and A levels.

tethersend - you have already established that I know nothing about education, examination or assessment. You and the other teachers here are the experts (I mean that). I do genuinely want to know what you think would be better than SATs that would be simple to administer and understand, transparent, totaly independent of teacher assessment but yet useful to teachers, parents and children.

It's very important to assess the quality of teaching, claig - and it is done constantly, and much more accurately, through many other ways. As I believe many people have already explained.

I think something needs to happen at 11 for no other reason then it's the end of primary school. They have become important because schools are assessed using them but they are not important to students and most high schools take them with a pinch of salt. Their purpose is that they give an easy answer for government statistics and little else. Assessment of teaching quality is very important but the tests assume that a good mark means good teaching and it really isn't the case. Low performing schools get LA help but the LA then have to take other factors into account such as the catchment, SEN etc. It really isn't simple.

Why were SATS brought in, if the quality of schools and the quality of teaching is already being constantly and more accurately assessed? Why have Labour persisted with the policy even though it is so unpopular with teachers and unions?

Taking you at face value, BeenBeta, CATs perform this function IMO- the only difference is that they are not subject-based. You will be pleased to know that they are multiple choice

They are the most accurate indication of performance at GCSE that I have come across.

I haven't read the whole thread but isn't it the case that teachers don't like SATS which make them accountable rather than SATS per se?

I posted recently about my son's school undertaking optional SATS every year - Yr 3,4 and 5 - when they have no need to. This seemed to be par for the course.

Teachers don't seem to see this as a problem nor do they have a problem with testing 7 year olds. But then this information doesn't feed into league tables.

I would have sympathy for any teaching union which really stood up against the continuous and pointless testing of children but these are the same schools which voiluntarily 'weigh the pig' when they don't have to - perhaps because it's easier than teaching assessments

Indeed, I think the NASUWT has said it doesn't want the tests abolished for this reason.

So I'm a bit about the reasons.

thanks soapboxqueen. It looks like the secondary schools take the results with a pinch of salt. So it looks like they are important for government and the LAs in deciding where to allocate extra resources. They are also useful to parents in forming an impression of how good schools are (even though it is difficult to make a judgement since it depends on factors such as the catchment, SEN etc.).

"Why were SATS brought in, if the quality of schools and the quality of teaching is already being constantly and more accurately assessed?"

I think I am right in saying that SATs, statutory teacher assessment at Y2 and Y6 and OFSTED all came into being at around the same time. The usefulness of the latter two now supercedes the first.

"Why have Labour persisted with the policy even though it is so unpopular with teachers and unions?"

Because they have been popular with the electorate - rigorous testing is an excellent political soundbite, unless you know they often aren't worth the paper they are written on.

I have had a look at CATs tests. I may be wrong but my impression was that the maths content is not as thorough as the maths SATS content i.e. it doesn't cover the Key Stage 2 maths syllabus in the same detail. It seemed that the CATS maths are more generic and don't test specific areas of the syllabus. Has anybody got any links to past maths CATS sample exam papers?

orry, but rofl at the idea that that Maths SATs cover the curriculum in any sort of detail!

I don't agree with the optional SATs either but since SATs are a law unto themselves and have no bearing on a child's ability the only way to accurately track progression towards the year 6 SATs is to use optional SATs.

My work and teaching is assessed all the time and I have no problem with it. League tables are a mystery to me because I can tell you now that they are not a good indicator of how good a school is. There are schools near the top of my local league that I wouldn't touch with a barge pole as a parent or teacher.

The reason the government persists with them is the same reason they persist with meaningless targets for most of the public sevices. They want something to measure so they can tell everyone they are doing a good job and should be re-elected. All of the parties are the same.

Strawberry- I totally agree with everything you have said- I don't want my child to be taught like that and trained to pass tests- I want the good teaching in the earlier primary years, to continue until she needs to pass a test that will recognized by employers- ie GCSEs

You are right claig, they are not subject based or linked to the syllabus (this does not mean that they are not as thorough), but are a pretty accurate predictor of ability and achievement at GCSE.

Sorry - keyboard issues.

tethersend, yes I have read that the CATS are a more accurate predictor of GCSE performance. I don't see SATS as being useful as a GCSE predictor, I think it is too early for that, the way I see the SATS are that they are a test of the Key Stage 2 syllabus and in some limited way show how much a pupil has taken in. They seem to be useful as a benchmark of where a pupil is at with regard to the syllabus.

Aaaargggghhhhh!

I give up. Yes, they are a brilliant indicator, claig, and absolutely right for the children. That's why I want them abolished, and why I want to triple my workload in favour of more teacher assesment.

I am a secondary school teacher and the best indicator of a students performance is through a variety of ongoing assessment throughout the year, including extended writing, presentation, peer assessment, and testing. I would propose that this is monitored through external moderation, where assessment tasks are agreed by the external body and then periodic external moderation is performed. I woul advoacte 3 formal assessments a year in this manner - with continuing informal teacher assessment throughout.

What do you think beenbeta?

Feenie, I am not sure about whether we should continue with SATS at 11, because they don't have much influence apart from assessing teachers and schools. But even the government says "that ministers do not have full confidence in teacher assessment"
and however much you increase your workload, you won't make a difference to that. Government and parents prefer independent external assessment rather than relying on teacher assessment.