Any evidence that intensive year 6 SATS preparation does any good?

[Garon]

DD's primary school has implemented all-day literacy and numeracy classes, apart from one afternoon of PE and another where they do PSHCE. As if this wasn't bad enough they're also sending home a load of homework of the same sort of tasks (most of which we're boycotting). I know it's the fault of league tables, not just the school, but I can't believe that this approach can actually be effective. It's easy to argue against from a child well-being point of view, but it would be much more effective if we could argue that it won't necessarily lead to better SATS results for the school. Any thoughts?

[Garon]

Wow - come in at 8am? I won't tell them about that one!
Reup - thanks for your very good point, I hadn't thought of that added downside.
Ridingthestorm, I'm afraid it doesn't seem cross-curricular, and no extended writing as yet, seems very SATS-based. Ours has 3 sets in the afternoon, to include a 'level 6' group, and 2 sets in the morning. There's literacy and numeracy each morning and each afternoon - they actually sent us a timetable showing this.
The homework, on top of this, particularly gets me - none of the SLT have kids and I just feel it shows no understanding that children might have lives and interests outside school.
I understand why schools want to get the best marks, what I want to know is whether this approach does do that. I'm pretty confident there are downsides for mental health and behaviour, but perhaps it's the secondaries who are left to deal with that. But if I could argue that it wouldn't even help the school's SATS results, that could be a clincher!

[LoofahVanDross]

Sounds bloody awful. I would be fuming. This is entirely about the school, not the child.

[MrsCakesPrecognition]

"so etching" should read "something" but my tablet has other ideas, sorry.

[MrsCakesPrecognition]

Cramming for SATs makes me rage. It can't have any benefit to the children as the SATs themselves do not benefit the the children. It seems to be 100% about making the school look good. Children missing one day of proper education to do so etching with families is frowned upon, but whole year groups missing weeks of proper education is fine and dandy apparently.
My DCs school is asking y6 children to come into school at 8am twice a week to cram. I don't understand why any parent agrees to this (unless the are glad of the free childcare).

[reup]

There is a real downside to intensive cramming. My son started secondary and just scraped a level 4 in writing. I saw liitle evidence of that level in his work but it made the schools data look good. At secondary all the level 3s go into a special literacy programme - they do less MFL and dont have to do some homework. Because of the primarys inflated grade he is not eligible for this. And suprise surprise he is getting 3Bs in his assessed writing.

It makes me so cross!

[Ridingthestorm]

Forgot to say, my school are taking all children expected to get level 5/6 at the end of KS2 (year six and year two are still tested and assessed according to levels at the end of the academic year, for the final time) into a separate room every morning until lunchtime to ensure they achieve the level the 'predictions' say they should.
Last year intense assessments in maths, reading and writing ing DID have a positive effect on results (up by over 15%) but the behaviour of the children was beginning to worsen during the springs and summer term due to increased stress.
Also a lot of high schools question results, despite them being externally marked, and feel children are not true level 4/5/6. Same applies when infant children move to juniors and gain level 2/3. The tests don't actuall PROVED that the children are performing at the level attained. Tests only test a narrow margin of the curriculum (key stage 2 over four years in ONE test) and also a child achieving level 3 does NOT mean they can't read as tabloids often report when results are published a the end of every year (December). It means they CAN read but not at am even the government want.

[Ridingthestorm]

I think to that extent it can have a detrimental effect of student well-being. However are the lessons 'stand alone' or are they 'cross curricular' in which case other subjects are taught within the remits of 'literacy' and 'numeracy'?

OFSTED (schools have to jump through their hoops rather than do what they deem is necessary and important) require schools to provide evidence of extended writing across the curriculum, so it could be this that your child's school is doing.

As a parent and a teacher, I can see both sides of the problem. I would want my child to be taught a balanced curriculum with emphasis on encouraging him to become independent, love learning and to be curious about the world around him, but as a teacher, despite what the government preach act what OFSTED say they want to see, we have to perform and produce unrealistic expectations and results. Unfortunately we need to provide evidence that children learn in a 'linear direction' which basically means Al children need to show progress every half term 'no exceptions'. But we know that children do not physically grow in a 'strait line' and some may grow more one year than they do the next year. The shortest kid in YR may end up being the tallest in Y6 and vice versa. Sadly, policies dictate that academically, this isn't allowed.

Ultimately schools have no option but to 'teach to the test' and provide the government with the results they want because apparently a level 4 (increasingly levels 5 & 6) is all that matters.