More testing in schools - is this the answer?

[shebird]

The Chief Inspector of Schools wants to bring back formal testing at 7 and 14. Will this really improve standards? Interested to hear what any teachers out there think of this?

Not a teacher.

I think external testing at 14 is a bad idea as it is an unnecessary stress before (early) GCSEs at 15 and (full) GCSEs at 16. There is no break in school at that point either.

I can see an argument for bringing back testing at end KS1, given the number of times I see it raised about infant schools over grading their own assessments in y2. But I'm not convinced as I can see schools putting too much stress on the children. I do think the phonics screening at end y1 is good though. Would have picked up problems DD1 had (word recogniser, struggles with words she's not seen written before).

I'm not sure how he's going to re-introduce formal externally marked testing at KS1. AFAIK KS1 tests have never been externally marked. The test is still there and must still be used as part of the assessment it's just the whole assessment makes up the reported level.

KS1 teacher assessments are externally moderated, or should be. If they are finding the assessment results in some schools are unreliable because they've been down marked to inflate value-added, then they need to be looking at those schools and the moderation process in their LAs rather than introduce formal testing across the whole country.

There are also rumours that its highly likely that end of year 4 will have a test too.

I don't see how more testing will help identify pupils who are struggling. Most teachers are already well aware of the abilities of their pupils and know the kids that could do with more help. They are too busy jumping through hoops of reporting, evidencing and trying to cope with fads and initiatives to actually have the time to teach those kids that need it most. The primary curriculum is already overloaded with too many concepts and targets. More tests will not improve the quality of teaching and that it what parents want.

You can't fatten a pig by weighing it

The problem with high stakes tests is that teaching time is wasted by endlessly revising for tests. In an ideal world all primary school testing would be teacher assessed. However plenty of schools have been caught cheating on teacher assessment.

I would like a system where children sit tests when they are ready for them rather than a year of education at year 2, year 9 or year 6 be wasted. I feel that formal testing puts a ceiling on children's learning.

"Like" to Lovelysquirrel & RT's posts.

My thoughts exactly Lovelybitofsquirrel

I think there have been plenty of comments on this topic elsewhere on Mumsnet. However the tests are only a good idea for Ofsted as they provide readily usable data for them and the Government. Many independent schools do not implement the SATs tests at any age and it is perfectly possible to judge progress and attainment without them. As could state schools. Age 7 tests should definitely not be reintroduced formally and the age 14 ones are a waste of time as GCSEs are more important. I totally agree that teachers know which children are not doing so well. The big dilemma is what to do about it and raise attainment. We know the problems are not all school based but at times there is complacency in schools and a lack of outstanding teaching for all children does mean we have underachievement. Testing is not the answer. (Not a teacher by the way).

More teaching to pass exams not to learn

Has he forgotten the utter farce that led to KS3 SATs being scrapped in the first place?

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7507113.stm

I think he's forgotten a lot of things, noble. Assuming the BBC have quoted him correctly, he seems to be under the impression that HTs want the KS1 SATs back. Apparently he's forgotten about the KS2 SATs boycott from 2011 where schools boycotted because they didn't want KS2 tests. I can't see many of them supporting a return to formal testing at 7.

Let us not forget that Michael Wilshaw is not independent. No matter what he says, he is Michael Gove's lap dog.

I'm going to encourage my DDs to go to university abroad and find partners abroad, because the amount of political interference in UK education is what is ruining it. Endless successive governments set targets because they don't trust teachers to teach and then act all surprised when teachers start teaching to the test because the stakes are so high. And their answer is... More tests and more targets.

Meanwhile they do bugger all to deal with the growing inequality in UK society, which is clearly mirrored in educational outcomes, nor do they do anything to improve the respect in which teachers are held - quite the reverse.

The way things are going now, I'm going to end up home edding. And I never ever thought I would say that.

My views of Gove and Willshaw are unprintable.

More testing is an absolutely barmy idea.

Too much formal testing leads to bad teaching, especially when used for judging teachers and not merely the work and ability of pupils. They are mainly devices for robbing teachers of authority and autonomy. They are used to get teachers to conform mindlessly and obediently to the latest ministerial whims. - The phonics test for 6-yr-olds is a supreme example of that. Its main aim is to get teachers to subscribe without question to the 'nothing but phonics' doctrine.

Finnish children have no formal tests until 18 and do better than all other Europeans. But not many people know that in the 19th century the Finns modernised their spelling to make learning to read and write as easy as possible.

That's what English-speaking countries should put their minds to, if they want to improve their educational standards, not more or different tests.

I don't agree that changing the spelling of the English language is the answer, Masha - I'm not English and I've managed to speak and write English fluently and spell it perfectly well. There's nothing wrong with putting in a little hard work to learn the inconsistencies and deal with them. I'm from Holland, where they reassess and change their spelling every 7 years or so and issue something called 'The Little Green Book' - it causes a ridiculous amount of confusion, and the last revision was broadly refused by just about everyone because it was rubbish. Yes, language is alive, but we cannot push it artificially in the direction we want it to go - and especially not because we think it's convenient and not for any other reason.

However, I do have an issue with the culture of 'Phonics first, fast and only'. We don't know enough about how the brain learns to be able to state with certainty the phonics is a definitive teaching method which will work for everyone as long as it is done right. I would not be surprised at all if in future the evidence shows that there is a minority of people for whom phonics are not effective, so it should be 'phonics, first, fast and flexibly' so that those children for whom the method fails have access to effective alternatives.

And yy to the Finnish model. Reintroducing tests at 14 would mean our children are tested at 14, 16, 17 and 18 - this in addition to the internal assessment schools already do. When are they supposed to find time to learn anything?

However, I do have an issue with the culture of 'Phonics first, fast and only'. We don't know enough about how the brain learns to be able to state with certainty the phonics is a definitive teaching method which will work for everyone as long as it is done right.

I'm afraid that we do know enough about the results of research into reading (from more than one discipline) to know that the phonics programmes currently being recommended to schools comprise the elements associated with successful reading instruction. We do know that some 3 -5% of children may find learning to read with phonics difficult, but that is far fewer than the 20 - 25% that has been the 'norm' over at least the past decade.

No, we may not yet know quite enough about how the brain learns, but 'Phonics fast and first', and only, at least lets us be sure what is going wrong if the child is failing to learn. With a mixture of methods and strategies it is impossible to tell which 'bit' is the culprit.

Anyway, this isn't meant to be a phonics thread.

On the question of testing I would say that there seems to be no clear idea of what 'education' should be teaching or achieving. There are debates about 'traditional' (which actually incorporates a great deal of 'evidence based' practice) v constructivist pedagogy, and skills based learning v knowledge based learning. There are questions about what do children need to learn to prepare them for the 21st century (at the rate the world is going I suspect that it is survivial skills ). How does instant access to 'knowledge' on the internet affect what and how things are taught etc. etc.

And while all this is going on we demand to know that the nation's children are literate and numerate and understand science and technology. We demand to know that they have reached a certain level of competence at these things. And we demand that all children should reach that level. When I was a child we were tested at 11 and the ones who 'passed' at 11 were tested again at 15/16. A few went on to be tested at 17/18. We were fine with that because no-one thought that the 'bottom' 80% really needed to know anything more than a basic level of arithmetic and the ability to read. But now, everyone has to 'achieve' and how is that to be attained except by constant monitoring? I don't know. But I don't think it unreasonable for some sections of the population to assume that testing might be valuable.

(You may not fatten a pig by weighing it, but if you don't you might not notice that it isn't getting fat..)

(But the Phonics Check is a really good one which should have come in years ago!)

I do agree with the phonics check, MaizieD, because it makes schools sit up, take notice and do the phonics teaching properly. I am also very opposed to mixed methods, they only cause confusion. What I was trying to say though was that for the 3 to 5% for whom phonics are a problem, there needs to be a fallback position. There doesn't seem to be one now.

The point you raise about the expected minimum level of competence is an interesting one. It's obvious that there is no longer a raft of unskilled jobs available for people to walk into, so in general more people are going to need a higher level of literacy and numeracy. The problem I see it is this:

• in the early years at school, children develop unevenly and at hugely different rates. Tests don't allow for perfectly normal deviations in development. If it weren't for league tables and demands for data then we could perhaps use testing more benignly, to identify late developers and ensure they are supported and monitored. However, that is not the culture we have around testing.

• there will always be a group of people who do not reach the required minimum level. Normal distribution makes that inevitable. I don't think it is possible for everyone to achieve with the standards we have set now, low as they are - it's like saying all schools have to be above average. So how do we cater for people for whom reaching essential standards of literacy and/or numeracy is not possible? We can't just write them off.

Pointy:
there is no longer a raft of unskilled jobs available for people to walk into, so in general more people are going to need a higher level of literacy and numeracy.

That's why it's more crucial than ever not to have so many pupils leaving school illiterate. I see that as the main reason for modernising English spelling and making learning to read and write easier and less time-consuming.

I did not begin to learn English till 14 and have managed fine too, just like u. But I ended up teaching English in England and saw what difficulties English spelling inconsistencies cause for many pupils. I've also witnessed enormous differences between my own children and grandchildren too. When literacy acquisition is easy and takes less time, u simply get much less failure.

And much less obsession with testing too. In countries where children learn to read and write more easily, it would seem insane to keep testing those skills.

English literacy acquisition is too dependent on relatively high levels of natural ability and parental support. And because literacy is such an important all-round life skill, i advocate making it easier.

We'll just have to disagree on the need to simplify English spelling then, Masha, I would just hate to see the wonderful body of poetry and literature that we have made inaccessible or adulterated because people can't learn to spell. That has happened in Holland, it is not urban myth. The current generation of 15-16yo genuinely struggle to read relevant 19th-century literature because the language has been artificially changed.

We need to get away from the excessive testing though, you and I can at least agree on that. The biggest factor, as you have highlighted, is having a parental home which is supportive of learning. And the only way to increase the number of such homes is to deal with the ridiculous level of inequality in the UK.

It will be utterly fascinating to compare England and Scotland in 20 years time. They are drifting to polar extremes of educational practice and philosophy. In Scotland, there is now no external testing until very late secondary. For two countries so close together, the contrast is astounding.

If we modernise the spelling we will not only have to abandon everything written in English pre-reform and force the older people who will become our dc's colleagues and bosses to learn the new spelling: we will also have to ensure that the spelling reforms are pushed through in the US, Australia, New Zealand etc. Or else the new English will be considerably less useful to our children than the current version.

Yes, the Finns modernised their language in the 19th century. But then Finnish was not an international lingua franca nor the mother tongue of other, larger nations. And Finland did not have a vast literature written in the Finnish language (educated Finns tended to write in Swedish).

I am Swedish and we had far more of a native literature (though nowhere near that of the English) than the Finns did. This literature is now inaccessible even to educated people. I find it far easier to read Shakespeare than to read an early 19th century text in my own language. Even Strindberg requires more of an effort than Jane Austen, despite being 100 years later.

we will also have to ensure that the spelling reforms are pushed through in the US, Australia, New Zealand etc.

Mrz posted a list of countries where English is the first language on another thread. It must comprise a good one third of the world's countries, if not more.

Poor marsha cannot understand the difficulties that hundreds of different accents pose, either.

I'm in favour of more testing, it gives DC an opportunity to show what they can do. DD was always classed as average by her teacher until she was the highest achiever in the end of year sats tests, much to her teachers surprise... for my DD the test was a blessing, it was her opportunity to shine and has done wonders for her confidence... It also made the school rethink what set she was best placed in.

I think it is difficult to come up with a system that suits every DC.

stargirl1701 Wales also scrapped national testing in 2004 and apparently standards plummeted so they reintroduced tests in English and Maths. Children will be tested in Y2-3 Y4/5/6 how long before we follow?

I would love to hear from a Welsh teacher's point of view about that, I would like to know why they think standards appeared to plummet.

Masha, is there any thread at all where you would post and not push your ridiculous spelling reform? I've never seen anyone so single minded on MN/TES as you, you're like an automaton.